“Gay” ‘marriage’ shunned by “gays” as largely meaningless

April 20, 2013 by Leave a Comment

In the Netherlands, the first country in the world to introduce “gay” ‘marriage’ on 1 April 2001, a Survey by Rutgers World Population Foundation, a centre of expertise on sexual and reproductive health and rights, suggests that about 500,000 people call themselves “gay”. Yet from 1 April 2001 to 2005, only 3% of them married.

This Figure of 3% and the decline in the numbers of same-sex ‘marriages’ (SSM) per year following that law change, strongly suggests that for 97% of Dutch “gays”, the institution of “gay” ‘marriage’ is largely irrelevant, unpopular and/or meaningless. In the 5th year (2005) such “gay” ‘marriages’ plummeted by 56% compared to those registered in 2001. From 2001 to 2002 the numbers dropped by 28%, from 2002 to 2004 by 33% and between 2004 and 2005 by 8%.

In the Netherlands registered partnerships were introduced in Dutch laws for “gays” on 1 January 1998, before SSMs. “Gay” marriage (SSM) was introduced into law later (2001) because these registered partnerships were seen to be legally deficient by “gays”.

New Zealand introduced civil unions into law in 2004 for “gay” couples seeking legal recognition, but they have proved to be very unpopular for “gays” who have demanded, and  now secured, on 17 April 2013, the right to be married in law in the same manner as heterosexuals.

If “gay” ‘marriage’ continues to be treated by “gays” in the Netherlands with the same contempt and/or disinterest as they treated “registered partnerships”, then the numbers of all such registered “gay” relationships will decline further to a point that these new ‘institutions’ could well go extinct like the dinosaurs.

In New Zealand civil unions have proved just as unpopular for “gays” as civil partnerships in the Netherlands, and also been criticised as meaningless and degrading by prominent homosexuals in the media, “gay” university academics and “gay” SSM lobbyists.

Ironically those who oppose the legalization of same-sex ‘marriage’ and seek to promote traditional (heterosexual) marriage are treated with contempt by many “gay” activists and the pro-“gay” media in New Zealand, who label them as dinosaurs, outdated and unable to adapt to the new ‘moral’ “gay” climate. However, such critics fail to recognise the Darwinian evolutionary principle of “survival of the fittest”: it is not the unfit (the sterile, the unnatural etc.) that survive!

Neither of the homosexual participants in “gay” ‘marriage’ can ever share together in any exclusive act of procreation via “gay” sexual activity. Their joint sexual acts are never orientated towards procreation. A “gay” couple can never together play any joint biological role in evolution. Their relationship differs fundamentally from a tradition marriage which involves a male and a female.

From 2001 to 2003 the population growth rate in the Netherlands had declined from 0.55% to 0.50% and by 2011 it had dropped to 0.38%. This decline was temporarily reversed in 2004 (0.50 to 0.58%). The possible correlation between these declines and the drive for SSM law is of interest to researchers.

“Gay” couples are unable to be biological joint-parents of any child as they cannot consummate their ‘marriages’ in the natural heterosexual act (sexual intercourse) which is fundamental to human procreation. It is only via in vitro fertilization, surrogacy or some other ‘technology’ that one partner of a “gay” couple can become a biological parent. The other same-sex partner may in law be designated as the second ‘mother’ (in the case of a lesbian couple) or ‘father’ in the case of a homosexual male couple; but neither such ‘mother’ or ‘father’ can be a biological parent to the child.

References:

Ref. 1 Gay marriage: preaching to the unconverted. April 19, 2013

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/192876ce-a6f3-11e2-885b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2QyNnBrob

Ref. 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Netherlands

Ref. 3

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=nl&v=24

Definition of Population growth rate: The average annual percent change in the population, resulting from a surplus (or deficit) of births over deaths and the balance of migrants entering and leaving a country. The rate may be positive or negative. The growth rate is a factor in determining how great a burden would be imposed on a country by the changing needs of its people for infrastructure (e.g., schools, hospitals, housing, roads), resources (e.g., food, water, electricity), and jobs. Rapid population growth can be seen as threatening by neighboring countries.

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage, Sexual Dysfunction

Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage

April 19, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t  lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen.  On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda.  She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.

Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506)

For quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to point out that the true agenda behind the homosexual demands organizations is not marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of marriage and uprooting traditional values from society.  (This will ultimately include efforts to silence and punish some churches that openly adhere to their religious teachings about marriage and sexual morality.)

While few have been as vocal as this lesbian activist was in this interview, we do have numerical examples proving her point.  When given the opportunity to marry, after laws have been struck down relatively small percentages of homosexuals actually bother to marry compared to their heterosexual counterparts.  This raises question about the true need to unravel marriage for the “fair” extension its benefits.  Only 12 percent of homosexuals in the Netherlands marry compared to 86 percent of their heterosexual peers.  Less than 20 percent of same-sex couples already living together in California married when given the chance in 2008.  In contrast, 91 percent of heterosexual couples in California who are living together are married.

Clearly this is about cultural change and tearing down the traditional family ethic, since it seems that most homosexuals living together neither need nor desire to marry, though they do desire to radically change marriage.

Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, and we live in a society which roundly applauds them doing so like never before in our history, but they do not have the right to rewrite marriage for all of society.

Source:

Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage – by Michah Clark

http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/

Micah Clark

In 1989 Micah Clark graduated from Southwest Baptist University in Bolivar, Missouri with a bachelor’s degree in Political Science. Micah interned as a member of the Indiana House of Representatives’…

Full bio and more from Micah Clark

Visit: http://illinoisfamily.org/author/?id=888

Note:

Masha Gessen is a Russian-American journalist and editor of the Russian-language Snob magazine.
Her latest book is called The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage, Sexual Dysfunction Tagged With: , , , ,

Man-brides boogie to Beyonce in support of “gay” ‘marriage’ – TV3 News

April 17, 2013 by Leave a Comment

 

A group of 10 men flaunting wedding gowns paraded through the capital this afternoon, ahead of tonight’s final reading of the same-sex marriage bill.

The male brides were joined by their female counterparts who performed a rendition of Beyonce’s ‘Single Ladies’ at Midland Park in front of lunching Wellington workers.

A bouquet was thrown, confetti was sprinkled and kisses were shared at the demonstration.

The group are supporting Labour MP Louisa Wall’s bill, which passed its first reading last year. MPs will vote on it for the final time tonight.

The male brides will join hundreds of others expected to rally outside Parliament in support of the bill at 10pm.

3 News

http://www.3news.co.nz/Man-brides-boogie-to-Beyonce/tabid/309/articleID/294607/Default.aspx

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Sexual Dysfunction

Same-sex ‘marriage’ v. real marriage: Consummation, intimacy and covenant relationship

April 15, 2013 by Leave a Comment

The gay lobby and their useful id##ts in the government and media have brilliantly manipulated the limited public debate about same-sex marriage by capturing the word ‘equality’. But by framing it as an equalities and human rights issue they have messed with our language and wilfully disregarded the underlying realities.

The problem is that biology, nature or God (which I prefer, of course) has ensured that a same-sex couple can never undertake the act of marriage no matter how much they love each other or how long they live together. Two men (or two women) are physically unable to be naturally intimate and consummate their union through an activity that unites them and has the potential to reproduce and provide the next generation.

This is the essence of marriage and, further, in its purest ideal it is the private act that follows the public exchange of vows and signing of public documents; it is the intimate deed of physical and spiritual union that on the marriage night completes the coming together of two individuals and engages them in the mystical mathematics of procreation: 1+1 = 1 = 3+. It is consummation which transforms the marriage ceremony from a contract to a covenant.

