'That's So Gay!'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[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]

What Rome?

The republic or the christianized empire?

322

[quote]forlife wrote:

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]

I am not having it both ways - read up. Homosexuality was practiced “widely enough” as part of a larger menu of undisciplined decadent behavior by the detached elites, and thus drew the criticism of the larger society.

It was not considered normal or ordinary by the cultural norms of the era. That is ok - for the times, they were much more tolerant of homosexuality than some of their contemporaries.

But this desire to “correct” benighted Bible-thumpers with the notion that there exists a glorious past in Western civlization of uber-tolerance of homosexuals is not enough to sustain a fiction, which it certainly is. It simply isn’t true.

One day you will grow up and learn that the existence of facts is not predicated on whether you like them or not.

323

Ancient Greece, like most pre-modern societies, was tradition-bound as far as sex was concerned. People were expected to do the appropriate thing in the appropriate situation. So when you talk about homosexuality in Greece you’re talking about something different than homosexuality in present-day America.

There were no pride parades. The idea of liberating yourself from conventional strictures would have been alien to them.

But, as I understand it, there was an accepted context for eroticism between men. The erastes/eromenos relationship was established as a good thing for adolescents – fathers arranged suitable mentors for their sons, to secure an advantageous future. Plato wrote approvingly of the relationship, if conducted with restraint. In Sparta it was required by law.

For a grown man to refuse to start a family, and only love men, met with disapproval, it’s true. And certainly there was no doubt that all women were expected to marry. Yes, there are a lot of gay jokes in Aristophanes.

So to say Greece was “tolerant” of gays is not quite correct. Tolerance – the idea of a private life, free of coercion – is really an Enlightenment idea. But there was a socially sanctioned context for homoeroticism in Greece.

324

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Ancient Greece, like most pre-modern societies, was tradition-bound as far as sex was concerned. People were expected to do the appropriate thing in the appropriate situation. So when you talk about homosexuality in Greece you’re talking about something different than homosexuality in present-day America. There were no pride parades. The idea of liberating yourself from conventional strictures would have been alien to them.

But, as I understand it, there was an accepted context for eroticism between men. The erastes/eromenos relationship was established as a good thing for adolescents – fathers arranged suitable mentors for their sons, to secure an advantageous future. Plato wrote approvingly of the relationship, if conducted with restraint. In Sparta it was required by law.

For a grown man to refuse to start a family, and only love men, met with disapproval, it’s true. And certainly there was no doubt that all women were expected to marry. Yes, there are a lot of gay jokes in Aristophanes. So to say Greece was “tolerant” of gays is not quite correct. Tolerance – the idea of a private life, free of coercion – is really an Enlightenment idea. But there was a socially sanctioned context for homoeroticism in Greece. [/quote]

Even the term “erotic” is misleading.

Boys were encouraged to admire the perfectly sculpted male form in an erotic way, without implying that there was anything sexual about that. It was supposed to lead to the desire to embody that ideal.

Of course it is easier to make the next step when that feeling is there but one did not mean the other.

Therefore the whole idea of comparing their problems with homosexuality with ours is so strange. It only shows that minorities work like a mirror that expose the flaws in a society.

That some people always despised homosexuals, be it for this or for that reason, just shows one thing:

They don´t like gay people and they will find any excuse that does not sound too embarrassingly stupid in their social context.

325

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
You cannot honestly expect anyone, with the right sense, to believe that being gay is somehow right.

I assume you mean evangelicals?[/quote]

I’m talking about people that are not chauvinistic.

326

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
forlife wrote:

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.

I am not having it both ways - read up. Homosexuality was practiced “widely enough” as part of a larger menu of undisciplined decadent behavior by the detached elites, and thus drew the criticism of the larger society.

It was not considered normal or ordinary by the cultural norms of the era. That is ok - for the times, they were much more tolerant of homosexuality than some of their contemporaries.

But this desire to “correct” benighted Bible-thumpers with the notion that there exists a glorious past in Western civlization of uber-tolerance of homosexuals is not enough to sustain a fiction, which it certainly is. It simply isn’t true.

One day you will grow up and learn that the existence of facts is not predicated on whether you like them or not.[/quote]

Have you got enough source material to back up this claim?

327

[quote]pookie wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
When everywhere, always, and by all being homosexual was considered not normal and a sin.

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]

I do not advocate discrimination against anyone for choices uncontrollable to them. I however do not think we should change rules and be forced to implement programs for people because of their choices. I do not see Neanderthal-faced individuals wearing funny glasses advocating for some kind of rites and programs that normal people have.

Actually the Latin phrase I was thinking of translates to everywhere, always, and by all. Not In every culture, everywhere, and at all time. Plus, when I talk about this you have to look at it objectively. I’m not talking about a region, I’m talking about the whole. I’m not talking about a minority, I’m talking about the whole. I’m not talking about a generation, I’m talking about the whole.

BC

P.S. I am sorry my writing does not qualify or meet your standards, but I try my best. And other times, I do not give a fuck.

328

[quote]orion wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
When everywhere, always, and by all being homosexual was considered not normal and a sin.

Do they have books where you live?

I have added a picture, in case you are not sure what a “book” is.

[/quote]

Great stab!

329

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
You cannot honestly expect anyone, with the right sense, to believe that being gay is somehow right.

I assume you mean evangelicals?

I’m talking about people that are not chauvinistic.[/quote]

How do you come up with these gems?

Your entire basis for denying gays the right to marry is in your squeamishness and a book written by Jews.

330

[quote]forlife wrote:
How about Sodom and Gomorrah? That example of a gay embracing society is in the bible, so it must be true :slight_smile:

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]

Well, your first example if you do not remember was taken down, for their lawlessness.

331

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
You cannot honestly expect anyone, with the right sense, to believe that being gay is somehow right.

I assume you mean evangelicals?

I’m talking about people that are not chauvinistic.

How do you come up with these gems?

Your entire basis for denying gays the right to marry is in your squeamishness and a book written by Jews.[/quote]

Well, the Jews that wrote the book that I follow, also started my Church and are also the fathers of colleagues of mine. We also agree on a lot of things, and my stuff is not just based on this book it is also based on the ancient father’s of Judaism and Christianity. I am not squeamish about homosexuals, I do however think it is a sin and is a deviant action.

I have not read much modern literature that some people like Pharrell seem to think I need to quote, but I however do read enough ancient literature to say I can spot their lofty arguments from something that has actually been proven.

332

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
but I however do read enough ancient literature to say I can spot their lofty arguments from something that has actually been proven.[/quote]

No you don’t. The biggest anti-gay movement is and always will be Abrahamic religions.

What right do you have to legislate your beliefs on others? All your arguments seem to be based on the Bible - NEWS FLASH - not everyone follows it (stay tuned for more at 11).

“I do however think it is a sin and is a deviant action.”

Grats, you think you can think. Let’s try independent thought now. Why is it a sin? Because some magic space genie told you so via the Bible?

333

Brother Chris, you surely commit sins every day in your life. What makes theirs worse?

334

AlisaV and Orion,

I really liked your last two posts. Nice to see every once in a while people trying to add more complex concepts (such as reflexivity in social matters) into our often polarised discussions.

Makkun

335

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Ancient Greece, like most pre-modern societies, was tradition-bound as far as sex was concerned. People were expected to do the appropriate thing in the appropriate situation. So when you talk about homosexuality in Greece you’re talking about something different than homosexuality in present-day America.

There were no pride parades. The idea of liberating yourself from conventional strictures would have been alien to them.

But, as I understand it, there was an accepted context for eroticism between men. The erastes/eromenos relationship was established as a good thing for adolescents – fathers arranged suitable mentors for their sons, to secure an advantageous future. Plato wrote approvingly of the relationship, if conducted with restraint. In Sparta it was required by law.

For a grown man to refuse to start a family, and only love men, met with disapproval, it’s true. And certainly there was no doubt that all women were expected to marry. Yes, there are a lot of gay jokes in Aristophanes.

So to say Greece was “tolerant” of gays is not quite correct. Tolerance – the idea of a private life, free of coercion – is really an Enlightenment idea. But there was a socially sanctioned context for homoeroticism in Greece. [/quote]

Correct.

It’s more complicated than either camp wants to admit - and while the Anti-Gay crowd cannot use the ancient world as unassailable proof of outright cultural hostility to homosexuality, neither can the Pro-Gay revisionists use the cultural practices of the ancient world as a blunt instrument against the despised “Bible thumpers”.

It’s bad use of facts and history by either side, but the Pro-Gay revisionists have the added wage of hypocrisy, since they are the first to beat their chest as champions of objectivity, rationalism, and reason.

336

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Ancient Greece, like most pre-modern societies, was tradition-bound as far as sex was concerned. People were expected to do the appropriate thing in the appropriate situation. So when you talk about homosexuality in Greece you’re talking about something different than homosexuality in present-day America.

There were no pride parades. The idea of liberating yourself from conventional strictures would have been alien to them.

But, as I understand it, there was an accepted context for eroticism between men. The erastes/eromenos relationship was established as a good thing for adolescents – fathers arranged suitable mentors for their sons, to secure an advantageous future. Plato wrote approvingly of the relationship, if conducted with restraint. In Sparta it was required by law.

For a grown man to refuse to start a family, and only love men, met with disapproval, it’s true. And certainly there was no doubt that all women were expected to marry. Yes, there are a lot of gay jokes in Aristophanes.

So to say Greece was “tolerant” of gays is not quite correct. Tolerance – the idea of a private life, free of coercion – is really an Enlightenment idea. But there was a socially sanctioned context for homoeroticism in Greece.

Correct.

It’s more complicated than either camp wants to admit - and while the Anti-Gay crowd cannot use the ancient world as unassailable proof of outright cultural hostility to homosexuality, neither can the Pro-Gay revisionists use the cultural practices of the ancient world as a blunt instrument against the despised “Bible thumpers”.

It’s bad use of facts and history by either side, but the Pro-Gay revisionists have the added wage of hypocrisy, since they are the first to beat their chest as champions of objectivity, rationalism, and reason.
[/quote]

You mean the side that openly concedes its hypocrisy and bigotry is morally superior?

Is there even such a side?

For if not we have hypocrisy on both sides and one side has the added bonus of arguing with a scroll full of bronze age fairy tales.

There is indeed a difference between someone who aspires to use reason and fails and someone who is rejecting reason from the get go.

337

[quote]orion wrote:

You mean the side that openly concedes its hypocrisy and bigotry is morally superior?

Is there even such a side?

For if not we have hypocrisy on both sides and one side has the added bonus of arguing with a scroll full of bronze age fairy tales.

There is indeed a difference between someone who aspires to use reason and fails and someone who is rejecting reason from the get go.[/quote]

You miss the point - the Faux-Rationalists swear to the Heavens that the difference between themselves and the “fairy tale” believers (your term) is that the Faux-Rationalists are the pious followers of Reason, whereas the “fairy tale” believers embrace ideology and superstition…only to realize that they suffer from the same ideological bottlenecking of information as do they accused “fairy tale” believers when faced with facts that don’t help their viewpoint.

The easy point is that the Faux-Rationalists aren’t aspiring to use reason and failing - they are simply being as ideologically blind as the “fairy tale” believers they despise and using Reason as selectively as the very folks they distinguish themselves from.

338

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

You mean the side that openly concedes its hypocrisy and bigotry is morally superior?

Is there even such a side?

For if not we have hypocrisy on both sides and one side has the added bonus of arguing with a scroll full of bronze age fairy tales.

There is indeed a difference between someone who aspires to use reason and fails and someone who is rejecting reason from the get go.

You miss the point - the Faux-Rationalists swear to the Heavens that the difference between themselves and the “fairy tale” believers (your term) is that the Faux-Rationalists are the pious followers of Reason, whereas the “fairy tale” believers embrace ideology and superstition…only to realize that they suffer from the same ideological bottlenecking of information as do they accused “fairy tale” believers when faced with facts that don’t help their viewpoint.

The easy point is that the Faux-Rationalists aren’t aspiring to use reason and failing - they are simply being as ideologically blind as the “fairy tale” believers they despise and using Reason as selectively as the very folks they distinguish themselves from.[/quote]

Is you saying we all are human?

339

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

You mean the side that openly concedes its hypocrisy and bigotry is morally superior?

Is there even such a side?

For if not we have hypocrisy on both sides and one side has the added bonus of arguing with a scroll full of bronze age fairy tales.

There is indeed a difference between someone who aspires to use reason and fails and someone who is rejecting reason from the get go.

You miss the point - the Faux-Rationalists swear to the Heavens that the difference between themselves and the “fairy tale” believers (your term) is that the Faux-Rationalists are the pious followers of Reason, whereas the “fairy tale” believers embrace ideology and superstition…only to realize that they suffer from the same ideological bottlenecking of information as do they accused “fairy tale” believers when faced with facts that don’t help their viewpoint.

The easy point is that the Faux-Rationalists aren’t aspiring to use reason and failing - they are simply being as ideologically blind as the “fairy tale” believers they despise and using Reason as selectively as the very folks they distinguish themselves from.[/quote]

What “ideological bottlenecking” are you talking about? I don’t know of any educated people who bring up Greco-Roman attitudes towards homosexuality in order to say “since these cultures were perfectly tolerant, intolerance is an aberration,” or anything like that. That’s clearly not true.

Instead, studying Greek (or East Asian, or whatever) conceptions of sexuality disproves the much stronger assertion of the bigots that ALL societies either shared their hateful attitude towards gays or were sinful about-to-collapse Gomorrahs. It’s not that they were perfect, it’s that they were more complex and diverse than the supposed “Judeo-Chrisitan” norm.

340

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
forlife wrote:

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.

I am not having it both ways - read up. Homosexuality was practiced “widely enough” as part of a larger menu of undisciplined decadent behavior by the detached elites, and thus drew the criticism of the larger society.

It was not considered normal or ordinary by the cultural norms of the era. That is ok - for the times, they were much more tolerant of homosexuality than some of their contemporaries.

But this desire to “correct” benighted Bible-thumpers with the notion that there exists a glorious past in Western civlization of uber-tolerance of homosexuals is not enough to sustain a fiction, which it certainly is. It simply isn’t true.

One day you will grow up and learn that the existence of facts is not predicated on whether you like them or not.

Have you got enough source material to back up this claim?[/quote]

I want to see just one reliable source demonstrating that homosexuality was denounced and reviled by larger Roman society. I’m not saying that it’s not so (really have no idea), but I have not seen anything of this nature. Thunderbolt, please provide. Your saying it was the case does not make it true.