Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Italian Historian Says Homosexuality Destroyed Rome ZOT!
The Eponymous Flower ^ | 04/10/11 | Tancred

Posted on 04/10/2011 1:29:58 PM PDT by 0beron

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-243 next last
To: Salamander

It was. LOL


101 posted on 04/11/2011 1:05:00 AM PDT by Vendome ("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Markos33

LOL

just zipping through the thread and ran across your post again.

Too funny!


102 posted on 04/11/2011 1:09:46 AM PDT by Vendome ("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

Comment #103 Removed by Moderator

To: Salamander
 

104 posted on 04/11/2011 1:16:21 AM PDT by Vendome ("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Yeah.

That’s why every American is filthy stinking rich.

[oh...wait...just the guy peddling that crap to suckers is loaded...never mind]

/facepalm


105 posted on 04/11/2011 1:18:54 AM PDT by Salamander (I made friends with a lot of people in the Danger Zone.teds herer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

Sorry I called the posse and then went to bed.

I had good reasons, mostly to do with having to get up so much earlier than usual.


106 posted on 04/11/2011 4:28:56 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Thank you for #’s 91 & 92.


107 posted on 04/11/2011 4:34:47 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Salamander; Vendome

108 posted on 04/11/2011 5:09:33 AM PDT by Daffynition (DBKP ~ Death By 1000 Papercuts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Salamander
His 'n hers models... for the 'mander fam. *The family that welds together, stays together,*


109 posted on 04/11/2011 5:13:00 AM PDT by Daffynition (DBKP ~ Death By 1000 Papercuts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
BTW, not clicking on your blob. If there was something worth posting, I figure you would have posted it.

It was so poorly written it was nearly impossible to follow. You didn't miss a thing.

110 posted on 04/11/2011 5:23:57 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
think these people are naive. Ultimately, a civilization's continued existence depends on its martial virtue (in the sense of potency). Plenty of very pious Christians have been erased from this world, including many in what is now Turkey, most of the Middle East and North Africa. Actually, that brings an interesting point, because the contemporary accounts of the Greek Empire in the East by the time of the Crusades had begun to decay morally as well.
111 posted on 04/11/2011 6:16:35 AM PDT by 0beron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson

Thanks Sara and the rest who are courteous.

I’ve been posting here for more than a year with occasional rude posters. No big deal. Generally Freepers are intelligent Americans who are concerned about the welfare of their families and the destiny of their homeland. That’s always what it has been about for me.

The Admins have already told me I was ok, since the Religion section is kind of slow. Don’t much know what all the fuss is about, but if people want me to post entire articles. I don’t care. I’ve actually tried to post/write more lengthy things and it gives me this governor limiting he length of my post, so I’m thinking, oh, excerpts it is. I’m just too lazy to go back through again and post all of the links throughout, but that’s neither here nor there.

Anyhow, I consider a moral life to be the foundation of stable families without which the State, any State, can not long survive. The very nature of homosexuality militates against that and it has done great damage to the Catholic Church, incidentally.

For those who don’t care to read what I’ve written, I’ll direct you to the old Western Canon of Moral and Spiritual Writers from which the inimitable Bishop Sheen derived a great part of his wisdom: +Boussuet, +Manning, de Maistre, Burke, +Bellarmine, +Goffine and the Prophets.

I’ve found it very interesting that in this age, people have left off ascribing God’s wrath to natural calamities. I see no reason for this other than, perhaps, that people no longer trust God’s providence as they once did. If their theodicy no longer includes natural disasters, it also seems to have abandoned man made disasters, or even the thought of condemning behavior which was considered reprehensible even by most people in educated society half a century ago.


112 posted on 04/11/2011 6:37:26 AM PDT by 0beron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

That was my argument. Cause and effect are not simple to determine. However, a few generations ago, the *assertion* would be that Rome fell due to its moral failings. But that was a conclusion based on questionable evidence. Rome was never a terribly moral place. But likewise, most of the immorality was for those that could afford it.

