Avatar
Active topics
Unread | New posts
Your bookmarks
Your friends' posts
Your posts | Quotes
Welcome, CommonCrawl [Bot]!

It is currently 19th April, 2014, 3:22 am


Forum rules


Welcome to the Intellectual Discussion subforum.

This forum is the place for intellectual discussions, such as philosophical or scientific debates. There are some guidelines that apply specifically to posts in this forum, of which you will be expected to have made yourself aware before participating. They are as follows:

  • Intellectually stimulating topics only. If you can't have a deep discussion about something, it does not belong here.
  • If you're going to post, have something to say. When you make a new thread, write the initial post in a way that provides an introduction to the topic and invites further discussion. You could tell us how you feel and why, but always aim for constructive responses that further a discussion about the ideas involved, rather than a simple list of people's views. (Instead of asking "Are you a vegetarian?", discuss some of the arguments involved.) This guideline likewise applies for responses to topics.
  • Write using good English. That means full sentences with proper capitalisation, punctuation, spelling and grammar. No one is perfect, though; this is not an invitation to criticise others for minor mistakes.
  • Be nice. This is a forum for rational discourse, not flame wars. No one is always right. Be respectful of other people's views and accept that we are all entitled to our own.

These guidelines will be enforced by the moderators based on their best judgement, and anyone who does not take them seriously will lose the privilege of posting here. Spammers will be banned from the entire forum.



 Page 1 of 1 [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
Unread postPosted: 7th July, 2011, 9:47 pm 
Member
Offline
Joined: 2nd June, 2011, 9:03 pm
Posts: 867
Location: Brazil
Country: Brazil (br)
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.umavisaodomundo.com%2F2011%2F07%2Fguerra-sem-sentido-homossexualidade.html&act=url

I know it's a long article and it's bad translated by Google, but it is still worth the reading. :)

Some points I'd like to highlight:

Quote:
The Greek philosopher Socrates (469-399), supporter of homosexual love, taught that anal sex was the best form of inspiration - and heterosexual sex, in turn, served only to breed. For the education of young Athenians, it was expected that adolescents accept the friendship and the bonds of love with older men, to absorb their virtues and their knowledge of philosophy.

Quote:
Among the Romans, were equivalent to the romantic ideals of the Greeks. Pederasty (relationship between an adult male and a younger boy) was regarded as a pure feeling.

Quote:
According to the Bible, any sex act that does not work, potentially, at least in procreation is unnatural and condemned by God, which made the Jews an exception among the ancient civilizations in its condemnation of sexual activity sterile, which included homosexuality.

Quote:
Tolerate corruption, but will not tolerate a couple in love. We accept a religion that beats his wife by biblical birthright, but we do not accept a simple and discreet kiss between two men in public. We honor celebrities who marry and divorce a dozen times, almost deranged marriage, but admit that a gay couple together for decades to formalize their union.


Discuss! :)

  
 
Unread postPosted: 7th July, 2011, 9:50 pm 
Member
Offline
Joined: 6th December, 2009, 10:52 pm
Posts: 3849
Location: Pitt, PA
Ok.

Intolerance sucks ass.

  
 
Unread postPosted: 7th July, 2011, 10:05 pm 
Member
Offline
Joined: 6th June, 2011, 5:52 pm
Posts: 292
Location: US
I'd just like to point out that in Ancient Rome and Greece, historic evidence suggests that a relationship between two men of the same age was not the norm. However, Greek mythology might imply otherwise (Achilles and Patroclus). BOCTAOE.

The last quote pretty much sums up the gay rights movement. And the senators who oppose gay marriage avoid the issue to save face. I can't think of any other explanation.

  
 
Unread postPosted: 7th July, 2011, 11:13 pm 
Member
Offline
Joined: 5th March, 2010, 10:54 pm
Posts: 143
fatedtopretend wrote:
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.umavisaodomundo.com%2F2011%2F07%2Fguerra-sem-sentido-homossexualidade.html&act=url

I know it's a long article and it's bad translated by Google, but it is still worth the reading. :)

Some points I'd like to highlight:

Quote:
The Greek philosopher Socrates (469-399), supporter of homosexual love, taught that anal sex was the best form of inspiration - and heterosexual sex, in turn, served only to breed. For the education of young Athenians, it was expected that adolescents accept the friendship and the bonds of love with older men, to absorb their virtues and their knowledge of philosophy.


