Saint Nero, Patron of Gay Marriage

Saint Nero, Patron of Gay Marriage


BY R.V. YOUNG JULY 23,2015

Regard this essay as a qualified mea culpa. I have long maintained that there is no point in arguing against “gay marriage,” because there are no arguments for it. To argue that a “homosexual” has no right to marry another man is not unlike arguing that a unicorn has no right to be a computer programmer. The proposition is absurd on its face, and so to argue against it is to offer it unwarranted credibility. As evidence, I have remarked that at no time before the late twentieth century—at least within the boundaries of Western civilization—had anyone contemplated marriage between two individuals of the same sex.

Alas, on this second point, historical memory had failed me. Here is Suetonius in theLives of the Caesars VI: Nero: “Having castrated the slave boy Sporus and willing even to change his nature to feminine, [Nero] took him to wife by the usual ceremony of marriage with a dowry and bridal veil.” The Roman historian continues: “This Sporus, adorned with ornaments of an empress and conveyed in a litter, he accompanied around the courts and markets of Greece and later around the image makers’ mart in Rome, kissing him fondly again and again” (VI.28).

Despite the judgmental language of Suetonius—it was, after all, an intolerant, benighted era—it is clear from his account that Nero was ahead of his time in recognizing thesocial construction of gender and the mobility of desire and acting upon this perception, so he would seem to be a suitable role model for today’s gender warriors:

Having prostituted his own sense of decency to such an extent that almost every part of his body was defiled, he at last thought up a kind of game in which, covered in the skin of a wild beast, he was released from a cage and assailed the groins of men and women bound to a stake and, when he had amply worked off his fury, it was finished off by his freedman, Doryphorus. To him, Nero gave himself as a bride, even as he had taken Sporus, imitating no less the cries and wailing of virgins suffering forcible violation.   (VI.29)

Another Roman historian, Tacitus, also mentions (in regrettably similar opprobrious terms) that Nero, “who had omitted no form of depravity, gave himself in marriage to one of that herd of degenerates that go by the name of “Pythagorean” with full nuptial rites” (Annals XV.37).

Neither Suetonius nor Tacitus, however, condemns all of Nero’s actions, and their approval marks another feature of his reign that ought to recommend him gender-equality activists.   After giving an account of the great fire, which destroyed much of Rome in A.D. 64, Tacitus points out that Nero had fallen under popular suspicion of having ordered the fire:

In order, therefore, to dispel the rumor Nero substituted as culprits and tormented with exquisite punishments men loathed for their outrageous behavior, whom the mob calls Christians. … [A] vast number of them were convicted less for the crime of arson than for hatred of the human race. And ridicule was added to their perishing, as they were covered in the hides of wild beasts and ripped apart by dogs, or attached to crosses or pinioned for burning, and when daylight failed were set ablaze in order to illuminate the night. (Annals XV.44)

To be sure, Tacitus goes on to admit that Nero’s savagery was such that it earned even the “guilty” Christians some pity.

Nevertheless, Nero’s zeal will surely recommend itself to contemporary guardians of tolerance and activists who wish to make certain that hatred is banished from the world. Nero certainly would have found a more suitable punishment than Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian for the Oregon couple, Aaron and Melissa Klein—who used to own a bakery—than a trivial $135,000 fine. If you consider the “emotional and mental suffering” that the Kleins inflicted upon Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer (I am not making that name up) by declining to bake a cake for their lesbian nuptials, then destroying the business of a family with five children and imposing a paltry monetary penalty seems a mere “slap on the wrist.” Brad Avakian—and for that matter, Justice Anthony Kennedy—could learn something from the Emperor Nero about how to repress hatred and intolerance. After all, what is the fate of five children when hurt feelings and the dignity of alternative lifestyles are at stake?

Of course, it may be more humane, even prudent, to follow the moderate program of Pliny, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus half a century after Nero during the reign of the Emperor Trajan. In his report to Trajan on his dealings with the Christians (Epistulae X.96), Pliny says that he had erected images of the gods and of the Emperor and supplied incense and wine so that those accused of being Christians might worship the idols and “in addition speak ill of Christ” (“praeterea male dicerent Christo”). Since no Christian would do so, those who submitted to the procedure would be exonerated.

Nowadays secular society has its own equivalents of forcing reluctant Christians to worship the gods and the Emperor: diversity training sessions, anger management classes, re-education camps—and baking cakes. So far these procedures have not been enforced, as Pliny’s were, by the threat of the death penalty (“supplicium minatus”). But who knows what the future holds?

Despite his easy-going tolerance, like his contemporaries Tacitus and Suetonius, Pliny makes it clear in the same letter that he found Christianity to be a “vicious, unrestrained superstition” (“superstitionem pravam et immodicam”). He confirmed the information gleaned from interviews with apostates through questioning two slave girls, who were called deaconesses (“ministri’), by means of torture (“per tormenta” – moderation has its limits). Here is the dreadful truth that he uncovered about the “tenacity and unbending stubbornness” (“pertinaciam … et inflexibilem obstinationem”) of Christians:

This was the sum of their guilt or error, that they were accustomed to meet before dawn on a fixed day, and to sing a hymn to Christ as to a god and among themselves to take a mutual pledge, not to engage in some wickedness, but to refrain from theft, robbery, and adultery, not to break faith, nor to refuse to restore a deposit that was called for. After having done these things, it was their custom, once they had dispersed, to come together again for taking some food—just ordinary, innocent food.

In the face of such depravity, Pliny’s moderation and tolerance are, doubtless, commendable. Still, as any enlightened progressive can see, Christians are obviously a threat to sound social order for refusing to worship the gods—Eros and Aphrodite, for instance, who are so important to tolerant modern citizens—and the Emperor, who provides the bread and circuses. Therefore, we ought not to dismiss Nero’s salutary example.

Even ancient Christians grudgingly admired him after their own fashion. The historian Eusebius, for example, gives Nero credit for being “the first of the emperors who showed himself the enemy of divine religion” (Church History XXV), and he quotes Tertullian as saying, “We even glory in having such a founder of our condemnation. For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was something very good” (Apologeticus 5). They thus admit that this emperor knew what he was about.

Nero seems, then, the ideal patron of “gay marriage,” which, as he would have known, has little to do with “marriage equality,” but is indispensable as a tool for suppressing once and for all Christian superstition. It is outrageous that modern men and women on the right side of history should still have to put up with this obstacle to the creation of a loving, tolerant, hate-free society of limitless diversity and absolute equality!Hence my “apology” for assuming that same-sex “marriage” lacked an historical precedent. Today’s activists have a wonderfully fitting model in a man whose attitude toward both human sexuality and Christian morals anticipated theirs. As for the want of rational argument—Nero shows that it is hardly necessary when the power of the government and, in our time, the weight of elite opinion, are on your side.

Read the source & comments:

R.V. Young


R. V. Young was for many years a professor of Renaissance Literature and Literary Criticism in the English Department of North Carolina State University. He is the co-founder and co-editor (with M. Thomas Hester) of the John Donne Journal, and author of multiple books and articles primarily related to the study of literature. He became the editor of the conservative quarterly Modern Age in 2007.

Related Articles/ Videos:

Breaking: Supreme Court Redefines Marriage Throughout USA

5 Implications of the US Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Decision

US Supreme Court Decision on Marriage “A Tragic Error” Says Archbishop Kurtz, President of USCCB

US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy replaces the “Laws of Nature” with his own on Gay Marriage

Archbishop Gomez: Creation and the Future of Marriage

Bishop Strickland’s Statement on US Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex Marriage

What does the legalization of gay marriage mean for the Catholic Church?

Catholic Activist: Justice Kennedy betrayed Christ in Gay Marriage Decision

Redefining Marriage, Part 1-10: Who’s to blame? The root of the problem.

Catholic Respond to Brave New Roe: One Nation, Divided Over Marriage

11 Most Devastating Quotes from John Robert’s Gay Marriage Dissent

12 Quotes: “Marriage Equality” spells the death of marriage

Supreme Court Decision in Obergefell vs. Hodges on Homosexual Marriage as National Policy

12 Quotes against Sodomy that every Catholic should know

Taking back marriage

The #1 Reason the Catholic Church won’t support same-sex marriage

Surrender to Sodomy: Supreme Court’s Decision on Gay Marriage

The Gospel and “Gay Marriage”

Obergefell destroyed marriage as legal contract. It did not destroy marriage

Fr. Barron on Gay Marriage and the Breakdown of Moral Argument

Why “Gay Marriage” is wrong?

The US Supreme Court: A Despotic Agent of Change

In Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage US Supreme Court Rejects Natural Law and Provokes God’s Wrath

Unnatural is the New Normal

Satan Hates Marriage

Franciscan University presents: Why marriage matters?

Pope Francis: List of tips to make a marriage work

Why the Episcopalians Voted for Gay Marriage?

40 Questions for Christians Now Waving Rainbow Flags

Abandoning the full meaning of marriage

After Obergefell on same-sex marriage: The Effects on Law, Culture & Marriage

How to discuss “gay marriage” (Part 1-3)?

Saint Nero, Patron of Gay Marriage

Here-under are some articles about marriage for you to read or watch: 

  1. Getting to know you, please click this link:
  2. Be Positive, please click this link:
  3. Love and Marriage, please click this link:
  4. Endless Love – Marriage after all, please click this link:
  5. Say it with love, please click this link:
  6. Quality family moments, please click this link:
  7. Secret of successful marriage, please click this link:
  8. The vocation of marriage, please click this link:
  9. Marriage as Covenant, please click this link:
  10. Humility: Foundation for Marital Happiness, please click this link:
  11. Gratitude: Foundation for marriage, please click this link:
  12. True Meaning of marriage, please click this link:
  13. Marriage and incompatibility, please click this link:
  14. Love is a garden, please click this link:
  15. Three kinds of love, please click this link:

“God himself is the author of marriage” (GS 48:1). The vocation of marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes (CCC:1603)

FBI Homosexuality. Many believe the Freemasons are simply a centuries-old charitable fraternity. However, the Catholic Church has consistently condemned Freemasonry more than any other error in its history because it promotes indifferentism, naturalism, communism, and other dangerous philosophies.

Please click this link to watch the video on FBI Homosexuality by Michael Voris

Homosexuality, the Grave Evil Presented as Good, Part 1

Please click this link to watch the video on Homosexuality: Grave Evil Presented as Good, Part 1

Homosexuality, Question and Answer Part 2

Please click this link to watch the video on Homosexuality, Q & A

Homosexuals and Freemasons inside the Church

Please click this link to watch the video on Homosexual and Freemasons inside the Church by Michael Voris

“The Rite of Sodomy” Homosexuality in the Roman Catholic Church

Please click this link to watch the video on “The Rite of Sodomy” Homosexuality in the Roman Catholic Church

Mic’d Up “Pink Money and the Homosexual Mafia” 

Please click this link to watch the video on Mic’d Up “Pink Money and the Homosexual Mafia”

Michael Voris gives a series of short talks, answering questions coming in response to his talk on homosexuality in Nigeria.

In this talk from Nigeria, Michael Voris speaks about the grave evil presented as good – homosexuality. “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (cf. Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10), tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” (CDF, Persona humana 8). They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (CCC: 2357).

The Cost of Abortion & Contraception Deception

Michael Voris talks an in-depth discussion of the true, financial cost of abortion and its effects to the United States. “The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death” (CDF, Donum vitae III; CCC: 2273).

Please click this link to watch the video on The Cost of Abortion & Media


FBI Contraception Deception.

Modern man has divorced sex from procreation through his embrace of contraception. This Contraception Deception within the CatholicChurch has come about by a near total betrayal of the faithful by their shepherds and leaders.

Please click this link to watch the video on Contraception Deception

Contraception & the New Dark Age, Part 1 by Dr. Martin Brenner

Where we are and how we got here. Join Dr. Martin Brenner for this first of a four-part series on the moral evils of contraception.

Please click this link to watch the video on Contraception & the New Dark Age, Part 1 by Dr. Martin Brenner

Contraception and Salvation, Part 2 by Dr. Martin Brenner

Join Dr. Martin Brenner for the second of a four-part series on the  moral evils of contraception.

Please click this link to watch the video on Contraception and Salvation, Part 2 by Dr. Martin Brenner

Contraception and Sanctification. Part 3 by Dr. Martin Brenner

Prayer and the Liturgy. Dr. Martin Brenner discusses how contraception is a detriment to our spiritual lives and marital relationships. The infallibility of the Church’s teaching on this matter is also discussed.

Please click this link to watch the video on Contraception and Sanctification. Part 3 by Dr. Martin Brenner

Contraception and Sexual Ethics. Part 4 by Dr. Martin Brenner

The Proper Practice. Dr. Martin Brenner describes the importance of spreading the message about the sexual ethic and goes into detail about the alternatives to contraception and their practices.

Please click this link to watch the video on Contraception and Sexual Ethics. Part 4 by Dr. Martin Brenner


CIA: The Rockefeller Foundation

Please click this link to watch the video on CIA: The Rockefeller Foundation

We are used to thinking of the Rockefellers as simply a byword for wealth, power and financial success. Perhaps we might think of them as determined businessmen or see them as great philanthropists. But the truth is far different; the Rockefeller Foundation is actively undermining the Catholic Church, and in the process, attempting to erase man’s natural orientation to the eternal.

Global Warming Unmasked

Please click this link to watch the video on Global Warming Unmasked by Michael Voris

Are the environmental movements and groups simply devoted to laudable, correct stewardship of God’s creation, or do they have a more sinister, hidden agenda? Is “global warming” being used as an excuse for something far darker? Is the final goal of the liberal elites behind the push of junk science population control, eugenics and Gaia worship?

Mic’d Up “Is Contraception Killing the Church?”

 Please click this link to watch the video on Mic’d Up “Is Contraception Killing the Church?”

This week on Mic’d Up we’ll be tackling the terrible scourge of Contraception on the Church. Michael Hichborn and Rey Flores from American Life League will join us to expose Catholic Relief Services complicity with Organizations who support contraception and to Discuss The Pill Kills Day of Action 2014. Also joining us will be Lynn Mills who will be discussing the continued prayer rally at Providence Park Hospital in the Archdiocese of Detroit because of their complicity in abortion, contraception and sterilization. Following that same thread we’ll break down the announcement from Detroit Archbishop Allen Vigneron concerning the crisis of parish closings facing Detroit. Also dropping by will be author James Kalb, to discuss the plague of pluralism on the Church’s Hierarchy.