No same-sex hugs allowed

[chatfsh]

A proper translation (by Charles Darwin Adams, no less!) helps immensely:

The important word in the first clause is εταιρησει, which is a verb form I can't be arsed to parse at this time of night, but it's related to the word hetaira "female courtesan; prostitute", feminine of hetairos "companion".

Note that the death penalty is not for homosexuality at all, as is implied by the half-assed machine translation first posted here, but for violation of the restrictions placed upon someone who HAS BEEN CONVICTED of prostitution.

Yes, to be more specific the passage refers to men accused of selling their bodies to other men for sexual gratification.  If a man was found guilty of such, he wasn

[Dante]

Oh look everyone, now she's an expert in ancient Greek history as well. Whatever will our esteemed polymath turn her attentions to next? Engineering perhaps? Advanced trigonometry? The Life and times of Otto von Bismark? The mind boggles.

[Anathema]

Yes, to be more specific the passage refers to men accused of selling their bodies to other men for sexual gratification.  If a man was found guilty of such, he wasn

[chatfsh]

I didn't bother with your youtube link, I don't intend to waste ten minutes of my life on a video by someone named "Hellenicblood" who's trying to reconcile his personal bigotries with his adoration of his national history..

The video is worth your time.  Why jump to conclusions before viewing the material?

I admit, my earlier posts suggest that homosexuality was never persecuted before christianity and that's not entirely true. What is true is that christianity caused it to be universally persecuted and despised across Europe.

Well, let

[athanasios]

Shame on all who try to spill dirt on our ancient history. A conduct of the minority of the population is presented as the norm, whereas it was generally condemned as a deviation from nature. Perverts always existed and always tried to promote their perversion as normal.

Who cares to read the vicious propaganda in wikipedia.  Our ancient texts, the ones that survived from the malicious attack to eradicate anything Greek, are enough for us.

(Μετάφραση Κ.Θ Αραποπούλου,

[Wolf]

Shame on all who try to spill dirt on our ancient history. A conduct of the minority of the population is presented as the norm, whereas it was generally condemned as a deviation from nature. Perverts always existed and always tried to promote their perversion as normal.

Given the context of this discussion... that's one of the most uncomfortable things I've ever read on this forum. Isn't there a forum rule against comments like this?

@Hwi: I like how you talk about ancient Greek practices like you were there.

EDIT: And, as for this:

The video is worth your time.  Why jump to conclusions before viewing the material?

I don't have to read every post in the Stormfront forums to know what's going on. I think this might be a more analogous case.

[SandChigger]

(Translation K.TH Arapopoulou 'reasons Aeschinou " Papyrus " edition)

12. "Teachers do not open the school before the sun rises and to close before sunset the sun.

Not allowed to those who have older age than a child to enter school, when inside these children, except on the son, brother or son of the teacher. And if someone in spite of this prohibition is entering the school, the punishment is death.

Also the head of the wrestling ring not to allow any adult to sit sown with children at the celebrations of Mercury, with the slightest excuse. If you do not permit this to them and did not eject from the wrestling ring, the head of the wrestling ring will be guilty of breach of the law on corruption free children. The sponsors that are designated by the the people, must have completed forty years of age. "

"On the contrary, when they realized that Kritias was in love with Euthydemus and was trying to use it and those who enjoy their bodies afrodiasika in forbidding Socrates saying that unworthy of free men is inappropriate for a man educated, virtuous, one who loves , for which he wants to seem well worth it, to beg, begging and praying to the sterxi something that even far is good. Since Kritias did not hear these words and does not depart from the purpose, called that Socrates, in the presence of many others and Euthydemus, he said it appears that Kritias is suffering from something that happens to [pigs, as would be rubbed onto the Euthydemus, like piglets rubbed the stones. Because of these just the Kritias hated Socrates'.

Is your English not good enough to be able to tell that these "translations" are crap? If you can't be bothered to find real translations, just post PROPER references to the books and we'll find them ourselves if we care. Translations directly into English from the Ancient Greek are far preferable than machine translation BS of Modern Greek translations by who knows what possibly bigoted modern Greeks.

[MrFlibble]

Translations directly into English from the Ancient Greek are far preferable

And moreover, those translations do exist in most cases, and are most probably in public domain; much better than those "broken telephone", machine aided translations that can be misguiding at best...

[ErasOmnius]

Given the context of this discussion... that's one of the most uncomfortable things I've ever read on this forum. Isn't there a forum rule against comments like this?

@Hwi: I like how you talk about ancient Greek practices like you were there.

EDIT: And, as for this:

I don't have to read every post in the Stormfront forums to know what's going on. I think this might be a more analogous case.

The whole point of the matter is this: 2 men engaging in copulative relations is against what the natural function of the body is used for.