Well, there are a few things to say about this. First of all modern perspective will always get in the way of interpretation. Gay and straight are a concept that doesn't appear prominently until the end of the 20th century, and even then it is not commonly accepted. Sexuality as identity (i.e. people don't just commit homosexual/heterosexual acts, they ARE homosexual/heterosexual) is a modern perspective. Along with the perspective came prejudice and so on. The Greeks did not think of sexuality in this modern sense, no to speak of "homosexual" is slightly dangerous. The only thing you can mean by that is a relationship between men, no identity involved, not life style, no exclusivity whatsoever. The Greeks did not believe you were either attracted to men or women only. This concept is also modern. So for a Greek to be with a man was not as dramatic as it is today because it didn't mean anything about his identity. One day he could grow up and get married to a girl, make her bear children, and don't give a crap about her afterwards.

Sexism is a big part of the Greek relationships. Women did not mean much to the Greeks besides a way to perpetuate the species. In fact Romance between men and women in the western world does not arise until the beginning of the middle ages with the trobadours; at this point, relationships men had with women began to resemble relationships between men a bit more. Therefore men might have relationships with one another, not necessarily physical, because it was the only way to meet an equal according to their culture. Indeed, the Greeks negative perspective of women plays into homosexual relationships somewhat. This quote is obviously intended to make modern gay seem natural because other cultures accepted it; however, some points twist historical and cultural facts about Greek culture. The Greeks still had their prejudices regarding sex. First of all, relationships were accepted as pederasty only. If the older man in the relationship lost control of the relationship he could be said to be "a woman" (sound familiar?) and so relationships between men did face hardships. Relationships between men of the same age were not without stigma, and though effimanacy was by no means associated with homosexual relationships (because sexuality as identity didn't exist as it does today), it was still frowned upon. So the Greeks weren't completely liberated. They were kinda like those straight guys who masturbate with each other every now and then.

Now that we have a setting we can get into your quote. This information comes from The Symposium, one of Plato's most well-known dialogues about love. I tried finding the exact place where this is, but I didn't mark it in my book, so whatever. Anyway, if I remember correctly, it isn't Socrates who says what you quoted about relationships with women. Different guys give speeches in the dialogue in praise of love; Socrates does not go until the end, conviniently enough, and Socrates would not say something so superficial. The most important thing, however, is that the only information we have about Socrates comes from other people, in this case Plato, author of the dialogue. It's difficult to tell whether Socrates really said anything in the dialogues or if Plato just used him as mist mouthpiece, probably a combination of both. Even then, since the quote was not said by Socrates, it is very unlikely that this was actually Plato's opinion at all (many of the speeches are ideas Plato mocks or tries to show to be faulty). In fact, Plato never mentions sexual practices between men in a serious manner because he regards the physical as mundane. There's only a small place in the Phaedrus where he genuinely accepts, under very specific conditions, sexual intercourse (mind you, he had very homosexual tendencies even by modern standards, most people agree he would be "gay"). So this quote is largely taken out of context and manipulated. Love does not fit into Plato's philosophy as sexuality or anal sex, it has to do with his theory of Forms and other nonsense.

On the other hand, the quote has some validity. Anal sex was for the most part frowned upon because it turned a man into a woman (woman=bad), though of course it did happen as elegant vases will show. Different regions condemned different sexual practices among men. But it is true that the Greeks saw women was a mere way to reproduce. When Plato and Aristotle discuss government, they both talk about relationships with women as a mere way to perpetuate the existence of the state.

In short, modern perspective applied to ancient practices is a mere way to make it seem like everyone was having buttsecks everywhere, all the time. But the cultural differences do provide a glimpse of the difference between reality about who we are and merely cultural perspectives. Even today, Foucalt (can't remember the name of the book) talks about how gay/straight are products of modern biopolitics, but that's only slightly relevant.

The next two quotes seem to contain the same ignorant application of modern perspective to ancient practices so I won't bore you any longer.

Quote:
Among the Romans, were equivalent to the romantic ideals of the Greeks. Pederasty (relationship between an adult male and a younger boy) was regarded as a pure feeling.

Quote:
According to the Bible, any sex act that does not work, potentially, at least in procreation is unnatural and condemned by God, which made the Jews an exception among the ancient civilizations in its condemnation of sexual activity sterile, which included homosexuality.

Quote:
Tolerate corruption, but will not tolerate a couple in love. We accept a religion that beats his wife by biblical birthright, but we do not accept a simple and discreet kiss between two men in public. We honor celebrities who marry and divorce a dozen times, almost deranged marriage, but admit that a gay couple together for decades to formalize their union.


This quote seems to be lots of typical, boring bs. First of all if you tolerate corruption it might follow that you will deny people certain rights to show your prejudice, so the first sentence isn't exactly profound. Because "we" accept a religion that beats up wives does not mean society condones the beating of wives, and if this is implying that the Bible forbids kissing between men, it is certainly silly. 13th Century Spain, kissing men in the mouth was a common greeting. It seems innacurate to say divorce is "honored."

"Oh, hey I'm getting some divorce today for lunch!"
*kneels*

Also, those sluts who mary and remarry or do slutty stuff are made fun of all the time, regardless of the what people think of modern homosexuality. And it makes sense that society should take time to adapt o new perspectives. Now that homo and hetero relationships are considered on similar terms (meaning sexual exclusivity, unlike millenia ago), it's going to take some time for society to adapt to that just like it took some time to adapt to the perspective that gay/straight people exist.

  
 
Unread postPosted: 7th July, 2011, 11:37 pm 
The Republican
Offline
Joined: 22nd February, 2011, 8:16 am
Posts: 2600
Location: New Mexico, Not Old Mexico
Country: United States (us)
fatedtopretend wrote:
Quote:
According to the Bible, any sex act that does not work, potentially, at least in procreation is unnatural and condemned by God, which made the Jews an exception among the ancient civilizations in its condemnation of sexual activity sterile, which included homosexuality.

Can someone please explain this? I'm having a hard time interpreting the underlined part.
Is it saying Jews are allowed to be homosexual/have anal sex?

  
 
Unread postPosted: 7th July, 2011, 11:44 pm 
Member
Offline
Joined: 5th March, 2010, 10:54 pm
Posts: 143
TheKingDavis wrote:
fatedtopretend wrote:
Quote:
According to the Bible, any sex act that does not work, potentially, at least in procreation is unnatural and condemned by God, which made the Jews an exception among the ancient civilizations in its condemnation of sexual activity sterile, which included homosexuality.

Can someone please explain this? I'm having a hard time interpreting the underlined part.
Is it saying Jews are allowed to be homosexual/have anal sex?



It's saying the Jews condemned homo sex, not saying specifics, probably anal, making the Jews the weird ones out, which sounds nice but isn't true.

  
 
Unread postPosted: 8th July, 2011, 8:33 am 
Member
Offline
Joined: 2nd June, 2011, 9:03 pm
Posts: 867
Location: Brazil
Country: Brazil (br)
TheGodfather wrote:
fatedtopretend wrote:
Quote:
According to the Bible, any sex act that does not work, potentially, at least in procreation is unnatural and condemned by God, which made the Jews an exception among the ancient civilizations in its condemnation of sexual activity sterile, which included homosexuality.

Can someone please explain this? I'm having a hard time interpreting the underlined part.
Is it saying Jews are allowed to be homosexual/have anal sex?

It's saying that the Jews were one of the first 'religion' out there to ban homosexual sex, because they don't produce a child.

@inmaculado: Great post! You seem to know what you're talking about, haha. Did you read the whole article? Maybe you could point out more mistakes it's saying. :D

  
 
Unread postPosted: 8th July, 2011, 10:05 pm 
Member
Offline
Joined: 9th May, 2011, 6:07 pm
Posts: 1544
Acredula wrote:
BOCTAOE.

Now that I understand what this means it's kind of hilarious to see someone actually use it.

  
 
Unread postPosted: 8th July, 2011, 10:41 pm 
Member
Offline
Joined: 2nd June, 2011, 9:03 pm
Posts: 867
Location: Brazil
Country: Brazil (br)
CandyCorn wrote:
Acredula wrote:
BOCTAOE.

Now that I understand what this means it's kind of hilarious to see someone actually use it.

I had to Urban Dictionary it to find out haha.

  
 
 Page 1 of 1 [ 9 posts ] 

Time zone: America/New_York [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brandwatch [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  


Terms of use | Privacy policy

phpBB skin developed by: phpBB Headquarters
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group