Homosexuality and history.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-07-2016, 07:02 AM
RE: Homosexuality and history.
(03-07-2016 09:33 PM)rosechaos Wrote:  so I've read before that being gay was acceptable in the past put i'm not really sure because some resources claims that being gay wasn't really accepted openly and it was only accepted in few nations like Greeks, Romans and Indians only.
and the number of gays barely existed even before the "bible existence" .

all i'm asking to know here is :
was it really accepted in general or it's was only adopted by few nations ?
was it really a small number ?
is the reason that they didn't really open up about it because it was normal or because they were ashamed ?

any thoughts ?

"Homosexuality" does not exist in the Bible.
Homosexuality as an "orientation" was unknown in the history of human ideas until the late Nineteenth Century.
There was no, (supposed), "lifestyle" until the Twentieth Century. The idea of "orientation" arose when Psychology began to develop as a science. All men were assumed to be straight, and only straight, all women straight, and only straight.
There was also no notion of a "continuum of sexual behaviors", (bisexuality), as science recognizes today. Any "different" behavior was seen as "deviancy" from an absolute inherent norm, which the person was assumed to inherently possess, completely by virtue of birth gender.

In Ancient Israel class and status distinctions were extremely important.

The injunction in Biblical times, (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), was against (assumed), STRAIGHT men, (and only men), (as they ALL were assumed to be straight), engaging in same-sex behaviors. (There is a mistaken use of the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in this context also, which is misguided, and I'll deal with that last).

Why ?
It had to do with class structure, and male status. A male, who held the highest position in society, and held the highest class status, was seen to be "feminized" by penetration, and designated as a social inferior, (female), by a male of lower class status, and thus his status was lowered, to that of a woman.
THAT is the reason the culture forbade it. It had NOTHING to do with sex. It was status, and only status. This concept remains very much, (subliminally and overtly), in place today. This law code, in Leviticus, (the latest law code to be written), is the ONLY place this appears in the Old Testament. The author of Leviticus was very interested in the "equality of all" before God. It was that author's agenda. He also said strangers, and others from outside Israel were all to be treated with equal rights and dignity, which was a departure, from other texts and codes. It is ironic, indeed, this equality has been turned on it's head, to treat gay people, less equality. The author of Leviticus WANTED all people treated equally, and that is why he wrote the injunction into the text, in the first place, to PREVENT inequality. The ideal society for this author was classless, and that could not happen if a male penetrates a male, and makes him thereby, a lower class. It's about class, not sex.

This cultural origin was true in the Old Testament culture, as well as the New. That is the reason it ended up in the Bible, and the ONLY reason it was there.

The law in the Old Testament : "You shall not lay a male as with the laying of a woman, it is an offensive thing". (note: the correct translation is NOT, "it is an abomination"). (The word "toi-va" is used, and in archaic Hebrew, EVERYWHERE else is translated, "an offensive thing").

Why is this important ? Because there are levels of "offensive things", and levels of meanings of "offensive things".

There were a number of levels of offensive things in the Old Testament.

#1. was something which was offensive to God, and this was the worst.
#2. was something which was offensive to other peoples and cultures, (for example the same word is used with reference to some foods being "offensive" to other cultures, (as hagas might be to Americans), or for example the Egyptians didn't eat, with non-Egyptians, as that was "offensive", or in today's language, "bad manners".
#3. was something which was just generally "offensive", with no further relational attribution.

So it can be "offensive" to some people, but not everyone, and is relative to the situation, or to god, or just in general.

The injunction against male same sex behavior is the third kind of offensive. It's not related to either God or anything, or anyone else.
(There are other verses around it that are stated to be offensive to God, but not this one).
So in this text, it is offensive to the authors of the text, and that specific culture, (only).

Same-sex behaviors (upper class man penetrated by same class or lower class men), was forbidden, for class reasons.
Equal class men, doing non-penetrating activity, or women together was not forbidden.
( Woman with woman, in general, was not addressed, and the class issue was not important.)

So what does this tell us ?
It tells us the laws were written into the Bible by HUMANS, for human culturally relative, and internally referenced reasons.
The laws in the Bible REFLECTED their OWN culture, of the times, and did not "inform" the culture.
The direction of information flow is crucial. Every Biblical scholar knows this. The Bible was informed by the culture, NOT the other way around.
There are no "ultimate" claims possible from culturally relative, historically rooted, human local customs.

The other main text used to justify the fundamentalist nonsense about homosexuality, is the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in Genesis.

Hospitality of Abraham : In Genesis 18, there is a myth about the hospitality of Abraham, (he welcomes two strangers, who turn out to be angels), as that was an important cultural value, in a society where a wandering desert dweller could get lost, and die.

The myth is followed closely by it's counter example of in-hospitality in the Lot myth, (Sodom and Gomorrah). It is not about sex. It's a counter example to the hospitality story, of in-hospitality. The context is important.

The great irony is that some religious fundies use the Bible to keep gay people away from their "table", and feasts, using the very texts that the Bible intended to teach hospitality, to do the opposite.

ref : Drs. Shawna Dolansky, and Richard Elliott Friedman, "The Bible Now", and "Who Wrote the Bible"

It would really help if religionists got their facts straight, and learned about their fucking Bible.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-07-2016, 09:24 AM
RE: Homosexuality and history.
Quite a few American Native tribes accepted homosexuality and transgender people and elevated them as Two Spirit or those who had the spirit of two genders. They were looked upon as Shaman's in the community. Not all Indigenous tribes were this way but many in the Southwest and around the Great Lakes accepted Two Spirit gay and transgender people. It wasn't until Christianity came along and influenced tribal society that American Indians learned it was supposed to somehow be "bad".

In many cultures, some individuals possessed and manifested a balance of both feminine and masculine energies, making them inherently sacred people. Third gender roles historically embodied by Two-Spirit people include performing work and wearing clothes associated with both men and women. The presence of two-spirits was a fundamental institution among most tribal peoples. Male and female two-spirits have been documented in over 150 tribes, in every region of North America, serving specific duties, including men fulfilling women’s roles, women fulfilling men’s roles, and importantly, Two-Spirit individuals contributing as spiritual leaders.

http://www.algbtical.org/2A%20TWOSPIRIT.htm

[Image: TwoSpirit3.jpg]

Another article.

http://www.firstpeople.us/articles/the-t...icans.html

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
04-07-2016, 10:13 AM
RE: Homosexuality and history.
(04-07-2016 06:19 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Spartans had a very similar view on masculinity, sexuality and virility.

That explains a ton.

[Image: 300-_Leonidas_and_Xerxes_discuss_surrender.jpg]

[Image: hqdefault.jpg]

[Image: spartans+07.jpg]

Also, this does add a certian euphemistic meaning to "tonight we dine in hell" when hell to a greek was referred to as "the underworld."

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2016, 10:16 AM
RE: Homosexuality and history.
(04-07-2016 10:13 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 06:19 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Spartans had a very similar view on masculinity, sexuality and virility.

That explains a ton.

[Image: 300-_Leonidas_and_Xerxes_discuss_surrender.jpg]

[Image: hqdefault.jpg]

[Image: spartans+07.jpg]

Also, this does add a certian euphemistic meaning to "tonight we dine in hell" when hell to a greek was referred to as "the underworld."

Actually all that explains is Frank Miller's fetishes as that film was based on his graphic novel rather than the real history. As real Spartans were covered in Bronze Armor not dressed for fetish night at the local gay bar.

[Image: History_Deconstructed_Spartans_SF_still_624x352.jpg]

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
04-07-2016, 10:23 AM
RE: Homosexuality and history.
(04-07-2016 10:16 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 10:13 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  That explains a ton.

[Image: 300-_Leonidas_and_Xerxes_discuss_surrender.jpg]

[Image: hqdefault.jpg]

[Image: spartans+07.jpg]

Also, this does add a certian euphemistic meaning to "tonight we dine in hell" when hell to a greek was referred to as "the underworld."

Actually all that explains is Frank Miller's fetishes as that film was based on his graphic novel rather than the real history. As real Spartans were covered in Bronze Armor not dressed for fetish night at the local gay bar.

[Image: History_Deconstructed_Spartans_SF_still_624x352.jpg]

I know. I was just going for humor. I forgot too add the disclaimer at the bottom.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2016, 10:33 AM
RE: Homosexuality and history.
Sacred Band of Thebes

The Sacred Band of Thebes (Ancient Greek: Ἱερὸς Λόχος, Hieròs Lókhos) was a troop of picked soldiers, consisting of 150 pairs of male lovers which formed the elite force of the Theban army in the 4th century BC. Its predominance began with its crucial role in the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC. It was annihilated by Philip II of Macedon in the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC.

...the Theban army and its allies broke and fled, but the Sacred Band, although surrounded and overwhelmed, refused to surrender. The Thebans of the Sacred Band held their ground and Plutarch records that all 300 fell where they stood beside their last commander, Theagenes. Their defeat at the battle was a significant victory for Philip, since until then, the Sacred Band was regarded as invincible throughout all of Ancient Greece. Plutarch records that Philip II, on encountering the corpses "heaped one upon another", understanding who they were, wept and exclaimed,

Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly.
— Plutarch, Pelopidas 18


The Lion of Chaeronea was erected by the Thebans in memory of their dead after the battle of Chaeronea. Excavation of the quadrangular enclosure brought to light 254 skeletons, laid out in seven rows.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2016, 11:13 AM
RE: Homosexuality and history.
Surprisingly, Gregorian monks had a ceremony to celebrate some sort of same sex union and while sexuality was frowned upon by the monastic lifestyle, platonic love relationship were not forbidden. There is a surprisingly great amount of love poems and illustration comming from monks. Here's an interesting link on the subject.

http://tobyjohnson.com/monastichomosexuality.html

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 07:18 AM
RE: Homosexuality and history.
Allow me to offer my perspective on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah…

As others have pointed out in their response, the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah is intimately linked with homophobia. One just needs to consider the word “sodomy”.

In The Covenant, I offer strong evidence suggesting that the story of Abraham does not originate from a myth, but from a historical event. The “twist” is that Abraham never made a covenant with a divine entity, but with a powerful overlord instead. As such, this event was never meant at establishing a new religion, but at maintaining control over the region of Canaan, an important trade corridor between Egypt and Mesopotamia.

With regards to Sodom…

Chapter 14 of Genesis informs us that the people of Sodom had been vassals of a Mesopotamian king for 12 years when four Eastern Kings launched a punitive campaign after the Sodomites revolted. The Eastern Kings took men and booty, and Lot away. When Abraham learned that his nephew had been made captive, he raised an army of 300+ men and went after them. He defeats the four Eastern Kings at night and was celebrated as a local hero by the people of Sodom.

While one would expect retaliation of these Eastern Kings, we hear nothing of them. However, we immediately find the “Lord” is making a covenant with Abraham in Chapter 15… and we later find the same “Lord” destroying the city of Sodom in Chapter 19 because the people are wicked.

It can be shown that the “Lord” of this story is actually an overlord in league with the four Eastern Kings and that the whole narrative pertains to a covenant meant at keeping control over this important trade corridor. This overlord will be deified after his death...

With regards to homosexuality…

When Abraham learns that the overlord wants to destroy the city, he tries to negotiate to save the people. The overlord agrees to spare the city of only a handful of righteous accepts to submit. That’s when he sends two messengers to Sodom. However, when these representative show up, an angry mob awaits them. These people want to send a clear message of defiance. They want these messengers to feel the pain of submission they have themselves endured as vassals for 12 grievous years and decide to do what conquerors often do to vanquish to add insult to injury, and sodomized them.

When the overlord realizes that the Sodomites will never submit, he has no choice but to annihilate the city in order to make an example of them.

Such an example would certainly have made a long-standing impression on the local population and this is how, I believe, sodomy became associated with the wicked. It also shows that the sodomites were not wicked people in any sense we would agree today, but that they actually were freedom fighters.

This high-level overview shows that the narrative supports such an interpretation, but one has to look at the actual evidence to understand how much more efficient it actually is.

Everyone can learn more by downloading The Covenant (free) at http://www.eartlycovenant.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: