Harmodius and Aristogeiton
Males lovers who were seen as so “weak and inferior” that they became emblematic icons of Athens.
Cool trick for a myth to carve marble statues like that.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
When everywhere, always, and by all being homosexual was considered not normal and a sin.[/quote]
Do they have books where you live?
I have added a picture, in case you are not sure what a “book” is.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
No…they want us to believe that it’s perfectly normal for two guys to butt fuck. Every successful society since the beginning of time thought this was sick.
[/quote]
[quote]pookie wrote:
So you say. There are many historical references in art, poetry, etc. that shows that homosexuality and pederasty in particular was fairly widely accepted in Ancient Greece.[/quote]
There are many historical references that suggest that homosexuality was deviant and a sign of weakness. And? That doesn’t answer the question.
Incorrect - there were qualitative differences in how the “penatratee” was viewed. Women were not afforded the same type of scorn, even as the they were “inferiors”, because Greeks viewed sex with a woman as natural and procreative (even as she was inferior).
Not so with a homosexual “penatratee”, who was weak, unnatural and flawed, and shamed as such.
As such, homosexuality was never on the “even playing field” of tolerance with heterosexuality.
Not entirely correct - even “dominant” actors could be the object of shame if they didn’t demonstrate that they also appreciated women.
Not entirely correct, for the reasons cited above. Women and homosexuals were both inferiors in the sociali structure, but were apples and oranges for purposes of how the culture measured their worth.
You used the cultural tolerance of ancient Western societies as a contrast to knuckle-dragging Bible-thumpers. Fact is, this purported tolerance in the ancient world of homosexuality simply didn’t exist.
That the ancient cultures “didn’t have our modern views” is irrelevant - what they unequivocally did not do was “celebrate” homosexuality as normal or equal to other relationships.
Irrelevant to the issue - no one is disputing that pederasty didn’t exist. But existence does not adequately explain how homosexuality was culturally received. Pederasty was also primarily practiced in the world of the aristocracy, and the wider peoples did not share their tolerance of it.
And you’d be wrong. If you criticized modern homosexuals in the language of the Greeks that criticized the “passive” men, you’d be labeled a homophobe.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
pookie wrote:
So you say. There are many historical references in art, poetry, etc. that shows that homosexuality and pederasty in particular was fairly widely accepted in Ancient Greece.
There are many historical references that suggest that homosexuality was deviant and a sign of weakness. And? That doesn’t answer the question.
A male penetrating a social inferior, be they women, younger men, slaves, etc. was not shamed for his behavior.
Incorrect - there were qualitative differences in how the “penatratee” was viewed. Women were not afforded the same type of scorn, even as the they were “inferiors”, because Greeks viewed sex with a woman as natural and procreative (even as she was inferior).
Not so with a homosexual “penatratee”, who was weak, unnatural and flawed, and shamed as such.
As such, homosexuality was never on the “even playing field” of tolerance with heterosexuality.
Yes, stigma was attached to being the “inferior” in the relationship; but not to being the dominant. In opposition to some in our modern times who see any homosexual behavior as reprehensible.
Not entirely correct - even “dominant” actors could be the object of shame if they didn’t demonstrate that they also appreciated women.
Ancient cultures didn’t have our modern views of homosexuality. The views of the Ancient Greeks aligned a lot more along the line of dominant/dominated than those of hetero/homosexual.
Not entirely correct, for the reasons cited above. Women and homosexuals were both inferiors in the sociali structure, but were apples and oranges for purposes of how the culture measured their worth.
You used the cultural tolerance of ancient Western societies as a contrast to knuckle-dragging Bible-thumpers. Fact is, this purported tolerance in the ancient world of homosexuality simply didn’t exist.
That the ancient cultures “didn’t have our modern views” is irrelevant - what they unequivocally did not do was “celebrate” homosexuality as normal or equal to other relationships.
Sexual relation between master/servant, teacher/student, commander/soldier were not regarded as abhorrent, but were often seen as solidifying to the relations and the behavior was also perceived beneficial for population control, education, and so on. Some platoons of soldiers were made up of men and their lovers and found to be quite effective on the battlefield.
Irrelevant to the issue - no one is disputing that pederasty didn’t exist. But existence does not adequately explain how homosexuality was culturally received. Pederasty was also primarily practiced in the world of the aristocracy, and the wider peoples did not share their tolerance of it.