At one point, I’ll note that the Roman government had to ban a common weed from anywhere near Rome, as it was common knowledge that it made a fine poison, especially by housewives tired of their husbands.

Not what you would call the most moral of people.


113 posted on 04/11/2011 6:43:38 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson; paulycy
And obviously blogging pushes their buttons.

I believe that's called "false witness," my dear.

That's like saying the cops arrested a shoplifter because they obviously don't like "shoppers."

Bloggers are fine, even if most are horrible. But that's not the problem. I say bring them on, and I can read the good ones and click off the bad ones. The good ones will get actual hits from me on their sites when I go there to get more.

But posting a teaser when the entire content could have been posted is not contributing. It is using.

If a blogger thinks he has something valuable to contribute, then let him contribute it, and not use FR as a base to post unnecessary teasers to force a redirect to an ad-ridden, and often cookie and flash-ridden, and sometimes virus-ridden site (and I am not bearing false witness here - it happens routinely).

114 posted on 04/11/2011 6:44:34 AM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: 0beron
and it gives me this governor limiting he length of my post

That's called "lying." One of the Big Ten. There is no such governor. It is all laziness. You CAN cut and paste your content, but you choose to tease it and force a redirect.

Are you an FR contributor, or an FR user?

115 posted on 04/11/2011 6:47:04 AM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
That was my argument. Cause and effect are not simple to determine. However, a few generations ago, the *assertion* would be that Rome fell due to its moral failings. But that was a conclusion based on questionable evidence. Rome was never a terribly moral place. But likewise, most of the immorality was for those that could afford it. At one point, I’ll note that the Roman government had to ban a common weed from anywhere near Rome, as it was common knowledge that it made a fine poison, especially by housewives tired of their husbands. Not what you would call the most moral of people. Actually, Rome was a terribly moral place before it became powerful, it was a national characteristic, if you will, which was part of the foundation of family life and the customs of their society, backed by the unwavering objectivity of Roman Law itself which became the basis for our own legal systems in the West. Cause and effect is fairly simple to determine. It is so simple to determine that even the Soviet Union considered homosexuality to be a corrosive vice and sought to cultivate that malaise in Target societies by way of inflitration and demoralization. It wasn't only homosexuals, but encouraging liberals to promote a doctrine of moral relativism, to erode the educational system and the guarantors of moral stability, like churches. I've found Yuri Besmenov's description of this process very interesting. He was a KGB defector who was in charge of promoting this cause of demoralization in the West, and there are quite a few of his tapes and videos available. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=915448763957391352# There's something in the nature of homosexuality and immorality which is poisonous, even if you don't believe that God calls down fire and brimstone on Nations which have embraced it, you can see that the various life ways surrounding it and its large acceptance involve a major denigration of the moral certainty and wholesomeness without which a country can not survive. Of course, the Soviet Union hasn't really fallen, which it appears to have done, despite its own legal and cultural hostility to the bourgeois vice of homosexuality, but that's another story.
116 posted on 04/11/2011 6:55:05 AM PDT by 0beron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis; TheOldLady
So...any requests?

Like Partridge Family, Air Supply or maybe one of those awful one-hit wonder things from the 70s like "Wildfire?"

I mean...I'm at work now, but I feel a song coming on later...

117 posted on 04/11/2011 6:58:23 AM PDT by Allegra (Hey! Stop looking at my tagline like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy; BenKenobi
Rome did not fall because it adopted Christianity, nor that it lost its morals

you are wrong that they did not have morals. Their morals were based on pride in their position etc.

Rome, truly speaking, if you refer to the Empire, only fell in 1453 -- the "Byzantines" called themselves Romaoi (Romans)

Rome would have fallen after Septimus Severus and the disastrous 2nd century when it had a number of different emperors.

the roots go back to the end of the 5 good emperors, to the last, Marcus Aurelius who made the mistake of leaving the Princep position to his actual son instead of adopting a worthy heir as had done Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. Commodus was a disaster and when he was assasinated, then came the year of the 5 emperors. This set the position for Severus who bribed his way.