I’m aware of course that the ideal is more honoured in the breach than the observance as today few couples refrain from sexual relations until the wedding night and many choose to co-habit rather than marry. But, for instance, financial honesty is another ideal that is vital to society’s wellbeing and is enshrined in the nation’s law. The fact that it is breached by everyone from corporate fat-cat tax fiddlers to single mums who falsely claim benefits and students who bunk the bus doesn’t deny the importance of the ideal. We have not (yet) attempted to redefine honesty and make it more inclusive …..

I am also aware that by choice or disability some married couples do not procreate. But this too doesn’t change the marriage ideal or its social value.

Of course two men or two women can have a legally-defined relationship which may or may not be called a civil partnership. A lesbian couple or two spinster sisters may love each other and live together all their adult lives; certainly where necessary the state ought to provide for them by statute. (The state currently and unfairly provides for the first but not the second) But they can no more be married than they can defy gravity.

Consummation is so central to marriage that it too is enshrined in the nation’s law which decrees that marriage is voidable if it is not consummated.

See: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/18#section-12

This is the crux of the matter: the hard reality is that consummation physically cannot take place except between heterosexuals so the government has been forced to fudge and create a fundamental inequality in its ‘equal marriage’. Through the legislation and unlike heterosexual couples, same-sex couples will be exempted from any need to consummate their ‘marriage’.

So what’s in the word? They are married but not married. They are one but not one. They are the same but not the same. They are equivalent but certainly not equal.

It is Through The Looking-Glass stuff and a socially destructive confusion of the meaning of marriage by the government: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less”.

In the next post we will look at other inequalities and the discrimination against minorities that will be created if the Bill becomes law. Meanwhile I’m praying that politically the Dumpty in Downing Street has a great fall over his Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.

Source: For complete article see:

Unequal Marriage – 1. Posted 22/03/2013 by Alan Angle

http://www.alansangle.com/?cat=135

For details on Alan Angle see: http://www.alansangle.com/?page_id=2

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage, Sexual Dysfunction Tagged With: ,

Louisa Wall MP: Background to sponsor of ‘Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Bill

April 3, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Labour List MP Louisa Wall, sponsor of the Marriage (Redefinition of Marriage) Bill which renders the concepts of “marriage”, “mother” “father”, “bride” and “bridegroom” meaningless by its proposed amendments to the Marriage Act 1955, has stated, dogmatically:

“I’ve never not been out. I think I realised I was gay in my late teens and from then on I’ve had female partners. For me, it’s always been a part of who I am, so I’ve never felt a need not to share that.” [Emphasis added].

The vast majority of New Zealanders will genuinely struggle to comprehend the meaning of her claims. Whilst apparently sincere, they appear imaginery and fictional. She is so very dogmatic! – “I’ve never not been out“. Presumably she actually believes she has been a lesbian from birth – i.e. ‘hard-wired’ genetically to be sexually attracted only to women. If so, she has never provided any evidence for this and such a claim is not supported in the scientific literature (i.e. empirical scientific proof of the existence of a so-called gay gene).

What then do her dogmatic claims actually mean, if anything? They appear to be meaningless and delusional. For a start she contradicts her claim about never not being “out” when she says she thinks she first came to the realisation of her ‘orientation’ in her “late teens” and only “from then on .. had female partners.” Perhaps she could tell the public how she knows as a fact that her lesbian ‘sexual orientation’ already existed from her infancy to “late teens”.

If a heterosexual male sportsman claimed in an interview with Woman’s Weekly that he had “never not been out as heterosexual”, would any of the thousands of discerning, rational-minded scholarly readers of the magazine have queried the meaning of such a claim and/or perhaps even raised queries about the validity or truthfulness of this claim? Of course they would, many of them no doubt! Some might have wondered if he had suffered a “brain fade” like John Key or David Shearer, not regarding an investment portfolio or a failure to disclose a pecuniary interest to parliament, but with regard to his sexual identity.

This example illustrates how homosexuals have captured the language by using words such as “out” and denoting a ‘meaning’ to it that serves the exclusive homosexual agenda, but makes no sense when used  by a heterosexual. A whole series of oxymorons arise when such words are used together with the word “heterosexual”: e.g. “gay-heterosexual” and “out-heterosexual”. The absurdity of the concept of “gay-marriage”/ “same-sex marriage” is plain to see for any rational person who has not been seduced/taken-in by the emotional appeal/deception of the pro-”same-sex marriage” homosexual activists.

