NationStates

Resawa wrote:

Luveria wrote:
From what I have read, the general rule was that tops stay tops and bottoms stay bottoms or it's wrong?

That was really Rome
Greeks were more.....free spirited

My mistake then, it must be Rome I was thinking of for that rule.

Liriena wrote:

The Traditional Catholic Papal States wrote:

Why are you silently quoting what I just posted?

I it was a mistake, I edited it to include my response

Resawa wrote:Alcibiades
That was it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcibiades

Only the Early Life part mentions anything about it, and it's not mentioned if that was tolerated by the rest of society.[/quote]
I'd....rather not show other examples

Resawa wrote:

Luveria wrote:
Only the Early Life part mentions anything about it, and it's not mentioned if that was tolerated by the rest of society.

I'd....rather not show other examples

You could just link them.

The Traditional Catholic Papal States wrote:

Liriena wrote:Quite the accusation... and hardly a valid response.

I posted my religious beliefs regarding my religious beliefs on homosexuality many times and doing it any more would be really spamming. Regarding getting the state out of civil marriage, I am not the only one to think so.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ... _marriage/
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/ ... rriage.htm

Indeed. Marriage is a Biblical institution. If the Bible wasn't written Marriage, in the 'modern' sense, wouldn't even exist. So all civil marriages should be done away with. Only legitimate institutions/people can preform the Sacraments.

Othelos wrote:

Resawa wrote:
Only the Early Life part mentions anything about it, and it's not mentioned if that was tolerated by the rest of society.

I'd....rather not show other examples

You could just link them.[/quote]
They were books at my local library
Unless you live in Manahawkin New Jersey I'm afraid it'd be chore.

Kantanska wrote:

The Traditional Catholic Papal States wrote:
I posted my religious beliefs regarding my religious beliefs on homosexuality many times and doing it any more would be really spamming. Regarding getting the state out of civil marriage, I am not the only one to think so.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ... _marriage/
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/ ... rriage.htm

Indeed. Marriage is a Biblical institution. If the Bible wasn't written Marriage, in the 'modern' sense, wouldn't even exist. So all civil marriages should be done away with. Only legitimate institutions/people can preform the Sacraments.

You do realize marriage existed before Christianity co-opted it?

Resawa wrote:

Luveria wrote:
From what I have read, the general rule was that tops stay tops and bottoms stay bottoms or it's wrong?

That was really Rome
Greeks were more.....free spirited

Now that I have been informed it was Rome I have read about, in my view the Roman view on homosexuality was that as long as the top is manly and the bottom is effeminate it is nothing but another kind of heterosexual relationship so it's tolerated.

Resawa wrote:

Vareiln wrote:This, by far.

Elaborate, I'm not an expert in eastern clture

China before the Qing Dynasty was remarkably accepting of homosexuality in general, although particularly progressive political reforms in that respect were hindered by the Far East's sociocultural norms regarding men and their role in society as husbands and fathers. Several emperors were at the very least bisexual, many prominent characters were known to have officially recognized male concubines, and the province of Fujian introduced, at some point, male marriages, which were not lifelong but still gave same-sex couples legal recognition.

Blasveck wrote:

Kantanska wrote:
Indeed. Marriage is a Biblical institution. If the Bible wasn't written Marriage, in the 'modern' sense, wouldn't even exist. So all civil marriages should be done away with. Only legitimate institutions/people can preform the Sacraments.

You do realize marriage existed before Christianity co-opted it?

No, it did not. Ideas similar existed, but any legitimate Marriage is a unique institution.

Kantanska wrote:

Blasveck wrote:You do realize marriage existed before Christianity co-opted it?

No, it did not. Ideas similar existed, but any legitimate Marriage is a unique institution.

Source your blatantly false claims, please.

Liriena wrote:

Luveria wrote:
It is worth mentioning that in Greek and Roman culture, it was not shameful to be homosexual. Topping was honourable. Being sub or bottom was not, but as long as the sub/bottom stayed to that role, it wouldn't matter. The ultimate transgression was a top bottoming, or a bottom topping. So yes, those societies were homophobic.

[...]

It's pretty much the same rationale behind Old Testament homophobia (give or take an anti-Canaanite counter-cultural movement): women are lesser beings. [...]

I assume you're basing this off of a simple reading of the Old Testament on its own.

Kantanska wrote:

Blasveck wrote:You do realize marriage existed before Christianity co-opted it?

No, it did not. Ideas similar existed, but any legitimate Marriage is a unique institution.

Ha. Talk about exceptionalism.

Liriena wrote:

Kantanska wrote:No, it did not. Ideas similar existed, but any legitimate Marriage is a unique institution.

Source your blatantly false claims, please.

Not giving him much wiggle room eh.

