Why do people disapprove of homosexuality?

Post Reply New Topic

Not buying it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history

The modern conception of homosexuality as an orientation did not exist in ancient Greece. Back then no one identified as a homosexual. Sexual relations were conducted in terms of passive and active roles. Same-sex acts did occur but they were prohibited by the law of Athens. They were not celebrated and they were not rampant.

BS,

i have walked the streets of delphi, i have seen the ancient greek paintings.
you sir are so far from reality it hurts.

Age-structured marriage was a common ideal in Antiquity. Women were considered to be marriageable quite young. Contrary to what might be expected, this was actually very empowering for women. One of the most deeply misunderstood things about patriarchy in the Ancient world is that, because women married so young, a woman who married a wealthy husband would hold considerable political power, as a widow or simply an established wife long past breeding years, at the same age as if she had been born male and with a title. Something that a lot of people don't take into account is that men in their twenties were essentially cannon-fodder and weren't taken very seriously in political discourse until their thirties, so they were not necessarily much better off than their female counter-parts. Although this hardly constitutes social equality, it would help explain why women in the ancient world tolerated this situation for so long, surely far from justifying it.

Among the aristocracy, marriage and the conception of offspring was considered to be a duty for male heirs, and weddings were arranged generally by parents (who made angry, howling demands for offspring, whether you were gay, straight or indifferent). Due to the impersonal nature of such political marriages, it was naturally perfectly acceptable for a man to take on a mistress. Although this is superficially demeaning to both wife and mistress, I propose a simple reason that ancient women might have tolerated this. While their husbands were away with their mistresses, wives--who had never been asked whether they wanted to be married--were masters of the house, and they probably saw it as greatly needed downtime. Furthermore, a woman from a poor background could arrive upon rewarding opportunities by traveling with a married land-owner. The idea that being a courtesan is somehow "demeaning" is a Christian concept. Hanging on the arm of a rich guy for a while would have been a perfectly amicable and honest means of making a living and moving up in the world in the eyes of ancient women.

Now, I arrive upon how this is connected to the present topic. Pederasty was an age-structured same-sex relationship. However, the comparison of this with "pedophilia" or a "master-slave" concept of sex would be to miss the context entirely. For one thing, such an age-structured relationship would be nothing more unusual than a mimicry of normal opposite-sex marriages of the time. Just like gay men in our time, the gay men of that time period wanted little in the world other than to live with as much sense of normalcy as they could manage. If your parents forced you to get married and produce twelve offspring, though, your life with your real lover might be recognized and even honored, but there was certainly a structural limit on how far it could be integrated. The fact that it was never fully integrated is not evidence that the ancients were opposed to homosexuality, but to try to do so would have been ignorant and impractical in the context of their society. The sexes were simply unequal and had very distinct roles in that world.

Another reason that it's stupid to assume that this was a "master-slave" arrangement is the very thing that makes it stupid to assume that the mistress of a married land-owner was somehow at a great disadvantage: being associated with a prominent older man would give a youth, especially from an underprivileged background status and opportunities he wouldn't otherwise have had. Furthermore, as tends to be the case for a female courtesan, such an arrangement would have been an opportunity for experience and education. In fact, it would be extremely profitable for any young aristocrat to serve for a while as an older man's traveling companion, no matter what his normal inclinations were.

Therefore, I believe that it is conceivable that the manner in which homosexuality manifested in Antiquity was simply the most logical thing to do at the time. People during the time period had the same blood in their veins as we do. They had the same needs and the same urges. They had the same limitations in their character. No matter what social arrangement is imposed upon people, they will ultimately try to fulfill those needs, in the fullness of time.

Then again, Antiquity is a much more populous, less organized, and more poorly understood place than the modern world, so we generalize at our peril. You could claim that some clever ancient Greek or Persian or early Taoist invented a steam engine made out of beaten copper and then used it to power a primitive automobile, yet it was all melted down and forgotten after his death. It is as valid a suggestion any about a people of which we know little and understand less. Nobody is really an authority on everyday life in 600 B.C.E., for there is simply very little record of it. Nothing stands on its own that is not falsifiable.

Last edited by WilliamWDelaney on 05 Jan 2012, 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

that is flat out false. Homosexual domination was a primary means of building soldier bonding in the Spartan Army. Reproductive sex was carried out at night a furtively by Spartan regulars. That would sneak out of the barracks at night and go home to impregnate their wives so more sons could be produced for the Spartan army.

In Athens loving relations between older men and young male adults was practiced and in some cases lauded. Read between the lines of the Socratic Dialogues of Plato.

ruveyn

Is this a declaration ex cathedra and thus subject to dogmatic infallability?

Let's distinguish between people who engage in homosexual acts, people who have a homosexual orientation and gay people. Engaging in homosexual acts says nothing about your sexual orientation. And having a homosexual orientation says nothing about whether or not you will choose to live within the context of that orientation. So I will certainly agree with you that among the πολλοί there was little economic opportunity for living with in the context of a homosexual orientation. Prosperity was tied to land and hereditary tenure of land.

And even though the word "homosexual" was not yet coined (How could it be, it's half Greek and half Latin), that is not the same thing as saying that homosexual orientations did not exist.

It is only with the development of towns and industry that men (and I use the gender-exclusive deliberately) were able to sell their labour and live independently from land and family. It is only then that a society exclusively composed of men can exist outside of closed religious orders. Read up on the Molly Houses of 17th century London--the men who lived in them didn't identify as homosexuals, either. But they existed, nonetheless.

That's called being a typical bully.

Preying on outsiders isn't psychopathic, it's tribal.

Because most of them are insecure about their own sexuality, so they bash gay people to make up for their insecurities.

I think I should share this link here...

http://www.politicususa.com/en/proof-th ... al-arousal

all men in this society are afraid to do homosexual acts with each other even though they might want to. It's looked down upon, degraded. demonized and plain unmanley... Good thing a lot of men are opening up with their sexuality, a lot are now on the down low.

I've just spent ages reading this whole thread, and this post in particular struck me as unbelievable.

I couldn't find a report button, but I can't believe that in this day and age the ignorant are still spouting such bile. As for your poor neighbours- I find it far more likely that they dislike the fact that they're gay due to the ignorant, bigoted homophobic religious nuts who make thier lives hell, not down to thier own sexuality.

By the way, how have civil unions and/or gay people impacted the moral fibre of anywhere???? Straights enter into marriage willy nilly, then divorce, or cheat, or abuse thier partner. Gay partnerships are far FAR less likely to end in divorce as thier tends to be far more mature thought put into the idea that they want to spend the rest of thier lives together. And before I get jumped on, I'm not saying that all straight people do such things, far from it. Just that the percentages of such behaviours are far higher in hetro marriages than gay ones.

Finally, what gives Christians the right to pronounce judgement on others? I seem to remember the line "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." from the bible. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that DOESN'T mean you have a right air it loudly and try and make other people feel bad and do what you want, whether through verbal abuse or more violent means. If you sadly feel the need to hate, have the decency to keep it to yourself.


Judge not lest ye should be judged

You know, you tend to feel a lot more relaxed around your fellow human being once you've just realized that your sexuality really is nearly immutable. Flexible, yes. Moldable, to some extent. I'm sure even that, over the course of several decades, it might even change in the normal course of development or aging. But you're not going to turn gay just from being around gay people. You won't even turn gay from having loads of perverted gay sex. It just doesn't work that way. And this realization makes it so much easier to relax around your buddies and not feel like you're going to start screwing each other in the butt just because you hugged.

It's not catching, no matter what you do. Hell, if a gay guy wants to lay down with his head in your lap, let him: think of him as kind of like your pet cat, something you can show affection with but not something you have any business trying to screw. The more indecent, white trash type gay guys in your life would love you if you mellowed out and slapped them on the ass once in a while. Ones like the Modern Family guys, not so much, since they are a little conservative. Homosexuality is not and cannot be a transmissible disease, and I swear that letting this sink in will make you happier in general.

The person I met my boyfriend through had actually, because he was autistic and lonely, tried for the better part of a year to make an intimate relationship with me work, but we could never get past cuddling before he lost interest. In fact, after the initial flush of endearment wore off between us, he kept acting more and more like I was his beer buddy, and we ultimately had to stop pretending that we were ever actually lovers. He was never gay, and he is never going to be gay. He is HOPELESSLY straight. He gets extremely infatuated over women, and he has even had incidents where he tried and failed to make an advance and got in trouble over it.

And, if it turns out you are somewhat more bisexual than you thought you were, so what? Don't be a wuss. It just means you found out something you didn't already know. Furthermore, you will find that most people like you better if you are cool, relaxed and open in general.

Last edited by WilliamWDelaney on 06 Jan 2012, 12:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history

What is that supposed to prove?

The profile of most bullies is consistent with the clinical portrait of a psychopath. Not all bullies are psychopaths to be sure - there are many ways to bully someone - but the ones who go out and inflict physical harm on people because they appear vulnerable are psychopaths. I would say that bullies are on the psychopathy spectrum by definition even if they don't meet the clinical requirements for diagnosis. All bullies show a lack of empathy for their victims. I reiterate that the problem is not homophobia but psychopathy. Most people who dislike homosexuals don't go around beating them up.

Perhaps this will shed a little more light. And possibly a source of better repute than wikipedia- Stanford University's department of philosophy entry on homosexuality, clicky below:-

Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy- Homosexuality

If you read Xenophon's Anabasis, you'll find that Greek soldiers would often capture and keep alive for themselves boys.