No same-sex hugs allowed

[Dante]

The thread began as a commentary, I think, on homosexuality in the context of Africa. And for a while it stayed that way, looked like it was going to fade peacefully. Then the mudslinging started and Hwi, knowing a good thing when she sees it, dove in with gusto. So instead of an intelligent debate on the gay rights movement and the various hostile antagonists that it faces in Africa, we have descended once more into the same old epithet-spitting pseudoarguments thanks to people who really don't know what they're talking about. It's a shame, as I had rather hoped that for once we could have a debate on the subject without covering the same ground again. Locking the thread ends the discussion, which I'm reluctant to ask for because these people need to be educated.

What we have here is a failure to comprehend the difference between an action and a state of being. The difference between a verb and an adjective, if you like. Both hetero- and homosexuality are defined not by the action of sex but by the myriad desires and attachments that form outside of it. Hence, it is not a "sex thing."

Think about it, this is actually quite obvious. If people were defined by actions then everyone who imparted a lesson would be a teacher, everyone who cooked would be a chef, and everyone who built a wardrobe would be a joiner. People are defined, almost exclusively, by what they are, not what they do. If that were not the case then every virgin in the world, no matter who they lust after, would have an undefined sexuality as they had not yet undertaken the action of having sex. Even if they were absolutely crazy about the blonde girl from the TV. You can see how this doesn't work.

The belief that homosexuality is all about sex is both corruptive and dangerous. It is this belief that leads men to rape lesbians, under the impression that the experience will "correct" them.

"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world...

John Boswell: The Church and the Homosexual: An Historical Perspective

Boswell goes on to discuss the attitudes of the Romans, early European Christians and the bible. I recommend reading the whole article, as it isn't very long.

Finally, don't you go anywhere, Wolf. I for one appreciate insightful support when dealing with addled, opprobrious shrews.

[Wolf]

Oh, well. Point-taken, then. I will endeavor to be meaner?

[MrFlibble]

I will endeavor to be meaner?

Being critical and harsh doesn't equal being mean IMO.

(I still feel bad about the misunderstanding with what I said about people who crossed the line)

[ErasOmnius]

Wolf, earlier you brought up if I were to talk about African-American people in a derogatory way -- which I never would do -- that I should be banned, and I would agree. Racism is a disgusting evil.

I am married to a woman of minority. A woman of Ojibway [Chippewa] descent -- whose land was stripped away in the 1800s, with the consent of the American government.

But, in our church there are men and women who claim to be ex-gay and ex-lesbian. They claim that through intense discipline, acknowledging a Creator, they are happy, and straight. So much of what I am talking about here is from the Internet about ex-gays, and what I have head them say.

[athanasios]

As regards to the referred pseudo-study, I just quote:

"Funding for the research came from several lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy groups."

"The children "didn't arrive by accident," she said. "The mothers were older... they were waiting for an opportunity to have children and age brings maturity and better parenting.""

Conclusion: This is NOT a scientific study.

-

Once again I repeat it: Homosexuals existed in ancient Greece. I didn't deny that. But it was neither the norm nor an acceptable behavior. Neither it is today. Homosexuality is a sickness regardless if it includes physical (sexual) contact or not and has nothing to do with intellectual love which is often lauded in Greek writings and also in the case between David and king Saul's son in the Bible. But twisting this to imply that it refers to homosexuality is a crime and an insult against the Greek culture the Bible and at the end, against Humanity. NO! I CANNOT tolerate it.

-

Αγωγή κατά της υπουργού Οικογένειας και Γυναίκας, Αλιγιέ Σελμά Καβάφ, η οποία δήλωσε  ότι η ομοφυλοφιλία είναι

[Wolf]

Athanasios: You needed to read just a little further to get to the meaningful point of the news post.

To assess their well-being, Gartrell used the Child Behavior Checklist, a commonly used standard to measure children's behavioral and social problems, such as anxiety, depression, aggressive behavior and social competence.