From 193 AD right up until 284 and the reign of Domitian, the Empire was divided, had invasions by Germanics, had numerous barracks emperors who never even entered Rome etc.

Add to this, the problem of the 1st century when the Han Empire of China attacked and pushed the Xiongnu (huns?), who pushed the Scyths/Sarmatians/Alans, who pushed the Slavs out of their lands in the Ukrain, who pushed the Germanics out of their lands in Eastern Germany and Poland, who pushed the Celts, knocking on the doors of the Roman Empire.

A united Rome under Domitian and Constantine were able to provide a formidable resistance, but Constantine didn't follow Domitian's perfect succession rule (of 2 Augustii and 2 Caesarii) and also moved the imperial capital to Constantinople. Slowly Rome became less important, and by the 400s was a backwater. The Germanics slowly moved in and in many cases were terrified of the ones following them (huns).

Rome the city fell due to the

  1. lack of strong leadership,
  2. Disunity
  3. A tendency of later, weaker rulers to pay off the invaders (which only left them asking for more)
  4. A tendency to move things to the East

118 posted on 04/11/2011 7:03:51 AM PDT by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Allegra

I would so love to hear something about a fine girl, maybe one who had eyes that could even steal a sailor from the sea.


119 posted on 04/11/2011 7:04:44 AM PDT by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: 0beron

Childish, even by blog pimp standards


120 posted on 04/11/2011 7:07:59 AM PDT by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

The only thing I care about is destroying Marxism and promoting Catholicism.


121 posted on 04/11/2011 7:08:14 AM PDT by 0beron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Allegra

How about some Stones? Wild Horses comes to mind. Wildfire is all right too. You will have to go with your muse, I guess.

Anything you sing will sound beautiful, I’m sure. Looking forward to hearing it in your lovely, dulcet voice and your own inimitable style.


122 posted on 04/11/2011 7:09:15 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Rome the city fell due to the 1. lack of strong leadership, 2. Disunity 3. A tendency of later, weaker rulers to pay off the invaders (which only left them asking for more) 4. A tendency to move things to the East

Re: 1 Rome had plenty of strong leadership, sometimes too strong.

Re: 2 Sure, when the central government fell because it could no longer levy sufficient troops or depend on its governors because they couldn't be trusted to act with the interests of the State, it became disunited. I think part of it is the familiar problem of the people no l longer trusting their leadership.

But how do you suppose they got to the stage that there was a crisis in confidence about the leadership, and the inability to levy troops in sufficient numbers? Again, part of the problem is that their birthrate was so low, they had to depend on foreigners and mercenaries to man their armies. Even their Generals, like Stilicho, were Germans or foreign nationals.

I'll submit to you that the low birthrate was partly a result urbanization and the public dole, but primarily the moral decline of the civilization as a whole. Roman Society no longer had that firm agrarian Latin peasant with a religious piety for the land and a patriotic fervour for Rome and her institutions, he had left the lands and gone into the cities because the agricultural production was done primarily by slave labor, while the numerous foreign wars fought by the Empire displaced him too. Also, many Romans settled in far-flung areas to the East and West, forming the basis of the Latin Civilization which survived the Roman Empire in time. So, the old Roman Legions were no more because the immorality of Roman society led to the decay of family life, the displacement of Romans from their traditions. And since the family had deteriorated, you no longer had a stable place for Roman citizens to be born, no virtuous young women to be suitable brides for virtuous young men to be the building blocks of the State as a whole; sounds familiar.

123 posted on 04/11/2011 7:20:11 AM PDT by 0beron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: All
and yet homersaxuality did not destroy Romaoi -- firstly, as I pointed out, the final fall of the Roman empire was in 1453 and the populace was quite orthodox, thank you

if you take the city of Roma, then no -- gays were more rampant a few centuries earlier -- read about Elagabulus the Roman emperor in 218 AD who had a blonde slace named Hierocles (Gallic probably from modern day Turkey) whom he called his husband, He was described as having been "delighted to be called the mistress, the wife, the Queen of Hierocles" and was said to have offered vast sums of money to the physician who could equip him with female genitalia (Cassius)

This guy did lead to the decline before Domitian, but this was in 218-222 AD, 200+ years before the city fell to Roman-trained, Alaric in 410 and then Odoacer, a Roman cultured Germanic defeated Romulus Augustus in 476 AD. This was not due to homosexuality.