But is it even possible for a heterosexual to “out” himself or herself? Clearly homosexuals do “it” on a regular basis, on national TV etc. to score international headlines. But the very idea of a Maori sports-star  MP “outing” himself/herself to colleagues in parliament in a Maiden Speech, as a heterosexual i.e. confessing one’s attraction to persons of the opposite sex, is preposterous! So why have MPs and the New Zealand public tolerated and applauded the ‘courage’ and “honesty’ of current Labour homosexual MPs such as Louisa Wall and Maryan Street, and Green MP Kevin Hague, for using the vehicle of the House of Representatives to “out” themselves to the New Zealand public? Why have these homosexuals felt it necessary to foist such ‘important’ information related to their intimate private affairs-’sexual orientation’, onto the rest of us using the platform of parliament?

Clearly such well-orchestrated homosexual disclosures, are part of a deliberate political agenda – driven by highly questionable tactics and ethics – to use parliament to secure alleged “human rights” for a “gay” minority – a class defined only by its sexual activities involving same-sex attraction rather than opposite sex attraction. The “social change” these activists champion is  fixated in sex – on their so-called “human-rights” agenda that if accepted and enshrined into law, will normalise sodomy and other practices engaged in by homosexuals and ‘elevate’ (so they believe) them to a new status on a par with heterosexual marriage. It is all part of the plan to try and destigmatise homosexual sexual practices and gain acceptance for their lifestyle.

The homosexual crusade for “gay rights” including “same-sex marriage”, is based on a series of false premises such as the claim that “marriage equality is a human right”. Contrary to their delusional claims, heterosexual marriage is fundamentally different from homosexual ‘marriage’, as the former involves the union of opposite sexes, while the latter does not. Equality does NOT mean the same in the context of marriage, as they falsely claim.

All people of the same sex do not have equal rights to get married, as a number of categories (see Schedule 2 of the Act) among those of the same sex (e.g. men) are excluded. For example, under the Civil union law and under the proposed bill, a man A cannot marry his same-sex civil union partner’s father (father of B), subsequent to and in the event of A-B’s same-sex civil union (or ‘marriage’) being dissolved. The law forbids it. However, another man, unrelated to A and B can marry B’s father under the proposed bill.

Women’s Weekly reported:

“The 41-year-old’s passion for social change is what led her [Louisa Wall] into politics.

“Already in a civil union with partner Prue Tamatekapua , a lawyer specialising in Treaty of Waitangi issues, the couple ­first met through the Maori Women’s Welfare League in 2007.

“The new bill will mean that couples in a civil union can simply ­fill in a form to change their status to that of a married couple. But Louisa and Prue aren’t going down that route.

“Louisa and mother-of-two Prue had their ceremony at Te Mahurehure Marae in Point Chevalier, Auckland, where 200 guests helped celebrate their union in 2010.

“While comfortable with her own personal situation, Louisa believes it’s vitally important for individuals and couples to have options. “We made the decision to have a civil union, but for Charles Chauvel [a gay Labour MP] and his partner, that wasn’t good enough – they decided to go to Canada and get married.”

“… there is only one thing missing in Louisa’s life – a baby. While she would love to be a mother and has tried to conceive in the past, her efforts have been unsuccessful.”

Here we learn that Louisa and her partner Prue Tamatekapua have no intention of changing their civil union relationship to a marriage, even if Wall’s legally flawed bill becomes law. Instead of fighting for hers and Prue’s right’s, Louisa says she is fighting for the rights of other homosexuals to be able to get married. If so, Prue and Louise will never be “spouses” in law, if the bill becomes law, and will be unable to adopt children as a same-sex couple. With the biological clock ticking any woman (lesbian or heterosexual), truly wanting to have her own baby, will need the ‘services’ of at least one person from the opposite sex known as “male” to produce a child.

