[JerryLove]

Actually, there's a good deal of support the Lincoln was one of a handful of homosexual presidents: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ln+gay&spell=1

Might be true, might not... but it seems reasonable.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Actually, there's a good deal of support the Lincoln was one of a handful of homosexual presidents: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ln+gay&spell=1

Might be true, might not... but it seems reasonable.

Id want a period source thats reputable. Goodness knows the man had enemies...

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Id want a period source thats reputable. Goodness knows the man had enemies...

Which explains why he didn't talk about it.

Granted, this is kind of circular, but there is circumstantial evidence (he slept in the same bed with another man for several years) and textual evidence in his writings.

Isaac Newton is another famous figure who was also probably gay. There's no direct evidence but the man never married and he was infatuated with a handsome young philosopher admirer named Fatio.

Bear in mind that many males have experimented with homosexual behavior ... this really isn't such a big deal. In other words, it's not such a heavy burden of proof to establish that a historical figure was gay, since "straight" is not really a strong default.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

For me it would seem that hedonistic, individualistic homosexuality seems to indicate the fall of a culture. (look for example at the end of Rome, in the bathhouses and such)

The bathhouses weren't there before the decline?

For me, it seems that Christianity indicates the fall of a culture. Look at the end of Rome.

You are making the same argument as I am, Bill. The difference is that my argument is an actual correlation and yours is not.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Qingu

The bathhouses weren't there before the decline?

For me, it seems that Christianity indicates the fall of a culture. Look at the end of Rome.

You are making the same argument as I am, Bill. The difference is that my argument is an actual correlation and yours is not.

Mystery religions were a big factor as well. You see a distinct correlation if you look. What I see is that Christianity came into a culture in decline. The Roman empire started imploding and decaying throughout the first, second and third centuries. One could argue that it began with the assimilations of too many cultures, undermining a single unified culture. Christianity could in fact contribute to that as creating another sect with seperate values. However, I fail to see how with the rise of several mystery religions, (which involved homosexual relations, which i had to read about last night and are now in a hopeless jumble) increasingly permissive and pervasive expressions of homosexuality within Rome in decline, that you could claim it isn't a correlation of non-causal events. Im saying that it appears to be more prevelant in declining cultures, as does, multiculturalism and assimilation.



With the whole Lincoln thing though, it seems odd that wasn't used as southern propoganda if it were true.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Mystery religions were a big factor as well. You see a distinct correlation if you look.

Eh. This may have been a factor.

What I see is that Christianity came into a culture in decline.

What I see is Christianity emerges as the dominant, or at least, most public mystery religion.

The Roman empire started imploding and decaying throughout the first, second and third centuries. One could argue that it began with the assimilations of too many cultures, undermining a single unified culture. Christianity could in fact contribute to that as creating another sect with seperate values.

Aye. And the idea that Rome disintegrated because lack of unity is a strong argument, though it's definitely not the whole story.

However, I fail to see how with the rise of several mystery religions, (which involved homosexual relations, which i had to read about last night and are now in a hopeless jumble) increasingly permissive and pervasive expressions of homosexuality within Rome in decline, that you could claim it isn't a correlation of non-causal events.

See, this is where we part ways, Bill. You have a more or less valid argument--Rome became fragmented due to the emergence of many cults. But then you just sort of throw homosexuality into the mix. Yes, some of the cults practiced homosexuality. Some of the cults also encouraged their followers to wear crimson robes. So by your logic I can argue that people wearing crimson robes correlates the fall of culture, Rome specifically.

Im saying that it appears to be more prevelant in declining cultures, as does, multiculturalism and assimilation.

But it's not more prevalent. You haven't established that at all. You've simply pointed to a possible factor (mystery cults) and pointed out that some of them were homosexual. Some of them wore crimson robes. Please show that homosexuality is any more indicitive of social decline then the predominant color of one's clothing.

With the whole Lincoln thing though, it seems odd that wasn't used as southern propoganda if it were true.

Meh. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Doesn't really bother me either way.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Eh. This may have been a factor.


What I see is Christianity emerges as the dominant, or at least, most public mystery religion.


Aye. And the idea that Rome disintegrated because lack of unity is a strong argument, though it's definitely not the whole story.


See, this is where we part ways, Bill. You have a more or less valid argument--Rome became fragmented due to the emergence of many cults. But then you just sort of throw homosexuality into the mix. Yes, some of the cults practiced homosexuality. Some of the cults also encouraged their followers to wear crimson robes. So by your logic I can argue that people wearing crimson robes correlates the fall of culture, Rome specifically.


But it's not more prevalent. You haven't established that at all. You've simply pointed to a possible factor (mystery cults) and pointed out that some of them were homosexual. Some of them wore crimson robes. Please show that homosexuality is any more indicitive of social decline then the predominant color of one's clothing.


Meh. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Doesn't really bother me either way.

All I am saying is, is that public homosexuality seems to be more prevelant in a fragmented culture. Nothing more. Since, biologically, it cannot be the primary sexual orientation, when it becomes prominent is a point in which continuity of a culture is secondary.

If crimson robe wearing was prevelant in a rise of hedonism in multiple cases (South America stands as another example) I might consider it a cultural indicator. As it is, Some things, like the slaughtering of bulls over grates while frantic worshipers danced with their tongues out, seem to be very peculiar, and non indicative.

[JerryLove]

All I am saying is, is that public homosexuality seems to be more prevelant in a fragmented culture. Nothing more. Since, biologically, it cannot be the primary sexual orientation, when it becomes prominent is a point in which continuity of a culture is secondary.

It was there with the Spartians during their assent. It was with the Japanese for centuries, and I think the shogunate and post-feudal Japan was very stable until / except for western influence.

You've asserted that there was a rise in the acceptance of homosexuality "at the end" of Rome, though I don't really see it and find it unlikely in the face of compulsorary Christianity. Heck, the dark ages were presided over by Christianity, the fall of Japan's social structure was precipitated by Christians, the nigh-extinction of the Americans was caused by disease brough by people spreading th word of Christ, then finished off by manifest destiny. Christian Africa isn't doing too hot either.

I'm not saying "Christianity = death", but I think a better case can be made than oer homosexualiy.

And nothing biological says it cannot be the "primariy orientation"... there simply must be enough child-producing sex o propigate the species. This can be accomplished in several ways and with a minority.