124 posted on 04/11/2011 7:21:08 AM PDT by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TheOldLady; Allegra

She even sat in a couple of times with that notorious band “HammerFrog”.


125 posted on 04/11/2011 7:21:12 AM PDT by humblegunner (Blogger Overlord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

Comment #126 Removed by Moderator

To: Cronos

The Romaioi had the same problems that the Empire in the West had, although Orthodoxy in the East as in the West served as a stabilizing factor, but as in the Latin West, the Orthodox East had problems maintaining any kind of stable source of manpower loyal to the State. Part of the problem was too much centralization and high taxes, debasing the coinage, but all of that is ancillary to the moral, and there are many accounts of the immorality of the Romaik Empire told even by Monks and Bishops, threatening of a deluge. Indeed, when the city fell in 1453, most of the troops manning the walls were Italian and German mercenaries.


127 posted on 04/11/2011 7:28:32 AM PDT by 0beron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

Comment #128 Removed by Moderator

To: 0beron
Re: 1 Rome had plenty of strong leadership, sometimes too strong.

Rome the city had no strong leadership from the death of Constantine -- the Western Emperors were uniformally weak. Rome the Empire (Constantinople based) had wark emperors from the death of Theodosius I in 395 AD until the rise of Justinian.

Sure, when the central government fell because it could no longer levy sufficient troops or depend on its governors because they couldn't be trusted to act with the interests of the State, it became disunited.

Not completely correct -- the disunity was caused by various generals all declaring themselves to be concurrent Imperators.

But how do you suppose they got to the stage that there was a crisis in confidence about the leadership, and the inability to levy troops in sufficient numbers? --> because of two reasons:

  1. Septimus Severus showing that power came from the end of a lance (the earlier emperors hid this fact)
  2. The decree of Caracalla in AD 212 Constitutio Antoniniana that granted citizenship to all free inhabitants of the Empire -- prior to this to become a citizen, if you were not Socii or from Roma itself you had to put in time in the army as an auxiliary. This decree destroyed that

Again, part of the problem is that their birthrate was so low, they had to depend on foreigners and mercenaries to man their armies. Even their Generals, like Stilicho, were Germans or foreign nationals. -- the birthrate was not "so low" -- don't forget that the Romans spread over Dacia, to Britannia and their blood is to be found in all of these places. The "foreign nationals" you call were Roman citizens, Roma did not care for your birth ethnicity. They even had a Semitic Emperor and probably a black/Berber (confused information on that) one too. It did not matter, they were Roman

primarily the moral decline of the civilization as a whole -- no proof of that at all after the Empire adopted Christianity. If anything, morals improved and were better in 410 compared to that under Elagabulus

. Roman Society no longer had that firm agrarian Latin peasant with a religious piety for the land and a patriotic fervour for Rome and her institutions, he had left the lands and gone into the cities because the agricultural production was done primarily by slave labor, while the numerous foreign wars fought by the Empire displaced him too. -- incorrect, the Latin peasant was still around, he also had farms in gallia, aquitania, belgia and Dacia and iberia. The foreign wars fought by the Empire did not displace him in any way as the wars were initially fought outside the boundaries of the empire and when won, the land was given to legionnaries to settle down and make roman in culture -- which they did

And since the family had deteriorated, you no longer had a stable place for Roman citizens to be born, no virtuous young women to be suitable brides for virtuous young men to be the building blocks of the State as a whole; sounds familiar. nice take from Gibbons, but not factual. As I said, morals actually improved in the 300s compared to the 200s.

129 posted on 04/11/2011 7:32:55 AM PDT by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: 0beron

I’m sorry but your analyses and comparison of Eastern and Western Empires is incorrect. The centralization and high taxes were not the root causes of the fall, they were the problems of the 200s century not the 300s.


