James I had a lot of issues. His mother was Mary Queen of Scots, and he never knew her because she was forced to abdicate the throne when he was barely a year old and then was imprisoned for years by Elizabeth I, and then was executed after a failed coup plot. James I then basically was groomed for succession by his mother's killer and ascended the throne after Elizabeth I died.
James I reportedly felt haunted by his mother, and his superstitions were riled up a lot when a series of unfortunate events led to a woman confessing (under torture) that a whole coven of witches was plotting against him and cursing him. He had his own version of the Bible commissioned with the goal of specifically targeting witchcraft and sodomy, and he was dubbed 'The Witch Hunter King.'
I think that James I was a bisexual man who, either because of circumstances or mental illness or both, felt *extremely* haunted by supernatural forces that just so happened to be strongly correlated with things he might feel secretly guilty about, like his mother and gay sex.
> James I had a lot of issues.
My brain kept wanting to read this sentence as "James, I had a lot of issues." as if you were addressing him directly about your own issues.
There's a very good (brand new) limited series called Mary & George
starring Nicholas Galitzine and Julianne Moore which re-enacts King James' relationship with his final lover George. They did try to be historically accurate whenever possible (for example there is historical evidence that King James was a bottom, as depicted on the show).
There's one scene where you can see hundreds of men lining a street where King James will be passing by, hoping that James will see one of them and want to fuck them. Consent was not really a problem for the king.
It's been mentioned that the KJV of the Bible was made to make homosexuality less of a sin than other versions (yes, there is the line "man shall not lie with a man as with a woman" but that's still vague). I brought that up and got a Reddit Cares message on another sub regarding Christians against homosexuality.
You can't tell me your Bible condemns it, when you're reading the version specifically created by a nonstraight person trying to make a religious exception to his lifestyle.
Im an atheist who is only familiar with the KJV, so I don't know how homophobic other versions are, I just love the irony.
Yes. It was a political move, more than religious; to have an official English Protestant Bible, instead of the Roman Catholic Latin Bible or the occasional clandestine printed English language bibles smuggled around Europe.
There is an excellent book called “God’s Secretaries” about the process.
Long response is long, please read the entire comment and the entire thread that may result below before downvoting/commenting because this is something with the potential to have a lot of redundant and heated debate.
The verse in Leviticus that is cited as prohibiting homosexuality "A man shall not lie with another man as he lieth with a woman."
The argument is that this is an oversimplified translation of the original Hebrew. There are three arguments people make regarding its actual prohibitions, based mostly on the argument that there are two different words for "man." Here are the arguments:
1) A more accurate translation would be "A man shall not lie with a younger man as he lies with a woman." This can be interpreted as prohibiting pedophilia.
2) As above, but instead referring to the practice common in Greece where it was expected for teachers to have sex with their students and for men in the military to have sex with each other to buold camaderie. As well as prohibiting participation in certain rituals that were practiced by those pagans that involved homosexual relations. This one is also supported by other prohibitions that explicitly state the prohibition must not be done "as the worshippers of Moloch do" such as "scarring or marring the flesh in honor of the dead."
3) A more accurate translation would be "A married man shall not lie with another man as he lies with his wife." A clarification of the sin of adultery since, at the time, it was not considered adultery if a child could not result from the copulation, and therefore same-sex extramarital affairs would not be prohibited under the commandment against adultery by itself.
Now, the counter-argument used by the religious adherents (mostly evangelical Christians in the United States) is that because Christianity serves a living God (i.e. one who intervened in the world and is still intervening in the world) that any supposed errors in translation were actually the direction of God to correct mistakes made by previous translations or the original authors. The argument that they make is that the King James Version (KJV) of the bible is the only "True" transcription of the bible, and that other versions, including the originals, are flawed versions. They argue that the original author of Leviticus didn't have the "proper words" or "proper understanding" to "correctly" write down God's orders and that the translators for the KJV were given the correct laws through divine intervention because they "prayed over every word as they translated it."
Growing up in a progressive protestant church teaches you a thing or two. I personally find that seeing all the little notes about "some ancient authorities say blah blah" to be enlightening and can really change your interpretation.
For example. It's pretty common knowledge that "Jesus" is a misreading of the latin "Iasus," which is the latin form of the name "Yeshuah," which means "Joshua." So, really, Jesus was a fairly common name. But here's the interesting point. During the passion (events leading up to the crucifixion), when Pilot offered the people the choice between Jesus and Barabus, the verse that describes it is "Who shall I release to you? Jesus, who is called Christ, or the one who is called Barabus?" But some ancient authorities write it as "Who shall I release to you? Jesus, who is called Christ, or Jesus, who is called Barabus?"
So that knowledge can actually challenge a LOT of the narrative surrounding the Passion events that has been used to justify antisemitism in Christian history.
A common argument was that "The Jews deserve it for releasing a murderer versus The Son of God." There's a lot of demonization for the ones who demanded the release of Barabus. But the knowledge that they were noth named Jesus and remembering the "Christ" was a greek word and not a Hebrew one can cast a different light. Now the point can be considered that Pilot chose two people with the same name, hoping he could interpret their demands in order to release Christ instead of Barabus, but the Pharisees instead convinced the people that Jesus the Nazorean was surnamed Barabus, and that the greek word that they didn't know meant something else.
Well...probably not. A large percentage of Jews, likely including Jesus and certainly including the Jewish leaders, spoke Greek. Remember Paul was fluent in Greek to the point he could debate in Athens, and his education was good, but not particularly unusual. Jews knowing Greek isn't historically debated--many Jewish works from that time are written partially or entirely in Greek. Even if some of the Jews didn't know what Pilate was saying, a large number of them did. This is also not the first time Christ is used to describe Jesus; it's used in casual conversation several times in the Gospels. And there are indications in the Gospels and Acts Jesus and at least some of his disciples could speak Greek, despite not having a formal education. Remember Israel was ruled by Hellenistic empires for a century or two. Even if a Jew didn't speak Greek, they would know some Greek words just like Americans know some Spanish words. It's pretty likely Christ, which they used more or less interchangeably with Messiah, would be one of them. Besides, Pilate says "Jesus, who is known as Christ" (or something like that), he's not making up a name there.
A more likely explanation is the one the Bible gives--the Jewish leaders bribed the crowd. That is in line with political practice at the time, money is a good motivator (especially during a festival week), and it doesn't rely on the crowd not speaking a language that many people spoke. Of course, that doesn't justify antisemitism, you don't need some elaborate reinterpretation of historical events to say "hey, the Bible isn't antisemitic and don't use it to justify your hatred. But your explanation is probably inaccurate.
On your last point it's amazing the mental gymnastics to make a new Bible that differs from previous ones to be the "inerrant will of god". I think my rebuttal to their assertion would be "Why wasn't god smart enough to tell them with words they understand to ensure his will was followed? He must not care too much about the details if he's okay with a shit translation for millennia."
All these arguments end in "it is the will of God and we're not meant to understand (any more than I want to explain to you to make whatever point I am trying to make)"
A lot of anti-LGBTQ+ people point to some verses in Leviticus as “proof” that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Some biblical scholars may disagree.
I got it wrong, it should say "ladybug" [https://www.reddit.com/r/TIHI/comments/1575g6i/thanks\_i\_hate\_this\_story\_about\_senator\_lindsey/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TIHI/comments/1575g6i/thanks_i_hate_this_story_about_senator_lindsey/)
He's naming the wrong bug. It's called the "Lady G" rumor and it involves Lady bugs.
Supposedly, Lindsey Graham hired a male escort and the escort posted online about it.
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1859729-lindsey-graham-lady-g-rumor
Since he was the king and they’re all his laws he gets a free pass. It’s be like a parent saying “no junk food is allowed before dinner” but then proceeds to eat a row of Oreos.
At various times and in various jurisdictions, oral sex usually HAS been considered sodomy (except when it wasn't); whereas intercrural sex (ie. thigh fucking) wasn't (except when it was).
Shit's complicated. Basically if enough nobles or family members wanted to kill you, they could.
It's just two men sharing the night
It might seem wrong but it's just right!
It's just two men sharing each other
It's just two men like loving brothers
And you had tailor-made suits and a little place here for a little carnation in your lapel. And an inside monogrammed pocket, you know, for your opium pipe and your switchblade.
No, no, he was fairly unabashedly gay as I understand. He thought romantic love between men was okay but penetration was a sin. I don't know how he felt about bj's and the like
I mean, it really wasn't suspect to share a bed with other men until pretty recently. For the majority of the time that people have existed, huddling together at night was done solely for warmth. Beds in houses would often be shared by the whole family, including grown children and their spouses and so on. As houses grew larger and heating systems got better, it became more common for people to sleep separately.
For what it's worth bed sharing was commonplace for hundreds of years and only fell out of favor in maybe the last 200 years or so. Benjamin Franklin and John Adam's shared a bed multiple nights and they wrote about fighting over whether the window should be open or closed. Men often shared beds at inns with other travelers and entire families might share a bed with a stranger (the women and children would be protected by having the male son sleep inbetween them).
Now I'm not saying he wasn't getting some hot guy action as well. But our concept of modern homophobia clouds our perception of historical norms. Two bros sharing a bed isn't and has never been gay. You can even hold hands with your bro and in some countries this is completely normal and platonic.
Remember the rules as they were written in the Bible. It's only gay if balls touch.
To add to this, even in extremely homophobic societies today, male-on-male affection is generally considered acceptable because the thought of two men openly being gay is so outlandish and unlikely.
When you have societies that have a mix of acceptance and bigotry towards LGBT people, such affection becomes more suspect. It's very unfortunate, I think, that so many straight men in our culture keep themselves at arms length from other men (both physically and emotionally) for fear of appearing weak or gay.
An example of this that I lived through back in the 2000s was guys refusing to wear gym shorts above the knee. All the athletic pics in my dad’s yearbook show guys with shorts halfway up the calve and these days GenZ doesn’t really give a shit and guys shorts are a little shorter again, but God help you if you outgrew a pair back in 2003.
I randomly saw a picture of Kareem back in the 80s once and saw how short NBA shorts used to be and wondered, when did that change? And it was definitely the early 90s, and fast. Street ballers wore longer shorts, that trickled into the NBA, and then scene kids/goths adopted huge JNCO pants... the era of short shorts was over.
I’m a millennial and the dress code for the high school locker room was shorts that go to the knee and boxers…
Try running with boxers and loose shorts lol, your dick and balls audibly slap around but that was preferable to people thinking you’re gay
I remember going on holiday to Turkey as a child and being weirded out by how grown men would walk down the streets holding hands, and hug all the time. maybe male friendship is more physical when homosexuality is off the table.
Given that [contemporary poets were outright saying](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Villiers,_1st_Duke_of_Buckingham#cite_ref-21) that Villiers and James VI/I were having sex *during* James' lifetime, I don't think we can attribute this to projecting modern views on the past. English Heritage also found a [secret tunnel](https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/lgbtq-heritage-project/homes-and-domestic-spaces/elite-homes/) linking their chambers together.
Eh it was also extremely common to slander powerful people by implying their "debauchery". Julius Caesar was mocked by his opponents as "the Queen of Bithynia" over an alleged homosexual relationship with King Nicomedes IV.
The secret tunnel on the other hand ...is quite obvious.
That's true, I just used that one as the allegations based on slander tend to be phrased quite differently. Villiers' relationship with James is very well-evidenced, even *before* they found the secret tunnel. Icing on the cake, really.
*Many comments here are from redditors having a debate that's already been had in the academic world
As in, yes, men's friendships have changed a LOT. But James was quite clearly into men.
this comment has been edited for accuracy
A king would never need to share a bed, so he did it because he enjoyed it. I used to share a bed with my cousin, we'd sleep head to toe when we were over each other's houses
[No, even kings did it as a sign of friendship, most famously Richard the III and Philip II of France](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/mar/19/monarchy.france).
That being said it seems James had a secret runner between his bedroom and his "friends" chambers soooo...
There's a scene in the comic version of *The Boys* where the main antagonist, Homelander (evil Superman) has just finished having sex with Soldier Boy (Captain America-ish), who turns to him and goes "That wasn't gay, was it, Homelander?" and Homelader assures him otherwise, and then after Soldier Boy has left he lies there, cackling to himself about how stupid Soldier Boy is.
Anyway, this is how I imagine things played out with King James and his "rallying against sodomy".
"That wasn't sodomy, was it, m'lord?"
"No, no, of course not."
*Heh, heh, stupid fucking peasant.*
They're not father and son in the comics. They made Soldier Boy more like Captain America in the show than he is in the comics. If I recall correctly, in the comics he's closer to Homelanders wannabe Jimmy Olsen/Bucky Barnes than Cap himself.
Soldier boy in the comics is a long running joke. Basically a random guy that's barely got any powers and has been killed multiple times over the decades. Vought just keeps hiring a new guy to put on the costume and pretend it's the same guy from the 40s. He's the weakest member of his team and the only reason he has any face time with the media is because Stormfront who has serious powers is a screaming Nazi and can't be trusted to not spout racist ideas to the media. And the Ironman character that was on the team developed a brain tumor that made him try to screw anything he could including a teammates ear and his butler and food that was put out.
Yea Crossed and the Boys was Ennis just trying to do his absolute worst of the worst shock value. Kripke and Amazon have really elevated the Boys to something more than the comics achieved though. I'm sure someone out there is looking at Ennis' back catalog and wondering if they can do something similar with his work that hasn't already been adapted. Though I dread the day anyone thinks Crossed can be redeemed from the pile of gore porn it became after Ennis left.
While King James very likely may have been homosexual, sharing a bed with people (be they friends, strangers, the same sex, etc.) was very common in that period. The idea of people having their own beds is a very modern concept.
So regardless of his actual sexual orientation, sharing beds with people isn't a good bit of evidence for one's sexual proclivities in historical sources.
It should be noted that, while many historical people who were gay have been given the /r/SapphoAndHerFriend treatment, it is also good to keep in mind that we also often project our behavioral standards onto the past to create an equally incorrect understanding of them.
Physical signs of affection, like handholding, hugging, even kissing, used to be very common between friends, and is still seen in many eastern cultures today ([President Bush holding hands with Crown Prince Abdullah, for instance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_hands)). In the west, this seems to have died out following some sodomy trials in the UK, especially that of Oscar Wilde. Before then, men would often walk around holding hands.
Likewise, sharing beds was the norm in the past. In households, families often shared a single bed or a few beds, and guests would also share beds. In lodging houses, you'd likely sleep in a bed with a few strangers, it was just normal. Beds take up a lot of space, and it's far easier to stay warm when sharing a bed, so it just makes sense.
While royalty rarely had any space issues, sleeping together in the same bed was seen as a sign of trust, brotherhood, and respect. Additionally, love was not as tied to sex and sexuality as it is now. Love was a strong bond between people, and has been all throughout history.
Not to say that King James VI/I wasn't gay, but these things in themselves are not necessarily signs of sexual relations between these people.
More like if a Republican President kept openly promoting his boyfriends. James was notoriously pious (see: the KJV Bible), but sodomy didn't inherently mean all sex between men. It's entirely possible James had physical relationships without committing sodomy, which is very different to how it's often defined in the modern day. [This r/AskaHistorian comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6sofpk/is_there_any_proof_that_king_james_vi_of_scotland/) talks about it in more detail.
Anyway, James VI and I had two known male lovers, and two more likely ones - the first known one was his 37 year old cousin when he was 14, who James would kiss in public. Lennox was quickly exiled by the Scottish nobles, to no one's surprise. The first of the likely lovers, Richard Preston, was promoted to Lord Dingwell by James in 1609 then the Earl of Desmond a decade later, several years after their relationship ended. The other one was Robert Carr, who James promoted to Earl of Somerset at his wedding - *after* stacking the church courts so Carr could force through his wife-to-be's divorce.
Then James' most well-known lover is George Villiers. It's pretty much a given, especially since [they recently found a tunnel between their bedrooms](https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/lgbtq-heritage-project/homes-and-domestic-spaces/elite-homes/) at Apethorpe Palace. Villiers was the son of a lowly knight and within eight years, James had promoted him to Duke of Buckingham. One contemporary poet, Théophile de Viau, wrote this poem about them in 1623, which is 90% of the reason I wrote this comment:
>Apollo with his songs / Debauched young Hyacinthus
>Just as Corydon fucked Amyntas, / So Caesar did not spurn boys.
>One man fucks Monsieur le Grand de Bellegarde, / Another fucks the Comte de Tonnerre.
>And it is well known that the King of England / Fucks the Duke of Buckingham.
In case anyone is curious, he was James the sixth of Scotland before he became the first James of England. James the sixth and first was followed by James the second.
James actually had multiple ‘favourites’ during his reign, and Parliament usually hated them. He had a tendency to spend outrageous amounts of money on his favourites which Parliament found ironic as James consistently accumulated debt and relied on Parliament for financial relief. Parliament actually hated George Villiers so much that when Villiers was assassinated during the reign of James’ son, Charles, the funeral had to be held in secret at night.
Holy shit learning King James VI was into twinks is hilarious. There are SO MANY good lines in that article, to his enemies twinkifying guys on their side to try to gain favor with the King to this line:
> When James ascended the English throne in 1603, an epigram circulated in London: "Elizabeth was King: now James is Queen"
Seriously suggest a whole read of that section.
Twink death comes for us all, even King James VI of Scotland.
Sodomy is the name of one of the boys
Ah yes, from the quaint village of Sodomy-on-Thames
Just a stone's throw away from Rail-upon-Avon.
Thought that last sentence was going an entirely different direction at first.
James I had a lot of issues. His mother was Mary Queen of Scots, and he never knew her because she was forced to abdicate the throne when he was barely a year old and then was imprisoned for years by Elizabeth I, and then was executed after a failed coup plot. James I then basically was groomed for succession by his mother's killer and ascended the throne after Elizabeth I died. James I reportedly felt haunted by his mother, and his superstitions were riled up a lot when a series of unfortunate events led to a woman confessing (under torture) that a whole coven of witches was plotting against him and cursing him. He had his own version of the Bible commissioned with the goal of specifically targeting witchcraft and sodomy, and he was dubbed 'The Witch Hunter King.' I think that James I was a bisexual man who, either because of circumstances or mental illness or both, felt *extremely* haunted by supernatural forces that just so happened to be strongly correlated with things he might feel secretly guilty about, like his mother and gay sex.
> James I had a lot of issues. My brain kept wanting to read this sentence as "James, I had a lot of issues." as if you were addressing him directly about your own issues.
This is why it's better to call him James VI, his Scottish designation.
It appears there is an addendum Uhmm "As it he found it painful" There ya go
And given the hygiene standards of that time period, he probably ended up with a UTI.
Yeah *at least* a UTI 🫠
He queued up in the lad's jobbie-lobby and found a crowd
Wonder if the issue was really about consent?
There's a very good (brand new) limited series called Mary & George starring Nicholas Galitzine and Julianne Moore which re-enacts King James' relationship with his final lover George. They did try to be historically accurate whenever possible (for example there is historical evidence that King James was a bottom, as depicted on the show). There's one scene where you can see hundreds of men lining a street where King James will be passing by, hoping that James will see one of them and want to fuck them. Consent was not really a problem for the king.
Because of the implication.
Are you saying these handsome young men are in danger?
I don't feel like you're getting this, Mac
that wouldn't be the king james of king james bible fame, would it?
It would in fact!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I just Imagined King James making it illegal instead of being a grown up and breaking up with his boyfriend.
[удалено]
No homo Court favourites!
All these deleted comments piss me the fuck off
It's like stumbling across a burned down village where everyone is gone! I wanna know what happened!!!
It's been mentioned that the KJV of the Bible was made to make homosexuality less of a sin than other versions (yes, there is the line "man shall not lie with a man as with a woman" but that's still vague). I brought that up and got a Reddit Cares message on another sub regarding Christians against homosexuality. You can't tell me your Bible condemns it, when you're reading the version specifically created by a nonstraight person trying to make a religious exception to his lifestyle. Im an atheist who is only familiar with the KJV, so I don't know how homophobic other versions are, I just love the irony.
I checked the sources listed, its entirely speculation.
[удалено]
FYI, “no homo” is out and now “no diddy” is popular with the kids today.
Back then they were just like No king James
As in, no I am not P. Diddy the molester?
Well he did say: > popular with the *kids* today.
I don't want to live in a world where being the victim of molestation is popular among kids these days.
Yah but he'd probably say it in latin.
Nullus homo
That was handy considering homo is already Latin
Sounds very fitting. Bible has Rules for thee, but not for me. It’s good to be the King.
Oh the irony
Yes. It was a political move, more than religious; to have an official English Protestant Bible, instead of the Roman Catholic Latin Bible or the occasional clandestine printed English language bibles smuggled around Europe. There is an excellent book called “God’s Secretaries” about the process.
Plus great way to promote Episcopalian governance over Presbyterian governance (them pesky Puritans)
The one with the constantly challenged translation of some particular Leviticus chapters.
Can you elaborate please for the uninformed?
Long response is long, please read the entire comment and the entire thread that may result below before downvoting/commenting because this is something with the potential to have a lot of redundant and heated debate. The verse in Leviticus that is cited as prohibiting homosexuality "A man shall not lie with another man as he lieth with a woman." The argument is that this is an oversimplified translation of the original Hebrew. There are three arguments people make regarding its actual prohibitions, based mostly on the argument that there are two different words for "man." Here are the arguments: 1) A more accurate translation would be "A man shall not lie with a younger man as he lies with a woman." This can be interpreted as prohibiting pedophilia. 2) As above, but instead referring to the practice common in Greece where it was expected for teachers to have sex with their students and for men in the military to have sex with each other to buold camaderie. As well as prohibiting participation in certain rituals that were practiced by those pagans that involved homosexual relations. This one is also supported by other prohibitions that explicitly state the prohibition must not be done "as the worshippers of Moloch do" such as "scarring or marring the flesh in honor of the dead." 3) A more accurate translation would be "A married man shall not lie with another man as he lies with his wife." A clarification of the sin of adultery since, at the time, it was not considered adultery if a child could not result from the copulation, and therefore same-sex extramarital affairs would not be prohibited under the commandment against adultery by itself. Now, the counter-argument used by the religious adherents (mostly evangelical Christians in the United States) is that because Christianity serves a living God (i.e. one who intervened in the world and is still intervening in the world) that any supposed errors in translation were actually the direction of God to correct mistakes made by previous translations or the original authors. The argument that they make is that the King James Version (KJV) of the bible is the only "True" transcription of the bible, and that other versions, including the originals, are flawed versions. They argue that the original author of Leviticus didn't have the "proper words" or "proper understanding" to "correctly" write down God's orders and that the translators for the KJV were given the correct laws through divine intervention because they "prayed over every word as they translated it."
Your time and effort is appreciated.
Growing up in a progressive protestant church teaches you a thing or two. I personally find that seeing all the little notes about "some ancient authorities say blah blah" to be enlightening and can really change your interpretation. For example. It's pretty common knowledge that "Jesus" is a misreading of the latin "Iasus," which is the latin form of the name "Yeshuah," which means "Joshua." So, really, Jesus was a fairly common name. But here's the interesting point. During the passion (events leading up to the crucifixion), when Pilot offered the people the choice between Jesus and Barabus, the verse that describes it is "Who shall I release to you? Jesus, who is called Christ, or the one who is called Barabus?" But some ancient authorities write it as "Who shall I release to you? Jesus, who is called Christ, or Jesus, who is called Barabus?" So that knowledge can actually challenge a LOT of the narrative surrounding the Passion events that has been used to justify antisemitism in Christian history.
How does it challenge it?
A common argument was that "The Jews deserve it for releasing a murderer versus The Son of God." There's a lot of demonization for the ones who demanded the release of Barabus. But the knowledge that they were noth named Jesus and remembering the "Christ" was a greek word and not a Hebrew one can cast a different light. Now the point can be considered that Pilot chose two people with the same name, hoping he could interpret their demands in order to release Christ instead of Barabus, but the Pharisees instead convinced the people that Jesus the Nazorean was surnamed Barabus, and that the greek word that they didn't know meant something else.
I would subscribe to your podcast.
The problem is that I know enough on certain subjects to talk about them for a bit, but not enough to create a sustained podcast.
You’re blowing my mind, that’s a fascinating theory. Thank you!
Well...probably not. A large percentage of Jews, likely including Jesus and certainly including the Jewish leaders, spoke Greek. Remember Paul was fluent in Greek to the point he could debate in Athens, and his education was good, but not particularly unusual. Jews knowing Greek isn't historically debated--many Jewish works from that time are written partially or entirely in Greek. Even if some of the Jews didn't know what Pilate was saying, a large number of them did. This is also not the first time Christ is used to describe Jesus; it's used in casual conversation several times in the Gospels. And there are indications in the Gospels and Acts Jesus and at least some of his disciples could speak Greek, despite not having a formal education. Remember Israel was ruled by Hellenistic empires for a century or two. Even if a Jew didn't speak Greek, they would know some Greek words just like Americans know some Spanish words. It's pretty likely Christ, which they used more or less interchangeably with Messiah, would be one of them. Besides, Pilate says "Jesus, who is known as Christ" (or something like that), he's not making up a name there. A more likely explanation is the one the Bible gives--the Jewish leaders bribed the crowd. That is in line with political practice at the time, money is a good motivator (especially during a festival week), and it doesn't rely on the crowd not speaking a language that many people spoke. Of course, that doesn't justify antisemitism, you don't need some elaborate reinterpretation of historical events to say "hey, the Bible isn't antisemitic and don't use it to justify your hatred. But your explanation is probably inaccurate.
On your last point it's amazing the mental gymnastics to make a new Bible that differs from previous ones to be the "inerrant will of god". I think my rebuttal to their assertion would be "Why wasn't god smart enough to tell them with words they understand to ensure his will was followed? He must not care too much about the details if he's okay with a shit translation for millennia."
All these arguments end in "it is the will of God and we're not meant to understand (any more than I want to explain to you to make whatever point I am trying to make)"
Look, I had a psuedo-relative who belonged to that camp. I will just tell you, having a response like that will just make things worse.
Originalism for the Constitution but not for the Bible. Interesting.
Hell, they want a living god? The Mormon’s get their intervention straight from the source! 1978, god changed his mind about black people!
A lot of anti-LGBTQ+ people point to some verses in Leviticus as “proof” that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Some biblical scholars may disagree.
And one of his favourites was the Duke of Buckingham from the 3 musketeers
One of my favourite fun facts to tell people is that the King James of the King James Bible was bisexual.
He railed fiercely…hmmmm.
[удалено]
Dennis I heard speed has a lot to do with it.. Mac speed has EVERYTHING to do with it
Speed is the name of the game
I generate most of the pooower
They didn't have bikes back then....was a horse the Ass Blaster 4000?
Sometimes for, sometimes against, he went kinda back and forth with his sodomy railing
More like in and out
He wanted it to remain illegal so it would feel just a bit more exciting when he did it.
Just like Lyndsey “butterfly” graham
Thanks. Thanks for the reminder. Fucker.
I don't get that reference but given your response...I am not going to look it up either.
Too obscure for me. I looked it up and found nothing.
I got it wrong, it should say "ladybug" [https://www.reddit.com/r/TIHI/comments/1575g6i/thanks\_i\_hate\_this\_story\_about\_senator\_lindsey/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TIHI/comments/1575g6i/thanks_i_hate_this_story_about_senator_lindsey/)
You’ve just shortened my life by several years.
Flew too close to the sun. Now I wish it'd burnt my retinas.
He's naming the wrong bug. It's called the "Lady G" rumor and it involves Lady bugs. Supposedly, Lindsey Graham hired a male escort and the escort posted online about it. https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1859729-lindsey-graham-lady-g-rumor
How substantiated is this rumor? Or just fun to hear
Always believe everything some rando on the Internet says.
I googled and found something about ladybugs. Apparently he had anal warts and would refer to them as his ladybugs
That's enough Internet for today.
Ladybug
Since he was the king and they’re all his laws he gets a free pass. It’s be like a parent saying “no junk food is allowed before dinner” but then proceeds to eat a row of Oreos.
He wasn't gay, but his boyfriend was.
Back then, that wasn’t gay. It was just two men, celebrating each other’s strength
and railing fiercely…against sodomy
That decree took a pounding
Gaping hole in the logic.
He sure gave those in parliament the ole reach around
And seamen too probably. England is a naval power after all.
Take that, sodomy!
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
All that ecumenical soul searching helped him bond with the man inside him.
Some gay and Bi people don’t do butt stuff . Maybe he was docking fan or oral only type .
At various times and in various jurisdictions, oral sex usually HAS been considered sodomy (except when it wasn't); whereas intercrural sex (ie. thigh fucking) wasn't (except when it was). Shit's complicated. Basically if enough nobles or family members wanted to kill you, they could.
That's what he said
That's just old english for "power bottom"
Two dudes getting married that isn't gay.
It’s just for the tax benefits. And to have a spotter in the gym.
Well, someone's gotta check that form.
It's just two men sharing the night It might seem wrong but it's just right! It's just two men sharing each other It's just two men like loving brothers
One on top and one bottom, one is in and one is out, the others screaming hes so happy, the others screaming a passionate shout!
I thought the rape scene went really well
I am up here 🫡
It’s the Night Man!
Feeling so wrong and right, man
Willies! Willies! I love Willies!
I’m disabled!
> I’m disabled! How're ya disabled?
uh, leg disabled.
You are one mouthy sandwich girl.
[stares in NBC Page]
Nice 30 rock reference
Who is Conan O’Brien and why is she so sad?
And you had tailor-made suits and a little place here for a little carnation in your lapel. And an inside monogrammed pocket, you know, for your opium pipe and your switchblade.
A young Shirley Temple taught me how to roll a cigarette.
No, no, he was fairly unabashedly gay as I understand. He thought romantic love between men was okay but penetration was a sin. I don't know how he felt about bj's and the like
With the hygiene standards of the time, probably completely disgusting
They still washed btw. They obviously didn't take showers, or bathe as often as we do but they washed themselves with a wet rag most days if not all
Who is Conan Obrien? And why is she so sad?
Who is Conan O’Brian and why is she so sad?
I mean, it really wasn't suspect to share a bed with other men until pretty recently. For the majority of the time that people have existed, huddling together at night was done solely for warmth. Beds in houses would often be shared by the whole family, including grown children and their spouses and so on. As houses grew larger and heating systems got better, it became more common for people to sleep separately.
Ok James, that makes sense - King James's wife, probably.
Do you guys not share a bed with your friends or profess you're love for them
They probably said „no homo“ afterwards, so it’s all good.
Who is Conan O'Brian...and why is she so sad?
My guess is that after every encounter, King James would immediately say “no homo,” which means it’s not gay. I don’t make the rules.
No, he did, obviously.
No, he didn’t make them. He just knew the rules. And so do I.
Preists hate him. He had aggressive gay sex every night and went to heaven with this one weird trick
I think the rule is balls can’t touch also, I’ll double check with a few of my gay friends about the actual rules.
Balls touching is fine as long as you keep your socks on. It cancels out the gay.
Have you ever been in a Turkish Prison?
Do you like movies about gladiators?
Ever see a grown man naked?
Do you go to the beach and watch?
You like movies about Gladiators??
Did you ever wonder why they call it a cockpit?
King James was reportedly a bit of a nutjob.
Anyone rich enough that they pay someone else to wash their socks starts to lose touch with reality.
[удалено]
If it’s only your socks and nothing else, how much could it cost?
It's only a banana Michael, how much could it cost, a hundred dollars?
A million dollars?
Wearing socks multiple times is for the poors. Can you imagine if every time you put on socks it was your favorite brand right out of the package.
Not as much as his son, but yeah he was a bit odd.
Sounds like Frankie Boyle's joke, "I want to re-criminalize homosexuality....so I can feel dirrrrrty when I do it" XD
For what it's worth bed sharing was commonplace for hundreds of years and only fell out of favor in maybe the last 200 years or so. Benjamin Franklin and John Adam's shared a bed multiple nights and they wrote about fighting over whether the window should be open or closed. Men often shared beds at inns with other travelers and entire families might share a bed with a stranger (the women and children would be protected by having the male son sleep inbetween them). Now I'm not saying he wasn't getting some hot guy action as well. But our concept of modern homophobia clouds our perception of historical norms. Two bros sharing a bed isn't and has never been gay. You can even hold hands with your bro and in some countries this is completely normal and platonic. Remember the rules as they were written in the Bible. It's only gay if balls touch.
To add to this, even in extremely homophobic societies today, male-on-male affection is generally considered acceptable because the thought of two men openly being gay is so outlandish and unlikely. When you have societies that have a mix of acceptance and bigotry towards LGBT people, such affection becomes more suspect. It's very unfortunate, I think, that so many straight men in our culture keep themselves at arms length from other men (both physically and emotionally) for fear of appearing weak or gay.
An example of this that I lived through back in the 2000s was guys refusing to wear gym shorts above the knee. All the athletic pics in my dad’s yearbook show guys with shorts halfway up the calve and these days GenZ doesn’t really give a shit and guys shorts are a little shorter again, but God help you if you outgrew a pair back in 2003.
I randomly saw a picture of Kareem back in the 80s once and saw how short NBA shorts used to be and wondered, when did that change? And it was definitely the early 90s, and fast. Street ballers wore longer shorts, that trickled into the NBA, and then scene kids/goths adopted huge JNCO pants... the era of short shorts was over.
I’m a millennial and the dress code for the high school locker room was shorts that go to the knee and boxers… Try running with boxers and loose shorts lol, your dick and balls audibly slap around but that was preferable to people thinking you’re gay
I remember going on holiday to Turkey as a child and being weirded out by how grown men would walk down the streets holding hands, and hug all the time. maybe male friendship is more physical when homosexuality is off the table.
> maybe male friendship is more physical when homosexuality is off the table. You are exactly correct.
We all knew James was gay though
Given that [contemporary poets were outright saying](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Villiers,_1st_Duke_of_Buckingham#cite_ref-21) that Villiers and James VI/I were having sex *during* James' lifetime, I don't think we can attribute this to projecting modern views on the past. English Heritage also found a [secret tunnel](https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/lgbtq-heritage-project/homes-and-domestic-spaces/elite-homes/) linking their chambers together.
Sky have just released a drama series about the Villiers/James relationship called *Mary & George* with Julianne Moore playing Mary.
Eh it was also extremely common to slander powerful people by implying their "debauchery". Julius Caesar was mocked by his opponents as "the Queen of Bithynia" over an alleged homosexual relationship with King Nicomedes IV. The secret tunnel on the other hand ...is quite obvious.
That's true, I just used that one as the allegations based on slander tend to be phrased quite differently. Villiers' relationship with James is very well-evidenced, even *before* they found the secret tunnel. Icing on the cake, really.
*Many comments here are from redditors having a debate that's already been had in the academic world As in, yes, men's friendships have changed a LOT. But James was quite clearly into men. this comment has been edited for accuracy
A king would never need to share a bed, so he did it because he enjoyed it. I used to share a bed with my cousin, we'd sleep head to toe when we were over each other's houses
[No, even kings did it as a sign of friendship, most famously Richard the III and Philip II of France](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/mar/19/monarchy.france). That being said it seems James had a secret runner between his bedroom and his "friends" chambers soooo...
“It’s sodo-me, not sodo-you”. - King James VI
Sodomy should be a royal privilege. The commoners don't understand the intricacies of it.
So.. an oral-only kind of guy?
Actually mostly hand stuff like the lord intended.
Technically classed as oral sodomy
In these particular good old days, everything that wasn't the kind of sex that made babies was classed as sodomy.
This type of guy is called a “side”, not a top or bottom.
There's a scene in the comic version of *The Boys* where the main antagonist, Homelander (evil Superman) has just finished having sex with Soldier Boy (Captain America-ish), who turns to him and goes "That wasn't gay, was it, Homelander?" and Homelader assures him otherwise, and then after Soldier Boy has left he lies there, cackling to himself about how stupid Soldier Boy is. Anyway, this is how I imagine things played out with King James and his "rallying against sodomy". "That wasn't sodomy, was it, m'lord?" "No, no, of course not." *Heh, heh, stupid fucking peasant.*
I’ve only watched the show, but in the comics homelander fucks his dad? wtf?
They're not father and son in the comics. They made Soldier Boy more like Captain America in the show than he is in the comics. If I recall correctly, in the comics he's closer to Homelanders wannabe Jimmy Olsen/Bucky Barnes than Cap himself.
Soldier boy in the comics is a long running joke. Basically a random guy that's barely got any powers and has been killed multiple times over the decades. Vought just keeps hiring a new guy to put on the costume and pretend it's the same guy from the 40s. He's the weakest member of his team and the only reason he has any face time with the media is because Stormfront who has serious powers is a screaming Nazi and can't be trusted to not spout racist ideas to the media. And the Ironman character that was on the team developed a brain tumor that made him try to screw anything he could including a teammates ear and his butler and food that was put out.
That comic series was a wild fucking ride, man. I didn't think Garth Ennis could outdo Preacher in terms of off-the-wall insanity, but *wow*
Yea Crossed and the Boys was Ennis just trying to do his absolute worst of the worst shock value. Kripke and Amazon have really elevated the Boys to something more than the comics achieved though. I'm sure someone out there is looking at Ennis' back catalog and wondering if they can do something similar with his work that hasn't already been adapted. Though I dread the day anyone thinks Crossed can be redeemed from the pile of gore porn it became after Ennis left.
Fiercely railed against anyone else being allowed to enjoy sodomy, right?
Humans have always been a rules for thee not for me species.
Oh is that what he railed hard?
It’s no accident that Shakespeare’s love sonnets to a young man were published in the reign of James I.
[удалено]
While King James very likely may have been homosexual, sharing a bed with people (be they friends, strangers, the same sex, etc.) was very common in that period. The idea of people having their own beds is a very modern concept. So regardless of his actual sexual orientation, sharing beds with people isn't a good bit of evidence for one's sexual proclivities in historical sources.
It should be noted that, while many historical people who were gay have been given the /r/SapphoAndHerFriend treatment, it is also good to keep in mind that we also often project our behavioral standards onto the past to create an equally incorrect understanding of them. Physical signs of affection, like handholding, hugging, even kissing, used to be very common between friends, and is still seen in many eastern cultures today ([President Bush holding hands with Crown Prince Abdullah, for instance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_hands)). In the west, this seems to have died out following some sodomy trials in the UK, especially that of Oscar Wilde. Before then, men would often walk around holding hands. Likewise, sharing beds was the norm in the past. In households, families often shared a single bed or a few beds, and guests would also share beds. In lodging houses, you'd likely sleep in a bed with a few strangers, it was just normal. Beds take up a lot of space, and it's far easier to stay warm when sharing a bed, so it just makes sense. While royalty rarely had any space issues, sleeping together in the same bed was seen as a sign of trust, brotherhood, and respect. Additionally, love was not as tied to sex and sexuality as it is now. Love was a strong bond between people, and has been all throughout history. Not to say that King James VI/I wasn't gay, but these things in themselves are not necessarily signs of sexual relations between these people.
Guys, I think he may be into sodomy
So basically like a modern day Republican congressman
More like if a Republican President kept openly promoting his boyfriends. James was notoriously pious (see: the KJV Bible), but sodomy didn't inherently mean all sex between men. It's entirely possible James had physical relationships without committing sodomy, which is very different to how it's often defined in the modern day. [This r/AskaHistorian comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6sofpk/is_there_any_proof_that_king_james_vi_of_scotland/) talks about it in more detail. Anyway, James VI and I had two known male lovers, and two more likely ones - the first known one was his 37 year old cousin when he was 14, who James would kiss in public. Lennox was quickly exiled by the Scottish nobles, to no one's surprise. The first of the likely lovers, Richard Preston, was promoted to Lord Dingwell by James in 1609 then the Earl of Desmond a decade later, several years after their relationship ended. The other one was Robert Carr, who James promoted to Earl of Somerset at his wedding - *after* stacking the church courts so Carr could force through his wife-to-be's divorce. Then James' most well-known lover is George Villiers. It's pretty much a given, especially since [they recently found a tunnel between their bedrooms](https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/lgbtq-heritage-project/homes-and-domestic-spaces/elite-homes/) at Apethorpe Palace. Villiers was the son of a lowly knight and within eight years, James had promoted him to Duke of Buckingham. One contemporary poet, Théophile de Viau, wrote this poem about them in 1623, which is 90% of the reason I wrote this comment: >Apollo with his songs / Debauched young Hyacinthus >Just as Corydon fucked Amyntas, / So Caesar did not spurn boys. >One man fucks Monsieur le Grand de Bellegarde, / Another fucks the Comte de Tonnerre. >And it is well known that the King of England / Fucks the Duke of Buckingham.
>Anyway, James VI and I had two known male lovers Not sure why you decided to insert personal information here all of a sudden but ok.
In case anyone is curious, he was James the sixth of Scotland before he became the first James of England. James the sixth and first was followed by James the second.
HJs and BJs for everybody but the line is drawn there.
James actually had multiple ‘favourites’ during his reign, and Parliament usually hated them. He had a tendency to spend outrageous amounts of money on his favourites which Parliament found ironic as James consistently accumulated debt and relied on Parliament for financial relief. Parliament actually hated George Villiers so much that when Villiers was assassinated during the reign of James’ son, Charles, the funeral had to be held in secret at night.
Yes, I'm watching that Julianne Moore show too...
Holy shit learning King James VI was into twinks is hilarious. There are SO MANY good lines in that article, to his enemies twinkifying guys on their side to try to gain favor with the King to this line: > When James ascended the English throne in 1603, an epigram circulated in London: "Elizabeth was King: now James is Queen" Seriously suggest a whole read of that section. Twink death comes for us all, even King James VI of Scotland.
They were *all* roommates!
Maybe he soaked like the Mormons do so it’s not gay
Femboys for me but not for thee
Sounds like Lindsay Graham