Quote:
What's the opposite of an oxymoron?
A tautology.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Texas is... progressive?
Texas is... progressive?Follow
A tautology.
publiusvarus wrote:
http://www.livius.org/ho-hz/homosexuality/homosexuality.html
The greatest philosopher of their time was executed for ******** around with boys. That should tell you all you need to know about what the ancient Greeks thought about homosexuality.
So to paraphrase, neither the Greeks nor Romans believed homosexuality was an acceptable practice. While homosexuality didn't cause the fall of either of these civilizations it certainly contributed to it.
He was executed for corruption to youth and getting boys into prostitution. Where exactly does it say he was executed for being gay?
Edited, Oct 9th 2009 5:31pm by Bertuz
publiusvarus wrote:
In fact Romans were staunchly anti-homosexual. If one hoped attaining high stature in the senate or a consulship even the rumour that they were homosexual would end that.
Totally untrue.
Quote:
The greatest philosopher of their time was executed for ******** around with boys. That should tell you all you need to know about what the ancient Greeks thought about homosexuality.
Dude, don't you know anything? Seriously? I'm not in the mood to teach you about Ancient Greece's customs cos it's almost 5 o'clock and I'm leaving soon... But read up. Seriously.
publiusvarus wrote:
Red,
I was thinking you should do the same. I've read enough Roman history to know that homosexuality was not an accepted practice.
Like I said earlier you have no clue what you're talking about.
Quote:
But read up. Seriously.
I was thinking you should do the same. I've read enough Roman history to know that homosexuality was not an accepted practice.
Like I said earlier you have no clue what you're talking about.
As opposed to you? How about you link a source that actually proves your point, instead of one that doesn't prove anything at all?
publiusvarus wrote:
Quote:
It's also quite funny that in Ancient Greece and in Ancient Rome, homosexuality didn't exist because pretty much everyone was bisexual.
This is such bs. You don't have any idea what you're talking about, as usual. In fact Romans were staunchly anti-homosexual. If one hoped attaining high stature in the senate or a consulship even the rumour that they were homosexual would end that.
You're both wrong. You're all fucking wrong. I hate it when people get this wrong.
Homosexual relationships in classical Rome were an issue of dominance. Penetration, regardless of sexual orientation, was regarded as an assertion of power. It was perfectly fine for a male Roman citizen to penetrate a male slave or a female Roman citizen because women and slaves were nonentities. By contrast, he was a red-blooded Roman male, he could vote and fight and slap people around, and it was totally okay for him to stick his **** up something if he so chose. We can tell this because there is artwork fucking everywhere of Roman men fucking dudes, and it's always dudes wearing non-Roman clothing or sporting un-Roman beards. It was about saying "Fuck you!" to the Gauls and actually fucking meaning it. And that was totally okay. In fact, it was admirable.
What was scandalous was when male citizens allowed themselves to be penetrated, as this was seen as submissive. For a male Roman to be penetrated by a non-citizen was tantamount to saying that a slave had power over a Roman, which was totally fucking unacceptable. Homosexual sex between citizens was equally scandalous, because for it to work it was basically implied that one of them was taking it up the ****-chute and putting himself in the position of a slave and/or woman. So in senate meetings, for one senator to call another senator a ***** was basically saying that he'd given up his Roman citizenship.
Example: there were no laws passed against fucking a male slave, but it was illegal on pain of death for soldiers to fuck each other. Why? Because until very late in the Republican period, the Roman army was a citizen militia and all soldiers were citizens. It was considered totally unacceptable in Roman society for any adult male Roman citizen to dominate another adult male Roman citizen. It was the foundation of their republic, and it extended to their sexual relations.
This is where people get all confused. Because it sometimes looked like Romans were accepting of homosexuals, and it sometimes looked like they fucking hated them. What you should do is forget the word "homosexual." Romans didn't think about homosexuality the way we do. You didn't have gay or straight. You had owners and slaves.
Penetrative homosexual sex was seen as masculine. Receptive homosexual sex was seen as emasculating. The Romans were neither for nor against homosexuality because to them, it had nothing to do with sexual morality. It was about not being the bitch.
Edited, Oct 9th 2009 4:07pm by zepoodle
So Romans were basically just a big biker gang without the bikes.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
publiusvarus wrote:
Quote:
We can tell this because there is artwork @#%^ing everywhere of Roman men @#%^ing dudes
There's child **** in the US. That doesn't mean that it's accepted.
I don't think you understand. It's everywhere. It's on vases found in ruined markets. It's on mosaics in people's foyers. It's on lamps that people used to read with. It's on graffiti found on walls. There's some on Trajan's Motherfucking Column.
We don't exactly staple child **** to the Washington Memorial, do we?
Samira wrote:
So Romans were basically just a big biker gang without the bikes.
Exactly! Everyone forgets that the Romans were a bunch of assholes.
Edited, Oct 9th 2009 4:20pm by zepoodle
zepoodle wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Quote:
It's also quite funny that in Ancient Greece and in Ancient Rome, homosexuality didn't exist because pretty much everyone was bisexual.
This is such bs. You don't have any idea what you're talking about, as usual. In fact Romans were staunchly anti-homosexual. If one hoped attaining high stature in the senate or a consulship even the rumour that they were homosexual would end that.
You're both wrong. You're all fucking wrong. I hate it when people get this wrong.
Homosexual relationships in classical Rome were an issue of dominance. Penetration, regardless of sexual orientation, was regarded as an assertion of power. It was perfectly fine for a male Roman citizen to penetrate a male slave or a female Roman citizen because women and slaves were nonentities. By contrast, he was a red-blooded Roman male, he could vote and fight and slap people around, and it was totally okay for him to stick his **** up something if he so chose. We can tell this because there is artwork fucking everywhere of Roman men fucking dudes, and it's always dudes wearing non-Roman clothing or sporting un-Roman beards. It was about saying "Fuck you!" to the Gauls and actually fucking meaning it. And that was totally okay. In fact, it was admirable.
What was scandalous was when male citizens allowed themselves to be penetrated, as this was seen as submissive. For a male Roman to be penetrated by a non-citizen was tantamount to saying that a slave had power over a Roman, which was totally fucking unacceptable. Homosexual sex between citizens was equally scandalous, because for it to work it was basically implied that one of them was taking it up the ****-chute and putting himself in the position of a slave and/or woman. So in senate meetings, for one senator to call another senator a ***** was basically saying that he'd given up his Roman citizenship.
Example: there were no laws passed against fucking a male slave, but it was illegal on pain of death for soldiers to fuck each other. Why? Because until very late in the Republican period, the Roman army was a citizen militia and all soldiers were citizens. It was considered totally unacceptable in Roman society for any adult male Roman citizen to dominate another adult male Roman citizen. It was the foundation of their republic, and it extended to their sexual relations.
This is where people get all confused. Because it sometimes looked like Romans were accepting of homosexuals, and it sometimes looked like they fucking hated them. What you should do is forget the word "homosexual." Romans didn't think about homosexuality the way we do. You didn't have gay or straight. You had owners and slaves.
Penetrative homosexual sex was seen as masculine. Receptive homosexual sex was seen as emasculating. The Romans were neither for nor against homosexuality because to them, it had nothing to do with sexual morality. It was about not being the bitch.
Edited, Oct 9th 2009 4:07pm by zepoodle
I don't know who you are, but I like you.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Quote:
So Romans were basically just a big biker gang without the bikes.
No, they were Republicans.
...History just keeps repeating itself.
Just as Planned.
I'm pretty sure the Greeks were into consensual bi and homosexuality, though. Achilles went mad with grief when his fellow warrior and lover Patroclus was killed.
In the recent film of Troy, they changed the story so that Patroclus was Achilles beloved young cousin, that he loved as family and felt responsible for, as a young man towards a younger teen. But in the Illiad, that's not the relationship. In the Illiad, it's not even stated explicitly that they are lovers and partners, it's was just a known known by the ancient Greek audience, from Achilles and Patroclus' behaviour towards one another.
This is not to say that the ancient Greeks didn't do the Domination thing too, though. It was pretty acceptable for men to have sex with little boys. It was considered a great moral virtue to stick with boys over the age of 7.
Edited, Oct 9th 2009 12:45pm by Aripyanfar
In the recent film of Troy, they changed the story so that Patroclus was Achilles beloved young cousin, that he loved as family and felt responsible for, as a young man towards a younger teen. But in the Illiad, that's not the relationship. In the Illiad, it's not even stated explicitly that they are lovers and partners, it's was just a known known by the ancient Greek audience, from Achilles and Patroclus' behaviour towards one another.
This is not to say that the ancient Greeks didn't do the Domination thing too, though. It was pretty acceptable for men to have sex with little boys. It was considered a great moral virtue to stick with boys over the age of 7.
Edited, Oct 9th 2009 12:45pm by Aripyanfar
zepoodle wrote:
You're both wrong. You're all fucking wrong. I hate it when people get this wrong.
Homosexual relationships in classical Rome were an issue of dominance. Penetration, regardless of sexual orientation, was regarded as an assertion of power. It was perfectly fine for a male Roman citizen to penetrate a male slave or a female Roman citizen because women and slaves were nonentities. By contrast, he was a red-blooded Roman male, he could vote and fight and slap people around, and it was totally okay for him to stick his **** up something if he so chose. We can tell this because there is artwork fucking everywhere of Roman men fucking dudes, and it's always dudes wearing non-Roman clothing or sporting un-Roman beards. It was about saying "Fuck you!" to the Gauls and actually fucking meaning it. And that was totally okay. In fact, it was admirable.
What was scandalous was when male citizens allowed themselves to be penetrated, as this was seen as submissive. For a male Roman to be penetrated by a non-citizen was tantamount to saying that a slave had power over a Roman, which was totally fucking unacceptable. Homosexual sex between citizens was equally scandalous, because for it to work it was basically implied that one of them was taking it up the ****-chute and putting himself in the position of a slave and/or woman. So in senate meetings, for one senator to call another senator a ***** was basically saying that he'd given up his Roman citizenship.
Example: there were no laws passed against fucking a male slave, but it was illegal on pain of death for soldiers to fuck each other. Why? Because until very late in the Republican period, the Roman army was a citizen militia and all soldiers were citizens. It was considered totally unacceptable in Roman society for any adult male Roman citizen to dominate another adult male Roman citizen. It was the foundation of their republic, and it extended to their sexual relations.
This is where people get all confused. Because it sometimes looked like Romans were accepting of homosexuals, and it sometimes looked like they fucking hated them. What you should do is forget the word "homosexual." Romans didn't think about homosexuality the way we do. You didn't have gay or straight. You had owners and slaves.
Penetrative homosexual sex was seen as masculine. Receptive homosexual sex was seen as emasculating. The Romans were neither for nor against homosexuality because to them, it had nothing to do with sexual morality. It was about not being the bitch.
Homosexual relationships in classical Rome were an issue of dominance. Penetration, regardless of sexual orientation, was regarded as an assertion of power. It was perfectly fine for a male Roman citizen to penetrate a male slave or a female Roman citizen because women and slaves were nonentities. By contrast, he was a red-blooded Roman male, he could vote and fight and slap people around, and it was totally okay for him to stick his **** up something if he so chose. We can tell this because there is artwork fucking everywhere of Roman men fucking dudes, and it's always dudes wearing non-Roman clothing or sporting un-Roman beards. It was about saying "Fuck you!" to the Gauls and actually fucking meaning it. And that was totally okay. In fact, it was admirable.
What was scandalous was when male citizens allowed themselves to be penetrated, as this was seen as submissive. For a male Roman to be penetrated by a non-citizen was tantamount to saying that a slave had power over a Roman, which was totally fucking unacceptable. Homosexual sex between citizens was equally scandalous, because for it to work it was basically implied that one of them was taking it up the ****-chute and putting himself in the position of a slave and/or woman. So in senate meetings, for one senator to call another senator a ***** was basically saying that he'd given up his Roman citizenship.
Example: there were no laws passed against fucking a male slave, but it was illegal on pain of death for soldiers to fuck each other. Why? Because until very late in the Republican period, the Roman army was a citizen militia and all soldiers were citizens. It was considered totally unacceptable in Roman society for any adult male Roman citizen to dominate another adult male Roman citizen. It was the foundation of their republic, and it extended to their sexual relations.