130 posted on 04/11/2011 7:35:32 AM PDT by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner; Allegra

She must have been the highlight of those evenings.

Allegra, you make my day when you sing, truly! ;-)


131 posted on 04/11/2011 7:44:51 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: TheOldLady; Allegra

Oh Allegra! Please sing us a song! One full of emotion! Please! We await your great talent!


132 posted on 04/11/2011 7:57:53 AM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis (Want to make $$$? It's easy! Use FR as a platform to pimp your blog for hits!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

Comment #133 Removed by Moderator

To: 0beron
The only thing I care about is destroying Marxism and promoting Catholicism.

Then why not quit excerpting your own words and post the full content at Free Republic.

Would that not get more of your words read by more people? Why limit it only to those that continue on to your blog?

134 posted on 04/11/2011 9:25:30 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
I’m sorry but your analyses and comparison of Eastern and Western Empires is incorrect. The centralization and high taxes were not the root causes of the fall, they were the problems of the 200s century not the 300s.

Centralization and high taxes were not root causes. The collapse of morality was. I never said that. They were certainly significant. Actually, decentralization was a becoming a significant problem in the 300s after Constantine. You wrote that you believe that morals were improving in the fourth and fifth century. What evidence do you have have for this?

135 posted on 04/11/2011 9:39:40 AM PDT by 0beron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

I’ll be reading this. I like the Cato Institute for starters, but the first couple of sentences caught my attention.

It’s one thing I alluded to above with regard to State Socialism in the Roman Empire. It as certainly a factor and seems to belie what you’re saying when you say centralization and taxation wasn’t a problem in the 300s. The Reforms of Diocletian for example, attempting to stop inflation not only by freezing prices, but occupations as well:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html


136 posted on 04/11/2011 9:55:06 AM PDT by 0beron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

Comment #137 Removed by Moderator

To: thackney
Would that not get more of your words read by more people? Why limit it only to those that continue on to your blog?

Maybe his blog gets a lot more daily page views than Free Republic.

snort...

snort..

BWAAAHAAAHHAAAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAAAA!

138 posted on 04/11/2011 10:47:07 AM PDT by humblegunner (Blogger Overlord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

Comment #139 Removed by Moderator

Comment #140 Removed by Moderator

To: Allegra
;-D   That's great news. Their all over the dang place.
141 posted on 04/11/2011 11:26:29 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
She even sat in a couple of times with that notorious band “HammerFrog”.

I heard "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" on AFN Radio yesterday and thought of Hammerfrog.

142 posted on 04/11/2011 11:27:12 AM PDT by Allegra (Hey! Stop looking at my tagline like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

Comment #143 Removed by Moderator

To: humblegunner
And now, all of a sudden, I'm remembering the night you called me and said "We've got a problem...see, us Hammerfrog guys were at the bar tonight..." (I thought I was going to have to get bail money when I heard that)...

...and asked if I could learn vocals on about two hours worth of songs in five days because y'all had committed to a gig...LOL

Never forget that I didn't say "no." ;-)

144 posted on 04/11/2011 11:31:38 AM PDT by Allegra (Hey! Stop looking at my tagline like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Allegra

Well, yeah... there was that! ;-)


145 posted on 04/11/2011 11:43:58 AM PDT by humblegunner (Blogger Overlord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

Take it easy, salamander. I am not that into your hysteria on this topic.

Data mining by marketers is nothing new on the Internet and there are plenty of tools to disarm it. I understand your anger over the invasion of privacy you wish the Internet respected. It irks me, too. I sure don’t think protecting all the outrage that comes to you with the topic of data mining belongs on the head of a blogger who came here to share an interesting article from an conservative angle not covered in the mainstream press.

My reading comprehension is pretty good most of the time. Just so you know.


146 posted on 04/11/2011 12:02:39 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

Comment #147 Removed by Moderator

Comment #148 Removed by Moderator

Comment #149 Removed by Moderator

Comment #150 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-243 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson