Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Philothei]

Um... so, Sparta and Symposia weren't what I think they were? Based on? Just the vases?

that does not tell me anything at all... Symposia? I think you confuse Greeks for Romans. I need facts and ancient Greek writers substansiating your claims

 

[Philothei]

You do realize, do you not, that the men that wrote the Bible were carried along by the Holy Spirit and wrote exactly what God wanted them to with none of their own thoughts or any human commentary? (2 Peter 1:20-21)

I will second that thank you

It is God's inspired word. Furthermore it transcends human wisodom. Not that the Bible "binds" God and reduces Him in the context of the Bible but rather that in the Bible we have the reflection of Him.

 

[Shane Roach]

I will second that thank you

It is God's inspired word. Furthermore it transcends human wisodom. Not that the Bible "binds" God and reduces Him in the context of the Bible but rather that in the Bible we have the reflection of Him.

Well stated. Thanks.

 

[rosenherman]

But if god gave you intimate feelings towards the opposite sex, god must have given homosexuals intimate feelings towards another, right? Assuming there is a god to begin with, which obviously you do, how do you come to believe that god would be opposed to such a relationship?

God created us to love each other and Him. We as heteros must not sleep with everyone we want to, if we don't marry we aren't supposed to sleep with anyone. If God says heteros are to control our desires for sex why shouldn't homos be held to the same standard? Since God has said that marriage is between one man and one woman, Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. You can't marry another person of the same gender. We know not to steal, and those who do are criminals, we wait to get home and cook before we eat, instead of ripping packages open in the store and eating there. Wanting to do something doesn't mean you can, or should.

 

[rosenherman]

What problem do you have with adultery? Besides what Jesus has to say about it, of course.

It hurts like hell for the cheated on spouse(s). If I've been true to our vows, what right does my husband have to bring home diseases and give them to me?

What of those who don't repent though? What of those who don't believe they are committing a sin? Will your loving god simply cast them into hell for all eternity? How is this fair?

It's your choice. You are putting yourself in Hell, God isn't. He tells us what to do and what to do when we don't do what He wants us to (repent and accept Jesus sacrifice for our sins).

 

[rosenherman]

But if god gave you intimate feelings towards the opposite sex, god must have given homosexuals intimate feelings towards another, right? Assuming there is a god to begin with, which obviously you do, how do you come to believe that god would be opposed to such a relationship?

Satan is much more likely behind lust for members of the same gender. He'll do just about anything to get people to deny God and spend eternity with Him in Hell.

 

[rosenherman]

Shinny shinny mirror


There is no such "real life events".

There are people who have been willing to lie about their sexual orientation. There have been people who have denied themselves love. But no one has ever changed sexual orientation

So you say.

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON

Folks, please stay on topic and avoid posting negative comments directed to other members. In other words, focus your response to the topic of the thread rather than at a poster.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[David Brider]

Satan is much more likely behind lust for members of the same gender.

There's a difference between "lust" and "attraction".

David.

 

[OllieFranz]

that does not tell me anything at all... Symposia? I think you confuse Greeks for Romans. I need facts and ancient Greek writers substansiating your claims

I believe that he is referring to works such as Plato's The Symposium and The Republic, both of which are set at after-dinner discussions during whic Socrates and several of the other philosophers each enjoy the attentions of their respective eromenos. It is a Greek work, basically contemporaneous (actually about half a century earlier than) with the campaigns of Alexander the Great, and several centuries before the rise of Rome.

 

[Philothei]

[

quote=OllieFranz;51388255]I believe that he is referring to works such as Plato's The Symposium and The Republic, both of which are set at after-dinner discussions during whic Socrates and several of the other philosophers each enjoy the attentions

Guys,..... Plato and Socrates sympsium...?? Where are your sources? The Sympsia were gatherings with aim to discuss and socialize women were not allowed. That is what Socrates was accused off....Sorry to find that at least extremely intersting *sign* to say at least... but what was the point?

Socrates was taken to court and put to death for "corrupting the youth" and accusation that was never substantiated... either. Good point though since it proves my point that Athenians were NOT tolerant about homosexuality... Socrates was put to death for two reasons: corruption of the youth and disrespect to gods.... He believed in the Agnostos(unknown) god... and his "homosexuality" was highly disputed and plain out never proven still he obeyed the laws and never agreed to escape punishment which was ....death. Also there are laws that do confirm death to be the ultimate punishment of homosexual acts.


The term homosexuality did not even existed as a life style but only the "act". That ought to tell you something about the "lifestyle" that was non existant. Or we would have "famous" couples living together ceremonies etc...


Also about the
"eromenos" just because it is a greek word proves the point? ah... I do not think so. Alexander the Great was a homosexual? Hardly substantiated only by Hollywood I am afraid. If an army such as the famous Macedonian army was ruled by homosexual men .... ah... we would have more information that would point to that. Serious historical evidence does not point to such evidence.. And Spartian laws was adamant about homosexual activity as the ones caught to do that were put to death or exile.. So if the laws were so strict about homosexual acts how come sooooo many homosexual activity was taking place? And yes the greek vases are a primary example that homosexual acts were rare and unimportant. Even the Roman army (the army we here in US taking our example ) does not support homosexual activity.... as yes those who are in that activity are considered not of good character and the homosexual act not one of preference to a soldier.

 

[OllieFranz]

** Deleted because of the tone. I was out of sorts and said things best left unsaid **

 

[Philothei]

Disingenuous argument is as deceitful as outright lying.

Could you be more specific in your aquiring instead of being accusatory?

 

[Philothei]

Some of the Laws:

July 4, 2007 — Orphic Hymn
Here we will post a list of laws against homosexual and pederastic relations as recorded in the text of Aeschines known as Against Timarchus.
But first lets add a little bit of info. We’re in the middle of the 4th cent. BC during which the 2nd Athenean Alliance is in a great crisis due to the continuous growing power of Philip. The Atheneans, are separated into two major groups, one lead by Demosthenes and Hyperides which considers Philip nothing more than a tyrranic conqueror which will enslave and alienate the Atheneans and the rest of the Hellenes from their democratic norms and a secondlead by Isocrates, Phokion and Aeschines which see him as the great hope to finally unite the Hellenes under one leader and destroy the Barbarian threat (see Persian empire). Under the circumstances one can understand that backstabing, accusations of treason, bribery..etc were common.
In an attempt to present the agreement made by the Athenean ambassadors and Philip as void (since it desolved 2nd Athenean Alliance), Demosthenes’ “group” accused Aeschines of taking bribes from Philip. Aeschines’ prosecutor is Timarchus, a member of Demosthenes “group”. Aeschines, instead of trying to refute the accusations against him, takes a totally different turn and tries to totally avoid the trial by making reference to laws that existed since the time of Solon (7th cent. BC) and by doing so, literally deprived Timarchus of all his political rights.
Laws:
Aeschines, Against Timarchus 12

Hellenic Original
[Οἱ δὲ τῶν παίδων διδάσκαλοι ἀνοιγέτωσαν μὲν τὰ διδασκαλεῖα μὴ πρότερον ἡλίου ἀνιόντος, κλειέτωσαν δὲ πρὸ ἡλίου δύνοντος. καὶ μὴ ἐξέστω τοῖς ὑπὲρ τὴν τῶν παίδων ἡλικίαν οὖσιν εἰσιέναι τῶν παίδων ἔνδον ὄντων, ἐὰν μὴ υἱὸς διδασκάλου ἢ ἀδελφὸς ἢ θυγατρὸς ἀνήρ: ἐὰν δέ τις παρὰ ταῦτ᾽ εἰσίῃ, θανάτῳ ζημιούσθω. καὶ οἱ γυμνασιάρχαι τοῖς Ἑρμαίοις μὴ εἄτωσαν συγκαθιέναι μηδένα τῶν ἐν ἡλικίᾳ τρόπῳ μηδενί: ἐὰν δὲ ἐπιτρέπῃ καὶ μὴ ἐξείργῃ τοῦ γυμνασίου, ἔνοχος ἔστω ὁ γυμνασιάρχης τῷ τῆς ἐλευθέρων φθορᾶς νόμῳ. οἱ δὲ χορηγοὶ οἱ καθιστάμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου ἔστωσαν τὴν ἡλικίαν ὑπὲρ τετταράκοντα ἔτη
Translation
The teachers of the boys shall open the school-rooms not earlier than sunrise, and they shall close them before sunset. No person who is older than the boys shall be permitted to enter the room while they are there, unless he be a son of the teacher, a brother, or a daughter's husband. If any one enter in violation of this prohibition, he shall be punished with death. The superintendents of the gymnasia shall under no conditions allow any one who has reached the age of manhood to enter the contests of Hermes together with the boys. A gymnasiarch who does permit this and fails to keep such a person out of the gymnasium, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed for the seduction of free-born youth. Every choregus who is appointed by the people shall be more than forty years of age
​

Aeschines, Against Timarchus 13

Hellenic Original
ἐάν τινα ἐκμισθώσῃ ἑταιρεῖν πατὴρ ἢ ἀδελφὸς ἢ θεῖος ἢ ἐπίτροπος ἢ ὅλως τῶν κυρίων τις, κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ μὲν τοῦ παιδὸς οὐκ ἐᾷ γραφὴν εἶναι, κατὰ δὲ τοῦ μισθώσαντος καὶ τοῦ μισθωσαμένου, τοῦ μὲν ὅτι ἐξεμίσθωσε, τοῦ δὲ ὅτι, φησίν, ἐμισθώσατο

Translation
if any boy is let out for hire as a prostitute, whether it be by father or brother or uncle or guardian, or by any one else who has control of him, prosecution is not to he against the boy himself, but against the man who let him out for hire and the man who hired him
​

Aeschines, Against Timarchus 16

Hellenic Original
[Ἄν τις Ἀθηναίων έλεύθερον παῖδα ὑβρίσῃ, γραφέσθω ὁ κύριος τοῦ παιδὸς πρὸς τοὺς θεσμοθέτας, τίμημα ἐπιγραψάμενος. οὗ δ᾽ ἂν τὸ δικαστήριον καταψηφίσηται, παραδοθεὶς τοῖς ἕνδεκα τεθνάτω αὐθημερόν. ἐὰν δὲ εἰς ἀργύριον καταψηφισθῇ, ἀποτεισάτω ἐν ἕνδεκα ἡμέραις μετὰ τὴν δίκην, ἐὰν μὴ παραχρῆμα δύνηται ἀποτίνειν: ἕως δὲ τοῦ ἀποτεῖσαι εἱρχθήτω. ἔνοχοι δὲ ἔστασαν ταῖσδε ταῖς αἰτίαις καὶ οἱ εἰς τὰ οἰκετικὰ σώματα ἐξαμαρτάνοντες.]
Translation
If any Athenian shall outrage a free-born child, the parent or guardian of the child shall demand a specific penalty. If the court condemn the accused to death, he shall be delivered to the constables and be put to death the same day. If he be condemned to pay a fine, and be unable to pay the fine immediately, he must pay within eleven days after the trial, and he shall remain in prison until payment is made. The same action shall hold against those who abuse the persons of slaves.
​

Aeschines, Against Timarchus 17

Hellenic Original
ἴσως ἂν οὖν τις θαυμάσειεν ἐξαίφνης ἀκούσας, τί δή ποτ᾽ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τῷ τῆς ὕβρεως προσεγράφη τοῦτο τὸ ῥῆμα, τὸ τῶν δούλων. τοῦτο δὲ ἐὰν σκοπῆτε, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, εὑρήσετε ὅτι πάντων ἄριστα ἔχει: οὐ γὰρ ὑπὲρ τῶν οἰκετῶν ἐσπούδασεν ὁ νομοθέτης, ἀλλὰ βουλόμενος ὑμᾶς ἐθίσαι πολὺ ἀπέχειν τῆς τῶν ἐλευθέρων ὕβρεως, προσέγραψε μηδ᾽ εἰς τοὺς δούλους ὑβρίζειν. ὅλως δὲ ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ τὸν εἰς ὁντινοῦν ὑβριστήν, τοῦτον οὐκ ἐπιτήδειον ἡγήσατο εἶναι συμπολιτεύεσθαι.
Translation
Now perhaps some one, on first hearing this law, may wonder for what possible reason this word “slaves” was added in the law against outrage. But if you reflect on the matter, fellow citizens, you will find this to be the best provision of all. For it was not for the slaves that the lawgiver was concerned, but he wished to accustom you to keep a long distance away from the crime of outraging free men, and so he added the prohibition against the outraging even of slaves. In a word, he was convinced that in a democracy that man is unfit for citizenship who outrages any person whatsoever.
​

Aeschines, Against Timarchus 21

Hellenic Original
Ἐάν τις Ἀθηναῖος ἑταιρήσῃ, μὴ ἐξέστω αὐτῷ τῶν ἐννέα ἀρχόντων γενέσθαι, μηδ᾽ ἱερωσύνην ἱερώσασθαι, μηδὲ συνδικῆσαι τῷ δήμῳ, μηδὲ ἀρχὴν ἀρχέτω μηδεμίαν, μήτε ἔνδημον μήτε ὑπερόριον, μήτε κληρωτὴν μήτε χειροτονητήν, μηδ᾽ ἐπὶ κηρυκείαν ἀποστελλέσθω, μηδὲ γνώμην λεγέτω, μηδ᾽ εἰς τὰ δημοτελῆ ἱερὰ εἰσίτω, μηδ᾽ ἐν ταῖς κοιναῖς στεφανηφορίαις στεφανούσθω, μηδ᾽ ἐντὸς τῆς ἀγορᾶς τῶν περιρραντηρίων πορευέσθω. ἐὰν δέ τις παρὰ1 ταῦτα ποιῇ, καταγνωσθέντος αὐτοῦ ἑταιρεῖν, θανάτῳ ζημιούσθω
Translation
If any Athenian shall have prostituted his person, he shall not be permitted to become one of the nine archons, nor to discharge the office of priest, nor to act as an advocate for the state, nor shall he hold any office whatsoever, at home or abroad, whether filled by lot or by election; he shall not be sent as a herald; he shall not take part in debate, nor be present at public sacrifices; when the citizens are wearing garlands, he shall wear none; and he shall not enter within the limits of the place that has been purified for the assembling of the people. If any man who has been convicted of prostitution act contrary to these prohibitions, he shall be put to death.
​

Here we must note a mistake in the translation.
While the translation speaks of “prostituting his person” the original makes no reference what so ever to “prostitution” but clearly states ἑταιρήσῃ .
According to the comprehensive “Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon” ἑταιρήσῃ = unchastity.
The difference is indicated further in the text:
Aeschines, Against Timarchus 29

Hellenic Original
φησί, “μὴ ἐστρατευμένος, ὅσαι ἂν αὐτῷ προσταχθῶσιν, ἢ τὴν ἀσπίδα ἀποβεβληκώς,” δίκαια λέγων. τί δή ποτε; ἄνθρωπε, τῇ πόλει, ὑπὲρ ἧς τὰ ὅπλα μὴ τίθεσαι ἢ διὰ δειλίαν μὴ δυνατὸς εἶ ἐπαμῦναι, μηδὲ συμβουλεύειν βουλεύειν ἀξίου. τρίτον τίσι διαλέγεται; “ἢ πεπορνευμένος,”φησίν, “ἢ ἡταιρηκώς:” τὸν γὰρ τὸ σῶμα τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ἐφ᾽ ὕβρει πεπρακότα, καὶ τὰ κοινὰ τῆς πόλεως ῥᾳδίως ἡγήσατο ἀποδώσεσθαι. τέταρτον τίσι διαλέγεται
Translation
“Or the man who has failed to perform all the military service demanded of him, or who has thrown away his shield.” And he is right. Why? Man, if you fail to take up arms in behalf of the state, or if you are such a coward that you are unable to defend her, you must not claim the right to advise her, either. Whom does he specify in the third place? “Or the man,” he says, “who has debauched or prostituted himself.” For the man who has made traffic of the shame of his own body, he thought would be ready to sell the common interests of the city also. But whom does he specify in the fourth place?
​

The use of both terms πεπορνευμένος (according to Liddle & Scott “to prostitue” and ἡταιρηκώς ( according to Liddle & Scott = to keep company) clearly indicates that the laws did NOT apply ONLY to those that had prostituted themselves, but also to those that had formed homosexual relations.

Laws against homosexual and pederastic relations homosexuality-ancient-greece.wordpress.com
http://homosexualityinancientgreece.wordpress.com/category/alexander/

I have nothing to add.


The ancient text speaks of itself.

 

[andross77]

Well, you certainly are reading a lot more into my statement than that which I wrote. And the manner in which you are trying so hard to "disprove" so much of what you read into it shows that you are well aware of the literature that proves fact that Greek culture was more tolerant of many aspects of sexuality that might fall under the umbra of "homosexuality, much as you'd like us to believe that it was not so tolerant.

Disingenuous argument is as deceitful as outright lying. Your cause would have been better served had you answered only what was actually written.

wow, you better apologize quickly son. unless you have ancient greek texts to refute those ancient greek texts

 

[Wyzaard]

There is no support for the assertion that legalizing gay marriage is going to change the behavior of gays.

If you would like to assert that there would be no changes in the gay community if same-sex marriage were legal, then do so. As it stands however, if we were to accept the assumption given by conservatives that marriage is a socially stabilizing institution that settles people down, I see no reason whatsoever not to extend this pattern to same-sex partnerships being legally and socially recognized.

 

[Wyzaard]

God created us to love each other and Him.

What if I love my wife, but hate your god? Is that ok?

We as heteros must not sleep with everyone we want to, if we don't marry we aren't supposed to sleep with anyone. If God says heteros are to control our desires for sex why shouldn't homos be held to the same standard?

What if my wife and I marry and want to sleep with other people?

You can't marry another person of the same gender.

Methinks you're getting 'sex' and 'gender' confused with one another. It is currently legal to marry someone of the same gender, but not of the same sex.

We know not to steal, and those who do are criminals, we wait to get home and cook before we eat, instead of ripping packages open in the store and eating there. Wanting to do something doesn't mean you can, or should.

But as you haven't given any good reasons why we shouldn't...

 

[Shane Roach]

If you would like to assert that there would be no changes in the gay community if same-sex marriage were legal, then do so. As it stands however, if we were to accept the assumption given by conservatives that marriage is a socially stabilizing institution that settles people down, I see no reason whatsoever not to extend this pattern to same-sex partnerships being legally and socially recognized.

While I would not instantly disagree with someone who said part of the point of marriage is to "settle people down" in the sense of getting youngsters to settle in and start a family, no one has been arguing this point. Not sure why you quote me and then argue a point I am not making.

You were saying the only reasons gays have gay pride parades where they behave, as a point of "pride", the way heterosexuals only tend to behave when they are drunk and pretending to celebrate the beginning of lent, is because they are not allowed to be married. I'm thinking if gays wanted to act just exactly like heterosexuals tend to do, they would have been doing it for a long, long time.

 

[LightHorseman]

You do realize, do you not, that the men that wrote the Bible were carried along by the Holy Spirit and wrote exactly what God wanted them to with none of their own thoughts or any human commentary? (2 Peter 1:20-21)

That isn't what 2 Peter 1:20-21 says.

If the Bible were exactly dicatated by God, as you suggest, then whats with all the errors, contradictions and vagueries?

Not to mention the various printing nd translation errors

 

[sidhe]

I find this entire topic hopelessly entangled in notions of physical gender.

Pansexuals get no respect.