I’ve checked and have been unable to find a similar platoon arrangement in any modern military; so I’ll argue that the Greek were more tolerant of homosexual behavior than many modern societies.
And you’d be wrong. If you criticized modern homosexuals in the language of the Greeks that criticized the “passive” men, you’d be labeled a homophobe.[/quote]
If it’s the “celebrate” term that annoys you so much, fine. I was replying to an assertion that homosexuality had always and everywhere been found to be “sinful” which is not the case. Sexual relationships between men - some forms of it - were customary in Athens and my other Greek cities of the time. It was accepted that men could love other men. That’s fact, not myth.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Well, “not normal” is rather obvious. Heterosexuals are the large majority and would be considered “the norm”. Neanderthal-faced individuals wearing funny glasses are also “not normal” but no one advocates discriminating against them.
[/quote]
LOL!
[quote]pookie wrote:
If it’s the “celebrate” term that annoys you so much, fine. I was replying to an assertion that homosexuality had always and everywhere been found to be “sinful” which is not the case. Sexual relationships between men - some forms of it - were customary in Athens and my other Greek cities of the time. It was accepted that men could love other men. That’s fact, not myth.
[/quote]
It isn’t necessarily the term “celebrate” that bothers me - it that’s there simply was no general acceptance of homosexual relationships. There were intense qualifiers on all homosexual activity, even as it wasn’t criminalized. Homosexuality just simply wasn’t “ordinary” or “ok”, nor was it especially “customary”, given the culture’s disdain associated with folks who were 100% homosexual.
Again, that doesn’t mean it was not tolerated to a certain extent - just that the ancient societies don’t serve as a noteworthy contrast to how moderns view homosexuality.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
pookie wrote:
If it’s the “celebrate” term that annoys you so much, fine. I was replying to an assertion that homosexuality had always and everywhere been found to be “sinful” which is not the case. Sexual relationships between men - some forms of it - were customary in Athens and my other Greek cities of the time. It was accepted that men could love other men. That’s fact, not myth.
It isn’t necessarily the term “celebrate” that bothers me - it that’s there simply was no general acceptance of homosexual relationships. There were intense qualifiers on all homosexual activity, even as it wasn’t criminalized. Homosexuality just simply wasn’t “ordinary” or “ok”, nor was it especially “customary”, given the culture’s disdain associated with folks who were 100% homosexual.
Again, that doesn’t mean it was not tolerated to a certain extent - just that the ancient societies don’t serve as a noteworthy contrast to how moderns view homosexuality.[/quote]
That is not entirely true.
What was it that they despised in an effeminate homosexual?
Was it really his homosexuality or his lack of male virtues?
I think as long as you were a manly man, “dominant” whatever that meant, nobody would ask you what you preferred in between sheets.
A true “catamite” lacked any skill to preserve his freedom, he was a self castrating man, a born slave and that is what they probably associated with his effeminacy.
It was not so much about sexuality but about male dominance and status.
So what they despised about “homosexuality” might have been totally different from what our societies despise.
It is much more likely that societies project their fears and inconsistencies on some scape goat and that homosexuals are traditionally a group one can safely attack.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Again, that doesn’t mean it was not tolerated to a certain extent - just that the ancient societies don’t serve as a noteworthy contrast to how moderns view homosexuality.[/quote]
So a society that tolerates homosexual acts “to a certain” extent goes as far as erecting (haha) statues to them? Forbidding slaves to be named after them?
Your definition of “tolerate” is way more tolerant than mine is.
[quote]pookie wrote:
So a society that tolerates homosexual acts “to a certain” extent goes as far as erecting (haha) statues to them? Forbidding slaves to be named after them?[/quote]
I know of a gay night club in Houston - do you think that is the barometer of gay tolerance in Texas?
Do the (damning) examinations of homosexuality by Aristotle and Aristophanes provide the comprehensive answer or refute your statues’ significance?
Cherrypicking doesn’t answer the broader question.
The Greeks didn’t criminalize homosexuality, in contrast to many other ancient cultures. That said, the cultural opprobrium directed at homosexuality negates this notion that ancient cultures thought homosexuality “ok” and “no big deal” or “just like other relationships”.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I know of a gay night club in Houston - do you think that is the barometer of gay tolerance in Texas?[/quote]
Was is publicly funded by the people? Did the owners get they own statue at the gates of the city? Can they eat for free at any restaurant? Is it against the law to name your dog after them?
