Regarding biblical references to homosexuality

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Not the religious/moral arguments. That's why my opposition is about the higher taxes to pay for the benefits.

what higher taxes? marriage penalty. elimination of domestic parter benefits. could be a tax gain.

[Solon]

I'm sorry to meander so much, but my overall point is this: I don't think homosexual sex is wrong and harmful per se, but I think rampant and open sexuality in general, hetero or gay, is harmful to society in general. I also think it is primarily males who are responsible for it. In ancient Greece and probably Rome (at least to my limited knowledge gleaned from the History Channel, lol), pedophilia was rampant and it seems that it was common and accepted practice that relatively young boys were abused. When an overwhelming majority of the population are straight, then obviously a female is always a party to any sexual encounter. Most females, as most of us know, require much more of an emotional bond to engage in sex and they make us work for that bond. I realize this assumption is being challenged quite a bit on college campuses with random hook-ups, but I also believe much of that is due to intense social pressure to "party" all the time.

With men, sex is much more a physical gratification issue. That's why men look at porn more, that's why men have more sexual deviancies and that's why men are always pushing their wives and girlfriends for sex. Gay men don't have to deal with this to the same extent that hetero men do. I'm not saying that gay men are more promiscuous then heterosexual men. I am saying that by virtue of both of partners being men, that many of the barriers are down (which are usually thrown up by women).

So, my theory encapsulated is that the Bible warnings against homosexuality are based in what was occuring in Greece in Rome and what the apostles observed. Openness and freedom of thought in both civilizations is what made them great but it also yielded open pedophilia against young boys. IMO, overtime, maybe open sexuality has a corrosive effect on great civilizations? Because male homosexuality obviously doesn't involve females, then some of the most effective barriers (biologically based) to rampant open sexuality are broken down?

But here's another point: if rampant open sexuality (hetero or gay) is bad, I don't see how gay marriage translates into open sexuality.

I might be able to add a little context, but I won’t be able to answer the overall questions about gay marriage that grip this forum.

In the western world, since the industrial revolution, and the rise of a leisured middle class, the emphasis on marriage has shifted away from its original socio-economic roots. As a society we generally now consider romantic interest and emotion to be one of, if not the most important factor in choosing a mate. While people have always fallen in love, it often wasn’t the basis for marriage. Division of labor, the procreation of legitimate children, and the assurance of legal inheritors were usually foremost on people’s minds. Additionally, marriages often cemented political and social relationships among upper class citizens (or those who wished to climb the ladder). We have a very difficult time separating sex and sexuality from marriage, when historically they are quite disparate, although overlapping conceptions.

With this mindset, the ancient Greeks had no problem engaging in homoerotic relationships while also pursuing women. Women provided legitimate children – perhaps the most valuable commodity a person could ever hope to possess (tangentially: this is why Medea’s crime against Jason in Euripides’ Medea is so heinous. She kills their two sons, effectively robbing him of his heirs. ) Women (at Athens, at least) were kept sequestered, ostensibly to protect their virtue but really to ensure that there was no doubt about the children’s patrimony (Maury Povich’s DNA tests were not yet around). Girls married young (in their teenage years) while men were usually in their thirties.

Sex with other men, on the other hand, provided companionship, mutual support, and social networking that played an important role as an adolescent became a man. These pederastic relationships (usually engaged in by a man in his 20s with a boy in his teens) probably sprang from neolithic initiation rituals and served an important social purpose for the Greeks. Once a man reached marriageable age (30s), it was expected that the sexual part of this relationship would end. In fact, Athenians regularly mocked men who continued to have sex with men after they were too old for social conventions. Closer in age and with much more in common, it is no wonder that men often maintained close ties with their “boyfriends,” even after the sexual component of their relationship had ended. Indeed, in Plato’s Symposium, a famous Athenian general named Alcibiades reveals how the wise, older Socrates had pursued him, but that the philosopher’s wisdom and quest for virtue had eventually won Alcibiades’ respect and affection, despite Socrates’ notorious ugliness.

Finally, sexuality in ancient Greece can’t really be described very well with modern words like “heterosexual,” “homosexual,” or “bisexual.” Sexual relations were generally not typified by gender or sex, but by relationships of power and status. Men were more powerful, had higher social standing than women, and the relationship was geared to satisfy his pleasure. Similarly, the older male in the pederastic relationship enjoyed a superior position of prestige and status, and was supposed to derive sexual pleasure from the union. The younger male was supposed to feel affection, loyalty, and respect for his “mentor,” but derive no sexual pleasure from the relationship. (Incidentally, there were all sorts of social taboos about sexual acts that were and were not permissible between a man and teenage boy, but there’s no way to ever know how closely these were followed in the privacy of an intimate encounter.)

Obviously, people had preferences. Some men clearly preferred women and never pursued the boys. Some men never expressed interest in women. Sexuality is complicated enough in our own day, without the difficulties of peering into the distant past with less-than-stellar sources. I would suggest that homosexual (as we understand the term) relationships were generally sanctioned by ancient Greek society, but within rigorous social norms and boundaries. In addition to these social conventions, personal preference did play a role, making it seem that sexuality stems from both cultural norms and personal preferences.

Finally, homosexuality was frowned upon at Rome pretty much throughout their long history, although there are some pretty famous examples of prominent Romans who displayed flamboyant sexual appetites for both males and females. (Sulla, Nero; The Emperor Elagabalus supposedly married another man.)

I don't think there is an argument to be made that "openness and freedom of thought" yielded pederasty, which led to an overall corrosive effect on society's morals. In both marriage and these pederastic relationships, there was much more going on than just sexual gratification of the dominant male.

[Archaea]

Fascinating distillation of a difficult subject matter.

[scottie]

Originally Posted by barnes

I pay taxes but I can't drive in the car-pool. I have no one to car-pool with to work and I can't afford a hybrid at this time. Seams unfair.

Originally Posted by scottie

What does paying taxes have to do with being able to drive in the car-pool lane?

I guess barnes is trying to draw a parallel between not being able to afford a hybrid and having no one to car-pool with to a gay person's right to be married.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's no secret I'm no great fan of government, but like it or not, its very nature (especially in a democracy) does make it an active participant in setting/guiding/establishing societal standards.

In other words, you cherry pick the areas where you want government intrusion. Those with which you agree.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

In other words, you cherry pick the areas where you want government intrusion. Those with which you agree.

LOL. that is what I thought.

Tex was probably happy that Gov. Boggs intervened in Missouri to set/guide/establish societal standards.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

In other words, you cherry pick the areas where you want government intrusion. Those with which you agree.

Welcome to a democracy, SoCal. Glad to have you along.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

In other words, you cherry pick the areas where you want government intrusion. Those with which you agree.

welcome to the complicated and often contradictory world of modern "conservatism." A Libertarian would argue the only difference between a democrat and a republican is where they want the government to interfere.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

welcome to the complicated and often contradictory world of modern "conservatism." A Libertarian would argue the only difference between a democrat and a republican is where they want the government to interfere.

And most people would argue the only difference between a Libertarian and an Anarchist is where they want the government to interfere.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

welcome to the complicated and often contradictory world of modern "conservatism." A Libertarian would argue the only difference between a democrat and a republican is where they want the government to interfere.

Well, that plus the republicans hate gay people.