Disowned gay prince now wants to adopt

[Jenee]

Exactly.  My beef was with the claim against the Church, nothing more.

However, I'm fairly certain that the Protestants who burned "witches" at Salem didn't throw persons with homosexual tendencies onto the fire as kindling wood, either.

:shrug:

Not as kindling wood, no, but homosexuals and gypsies were also targets of burning at the stake around the same time as witches.

[Stix Chix]

i might as well share this now since its unlikely that it'll come up in coversation ever again! :P  ......did u kno that friends of the condemned would often give him or her a packet of gun powder to wear around their necks to speed their death along.  u just dont see these little acts of kindness any more, do u?

[cookie_monster]

 :P :D

[M]

Not as kindling wood, no, but homosexuals and gypsies were also targets of burning at the stake around the same time as witches.

There were no gypsies in America during the Salem witchcraft trials.  At best, there were black slaves who practiced voodoo and some form of Santeria, but there weren't gypsies, not on a large scale anyway.

The same goes for those with homosexual inclinations.  If there were some, there were nowhere near enough present to warrant significant mention in terms of "burnings".

Homosexual acts were likely carried out with such secrecy as to make them almost undetectable in society, because they were criminal acts that carried serious punishments.  Homosexuality was universally understood to be sinful among Christians (at that time).  Even among those who engaged in homosexual activity believed it was sinful, at the time, and as I said already, there was absolutely no concept of a "gay" identity back then, much less a "gay rights movement".  Homosexual acts weren't so much seen as indicative of a person's identity as much as individual acts of serious sin.  Someone engaging in such acts was referred to as a sodomite, just as those caught in adultery were called adulterers, but nobody thought of acts of sodomy as being part of a "sexual identity" any more than they viewed acts of adultery as indicative of a sexual identity.  So whatever number of homosexuals were caught and punished (however those punishments were carried out, more likely the stocks, banishment, etc., than burning) it was definitely not high enough to warrant mention of homosexuals as a widespread target.

Most importantly, the Catholic Church had nothing to do with said "burnings" in America, as I already indicated. The Church didn't have a strong presence in early America.

[Stix Chix]

burning at the stake was usually reserved for heretics (of whatever religion wasn't in charge at the time) "witches" and traitors.  if gay people were executed it was usually by a hot poker up the backside.....the possible fate of the probably gay King Edward II.  love and sex (or at least one of the two) between men wasnt all that uncommon anyway.....it was common practice in Ancient Greece and Rome.  anyway many in the upper classes wouldnt have considered their affection for or sex with other guys as "being gay"  more of a male bonding thing.  and since rich men were in charge of everything anyway why kill themselves? :rolleyes:  homosexuality didnt really become a big public issue until the 1800s (maybe a little earlier) when being gay...at least openly so...became a crime....but they'd only b put in prison not killed.  and even that was rare...the "dont ask dont tell" is nothing new.  bcuz honestly, why bother?  its not like they were trying to overthrow the goverment or something.

so yeah, executing gay people was never very widespread in the West....the Nazi's were the only ones who ever did that in any big way that i can think of.  although there is the occasional murder/beating of gay people....and the more then occasional harassing/threating/refusing of civil rights of gay people in the West.  but it is still a crime worth execution in some Middle Eastern and Asian countries.


but anyway back to the topic let the guy adopt.  disowned dad or not that'll b one lucky kid. ;)

[M]

correct me if i'm wrong...but the issue was: whether or NOT gay men were burned with 'faggot'....which is the deragotory word used on them in modern time. Thus, the issue was NOT whether the name was applied 2 gay plp during middle ages or prior to the 20th century...but rather the murderous meaning/connotation it carries...for anyone ignorant of its historical impact :shrug:

Good, then this article should help explain how the two are not connected and that fabrications to the contrary are urban legends invented by propagandists: How did "faggot" get to mean "male homosexual"?

The great thing about the article above is that it agres with most of the sources you offered, including Wikipedia.  :shrug:

:blink: i'm sorry...but being an apologist for the homicidal/genocidal tendacy of the catholic church...does not omit the historical foot-prints left behind in the past 2 thousand yrs

Your anti-Catholic bias is showing.  Sweeping generalizations like that are fun to make when you have an axe to grind with the Church.  Backing them up with evidence and using a correct understanding of history to judge that evidence (and not simply judging the peoples of those times according to a modern mindset) is more difficult to do.

What is the point in bashing Catholicism by bringing up the Inquisition in a thread about a modern Indian prince with homosexual tendencies?  To prove that Catholics are sinners? Guilty as charged. That at times people in positions of authority have used poor judgment? Ditto. That otherwise good Catholics, afire with zeal, sometimes lose their balance?  All true, but such charges could be made even if the Inquisition had never existed.  Besides, why bash Catholicism as though the Church is the most evil institution in human history, when there is ample evidence of much greater atrocities committed throughout history by other institutions and political movements, as opposed to errant individual Catholics (sometimes in positions of power and authority) who generally violated the teaching of their own religion to commit the atrocities you mention?  I can just as easily discuss the genocidal tendencies of liberals and leftists, as well.  :shrug:  The French Revolution was carried out by left leaning people and it was bloody as hell.  We've already covered Communism's death toll of over 100 million people over the last century (which dwarfs the number of people ever executed under any Catholic authority throughout the Church's 2,000 year history so much that it's not even funny).

so basically....only place the 'inquisition' was absent from are england & holland...atlease until the 15th century

Sorry, but that's not accurate.  The Inquisitions took place in the places I previously mentioned and nowhere else.  Considering the size of the world, "nowhere else" covers a lot more territory than England and Holland.