The answers were coded into a computer and then analyzed. This data was compared with data from children of nonlesbian families.

The results surprised Gartrell.

Although the funding came from LGBTQ advocacy groups, the actual method used to measure the psychological health of the children was not developed by these researchers, and is commonly used and cited. In other words, it is not a "pseudo-study," and you are wrong in rejecting it outright simply because of where its funds come form. Would you say that no study funded by an advocacy group is then a real study? Do we dare not return the Elgin marbles because there are pro-Greek groups clamoring for its return and so they, of course, are not objective? Face it: the vast majority of research is done because there are groups interested in that research, so I repeat, you are again wrong in rejecting the study simply because of its funding, without examining the underlying models which are unbiased and sound.

[Dante]

At this point it looks like we're all just throwing sources at each other, except ErasOmnius of course, who seems incapable of providing any evidence to back up his position. Bad sources in your case, but sources all the same. While I am in no way backing away from my argument (homosexuality was widely spread and accepted in ancient Greece and Rome), I think it is time we acknowledge that we have reached an impasse. So unless anyone has any more mistranslated texts to add, perhaps we can move on?

Nobody called Alexander a wimp, athanasios. Indeed, he's widely acknowledged as one of the finest tacticians and military leaders of his age, highly ambitious and undefeated on the battlefield. And probably romantically linked with Hephaestion. The descriptions aren't mutually exclusive.

Now, if the two of you can refrain from your cultish blood worship for the time being, a word on behaviour.

"Racism is a disgusting evil." Your words, not mine.

"against nature" "sick joke" Also your words.

Tell me, are you ignoring the double standard there or are you just too stupid to see it? Because if any of you directed "wicked and perverted" towards, say, blacks, women, the disabled, Mexians or Jews you would be skewered by public condemnation. So if discrimination on the basis of race is so evil, why is discrimination on the basis of sexuality ok? And before you answer, keep in mind early christian treatment of all of the above. Save perhaps Mexicans. Unless you count the Aztecs, in which case go ahead.

I'm guessing that nobody read that article I linked. Ah well, I'm sure I'll just quote it extensively later.

[chatfsh]

Based upon the documented laws concerning homosexuality, Plato

[Dante]

Good. Now be a good girl and piss off. :)

[chatfsh]

Ah, now there

[ErasOmnius]

Good. Now be a good girl and piss off. :)

And don't forget to call us stupid.

Just because we don't think "it's" normal.

[Wolf]

I like how you scare-quoted "it's," Erasmus, like the very word is too unclean for you to say outright. It's amazing how close your behavior can be analogized to instances of racism I've seen. "You know, there are too many of "them" there." No, for my part at least, I'm only going to call people names when they do things to deserve it--in which case, it's not so much name-calling as it is a factual observation. If you ignore, fail to read, or fail to understand something that is obvious--especially something that you quote or write yourself, well, that's pretty stupid and I think that's pretty fair to call you out on it. On the other hand, expressions of bigotry are probably going to be met with accusations of bigotry. That's just common sense.

Look--none of you guys can complain. "Civil tongue?" It's pretty poor form to complain about insults when you say that an entire class of truly normal and innocent people are "wicked," "perverse," "against nature" or are "a sick joke." Either you dish it and take the flak for dishing it, or you do what your mothers told you and keep uncivil comments to yourselves in the first place. Furthermore, there are specific prohibitions against racism, sexism, and discrimination against sexual orientation in the world (and I'm pretty sure on this forum), whereas, me calling you an idiot for being an idiot is not a legally cognizable offense. Why do you think that is?

Anyway, back to the future:

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of homosexuality being a common occurrence in the ancient world--at least as common today--and for being both more accepted in society and in conversation than it evidently is here. Despite Hwi's anti-contextual repetition, the consensus is that some form of homosexual interaction was, in fact, appropriate and accepted in the ancient world. I spoke to a couple friends of mine who majored in the classics, and here is a direct transcript from the conversation:

Dr. Wolfy McWolfowitz: In your opinion as a classics student, was "homosexuality an accepted part of life in classical Greece?"

Classics Major: Good question. To my knowledge, they didn't think of it so much as "homosexuality as they did "regular life."

Indeed, this represents the consensus view: in some city states, homosexuality was widely practiced and accepted as something adolescent boys simply did before becoming adults and marrying women to have families. "Boys will be boys" seems to be the impression that I have, while I will concede that in other cities, it was frowned on to engage in homosexual behavior "as an adult."

However, there is another argument: the record from the classical era is highly incomplete and fragmented. We have only a minority of their total data and records. For example, there are about 30+ more books detailing the same epic as The Iliad that are lost to history. That there are so many references to both ordinary people and historical figures engaging in homosexual behavior indicates that it was extremely widespread, if even this limited sample can provide so many points of reference. Socrates certainly had homosexual relationships with many of his students, including Plato. Alexander the Great, a national hero and world leader, almost certainly killed his male lover in the course of a (perhaps related?) dispute.

[Anathema]

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.

"Intellectual love"? What is that supposed to mean? (not much apparently, seeing as how it didn't stop you from ridiculing your teacher)

The Theban sacred band consisted of lovers. That you're willing to go at such lenghts to escape obvious conclusions is really telling.

Needless to say how different they view Alexander the Great there: As a legend and a hero' date=' not as a sissy conqueror.[/quote']

Nobody said he was a sissy. Some have speculated that he was bisexual, although (AFAIK) there's only circumstantial evidence for that.

But if he were, it would not be unusual. His father didn't have a problem with it:

It is likely' date=' 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."[/quote']

The Philip mentioned in this text is of course Philip II of Macedon.

@ Hwi: even if the translations you quoted are accurate and Plato was against homosexuality, what the feck led you to the conclusion that his (rather prudish) opinions were representative of all the ancient Greeks? Or even the ancient Athenians?

I could go on, but I think I'll leave this thread for what it is. I might just as well have the same discussion with a brick wall - and I can at least count on the brick wall to be civil.

[Dante]

Indeed, this represents the consensus view: in some city states, homosexuality was widely practiced and accepted as something adolescent boys simply did before becoming adults and marrying women to have families. "Boys will be boys" seems to be the impression that I have, while I will concede that in other cities, it was frowned on to engage in homosexual behavior "as an adult."

As far as I'm aware it was more the role than the behaviour. An adult was expected to take a younger, submissive lover. A couple who were both adults were seen as childish, as one of them had not outgrown the role that was commonly filled by an adolescent. This was unusual, but neither condemned nor legislated against.

The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier, as Western societies have done for the past century. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated. This active/passive polarization corresponded with dominant and submissive social roles: the active (penetrative) role was associated with masculinity, higher social status, and adulthood, while the passive role was associated with femininity, lower social status, and youth.

Link

This is actually where a lot of the confusion regarding translations comes from. A lot of the supposed references to "homosexuals" (a word that did not exist at the time, remember) were actually refering specifically to the passive partner, or the associated effeminacy of the role, or even completely unrelated topics like prostitution.

Of course, not being a student of the classics, I'd defer to your friend's judgement.

Anathema: Plato grew increasingly putitanical towards the end of his life. If I remember correctly he believed that a far more important distinction than gender or role was activity. He condemned the act of sex between anyone of any gender save when absolutely necessary for the purposes of reproduction, while at the same time he highly praised romantic attachment and love. Most of the misquoted passages can be explained by that.

[MrFlibble]

Okay, now can anyone please explain me how does the attitude to homosexuals in Ancient Greece have anything to with tolerance, civil and human rights in modern world?

As far as I can tell, none of us here are specialists in history of Antiquity, so the discussion about sexual practices of Ancient Greeks is of little scientific value (don't want to offend anyone here). And yet, even if we had enough data to firmly establish the status of homosexuality in any given epoch and place of ancient world, what exactly does it have to do with the modern situation? Sure, we can say: "It was common for the public of country X in time period Y to condemn homosexuals" and "In the same time period Y, homosexuality was an accepted norm in country Z". So what?

[chatfsh]

So, it seems that we

[Eliyyahu]

Haven't posted here in a while (can't recall my login and pw and all that).  Anyway, came across this thread, and for some reason decided I would go ahead and torture myself, lol.

Hwi,

As Jesus himself said, he fulfilled the Old Testament law, accomplished all that it required.  No one else could make such a claim.

Anyone else could make this claim.

But they'd quickly be shown to be ignorant or lying if they made such a claim to people who actually know and observe the Torah (which means instruction, not law, and which contains hundreds of laws, not just a "law").

There are laws concerning only Nazarites.  There are laws concerning only the King.  There are laws which apply only to women.  There are laws which apply only to men.  There are laws which apply only to Kohanim (priests descent from Aharon), or to Levites.  There are laws which only concern the Temple, and which are only in effect when the Temple stands.  There are laws which only apply in the land of Israel, and not in the diaspora.

Last but certainly not least, there are laws which regard the nation as a whole, which no single person can keep or break on behalf of the entire community, such as the command to appoint judges and officers in every community in Israel (Deut. 16:18).

There is no basis in reality to say that Jesus fulfilled "Old Testament law".  I am perfectly fine with the notion that there was a historical basis for Jesus who did in fact observe Jewish law (according to the teachings of the Pharisees, in fact), in which case he was not a lot different than millions of other Jews in his day and in the days since.

Talking about one person fulfilling and accomplishing "Old Testament law" is every bit as ridiculous as claiming that one person fulfilled and accomplished (rendering obsolete) American law.  

On the last night of his earthly life, Christ told his disciples that he was making a New Covenant with then.  He, alone, had the right to do that, since he, alone, fulfilled the Old Testament law perfectly.   This New Covenant would remain in FULL force until His return.

A look at Jeremiah 31 in context shows how superficial the use of "new covenant" is in the New Testament.

Regarding the topic, it is the act and not the feelings and attraction to the same sex which is an issue in Judaism.  Judaism accepts that this attraction is not a choice whatsoever.  Furthermore, to carry out a penalty for this act there is a long list of circumstances and requirements to be met which ensure such penalties are not likely to ever be carried out.

[ErasOmnius]

I like how you scare-quoted "it's," Erasmus, like the very word is too unclean for you to say outright. It's amazing how close your behavior can be analogized to instances of racism I've seen. "You know, there are too many of "them" there."

Why do you continue to try to tag me as a racist, when you know I am married to a woman is a minority? From an earlier post, you know that I welcome Hispanics into the USA, but you still try to label me. It's really sad.

But as for talk about the ancient world: I have 84 hours of Ancient History instruction from a prominent University in the USA. Big deal.

Yes, many urban ancient Greeks practised homosexuality. I am not sure what that means.

Wow, urban Greeks practised homosexuality, so it's okay?

Corinth - very common amongst the followers of Aphrodite and Dionysis. [almost to the point of being out of the closet]

Athens - fairly common amongst the elite class. [almost expected for a young male to have to give in to an older mentor, willingly or semi-unwillingly]

Sparta - children were taken away in adolescence, segregated from females and parents [obviously raging hormones in a boot camp are going to be out of control, and are going to cause same-sex activity]

Phoenicia/Carthage - Homosexuality was an acitivity of the urban class, especially in Antioch.

But when we talk about the bedrock of Macedonian society, the farmers from the northern mountains of Greece/southern Balkans, there are little evidences of homosexuality. This is where Alexander was from. But there is evidence that eventually he had times of bi-sexuality later in his life, as he was exposed to the culture of main Greece.

A good book on this is Dr JM OBrien's, Alexander the Great: The Invisible Enemy.

It is the same occurance with Rome. The "Roman Farmer" was the bedrock of both the Republic and the Empire, and their high birth rate.

Then came the Greek Orthodox Church, and the whole thing almost disappeared, or went underground. This of course, has gone world-wide for the Orthodox.

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101

There are scant few references in any history where homosexuality is out-of-the closet and open. Scant references where two men are marrying; or two lesbians are adopting children, as we see in the West.

There are definitely hardly ANY references in History where someone espousing a traditional religous view, is completely censored for talking about homosexuality in a natural law viewpoint or argument.

Now let's talk about Venereal Disease, and compare homosexuality and monogamous hetoerosxuality.

[Wolf]

Why do you continue to try to tag me as a racist, when you know I am married to a woman is a minority? From an earlier post, you know that I welcome Hispanics into the USA, but you still try to label me. It's really sad.

Yes, it is really sad--on the one hand because this indicates that you, yet again, failed to grasp my point, and on the other because your behavior still represents the classic pattern of thinly-veiled prejudice. Let me break it down for you.

Caveat:

1. Who you date, marry, or associate with has nothing to do with whatever inner prejudicial feelings you may have. In fact, if you think it does have something to do with your wider perceptions about race or sex, then you are, in fact, engaging in prejudicial behavior. Do you understand why? It's because who you date, marry, or associate with should be dependent on that person as an individual--not because of their membership in any larger group. So, I don't care how many LGBTQ friends you have or how many people of color you've dated, married or associated with--those associations are between you and them, and if you do think this imparts any form of "street cred" to you on matters of race, gender or sexuality, then that, in itself, is prejudicial (racist, sexist, homophobic) behavior. Kapish? You bring up the "welcoming Hispanics" point as if we're supposed to laud you for your progressive tendencies, but you fail to qualify why you welcome Hispanics--wouldn't the race-neutral (i.e. valid) perspective be, "I welcome all people to the U.S.A. who are seeking a better life," why did you pick Hispanics? It is this behavior that is fundamentally prejudiced, and backwards, and it is extremely sad that you do not pick up on this.

Argument:

1. I'm not calling you a racist, per se, but I am pointing out that your behavior is pretty much identical to racist, or any other form of prejudiced discourse. For example:

a. Use of alienating terminology to separate yourself from the target group: "I don't care what they do," "It's not normal," "What I have heard them say." [EDIT 2: You even emphasize this terminology yourself, for Chrissake!] Contrast this with, "those who choose to engage in X activity" (this does not impart any "membership qualities" on the individuals), or "homosexuals cannot help their latent attraction to people of the same sex" (this imparts membership qualities on individuals, but does not necessarily separate the speaker from the group). When your discourse does not justifiably ascribe membership qualities to a group, or does not justifiably separate you from the group in question, you are engaging in discriminatory or alienating behavior--this is inherently prejudiced. Why I keep bringing up "racist" was because I thought it was a simple way for you to grasp the concept that if you simply replaced "homosexual" with "(insert race here)" you would see that the language was classically racist. You didn't; so now you get to experience Civil Rights Discourse with Wolf 101.

b. (a) wouldn't be a huge problem if you didn't also contextualize your speech with derogatory associations. "It's not natural," "it's perverse," "it's wicked," "it's not okay." These statements create a negative value judgment, which allows us properly to infer that you are not only discriminating, but you are discriminating in a way that seeks to subjugate a class of persons, or, in other words, to reduce their overall "personhood." They are "damaged," in a way, "not right," or "in need of correction."

2. (a) + (b) are the cornerstones of institutionalized discrimination, of which the greatest example is institutionalized racism in the United States. Until your behavior or attitude changes, I feel I am completely justified in analogizing your behavior to that of 19th-20th century American racists.

EDIT: (And make fun of you :P)

[Acriku]

Ew the stink of fundamentalist prejudice wafts from even Africa it seems. I wonder how far people would go against homosexuality if their almighty creator hadn't given them reason to hate? We all have hate in our hearts, it's a natural thing and bad feelings might even be good for you. But against the victimless acts of consentual same-sex recreation performed by people minding their own business? Find an injustice of the world or crime against humanity to better focus your energy spent.