Kantanska wrote:

The Traditional Catholic Papal States wrote:
I posted my religious beliefs regarding my religious beliefs on homosexuality many times and doing it any more would be really spamming. Regarding getting the state out of civil marriage, I am not the only one to think so.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ... _marriage/
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/ ... rriage.htm

Indeed. Marriage is a Biblical institution. If the Bible wasn't written Marriage, in the 'modern' sense, wouldn't even exist. So all civil marriages should be done away with. Only legitimate institutions/people can preform the Sacraments.

The problem going by that is, the bible is what validated, legitimized, and encouraged polygamous marriages. Do keep that in mind when bringing up the bible and marriage.

Luveria wrote:

Resawa wrote:That was really Rome
Greeks were more.....free spirited

Now that I have been informed it was Rome I have read about, in my view the Roman view on homosexuality was that as long as the top is manly and the bottom is effeminate it is nothing but another kind of heterosexual relationship so it's tolerated.

Yes
Generally it was used by the army, officers slept with their legionaries ( nearly typed privates) though it was also encouraged among common soldiers because it built up comradeship among the men, and that was what the legion thrived on

Liriena wrote:

Kantanska wrote:No, it did not. Ideas similar existed, but any legitimate Marriage is a unique institution.

Source your blatantly false claims, please.

The Bible has set out rules and procedures for Marriage and the Church has set out many more. Most of these rules did not exist before the Bible at least in a codified form. This is what makes Marriage unique.

Kantanska wrote:

The Traditional Catholic Papal States wrote:
I posted my religious beliefs regarding my religious beliefs on homosexuality many times and doing it any more would be really spamming. Regarding getting the state out of civil marriage, I am not the only one to think so.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ... _marriage/
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/ ... rriage.htm

Indeed. Marriage is a Biblical institution. If the Bible wasn't written Marriage, in the 'modern' sense, wouldn't even exist. So all civil marriages should be done away with. Only legitimate institutions/people can preform the Sacraments.

How is marriage a Biblical institution? Marriage has existed since pre-Christian times in almost every civilization. The Bible does not have a monopoly on marriage.

Kantanska wrote:

Liriena wrote:Source your blatantly false claims, please.

The Bible has set out rules and procedures for Marriage and the Church has set out many more. Most of these rules did not exist before the Bible at least in a codified form. This is what makes Marriage unique.

So polygamy then... is okay?

The Traditional Catholic Papal States wrote:

Liriena wrote:Quite the accusation... and hardly a valid response.

I posted my religious beliefs regarding my religious beliefs on homosexuality many times and doing it any more would be really spamming.

Engaging in an honest, thorough debate on said beliefs, however, would not constitute spamming.

The Traditional Catholic Papal States wrote:Regarding getting the state out of civil marriage, I am not the only one to think so.

Am I supposed to be surprise? Several individuals sharing the same idiotic idea is not that rare.

The Traditional Catholic Papal States wrote:http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/kmiec_proposes_end_of_legally_recognized_marriage/
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/ ... rriage.htm

The epitome of irresponsible and selfish ideas that would only lead to social and legal chaos if they became the law of the land.

Kantanska wrote:

Liriena wrote:Source your blatantly false claims, please.

The Bible has set out rules and procedures for Marriage and the Church has set out many more. Most of these rules did not exist before the Bible at least in a codified form. This is what makes Marriage unique.

Wrong. Christianity took monogamous marriage from Greco-Roman culture, not the other way around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome

Luveria wrote:

Kantanska wrote:
Indeed. Marriage is a Biblical institution. If the Bible wasn't written Marriage, in the 'modern' sense, wouldn't even exist. So all civil marriages should be done away with. Only legitimate institutions/people can preform the Sacraments.

The problem going by that is, the bible is what validated, legitimized, and encouraged polygamous marriages. Do keep that in mind when bringing up the bible and marriage.

The Church has also encouraged the execution of heathens.

Resawa wrote:

Luveria wrote:
Now that I have been informed it was Rome I have read about, in my view the Roman view on homosexuality was that as long as the top is manly and the bottom is effeminate it is nothing but another kind of heterosexual relationship so it's tolerated.

Yes
Generally it was used by the army, officers slept with their legionaries ( nearly typed privates) though it was also encouraged among common soldiers because it built up comradeship among the men, and that was what the legion thrived on

So if a man is girly, they take it, and if a man is manly, they give it.

That must have sucked for feminine males who were tops and masculine males who were bottoms.

Geilinor wrote:

Kantanska wrote:The Bible has set out rules and procedures for Marriage and the Church has set out many more. Most of these rules did not exist before the Bible at least in a codified form. This is what makes Marriage unique.

Wrong. Christianity took monogamous marriage from Greco-Roman culture, not the other way around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome

Pre-Christian Rome invented what people call "modern marriage" in the Western world.

Menassa wrote:

Liriena wrote:[...]

It's pretty much the same rationale behind Old Testament homophobia (give or take an anti-Canaanite counter-cultural movement): women are lesser beings. [...]

I assume you're basing this off of a simple reading of the Old Testament on its own.

I will admit that I am going by the general idea conveyed by the Christian Bible, yes. I take it that you are about to rid me of this misconception?