Which is nonsense as Christian Emperors were just as eager to fight as the Pagan Emperors.
It also incidentally included far less acceptance of gladiator battles and infanticide both of which were banned by the Christian Emperors.
The thing is, that term by itself is not a denunciation of homosexuality, but of “decadence”; it could be best transposed to modern colloquialism in the phrase “girlie man” - it isn’t usually said to mean he’s gay, but to mean he’s weak or cowardly. The accusation of “effeminacy” used to be not so much about sexual conduct per se but about a preference for lounging around in comfort and seeking luxury, and has been a recurring theme in denouncing that society is going down the tubes in culture after culture.
Funny how it has failed to be so demotivational ever since. Or even right then. People who would die for Diva Roma will die in the name of Domine Iesu.
But yes, the meme that Rome fell in part because of a loss of “Roman values” and social moral decadence, whatever you may want that to mean, has been a long reiterated one. I guess for many people it’s kind of uncomfortable to think that a hegemonic world power may just inevitably weaken and retreat after a few centuries. Or it serves them well to be able to say: “Look what happened to Rome! Stick to the Old Values! Get off your couch and be a man!”. But really, how long is any nation dominant or even stable? Why should Rome NOT have fallen?
However butch and willing to sacrifice the citizen may be, if your currency is being repeatedly debased, your agricultural soils are getting exhausted, your institutions of government corrupted, rulership become based not on legitimate legal accession but on one military coup after another by an army motivated not by duty but by patronage, your state is going down.
Oh, crap, the USA really is boned.
They were probably just sore about the whole lion thing…
I’m glad it wasn’t just me thinking “why has JRDelirious changed the topic to the US in the middle of a discussion about ancient Rome?”
For what it’s worth this viewpoint about homosexuality bringing down the Roman empire seems to have quite a lot of currency as a google search throws up quite a few cites, including one from from an academic only last year. What I don’t understand according to that theory is why homosexuality, which as far as I know was an acceptable sexual practice in the Republic/Empire for the majority of its existence, took over 1000 years to bring it down. Surely if it was the cause of its fall it would have happened pretty quickly, otherwise it’s an extremely weak cause.
The good news, of course, is if those propagating this theory are actually right then that means the US has roughly 900 years left before it collapses due to acceptance of homosexual practices. Good eh?
:smack: I didn’t read the last sentence in your post. My bad.
If not here, then where?!
:dubious: Call me after the Marine Corps imposes and deposes a few presidents in a row in exchange for promises of pay raises.
But we know that a lot of the people saying those things are trying to say “if WE tolerate gays we’ll fall like Rome!!!111”. Well, no, (a) lot of the things that brought Rome down have yet to happen here and (b) we WILL “fall” some day with or without gays.
Alexander the Great was gay and that led to the collapse of civilization.
Of course, it was the collapse of the Persian civilization.
Depends on what you mean by “fall.” American might turn out to be, not like Rome, but like China – enduring for millennia, going through multiple periods of regime change and foreign conquest, but remaining the same national civilization.
You can’t really say the ancients were gay or not. Practically all of them were bisexual in practice.
So, you’re saying we might get those jobs making cheap, plastic crap back after all?
And lose them the century after, and so on.
A bit off-topic, but I’ve read the “Hitler was secretly gay” thing more frequently than before on revisionist/ultra-right sites as well and have wondered where it’s coming from. In truth he had at least three major romances with women (Maria Reiter, his niece Geli Raubal [only rumor, but rumor with some evidence], and of course Eva Braun) and none, major or minor with men.
Ernst Röhm and several other SA leaders were homosexual- that’s not even up for debate- but the Nazis were anything but cool with it. Röhm was also vicious and brutal, which earned him many enemies within the party (especially Göring and Himmler, whose phone conversations he tapped). He was arrested and killed during the 1934 purge, mostly because of a power struggle and suspected treason against Hitler (many believed, probably with some validity, he had eyes on taking Hitler’s place as head of the party) rather than homosexuality, BUT most of the known homosexual officers in the SA were killed during the same purge, many because they were gay. Afterwards no open homosexuality was permitted in the Nazi party or later in Germany. Of the high ups, Göring was sometimes accused of homosexuality because of his flamboyance (he liked bling) but a cursory glance at his bio shows how he went from a hetero horndog youth to a head-over-heels first marriage that could only have been love (his first wife was a countess who lost everything [custody of her child, her money, her title] to be with him) and after her he and his second wife had a very conventional marriage. Nobody could look at Goebbels, Himmler, and Borrmann and think they were gay- all were not only married with children but so notorious in their womanizing that they drew Hitler’s disapproval because they weren’t being the perfect German family men. (Goebbels probably used the casting couch more than any movie producer in history due to his power in both the film and political communities.)
Paragraph 175 existed for generations before and generations after the Nazis, but they were the most rigid enforcers. Berlin and Vienna (and most other major cities, but those two especially) had large homosexual communities before the Nazis whose members were arrested, killed, or went underground after the Nazi takeover. As with the last generations of Romans the Nazis actively suppressed any form of social decadence or sexual abnormality. (One of the books I read on the topic gave some statistics for the number of middled aged and older bachelors suddenly getting married for the first time after the anti-homosexuality laws started being carried out and people were being sent to the concentration camps in the thousands; I can’t remember the numbers other than they were way way more than the usual number of 40-70 year old men suddenly getting married for the first time, and in the richer families it was even more pronounced since they were likely to be arrested so the Nazis could confiscate their estate.)
Alexander had sex with other men. By homophobic standards, that makes you gay. They’re not into nuance.
I believe the prevailing theory is that Hitler was actually asexual.
When I was a kid lots of historical trivia books said his remains indicated he only had one testicle. To my knowledge this has never been proven, nor has it been proven the Soviets really verified his remains. There’s also a very old rumor he fathered a son, Jean-Marie, in France during WW1, also unsubstantiated.
I’ve read the asexual theory also, but everything detailed I’ve read implies he had a sex drive and it was hetero, but he also had a strong desire not to marry and/or have children for many reasons, not least the number of great rulers succeeded by idiot sons and his own far less than remarkable family. His affection (such as it was) for Eva was in part because she did not pressure him to marry her and was content with being shoved in the pantry when photographers came by. (All of the inner circle and most of the outer circle at Berchtesgaden and in Berlin knew about her but she was a secret to most of Germany.)
That would not make a man asexual. They’re like kidneys, one’s all you really need.
If the (nuclear) family goes, civilization goes. But is acceptance of homosexuality really fatal to the (nuclear) family?
Yeah, but then you’re just half a man.