I think it's a joke that people of today have been manipulated by bigoted writers who didn't know any better thousands of years ago.

.. but who's laughing?

[ErasOmnius]

Can I start a thread about Venereal Disease?

Until one has volunteered extensively in a health/homeless shelter, one can not really understand Venereal Disease.

Then we will go back and talk about Natural Law and Venereal Disease.

We have been talking about a lot of ideas and concepts back and forth, but it is the practices of all of these behaviors in society, on a day to day basis, that needs to be addressed.

There is not a lot of snickering, grinning, and spouting forth down at the free-health clinic; when one deals with the ramifications of anti-historical, anti-traditional beliefs, and the people who come in these strange and new types of Venereal Diseases.

But what did ancient Jewish writers know; they were bigoted people who didn't know any better.

[Acriku]

Is that what the "ancients" had in mind thousands of years ago? To save us from venereal disease?

Perhaps they could've instead spread the wonderous benefits of science and information so that venereal disease wouldn't be an issue to this day.

You know. Instead of spreading hate.

[Wolf]

Acriku: I don't think this spate of homophobia arises from religion or theology: their arguments are actually very classical (given that this topic has become a lengthy discussion about homosexuality in the classical world, that actually makes sense) and generally derive from notions (however wrong or misguided) about nature and natural law. EDIT: Sure, there have been invocations of things like "wicked" and "immoral," but these do not seem to be the crux of their reasoning, merely their rhetoric.

Certainly, the major religions of the world have at times condemned homosexual behavior, but increasingly less so now--in the modern age, I think aversion to homosexuality has more to do with cultural attitudes than religious ones, even though I will acknowledge that some adherents of some sects (however a minority) still use religious arguments to justify a bigoted mindset.

Erasmus: What does venereal disease have to do with anything that we were just talking about?

[SandChigger]

the utter hypocrisy displayed here by the pro-gay Greek squad  is despicable.

Pro-gay Greek squad?! Huh? I thought the only Greek here was athaniosos. ??

Anyway, why not save people the trouble of trying to parse that (the ones who actually read your posts, I mean) and just say PRO-HUMAN-RIGHTS squad/group/faction/whatever? :)

I will have to give the accusation of hypocrisy some thought, however, coming as it does from a demonstrated expert in the matter.

[athanasios]

Now, if the two of you ... a word on behaviour.

Now be a good girl and piss off.

Indeed nice example of behavior!

But I am really pissed off tonight. First, the top homosexual guy in Greece pissed me off, and the rest 99,99% of the population, with what he said in a TV program in support of the Muslim minority's 'rights' in Greece (yes those people who are suppressed and mistreated by the Greek government, but are free to beat their wives, beat their childrens' pregnant schoolteachers and kill their fetus, and threaten to kill any Muslim child that dares to visit the Parthenon. Second the lunatics in the supreme court proved to all the country their stupidity and the threat they are to humanity by their backing the law that requires that the flocks should have headlights and backlights when walking along the roads at night to avoid accidents. Maybe I should also add flash lights too for my dog to switch when he turns? A bird has told me that soon, as the government will collapse, all this scum will be offered free vacations with more luxuries than Guantanamo. You see we Greeks are more civilized and offer the option to choose: Yaros or Leros? :D

"Intellectual love"? What is that supposed to mean? (not much apparently, seeing as how it didn't stop you from ridiculing your teacher)

The Theban sacred band consisted of lovers. That you're willing to go at such lenghts to escape obvious conclusions is really telling.

Lovers (εραστές) IS NOT Homosexuals. But I didn't expect the linguists among us to say that. I suspect that they keep hiding it intentionally as all those who support such behavior.

And I never ridiculed my teacher in front of his face as others did.

Nobody said he was a sissy.

So the way he is presented in the well known film doesn't imply it? ::)