Can you tell me about the Russian Inquisition?  How about the Greek Inquisition?  The Irish Inquisition?  The Swedish and Finnish Inquisition?   :unsure:

Moreover, when talking about the Inquisitions it is vital to understand the involvement of the State in such Inquisitions.  The Church didn't run the whole show, and documented evidence demonstrates that Church run Inquisitions were far more just than those run by the States in which they took place.

Moreover, it is extremely important to understand that the Inquisitions were far from genocidal in nature.  Fabrications about the number of people executed are everywhere and often prove laughable when juxtaposed with accurate statistics of the European population at the relevant time.

was it justifiable 2 burn/execute Mors/Jewish converts during the spanish inquisition...as you claim?

Maybe.  It depends on whether or not the individuals were working to overthrow the State, even by violence.  (Many of them were.)  :shrug:

Endless Jihad – The Truth about Islam and Violence

The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed

so, the SI did not target muslims...rather those not believed 2 be 'legitimate converts'.

Because they weren't legitimate converts.  They were still Muslims (and/or Jews) pretending to be Catholics and working to overthrow the government of Spain by violent means.  :rolleyes:

In case you hadn't noticed this in the history books you read, the Muslims were an extremely significant threat to Western Civilization at the time in question.

did the RC torture/burn gay men in the middle ages?

There was no such thing as a "gay man" in the Middle Ages because the socio/political marker, "gay", with all of its political and lifestyle implications was absolutely unheard of or even imagined at the time in question.  Were some people who committed acts of sodomy ever tortured and executed?  Possibly.  Was it widespread?  No.  Is discussion of those with homosexual inclinations being killed in the various European Inquisitions largely rooted in agenda driven exaggerations?  Yes.

another good book 2 check is Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century by John Boswell....arguing in his  introduction that homophobia in the west is not the fault of the church, blaming the onset of officially sanctioned Christianity. This book is well researched (many pages are more than half consumed by footnotes).

John Boswell's work has been largely discredited and is not considered serious scholarship in credible scholastic circles.  He was an openly homosexual man (Boswell died of AIDS in 1994) whose scholarship was strongly influenced by personal bias and wishful thinking.  He nearly lost his tenure at Yale over his "scholarship" because it was considered embarrassingly inaccurate and biased work.   :shrug:

Even homosexual scholars have problems with Boswell's work:

"Boswell took a lot of risks personally and professionally in writing that book and it nearly cost him tenure at Yale," Jordan told Second Stone. "So, I have a lot of respect for his courage, but I disagree almost entirely with his conclusions. Almost everyone uses [the book], and almost no one buys its conclusions."

Jordan's new book, "The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology," is every bit as controversial as a Boswell book. Jordan writes that he found the first time the category "sodomy" was used and draws his own conclusions about the legitimacy of the term's use - since it did not appear until the year 1050, according to Jordan.

~ "The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology" – Young author challenges historian Boswell's conclusion

Moreover, the work you cite by Boswell does not line up with your claim that homosexuals serious concern for the Catholic Church or the targets of widespread persecution.

Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (1980), which, according to Chauncey et al (1989), "offered a revolutionary interpretation of the Western tradition, arguing that the Roman Catholic Church had not condemned gay people throughout its history, but rather, at least until the twelfth century, had alternately envinced no special concern about homosexuality or actually celebrated love between men."

~ John Boswell at AllExperts

In fact, Boswell, in his work titled, Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe (New York: Villard, 1994), claimed that, far from murdering and oppressing homosexuals, the Catholic Church had ceremonies blessing same sex unions.

:rolleyes:   :teehee:

Here is a rather extensive critical review of Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe: Rewriting History to Serve the Gay Agenda

So which is it?  Is the Church supposed to have burned every living homosexual in Europe by using them as kindling when the fires for burning heretics ran low, or did the Church bless same-sex unions and not express serious concern about homosexuality?  You can't have it both ways, yet you cite sources that contradict one another by claiming one or the other as though both are serious scholarship.   :shrug:

[M]

let the guy adopt.  disowned dad or not that'll b one lucky kid. ;)

How will the kid be lucky if his legal guardian has been disowned and disinherited and the child will be raised in a culture surrounded by religious people who view homosexuality as a moral evil worthy of shunning and disowning people who practice or advocate such activity?

:pardon:

I actually think that's pretty unfair to a kid, especially when a lot of scholarship indicates healthy human development is largely facilitated by the presence of parents of both genders.

:mellow:

[Jenee]

There were no gypsies in America during the Salem witchcraft trials. At best, there were black slaves who practiced voodoo and some form of Santeria, but there weren't gypsies, not on a large scale anyway.

No, but burning of witches did not happen only in the United States

[Stix Chix]

How will the kid be lucky if his legal guardian has been disowned and disinherited and the child will be raised in a culture surrounded by religious people who view homosexuality as a moral evil worthy of shunning and disowning people who practice or advocate such activity.

gottcha to admit it!  :neenerneener:

I actually think that's pretty unfair to a kid, especially when a lot of scholarship indicates healthy human development is largely facilitated by the presence of parents of both genders.

growing up is rough no matter who ur parents r. 

[M]

No, but burning of witches did not happen only in the United States

I guess I am wondering, at this point, what your point is about burning witches?  :blink:

Even in Europe, it wasn't a widespread activity.  It happened from time to time, but it wasn't like thousands or millions of witches were burned, and although I don't endorse the practice of burning "witches", it isn't unreasonable for people who believe that someone who makes an effective pact with the devil to gain preternatural abilities and bring others to serious harm is a danger to society.

:shrug:

[M]

gottcha to admit it!  :neenerneener:

:lmao:

Yes, you got me.

Stix to M:

[AHoch82]

Gay prince to adopt

[M]

 :flowery:

[Kotty]

Nobody deserves to be ostracized because of their sexuality.

[WOW]

Please do not bump up old articles.