Being a believer in natural selection, evolution, or religious dogma--There is no way to justify that what 2 men engage in during sexual activity is 'natural'.

We can split hairs about what is called the 1st Letter of Paul to the Church at Corinth, and what exactly the words mean in what has come to be know as the sixth chapter, but honestly, let's not kid around...

So much of what has come to be against natural selection, creation-oriented or evolutionary-oriented, is now considered normal, it's almost like a sick joke. If it just didn't involve real people and real lives.

Then we have to pretend that the majority of homosexual men are monogamous...

[Wolf]

That's odd, Eras--you seem to think that homosexual activity is "unnatural" and only a form of "human" "perversion." (FYI: I'm using athanasios' word here, not mine. I wouldn't use such a charged term to condemn people based on their sexual orientation.) However, it occurs frequently in nature, sometimes even "against the natural functions of the body". Do you think that's because animals are peverts or because, perhaps, it may be a natural inclination amongst some that may, in fact, serve an evolutionarily beneficial purpose?

I'm just going to set you straight on what's "natural" or not in this post. I have no desire to counter the rest of your post which is effectively homophobic trash. If you dared to say something like, "Then we have to pretend that black men actually can raise a family..." or "they're like a sick joke," you'd be banned from this forum faster than you can slur. I can't find the forum rules at the moment, but if there is a prohibition against language offensive to people because of their sexual orientation, I'm pretty sure you and athanasios are at the line--provided you haven't crossed it already. I'd recommend a serious change in your attitude, or go find a forum that will cater to your uncivil inclinations.

[Anathema]

I entirely agree with Wolf about some of the posts made here. I can't say I'm shocked or feel personally insulted, but the mods should wonder if they would delete similar remarks about racial or religious groups.

athanasios:

two linguists have already questioned your translations. Maybe you should post some English translations by an actual scholar.

I'll go first, a translation of part of Plutarch's work by some 17th century English dude. I can't vouch for him, but I don't expect anyone from that timeframe had an agenda to glorify homosexuality.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/pelopida.html

Gorgidas, according to some, first formed the Sacred Band of three hundred chosen men, to whom, as being a guard for the citadel, the State allowed provision, and all things necessary for exercise: and hence they were called the city band, as citadels of old were usually called cities. Others say that it was composed of young men attached to each other by personal affection, and a pleasant saying of Pammenes is current, that Homer's Nestor was not well skilled in ordering an army, when he advised the Greeks to rank tribe and tribe, and family and family together, that-

"So tribe might tribe, and kinsmen kinsmen aid." but that he should have joined lovers and their beloved. For men of the same tribe or family little value one another when dangers press; but a band cemented by friendship grounded upon love is never to be broken, and invincible; since the lovers, ashamed to be base in sight of their beloved, and the beloved before their lovers, willingly rush into danger for the relief of one another.

...

It is likely, therefore, that this band was called sacred on this account; as Plato calls a lover a divine friend. It is stated that it was never beaten till the battle at Chaeronea: and when Philip, after the fight, took a view of the slain, and came to the place where the three hundred that fought his phalanx lay dead together, he wondered, and understanding that it was the band of lovers, he shed tears and said, "Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything that was base."

[athanasios]

I didn't attack anyone personally. So no violation here.

Homosexuals should be ashamed for their degraded acts. Ancient Greeks used the proper word for them and I repeat it. This is not prejudice or discrimination against them. As I have already stated they are sick people and need proper treatment. I am not the one to force them to seek treatment. They can do whatever they like with their body. But I do not tolerate them to promote their wicked acts as if they are natural as I do not tolerate anyone promoting alcoholism, smoking or drugs.

It is evident that some dislike Greek culture (and not only) and are offending us repeatedly. This IS a violation of the forum rules.

-

If we end comparing man with animals it is needless to continue the discussion.

-

Sorry for the poor translation. This is all I can do in my limited time. I spent time to find those texts and fix the engine's translation myself so that the points in discussion were made clear. Since we have linguists among our company their knowledge is welcome as it is easier for them to find a more refined English text.

-

Anathema the text you provided doesn't support homosexuality at all. Intellectual love has nothing to do with sexual contact (proper hugs do not fall into that category). When I was in school I loved a couple of my teachers and so did most of my schoolmates too. This didn't make us homosexuals. But one of our beloved teachers probably was a homosexual. Often students would ridicule him for this calling him a 'sister' loudly. We loved him but we did not condone his perverted acts.

[Wolf]

It was nice knowing you.

I just want this in the record in case he wises up:

I didn't attack anyone personally. So no violation here.