The term “same-sex marriage” is meaningless once the real unique distinction (relative to other types of relationships) of marriage, based on the exclusive one male-one-female nature of the relationship, is broken down by adding same-sex couples to the traditional marriage mix. For this reason there must remain a separate category-status distinction in law that recognises marriage as an exclusive relationship between two opposite sex partners.

Source of quotes:

Labour MP Louisa Wall: Fighting for our rights. By Vicky Tyler

Women’s Weekly. 28th March 2013

http://www.nzwomansweekly.co.nz/celebrity/labour-mp-louisa-wall-fighting-for-our-rights/

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage, Sexual Dysfunction Tagged With: , , ,

Same-sex ‘marriage’: What would the Greeks have thought of this oxymoron?

April 2, 2013 by Leave a Comment

It is ironic that the proponents of homosexuality [and the oxymoron "same-sex marriage"] so often point to ancient Greece as their paradigm because of its high state of culture and its partial acceptance of homosexuality or, more accurately, pederasty.

[Pederasty = sexual relations between a man and a boy (usually anal intercourse with the boy as a passive partner). Oxymoron = A figure of speech in which incongruous or seemingly contradictory terms appear side by side.]

Though some ancient Greeks did write paeans to homosexual love, it did not occur to any of them to propose homosexual relationships as the basis for marriage in their societies. The only homosexual relationship that was accepted was between an adult male and a male adolescent [pederasty]. This relationship was to be temporary, as the youth was expected to get married and start a family as soon as he reached maturity.

The idea that someone was a “homosexual” for life or had this feature as a permanent identity would have struck them as more than odd. In other words, “homosexuality”, for which a word in Greek did not exist at the time (or in any other language until the late 19th century), was purely transitory. It appears that many of these mentoring relationships in ancient Greece were chaste and that the ones that were not rarely involved sodomy. Homosexual relationships between mature male adults were not accepted. This is hardly the idealized homosexual paradise that contemporary “gay” advocates harken back to in an attempt to legitimize behavior that would have scandalized the Greeks.

What is especially ironic is that ancient Greece’s greatest contribution to Western civilization was philosophy, which discovered that the mind can know things, as distinct from just having opinions about them, that objective reality exists, and that there is some purpose implied in its construction.

The very idea of Nature and natural law arose as a product of this philosophy, whose first and perhaps greatest exponents, Socrates and Plato, were unambiguous in their condemnation of homosexual acts as unnatural. In the Laws, Plato’s last book, the Athenian speaker says that, “I think that the pleasure is to be deemed natural which arises out of the intercourse between men and women; but that the intercourse of men with men, or of women with women, is contrary to nature, and that the bold attempt was originally due to unbridled lust.” (Laws636C; see also Symposium of Xenophon, 8:34, Plato’s Symposium, 219B-D).

To read more go to:

What would the Greeks have thought of gay marriage?

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/what_would_the_greeks_have_thought_of_gay_marriage

 

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage, Sexual Dysfunction Tagged With: , ,

Louisa Wall MP and the “gay marriage” ‘poster boy’ Emperor Nero

April 1, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Astonishingly, Roman Emperor Nero’s same-sex marriage (SSM) was raised in the First Reading of  the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment bill – on 29 August 2012 – by both the bill’s sponsor, Labour MP, Ms Louisa Wall, and National MP for Wairarapa, John Hayes, who opposes it.

Hayes, who voted against the bill at first and second reading, stated:

“Some [of my] constituents point out that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and predates even the Bible as a foundation for our society. To them I would note that Roman Emperor Nero entered into a marriage with a male slave.”

First century Rome might have permitted SSM between men, but most people know that it also permitted incestuous marriage – a criminal offence under our law. SSM has deep links historically with the practice of incest.

Nero reportedly at age 16, married his half-sister. He also reportedly married two men, taking the role of bride to a former slave, Pythagoras, and the role of groom to a man named Sporus.

Nero might be a “poster boy” for those advocating early SSMs for men, but he was renowned for his vile acts of brutality and depravity. These reportedly included ordering the execution of his mother, kicking to death his pregnant second wife and executing countless people. Nero had a deep hatred of first-century Christians, many of whom he had thrown to dogs, others crucified, and others burned alive as flaming torches to serve as nightly illumination for has gardens.

Louisa Wall stated in her First Reading speech:

“Marriage as an institution pre-dates government and Christianity. It has been part of civilisations and cultures and has, over that time, changed dramatically. Same-sex marriage between men was not uncommon in the days of the Roman emperor Nero.”

Both Wall and Hayes appear to hold the view that Nero’s SSM  has some sort of relevance to the issue of what constitutes marriage. It does not. The morally debauched ‘lifestyle’ of a serial sexual pervert and criminal (murderer) should not be taken into account when considering the meaning of marriage.

The simple truth is that Wall is at odds with the majority of mainstream New Zealanders, in her attempts to force SSM onto New Zealand society.

Reference

Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill

Hansard Record: Vol. 683, page 4913.

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage, Sexual Dysfunction Tagged With: , , ,

Louisa Wall and Emperor Nero’s perverted same-sex ‘marriage’ !!

April 1, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Ms Louisa Wall, who hit the headlines as New Zealand’s  “first Maori lesbian MP”, has highlighted in the House of Representatives the fact that “same-sex marriage between men was not uncommon in the days of the Roman emperor Nero”, during the course of her First Reading speech in support of her private member’s bill – the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. She and her supporters are determined to force upon all New Zealanders an acceptance of “same-sex marriage” as  normative, when most either view it as a gross moral perversion that is detrimental to the public good and/or oppose it because they do not believe the bill achieves anything meaningful for homosexuals beyond what is already open to them in civil unions.

At its first two readings, the majority of MPs voted in support of Louisa Wall’s bill that seeks to have the State amend the Marriage Act 1955 to allow for “same-sex marriage”, despite the fact that it is a demonstrably meaningless concept: “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron.

Does Ms Wall not know that Roman Emperor Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus—a fanatical devotee of Jupiter and Minerva—was the most depraved monster that ever disgraced the annals of history? Is she not aware that the name Nero is proverbial for murder, rape, sodomy, incest, cruelty, and every kind of crime imaginable?

In 65 AD, the mad Pontiff Nero crowned all his other debauches by a same-sex ‘marriage’. Nero ‘married’ a male look-alike of his murdered wife Poppaea Sabina.

For more on the perverted same-sex ‘marriage’ of Nero, heralded by Ms Louisa Wall, go to:

http://www.reformation.org/perverted-marriage-of-nero.html

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage, Sexual Dysfunction Tagged With: , , ,

Same-sex “Marriage”: The Roman Emperors

March 28, 2013 by 2 Comments

Craig Turner fitzgerald griffin foundation 25 March 2013

As the Supreme Court takes up two cases regarding the legalization of same-sex “marriage,” Americans may be surprised to learn that same-sex marriage was legalized once before.

The practice of homosexuality in the Roman Empire had increased during the early years until the Romans accepted and adopted the pederasty of the Greeks (fornication with boys ages 12 to 18). Though at first the acts were considered acceptable only if the boy was a slave, the Romans eventually extended their tolerance of homosexual acts to adult men, both free and slave. Same-sex marriage, once unthinkable, was not far behind.

Early Roman poets and critics wrote about the practice, from Juvenal’s satire that mentions Gracchus, who “arrayed himself in the flounces and train and veil of a bride,” to Martial, a first-century poet who observed that homosexual marriage was not uncommon in the empire during the first century. Both Juvenal and Martial gave us accounts of men who “played the bride” in wedding ceremonies, wearing bridal veils like women.

