• Home
  • About
  • Objectives
  • Membership
  • Donations
  • Activities
  • Research Reports
  • Submissions
  • Newsletters
  • Contact

SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

  • Censorship
    • Censorship & New Technology
    • Film Ratings
    • Films
  • Crime
    • Rape statistics
    • Television Violence
    • Violence
    • Youth Crime
  • Enforcement
  • Family
    • Anti-smacking Bill
    • Families Commission
    • Marriage
  • Gambling Addiction
  • Political Advocacy
  • Pro-life
    • Abortion
  • Prostitution
  • Sexuality
    • Child Sex Crimes
    • Civil Unions
    • HIV/AIDS STIs
    • Homosexuality
    • Kinsey Fraud
    • Porn Link to Rape
    • Pornography
    • Sex Studies
    • Sexual Dysfunction
  • Other
    • Alcohol abuse
    • Announcement
    • Application For Leave
    • Broadcasting Standards Authority
    • Celebrating Christian Tradition
    • Children’s Television
    • Complaints to Broadcasters
    • Computer games
    • Film & Lit Board Reviews
    • Film & Lit. Board Appointments
    • Human Dignity
    • Moral Values
    • Newsletters
    • Newspaper Articles
    • Recommended Books
    • Submissions
    • YouTube

Same-sex “Marriage”: The Roman Emperors

March 28, 2013 by SPCS 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

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage, Sexual Dysfunction Tagged With: Emperor Elagabalus, Emperor Nero, Homosexuality, pederasty, Roman Emperors, same-sex marriage

‘Same-sex marriage’ bill and its negative impact on children under Adoption laws

March 26, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Media Release 26 March 2013

Petition to Attorney-General: Re ‘Same-sex marriage’ bill and its negative impact on Adoption Act 1955

The Society (SPCS) has sent a petition to the A-G, the Hon. Chris Finlayson, calling on him to fulfil his legal duty under s. 7 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) to inform parliament that the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Bill is in breach of BORA with respect to not only its “Consequential Amendments” relating to the Adoption Act 1955, and its removal of the terms “husband” and “wife” from at least 14 Acts of parliament – both replaced by a new definition of “spouse” (to include SSM couples); – but also in its amendment of the Marriage Act 1955 to allow same-sex couples to be granted marriage certificates.

SPCS contends that same-sex marriage (SSM) is an oxymoron and that the A-G must inform parliament that it is not authorised to enact meaningless legislation. The bill, if passed, would authorise the state for the first time to grant special “rights” to same-sex couples once they are labelled “spouses” under SSM, to both legally a adopt a child and become its adoptive parents; whether that child is unrelated biologically to both adults, or biologically related to just one of them. By law both homosexual’s names would have to be recorded on the Adoption Order. Of course heterosexual married couples under current law can adopt in parallel situations and this serves the public good and the child’s best interests – to have both a mother and father.

For the state to grant to two homosexuals in a SSM the right to adopt a boy or girl, and for both to be designated in law as his/her “parents” (to the exclusion of his/her birth mother), is not in the best interests of the child and is in breach of BOR. It denies the inherent right of the child to have (ideally) both a mother and a father.

A birth mother ‘Louisa’, for example, in such cases could be acting as a commercial surrogate for two married homosexual men, ‘Chis’ and ‘Peter’, neither of whom provide sperm material, and she may well be in a formal lesbian relationship (civil union or marriage) or an informal one (de facto). Sperm could be provided by another homosexual man ‘Tim’, known to ‘Chris’ and ‘Peter’ and ‘Louisa’ from among the wider so-called “Rainbow Community”.

For the purpose of the Birth Certificate Louisa’s name is required by law to be entered as the child’s mother and any female partner she has must be entered as the other “parent” too. At the point an Adoption Oder is granted to Chris and Peter, both these homosexual men would become the “adoptive parents”. Now the child has two ‘daddys” and two ‘mummys”, or looked at another way, a ‘male mummy’ and a ‘male daddy’ AND another ‘female daddy’ and a ‘female mummy’. This what the child will eventually have to come to terms with and communicate to her teachers, friends and peers.

Such complex absurdities that make a mockery of, and degrade the true concept of “mother” and “father”, are common-place in the homosexual community world-wide, where lesbians often refers publicly to their female marriage partner as their husband (and vice versa) and homosexual men refer to their married partners as their wife (and vice versa).

The universally understood concept of fatherhood and motherhood embodied in article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and article 23(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICPR), both of which NZ is a signatory to, involves a child’s parents being a mother (male) and a father (male). Of course an adoptive mother and/or father is consistent with these conventions (whether biologically related or not); but not the concept of two same-sex ‘married’ persons both being parents of a child and living as “spouses” with the child.

The proposed amendments to the Marriage Act 1955 in Louisa Wall’s legally flawed bill, discriminate against heterosexual married persons on the basis of their marriage status, and/or on persons based on their religious belief e.g. that marriage is ordained by God as limited to a man and woman (see petition to A-G).

The Quilter v. Attorney-General ruling [1998] by the Court of Appeal, determined unequivocally that same-sex couples are not discriminated against in terms of marriage under the Marriage Act 1955.

Auckland Family Lawyer Norman Elliott has expressed serious misgivings (NZ Herald 11/03/13) over the bill with respect to its impact on the Adoption Act 1955, stating:

“As well as allowing adoption by married couples the present act allows an individual person to adopt a child, although there are restrictions on a male adopting a female child. There are children living in families where the parent figures are same-sex couples, one of whom is the legal adoptive parent.

“Because this situation is allowed under the law it might be suggested it is only a small step to allow both adults to become adoptive parents. A mother or a father bringing up a child on their own is common in our society. That is very different however from a child having two legal fathers or two legal mothers, the consequence of same-sex adoption…. It would be irresponsible of Parliament and an injustice to children to approve a change to long-established adoption law on the coat tails of a change to marriage law. Such a change should only come about after due parliamentary process and full public debate.”

Parliament must be informed by the A-G that the proposed bill championed by Louisa Wall breaches BORA in a number of areas and cannot proceed due to aspects of its meaningless content. Adopted children ideally deserve as of right – both a loving mother and a loving father.

Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (Contact: spcs.org@gmail.com)

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Family, Homosexuality, Marriage Tagged With: Adoption Act 1955, Attorney-General, Bill of Rights Act, BORA, Chris Finlayson, definition of marriage, Quilter v Attorney-General

SPCS written submission on the Marriage Amendment Bill

March 23, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Submission on The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill to

Government Administration Committee

by

Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.

Conclusion reads:

Parliament has no authority to redefine marriage and should not presume to engineer changes to a natural institution that constitutes the very fabric of society. Marriage is foundational to understanding and expressing the true nature of our humanity comprising the complementarity of the sexes in true union and the procreation of new life issued from that true union. Same-sex couples have the freedom to form meaningful and legally recognised relationships under the Civil Union Act. The concept of same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage by definition involves a man and a woman and its unique and distinctive quality must be preserved, protected and promoted by the State. The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill should be rejected. The explanations provided in the Bill for amending the principal Act are legally flawed. Amendments to the Civil Union Act rather than the Marriage Act should be the means by which the GLBT community address their issues of inequality, denial of “rights” and claimed discrimination etc.

The full text is below, or you can access the PDF version (128kB) here.

[Read more…]

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Civil Unions, Family, Marriage, Moral Values, Submissions Tagged With: definition of marriage, government, law, Marriage, marriage amendment bill, marriage celebrants, marriage coalition

Why same-sex marriage law bent on making parents progenitors – NBR Online

March 22, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Centuries old terms used to describe aspects of marriage and parenthood will disappear in the stroke of a pen when the same-sex marriage bill is passed in a few weeks.

And it will result in alterations to almost 200 acts of parliament to incorporate the new “gender cosy” terminology.

“Husband” and “wife” will each be replaced by “spouse” while the collective term of “husband and wife” will be replaced by “married couple.”

What terms, if any, will be used to replace “father” and “mother” is not clear.

[Article by Rod Vaughan. National Business Review Online 19 March 2013.]

See: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/why-same-sex-marriage-bill-may-turn-parents-progenitors-rv-p-137458

In Spain, where a socialist government introduced same-sex marriage in 2005, the terms “father” and “mother” have been replaced by “progenitor A” and “progenitor B” on birth certificates.

Which raises the question of who is on the A-list and who is on on the B-side?

According to Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis, this was done to deal with the “two mothers” or “two fathers” issue.”

He told NBR ONLINE that New Zealand birth certificates must carry the name of the biological mother and father only. [Read more…]

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage Tagged With: Attorney-General, Christopher Finlayson, gay celibate, gender neutral terminology, homosexual couples, same-sex marriage

Bylaw hopes to ban Steve Crow’s Boobs on Bikes – Sunlive

March 21, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Sunlive News: 21 March 2013: Tauranga City Council’s special bylaw aimed at banning topless women riding through town on motorbikes was passed this week.

The changes to Tauranga’s Street Use and Public Places Bylaw were called for after promoter Steve Crow rode over the previous one when he brought the Boobs on Bikes parade to Tauranga in August 2011.

Councillors attempted to stop the parade by denying a permit, but were unable to as under the old bylaw a parade could only be halted due to traffic management issues.

Claims that the parade is offensive are ineffectual because the New Zealand High Court has ruled that it is not an offence for a woman to bare her breasts in public.

The revamped section 19 of the bylaw still uses ‘offensive’ as a reason to ban a parade, but it has gone a step further.

Under the changes council can refuse permission if the parade gives rise to some form of public disorder, for example, whether viewed objectively it may have a reasonable likelihood of dissuading others from enjoying their right to use the public place by entering or remaining in it.

In other words, if the council staff think some people might want to stay away from the city while the parade goes past, or because of any other assembly in town, then that is a reason to ban it.

A parade can also now be banned if council reasonably believes the activity will unreasonably impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic access to or along any public place or to any shops or premises.

“We will probably end up in court anyway, but we will have some grounds,” says corporate solicitor Joanne Gread.

Source: Article by Andrew Campbell

Thursday 21st Mar, 2013

http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/40678-bylaw-hopes-to-ban-boobs-on-bikes.html

Earlier story

Wednesday 13th June 2012

http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/26803-antiboob-rule-passed.html

________________________

On October 12th, 2008, former ACT Part MP Stephen Franks wrote on his blog on the Subject “Boobs on Bikes”

How will Morning Report reflect candidate comments on Steve Crow’s plan to run his Boobs on Bikes parade in Wellington on election day?

When Radio NZ called this evening I found myself resenting the attention to Crow’s stunt, and wanting to find some way to make the issue so boring that RNZ would drop the item. Before calling RNZ back I wondered whether my instinct was just envy, prompted by the lack of RNZ interest in what seem to me more important questions facing Wellington voters.

I felt my resentment was not prudery, because I could not imaging myself being offended by the parade, even if it seems tawdry. Pictures of the Auckland parade make the crowds seem curious but shortchanged more than anything else.

The Radio NZ interest shows that Crow will attract enough controversy to mix with titillation to get his crowds. I’d be very surprised if the Wellington City Council could stop the parade. I’m not sure that they should be free to stop it. 

So why would I prefer Crow to fail?

I think it is because exploitation of the power to cause offence is such a cheap tactic, and because it cheapens those whose reactions make it work, yet if they do not react their values are cheapened. 

Many things cause offense to some section of our community that do not offend others. For example some Christians are deeply offended by blasphemy. Some conscience stricken liberals are upset by ethnic stereotype jokes. Some Maori are put off by people sitting on tables where food is served. None of those behaviours would upset me, except in one circumstance – that is where there are people present who do find them offensive.

In that case I  feel embarrassed in anticipation of the rudeness shown by causing such offense, even where I can not feel the underlying offense.

I think we should feel vicarious offense on behalf of our fellows, where the offense is pointless, and able to be avoided with simple good manners. A civilised society has social pressures to sustain such manners. Causing pointless offence should have a cost that outweighs the benefits from challenging a taboo to gain notoriety for its own sake.

Succcess for Steve Crow’s stunt weakens those social sanctions. His parade will be offensive to some sincere people. Crow’s cause is Crow’s mercenary interest. And so, because he is likely to benefit from the media interest, and the portrayal of at least some of those who will be offended as fuddy-duddy, I hope that he falls on his face, without much expectation that it will happen.

I covered this briefly with Radio NZ. I wonder how much of this angle will be in their item in the morning?

Source:

http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/boobs-on-bikes/

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Censorship, Enforcement, Pornography Tagged With: Boobs on Bikes, bylaw, Stephen Franks, Steve Crow, Tauranga City Council

« Previous Page
Next Page »
SPCS Facebook Page

Subscribe to website updates:

The Pilgrim’s Progress

Getting "The Pilgrim’s Progress" to
every prisoner in NZ prisons.

Recent Comments

  • John on The term ‘Homophobia’: Its Origins and Meanings, and its uses in Homosexual Agenda
  • SPCS on Corporate corruption in New Zealand – “Banning badly behaving company directors”
  • Anne on Corporate corruption in New Zealand – “Banning badly behaving company directors”
  • Jake on John Clancy: Troubled Global group costs Christchurch City Council another $37,000
  • Jake on John Clancy: Troubled Global group costs Christchurch City Council another $37,000

Family Values & Community Standards

  • Coalition for Marriage
  • ECPAT New Zealand
  • Family Voice Australia
  • Parents Inc.

Internet Safety

  • Netsafe Internet Safety Group

Pro-Life Groups

  • Family Life International
  • Right to Life
  • The Nathaniel Centre
  • Voice for Life
(Click here for larger image)

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.