The War on Christmas in Europe : 'Pink Christmas"

[Lars1701a]

Homosexuality brought down the Roman Empire?

I am kidding, but I think how decadent its leaders became might have had a bit to do with it

[Troll]

Homosexuality brought down the Roman Empire?

Doubtful. The stigma surrounding homosexuality was virtually unknown to the Romans and Greeks. Women were seen as weak and stupid - only good for bearing children. Plus, you can't exactly bring women with you on campaigns designed to conquer the world, can you?

Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristotle, Zeno of Elea, Socrates and Hadrian - all either known or suspected to have had male lovers at some point in their lives.

[Molon Labe]

The original Christmas was a Roman pagan holiday, complete with sexual orgies, drinking binges, praying to phallic symbols, and all-around debauchery (also, gifts were exchanged, which is where we got the tradition). It had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. The early Christians simply pulled the date out of their ass to correspond to the Roman pagan winter festivals.

So yes, wilbur is correct. It has come full circle.;)

Who really cares that some celebrated it as Pagan festival and others as a religious "Holy Christ Mass"

Facts are that this country and Christianity are linked regardless.

Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? ... Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in theprogress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth. That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?- John Quincy Adams

[enslaved1]

Ahh how things come back around full circle. In days gone by, Christmas holidays were celebrated by massive amounts of drinking and cross dressing (seriously).

How about this deal, you can have Dec. 25th back, and "gay" will go back to meaning happy, sound fair? The "what it used to be" argument is fertilizer. Oh noez, the RCC chose the date of a pagan holiday to celebrate Jesus' birth to help cut down on the celebration of the former. Get over it. The date is known to be inaccurate, but that is not the point. The point is, just like Linus tells us every year, "Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord."

[Mythic]

The original Christmas was a Roman pagan holiday, complete with sexual orgies, drinking binges, praying to phallic symbols, and all-around debauchery (also, gifts were exchanged, which is where we got the tradition). It had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. The early Christians simply pulled the date out of their ass to correspond to the Roman pagan winter festivals.

So yes, wilbur is correct. It has come full circle.;)

Yet it wasn't called Christmas so it isn't the same holiday. Obviously nowadays Christmas is not about sexual orgys.

[Lager]

Doubtful. The stigma surrounding homosexuality was virtually unknown to the Romans and Greeks. Women were seen as weak and stupid - only good for bearing children. Plus, you can't exactly bring women with you on campaigns designed to conquer the world, can you?

Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristotle, Zeno of Elea, Socrates and Hadrian - all either known or suspected to have had male lovers at some point in their lives.

Is that supposed to illustrate how enlightened they were?

[wilbur]

How about this deal, you can have Dec. 25th back, and "gay" will go back to meaning happy, sound fair? The "what it used to be" argument is fertilizer. Oh noez, the RCC chose the date of a pagan holiday to celebrate Jesus' birth to help cut down on the celebration of the former. Get over it. The date is known to be inaccurate, but that is not the point. The point is, just like Linus tells us every year, "Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord."

The "what it used to be" argument isnt 'fertilizer'... it squarely puts the 'How dare you modify X, or trample on the eternal and unchanged institution of X' arguments out to dry.... which often centre around x-mas and marriage.

But in this case I wasn't really arguing anything.. just pointing out some odd and amusing trivia.

[Molon Labe]

The "what it used to be" argument isnt 'fertilizer'... it squarely puts the 'How dare you modify X, or trample on the eternal and unchanged institution of X' arguments out to dry.... which often centre around x-mas and marriage.

But in this case I wasn't really arguing anything.. just pointing out some odd and amusing trivia.

I think traditions bond societies and give us a sense of belonging....which isn't such a bad thing.

The big problem with progressives today is that they believe that they are so enlightened over their elders that it's in everyone's best interest to modify X.
As if the only reason's those who devised X did so because they were benighted or they simply wanted to control others or had some other evil intention.

Sometimes X was the conclsuion reached by historical trial and error. X meant more probability for success in society. I'm refering more to marriage than Christmas.....but you made an interesting point.

So back on topic.

[enslaved1]

The "what it used to be" argument isnt 'fertilizer'... it squarely puts the 'How dare you modify X, or trample on the eternal and unchanged institution of X' arguments out to dry.... which often centre around x-mas and marriage.

Splain the difference Lucy. If it's horrible to turn Dec. 25 from a Winter Solstice orgy into a celebration of Jesus' birth, why is it not horrible to change the many millennium old practice of marriage between man and women to include whoever and whatever the participants want?

But in this case I wasn't really arguing anything.. just pointing out some odd and amusing trivia.

Nope, not arguing, just antagonizing. You're good at it, and you're more intelligent about it than most stirrers. Don't be so modest.