| |
|
quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Deletia:
Nope - still lazy, inaccurate and prejudicial. Where are these sources? Are you thinking possibly of red-figure pottery of the 5th Century? The presentation of Cleisthenes in Aristophanes? The prologue to the Republic? Have you even read Dover?
If they are unspoken, how do you *know* them?
The Greco/Roman (for fucks sake, and incidentally, the adjective is Greek) "empire" covered a fair chunk of Europe, North Africa and the near east and at a conservative estimate 1200 years of history; it seems unlikely that attitudes to homosexuality were identical in all places and all times across that plan. This kind of comedy generalisation is just going to leach away any and all respect for your position.
OK for the sake of arguement...
how do we know unspoken "laws"? well, we find no (formal) laws relating to the subject whatsoever in greek or roman history, BUT we do find references in art, literature, etc. and yes, finding representitive artifacts is difficult. i would say that the literature we have concerning this in greek society is somewhat under-represented. yes, i would definately cite aristophanes in the symposium. for a somewhat oppositional standpoint, try plato's Laws even this suggests that homosexual feelings are natural, even desireable, as long as chastity is maintained..hmmmm...
heck lets use some dover.
(platos main concern is to reduce to a minimum)"all activity of which the end is physical enjoyment in order that the irrational and appetitive element of the soul may not be encouraged and strengthened by indulgence"
so it would seem that from symposium(homosexual, positive) to laws(sex of all types, negative) that plato has changed his opinion of SEX, rather than homosexuality...to say that plato's laws specify homosexuality is at least somewhat inaccurate.
while we are at it, why dont we use some foucault too. since you called me on it, i assume you have read it. i have read some material that discounts foucault's assertion, but even that suggests that passivity was considered favorable and enjoyable ALSO. if anything, the opposition to "foucaultian" thinking only further supports the idea that homosexual acts were normalized in greek society.
as for roman precedent, try john clarke's looking at lovemaking: constructions of sexuality in roman art 100 b.c. - a.d.250. after that, try catullus, virgil, horus, martial, juvenal, etc... all wrote to some extent of (normalized) homosexual relationships. we can find homosexual prostitute taxes in roman law.
yes, it is probable that conceptions varied across space and time, but we can only work with what we have. to say that the concept i am seeking to express is fully 100% accurate, would be to say that i know everything that ever happened in the greek and roman empires. i do feel, however, that based on the information, literature, art, etc that IS available, this must be at least a quasi-accurate portrail.
also, this isnt exactly the be-all-end-all of the gay/sin theory; to be completely thorough, to remove the inaccuracy, the laziness etc. would be to write a book. or two. or three. i am not here to be the teacher, i am here to present a side of the story that not everyone may be exposed to. from there, people can take the ball and run with it, and do their own research. i have no time to write books.
now i must concede a few things.. number one, i am NOT by any means an expert in greek/roman history. MOST of my conceptualization of such is based in a handful of books, which mainly support my opinion. (or vise versa, as it may be) in my mind, homosexuality, and even the (possibly) negative concept of femininity are both normalized and natural. i use what knowledge i have to debase anti-gay rhetoric, but i must admit that i have moved away from activism in the past couple of years.
now it's your turn though...you seem to have a solid grasp of the subject matter, probably more so that i (i had to look it all up, i admit it). so Deletia, what exactly do you find wrong in my arguement, aside from semantics? my spelling? my sources? yes, i mainly used a secondary source. find me the primary source that discredits it, and i will eat my words. please, if you find me to be too one-sided, biased, etc, enlighten me. posting "where are your sources" and similar tripe is just a smear campaign, with no reinforcement. at least i reinforce my arguements.
also i wonder why you used the term "prejudice." that word is a double edged sword..all that it means in theory is that i have a pre-conceived notion of what is true, but the connotation is decidedly negative. of course i have a prejudice in this matter; i have thought about it outside of this forum. why therefore, is it necessary to use a word with a negative connotation? i ask you because i would like to know.
dont take this as hostile; discussion is both necessary and encouraged.
nationalism is the cancer of society
-Albert Einstein |
|
|