Homosexuals should be ashamed for their degraded acts. Ancient Greeks used the proper word for them and I repeat it. This is not prejudice or discrimination against them. As I have already stated they are sick people and need proper treatment. I am not the one to force them to seek treatment. They can do whatever they like with their body. But I do not tolerate them to promote their wicked acts as if they are natural as I do not tolerate anyone promoting alcoholism, smoking or drugs.

It is evident that some dislike Greek culture (and not only) and are offending us repeatedly. This IS a violation of the forum rules.

EDIT: It'd be great if a mod. could come in here and give us some sort of ruling on what is/isn't offensive. Frankly, I don't think anyone here has been intolerant towards Greece--and if athanasios doesn't see the distinction between criticizing elements of a society and homophobia, someone ought to explain it to him soon.

[Dante]

Athanasios, you may not be aware, but it's pretty much accepted all over the world that the ancient Greeks widely practiced homosexual acts. I wasn't aware of a national effort to subdue that data, but apparently such an embarrasment exists. I suppose this should have been a hint. It's only recently been the subject of study, of course, but even the prudish historians of the 19th century were aware of it.

Now, as regards personal insults, I was hoping not to go here but you seem to be labouring under a misapprehension about what a personal insult is. Imagine for example that I were to say that all Greek men and women are unnatural, immoral, degraded whores whose only contribution to world culture was the film 300. As (I presume) a Greek, would you find that personally insulting?

Now we have you calling homosexuals degraded, against nature, wicked, unable to be monogamous, "dirt." It's hard to imagine that not being insulting to homosexuals, no? Choose your words with more care, is my advice.

You also seem to have an incorrect idea of exactly what a homosexual is. You seem to believe that homosexuality is something that a person does, an action that they engage in. This is not correct, as I have pointed out before. A homosexual, as I see it at least, is someone who feels romantic attraction towards members of their own gender. You said that "Intellectual love has nothing to do with sexual contact," and this is technically true: the act of sex is seperate from the feeling of attraction. It is attraction that (for the sake of argument) defines a person, not what they do with it.

I happen to be rather interested in Greek culture. The philosophers and legends most especially. You believe that we are trying to sully the name of your country when in fact it is you, by denying your history, that insult your ancestors and your nation.

Also, you made the allegation that homosexuality is not natural. And then you denied that animal behaviour has any bearing on the argument. Do you have any reasoning behind this, or are you completely ignorant of psychology and biology? I'd like to know.

Finally, I was rather hoping that this topic, unlike its hundred predecessors, would remain in the sociopolitical arguments rather than the same old ethics tripe that people seem obsessed with flinging. If this continues then the mods will, yet again, have to lock the topic and I for one would like to have a discussion on the subject which doesn't end that way, for once.

[chatfsh]

PLATO

LAWS, BOOK VIII (835b - 842c)

(Translated by R.G. Bury in Plato, Vol. XI, Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1984, pp. 147-169.)

That of godly fear, and that of love of honour, and that which is desirous of fair forms of soul, not fair bodies. The things I now mention are, perhaps, like the visionary ideals in a story; yet in very truth, if only they were realised, they would prove a great blessing in every State. Possibly, should God so grant, we might forcibly effect one of two things in this matter of sex-relations, -- either that no one should venture to touch any of the noble and freeborn save his own wedded wife, nor sow any unholy and bastard seed in fornication,nor any unnatural and barren seed in sodomy, -- or else we should entirely abolish love for males, and in regard to that for women, if we enact a law that any man who has intercourse with any women save those who have been brought to his house under the sanction of Heaven and holy marriage, whether purchased or otherwise acquired, if detected in such intercourse by any man or woman, shall be disqualified from any civic commendation, as being really an alien, -- probably such a law would be approved as right. So let this law -- whether we ought to call it one law or two -- be laid down concerning sexual commerce and love affairs in general, as regards right and wrong conduct in our mutual intercourse due to these desires.

Come then, suppose we grant that this practice (homosexuality) is now legalised, and that it is noble and in no way ignoble, how far would it promote virtue? Will it engender in the soul of him who is seduced a courageous character, or in the soul of the seducer the quality of temperance? Nobody would ever believe this; on the contrary, as all men will blame the cowardice of the man who always yields to pleasures and is never able to hold out against them, will they not likewise reproach that man who plays the woman's part with the resemblance he bears to his model? Is there any man, then, who will ordain by law a practice like that? Not one, I should say, if he has a notion of what true law is. What then do we declare to be the truth about this matter? It is necessary to discern the real nature of friendship and desire and love (so-called), if we are to determine them rightly; [837] for what causes the utmost confusion and obscurity is the fact that this single term embraces these two things, and also a third kind compounded of them both.

He also noted that those engaged in homosexual activities were afraid of their affairs  becoming public because they would be disgraced.  (Phaedrus 231e)

I maintain that

[SandChigger]

YOU are a piece of work.

Everyone, please note that that citation should be The REVEREND R. G. Bury and that he did that translation in 1926 or so.

not to mention the derogatory names that they assigned practices

Ah, and what were those? If you make a list I can look them up in my Liddell & Scott when I'm in the office again on Wednesday.

Does Jesus love it when you're deceitful?

<img src="http://www.hairyticksofdune.net/extimgs/rizgotchacovered2.jpg" />

I guess he does!

[ErasOmnius]

Is this supposed to be some big ol' agree-fest?

Why have forum if it is?

If our nations and regional states are debating these topics in their legislatures, using some of the same arguments that are being put forth here, pro and con, can they be so harmful?

And what is so harmful?

To say that a human males lower waste colon is not an orifice to receive another man's genital? To say that -- is hurtful and harmful?

To say that male life fluid, which carries the genetic code of reproduction, and is one of the foundations of the next generation; should not be injected by one male into another's lower waste colon -- to say that is wrong?

This very same fluid, when bonded with an egg, creates another human being -- the pinnacle of both evoultion thought and creationary thought!

How can saying these things be wrong?

So yes, if using arguments that are based in natural law to talk about homosexuality is wrong, close down this thread -- and ban all threads on homosexuality.

[Dante]

1) We have free will. "Natural law" applies to our species only insofar as we choose to allow it. Or do you have a problem with people living past the age of 50?

2) Once again I am forced to point out (for the third time in this thread) that homosexuality is not a sex thing. Any arguments regarding anal sex neglect a) romantic attraction b) that some couples prefer not to c) lesbians.

3) Humans are not the pinnacle of evolutionary thought. Evolution has no pinnacle. That you don't realise this suggests that you do not understand the theory.

4) It is not what is being said (though that is offensive), it's the way it's being said. Sensible people can have a debate without refering to the opposition as wicked and dirty.

5) I see that Hwi is grasping at straws again. I wonder, if I were to claim that the sky is blue, would she have a source ready to disprove that?

[chatfsh]

2) Once again I am forced to point out (for the third time in this thread) that homosexuality is not a sex thing.

Heh, now who

[Wolf]

Seriously? Hwi, you're an idiot. Dante mentioned that "it's not a sex thing" to illustrate that homosexuals do not have a choice in the matter of sexual attraction. From your own quote that you just posted, you illiterate moron:

(Psychology) a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex

Noun   1.   homosexual - someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex

(emphasis added)

Note the use of the passive voice. Dante's saying "it's not a sex thing" to mean that the issue is about physical attraction to the same sex because of inherent biological construction, as opposed to some preference for the sex act--which Eras also cannot seem to comprehend. For example, he doesn't refer to the approximately 10-20% of heterosexual adults who practice some form of sodomy "just because they like the way it feels."

And really: I'm sorry about the name calling, but when someone has such an obnoxious post (weasel voice: "Heh, now look who's grasping at straws!") and their own post contains the refutation to their point, that's just stupidity. Read. Think.

EDIT: And, honestly? "I have no problem with the truth, whereas, I will not suffer the blatant lies being put forth." You sound like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

[chatfsh]

SandChigger, you know perfectly well that there is no deception in my post.  However, your objections to it prove how powerful the material is in contradicting the misguided notion that Greeks embraced homosexuality. 

Regarding the derogatory Greek names referring to homosexuality, you

[Wolf]

Ha! Don't have an answer for that, do you? You just toss out "hypocrite" and run! You actually didn't even think about what Dante said or what your post meant! No, please, tell me how I'm a hypocrite, oh turner-of-the-other-cheek! I'm positively delighted to know.

EDIT: Because, if it's about "name-calling," well, look, I don't like doing it either. But I'm not going "to suffer the blatant lies being put forth," in the sense that if your post is actually really stupid, well, then it's the truth, isn't it?

EDIT 2: And on a final note: study suggests children of lesbians have fewer behavioral problems. You have a nice day, too, bigots!

[MrFlibble]

This thread has degraded into complete, horrid ugliness. Some of the people involved (nomina sunt odiosa) definitely have crossed the line. I hope a mod will lock down this nonsense for good :(

[Wolf]

I think the thread began with ugliness, but in the interest of keeping the thread alive, I will no longer participate if that will keep the mods happy. For the record, though, I think there's a significant difference between calling an entire class of persons "wicked perverts" *simply for who they are and calling out the person who says that for being an idiot. If you're not allowed to call out people on that, then what are you allowed to do?

[MrFlibble]

Wolf, I didn't mean you crossed the line! :O Quite the contrary! But the thread is probably better left alone, there's no prospect of sane, civil discussion here :(