Neither spoke for the entire Greek population. The cultural mores spoke volumes more about what was acceptable.
Agreed.
[quote]Your definition of “tolerate” is way more tolerant than mine is.
The Greeks didn’t criminalize homosexuality, in contrast to many other ancient cultures. That said, the cultural opprobrium directed at homosexuality negates this notion that ancient cultures thought homosexuality “ok” and “no big deal” or “just like other relationships”.[/quote]
Some forms of homosexuality were exactly that. Ok and no big deal. Many depictions of homosexuality in antique greek life are given in a completely matter-of-fact way, because the understanding was that the reader would be aware of the broad acceptance of those acts.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Was is publicly funded by the people? Did the owners get they own statue at the gates of the city? Can they eat for free at any restaurant? Is it against the law to name your dog after them?[/quote]
Irrelevant - the point was that cherrypicking doesn’t demonstrate an answer to a broader question. My exmaple was cherrypicking.
Correct again - I was demonstrating that cherrypicking once again does not answer the broader question. Your “statues” example is just as cherrypicked as a tract of Aristophanes.
Good - so overrelying on your statues as “proof” of some broader tolerance doesn’t make sense.
Except they weren’t. Just because you want it be so doesn’t make it so. Opinions about homosexuality were severely qualified, and at no point was the opinion “cool…whatever…dudes like other dudes, who cares?”.
I get that your cursory review of Wikipedia pages gave you this bit - about Thucydides, for example - but other descriptions in surviving written documents were less forgiving when their topics were specific to the issue of homosexuality in society.
Historically, the ancient Greeks just simply did not have the “gay? ok with me” attitudes. And, the ancient Romans - whom we haven’t even touched on - were even far less tolerant.
How about Sodom and Gomorrah? That example of a gay embracing society is in the bible, so it must be true 
And don’t fundamentalists frequently say that the reason the Greeks and Romans fell was because they became so degenerate as societies that they sanctioned homosexuality? I’ve heard that line a few times.
[quote]forlife wrote:
And don’t fundamentalists frequently say that the reason the Greeks and Romans fell was because they became so degenerate as societies that they sanctioned homosexuality? I’ve heard that line a few times.[/quote]
Were you to read, you would also find both Greek and Roman authors asserting the same.
Then according to fundamentalists, and by your own admission according to Greek and Roman authors, these societies sanctioned homosexuality.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Then according to fundamentalists, and by your own admission according to Greek and Roman authors, these societies sanctioned homosexuality.[/quote]
No, they didn’t. Much of the criticism - particularly Roman - was that a detached, decadent ruling class was destroying Roman values and character with their debaucherous ways (that included, but was not limited to, homosexual activity), thus engineering the demise of the wider society.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
When everywhere, always, and by all being homosexual was considered not normal and a sin.[/quote]
Go into this more.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
forlife wrote:
Then according to fundamentalists, and by your own admission according to Greek and Roman authors, these societies sanctioned homosexuality.
No, they didn’t. Much of the criticism - particularly Roman - was that a detached, decadent ruling class was destroying Roman values and character with their debaucherous ways (that included, but was not limited to, homosexual activity), thus engineering the demise of the wider society.[/quote]
You can’t have it both ways. Either homosexuality was practiced widely enough to be considered a significant cause for the decline of these civilizations, or it was rare and inconsequential.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
forlife wrote:
Then according to fundamentalists, and by your own admission according to Greek and Roman authors, these societies sanctioned homosexuality.
No, they didn’t. Much of the criticism - particularly Roman - was that a detached, decadent ruling class was destroying Roman values and character with their debaucherous ways (that included, but was not limited to, homosexual activity), thus engineering the demise of the wider society.[/quote]
I think bisexual relations (or at least sodomy of both male and female slaves and non-Romans) was the norm until Christianity gained popularity.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
forlife wrote:
Then according to fundamentalists, and by your own admission according to Greek and Roman authors, these societies sanctioned homosexuality.
No, they didn’t. Much of the criticism - particularly Roman - was that a detached, decadent ruling class was destroying Roman values and character with their debaucherous ways (that included, but was not limited to, homosexual activity), thus engineering the demise of the wider society.
[/quote]
Well, homosexual relations were certainly widely practiced by the patricians. Where is your evidence that they were deplored by the plebians? I have not seen anything about the plebian attitudes towards it.