But our most detailed images of homosexual marriages come from the descriptions of Roman emperors. Nero [b. 15 December 37 d. 9 June 68), Roman Empire from 54 to 68] a depraved first-century emperor, married at least two men. He wed Pythagoras in a formal same-sex wedding by first putting on a bridal veil that made Nero the “bride” and Pythagoras the “groom.” Every symbol of a classical marriage was present at this ceremony: a dowry, marriage bed, torches, and witnesses. Tacitus, the great Roman historian who records the event, even alludes to the fact that Nero engaged in coitus with the man in front of all the guests, stating that “everything was public which even in a natural union is veiled by night.”

” During his reign he captured Christians and, after fixing them to stakes, burned them in his garden at night for a source of light. He is known for numerous brutal executions, including that of his own mother. He committed suicide in June of 68.

Another emperor who “married” men was Elagabalus, who ascended the throne in A.D. 218 after a substantial bribe was offered by his powerful grandmother.

He married a total of five women. The second marriage was consummated after he had his bride’s previous husband executed. His desires for his wives, however, were muted in comparison with his liking for men and boys. Elagabalus himself preferred to be the woman in the relationship, having the hairs plucked from his body to simulate femininity while at the same time wearing a wig and applying makeup. He is reputed to have offered his physician large sums of money if the doctor could change him into a woman.

The emperor’s first “husband” was a blond slave named Hierocles. Elagabalus was described as being “delighted to be called the mistress, the wife, the queen of Hierocles.” In addition to playing sado-masochistic games with Hierocles, Elagabalus pretended to be a prostitute out in public, offering himself naked to random pedestrians in the palace or prostituting himself in the brothels and taverns of Rome.

The Augustan History states, “He set aside a room in the palace and there committed his indecencies, always standing nude at the door of the room, as the harlots do, and shaking the curtain which hung from gold rings, while in a soft and melting voiced he solicited passers-by.”

Another of his “husbands” was Zoticus, an athlete from Smyrna whom he “married” in a lavish and public display in Rome. Many Roman citizens, whose senses had been dulled by years of the lewd and immoral acts of its leaders, cheered and celebrated the new union.

Elagabalus’s grandmother convinced him to adopt a boy named Alexianus, whom Elagabalus then crowned as the new Caesar and Emperor of the empire, only to try to assassinate him later.Same-sex marriage was outlawed a century later by the historic passage of the Theodosian Code.

Source: http://www.fgfbooks.com/Turner-Craig/2013/Turner130323.html

SPCS Note: The decline of the Roman Empire, seen in retrospect, occurred over a period of four centuries, culminating in the final dissolution of the Western Roman Empire on September 4, 476, when Romulus Augustus, the last Emperor of the Western Roman Empire was deposed by Odoacer, a Germanic chieftain.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire

In 342, the sons of Constantine, Constans and Constantius II, pass a law read variously by historians as outlawing homosexual prostitution, homosexual marriage, and homosexual activity altogether.

This law specifically outlawed marriages between men and reads as follows:

When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage, Sexual Dysfunction Tagged With: , , , , ,

Topless Vatican protesters – “In gay we trust” – Video Link

January 22, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Four women went topless in St. Peter’s Square to protest the Vatican’s opposition to gay marriage as he delivered his traditional prayer from his studio window overlooking the piazza … Protester and protest spokeswoman Inna Shevchenko, a “Ukrainian Feminist”, told a reporter on camera:

“Today we go with a message to the Pope to shut up his mouth and not to give his advices [sic] to those people who decide to legalise gay marriage. Today we are here to possess [sic] [protest] against homophobia”.

To view the 38 second video illustrating the extreme tactics of some within the “gay”rights movement see NZ Herald link:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/video.cfm?c_id=2&gal_objectid=10858955&gallery_id=130259

For a scholarly analysis of the term “homphobia” see the SPCS article:

The term ‘Homphonia’: Its Origins and Meanings, and its uses in the Homosexual Agenda

http://www.spcs.org.nz/2007/the-term-homophobia-its-origins-and-meanings-and-its-uses-in-homosexual-agenda/

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Sexual Dysfunction Tagged With: , , ,
«Older Posts
%d bloggers like this: