Subscribe to download
More Likely Pagan Religions

In addition seeing as you can't actually find any contemporary sources justifiying a homosexual link (saying original source doesn't count) then you have no basis to assert this claim. What needs to stop occurring is the contortion of history to fit a narrative that certain individuals want rather than keeping a cogent and realistic interpretation, so no there is no feasible way for you to implement what is in fact pseudo-history.

@Pigeon Witch The Gulathing Law was codified later on but is rooted in oral tradition so discussing the need for dates is irrelevant as whatever is written will usually try to stay as true to the original virtue system as they can rather than stray away from it. Secondly have no Idea what article you're referencing although I can assure it doesn't more stupid than your average leftoid article incorrectly reading and twisting sources. Thirdly this point that you seem to postulate about the most is the idea that there was some form of relationship status similar to how people now view pederasty (which is also incorrect). From what I've gathered one of the sources galvanising such an idea has used an example of the "nið" category, which was only ever used disparagingly as surprise surprise being called unmanly in a martially honour bound culture is the greatest insult a man can receive.

@elvenoob
Why do you demand a heavy amount of evidence from a time period and region that was barely recorded?
Do you really believe ancient patriarchal warrior cultures in Europe were similar to your false imagination of what native Americans were like. Though the evidence shows they were actually patriarchal, nomadic warrior cultures too.
Why do people have to bastardise history for the sake of some narcissists needing representation? I bet you all think Hannibal was black.

The only evidence I can find of transgenderism in pre-modern times is in Rabbinical traditions. But I don't think that means ancient Jews practice transgenderism though, however I'm pointing out just how little sense making ancient Pagans transgender is.
Are you thinking of the ancient Cybelene cult of the "Galli"? which was widely looked down upon (they got called half men) during its time and involved self mutilation (I'd also say rather horrific). This is the closest example I can find to anything like transgenderism and still, transgenderism wasn't seen as a reality or identity back then.

1 "More likely pagan religions"
*Makes them all gay*
No. Almost all Greek states and the Roman Empire heavily discouraged homosexuality by declaring anyone who partook in it as "Infamae" (infarmous). This was a taboo status. Interestingly all entertainers, gladiators, pimps, dishonourably discharged soldiers and those condemned to death were Infamae because they were considered frugal or unroman. These people were stripped of their normal rights as citizens.
You should also look into the Scantinian law which was said by later Christian Roman writers to be "fearsome", suggesting it was rather brutal. Note that if anything Christians had the incentive to depict Pagan Romans as promiscuous and "depraved", which is probably why our surviving historical records paint a rather dark picture of pre-Christian times (so noone would return to their traditions).

2 If you were sodomised in ancient antiquity, that was sometimes seen as worse (horrifically for victims of rape). Some philosophers however, pointed out the penetrating actor is worse.
Sex was an incredibly ritualistic part of Pagan beliefs, so merely being stabbed with a sword was seen as getting penetrated. This doesn't sound like the beliefs of a all tolerant, accepting culture but more like a taboo at the time culture (pederasty was often targeted against boys). I imagine it is similar to how we view rape culture in prisons.
Pagans also always denounced effeminate men. The Romans did, with the word "virtue" originally being a word associated with virile manly values (has a different meaning now). The Germanics would accuse men of being what the Norse called "Ergi". Any modern equivalent of a word like that today is thought of as bigoted.

@Heniad It's interesting you want to talk about reliability of sources. I notice you got the dates wrong for the Gulathing Law, and there's only two sources I can find on the internet that make this same mistake. There's an incredibly homophobic article ranting about some gay "Viking" in America which I assume is where you got your information from since you quote the same two laws, and the source that they got their information from. According to the original source, homosexuality was looked down upon only if you were passive, as @Hosumaija says. Laws against insulting someone by calling them gay are not laws against homosexual sex or relationships.

I'm not sure what the best way to implement this would be in ck3, since it's neither fully accepted not completely forbidden (maybe shunned? But then at least according to this source only passive homosexuals were), but I don't think the decision they made is "defacing" or "poisoning" history

Similarly:
"Gulaþing Law of Norway (ca. 100-1200 C.E.) Says:
'if a man say of another man that he has been homosexually used. Item three: if a man compare another man to a mare, or call him a bitch or a harlot, or compare him to any animal which bears young.' (Markey, 76, 83)"


Stop defacing our history to justify your own individual proclivities, I can guarantee that the mod authors of this mod will try and censor this reply as it contradicts their ideological poisoning of European history, this doubly applies to any leftist "pagan" or Wicca follower you cite. Lastly I will save this reply for sake of clarity and upon its potential deletion will re-upload my response until you pursue drastic measures (such as pulling this stupid mod off of the workshop).

Of course it's easier for you to say that acceptance of homosexuality was "varied" as if there wasn't a unified underlying objection to homosexuality in the ancient world, we consistently through actual analysis of the sources (Political treatise, Philosophic outlooks, Legalistic frameworks) find a complete objection to what is fundamentally a modern concept of sexual norms.

Your assertion that homosexuality was "generally looked down upon" in Norse society is yet again absurd conjecture. I can provide you direct legal examples from their time for example:

"the Icelandic law code Grágás: Then there are three terms which occasion bringing such a serious suit against a man that they are worthy to outlaw him. If a man call a man unmanly [effeminate], or homosexual, or demonstrably homosexually used by another man, he shall proceed to prosecute as with other terms of abuse, and indeed a man has the right to avenge with combat for these terms of abuse.(Markey, 76, 83)"

@Hosumaija As per usual the fanciful appeal to traditions that leftists engage in, is once again built on utter falsehoods.

First off I will refer to your point where you invoke Diadorus Siculus. You mention how he "humourously phrased" (It is humourous to even assert such an erroneous anecdote) about the idea that the Celts were not only engaging in homosexuality but open and egalitarian in their approach to sexuality in his work. This point I assume is merely a throwaway justification of homosexuality where you never bothered to verify Diadorus' validity, which in most cases will leave your arguments empty as the consensus on Diadorus is that he imbues his work with a collection of anecdotes, which leaves you with the idea that, as with a lot of historians in the classical tradition, his work suffers from fanciful embellishments either to shock the reader or to detract from the Celts, who, were at the time the hostile outgroup.