This is where people get all confused. Because it sometimes looked like Romans were accepting of homosexuals, and it sometimes looked like they fucking hated them. What you should do is forget the word "homosexual." Romans didn't think about homosexuality the way we do. You didn't have gay or straight. You had owners and slaves.
Penetrative homosexual sex was seen as masculine. Receptive homosexual sex was seen as emasculating. The Romans were neither for nor against homosexuality because to them, it had nothing to do with sexual morality. It was about not being the bitch.
All of this having been said, perhaps it will help people understand the phrase in the bible that says that a man shall not lay with another man "as a woman." It wasn't talking about homosexuality, but emasculation.
Nexa wrote:
I don't know who you are, but I like you.
Nexa
Nexa
He not only lives in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, where I do, but he also visits the same SF, anime, manga and pop-culture "bookshop" that I do in the city. It's called Minotaur, for stalking purposes.
I can give you this on the forum, because he and I worked this out in the public forum already.
I feel slightly proud and possessive of Zepoodle for our geographical and shopping commonalities, and I suspect he might feel slightly the same way about me for the same reason.
Quote:
The greatest philosopher of their time was executed for ******** around with boys.
Jesus christ read the goddamn Phaedo
Quote:
I'm pretty sure the Greeks were into consensual bi and homosexuality, though. Achilles went mad with grief when his fellow warrior and lover Patroclus was killed.
In the recent film of Troy, they changed the story so that Patroclus was Achilles beloved young cousin, that he loved as family and felt responsible for, as a young man towards a younger teen. But in the Illiad, that's not the relationship. In the Illiad, it's not even stated explicitly that they are lovers and partners, it's was just a known known by the ancient Greek audience, from Achilles and Patroclus' behaviour towards one another.
This is not to say that the ancient Greeks didn't do the Domination thing too, though. It was pretty acceptable for men to have sex with little boys. It was considered a great moral virtue to stick with boys over the age of 7.
In the recent film of Troy, they changed the story so that Patroclus was Achilles beloved young cousin, that he loved as family and felt responsible for, as a young man towards a younger teen. But in the Illiad, that's not the relationship. In the Illiad, it's not even stated explicitly that they are lovers and partners, it's was just a known known by the ancient Greek audience, from Achilles and Patroclus' behaviour towards one another.
This is not to say that the ancient Greeks didn't do the Domination thing too, though. It was pretty acceptable for men to have sex with little boys. It was considered a great moral virtue to stick with boys over the age of 7.
Let's not forget the myths of Zeus & Ganymede or of Apollo and Hyacinth.
publiusvarus wrote:
Tulip,
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homotheo.html
Quote:
The second argument concerns the relevance of the law today. Few Christians today keep kosher kitchens or balk at wearing clothes interwoven with more than one fabric. They believe that those Old Testament laws do not pertain to them. In a similar way pro-homosexual commentators argue that the Old Testament admonitions against homosexuality are no longer relevant today. A practical problem with this argument is that more than just homosexuality would have to be deemed morally acceptable. The logical extension of this argument would also have to make bestiality and incest morally acceptable since prohibitions to these two sins surround the prohibition against homosexuality. If the Mosaic law is irrelevant to homosexuality, then it is also irrelevant to having sex with animals or having sex with children.
Quote:
Contrary to what pro-homosexual commentators say, Genesis 19 is a clear condemnation of homosexuality. Next we will look at another set of Old Testament passages dealing with the issue of homosexuality.
Quote:
Another New Testament passage dealing with homosexuality is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. " Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Pro- homosexual commentators make use of the "abuse" argument and point out that Paul is only singling out homosexual offenders. In other words, they argue that the Apostle Paul is condemning homosexual abuse rather than responsible homosexual behavior. In essence, these commentators are suggesting that Paul is calling for temperance rather than abstinence. While this could be a reasonable interpretation for drinking wine (don't be a drunkard), it hardly applies to other sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6 or 1 Timothy 1. Is Paul calling for responsible adultery or responsible prostitution? Is there such a thing as moral theft and swindling? Obviously the argument breaks down. Scripture never condones sex outside of marriage (premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexual sex). God created man and woman for the institution of marriage (Gen. 2:24). Homosexuality is a violation of the creation order, and God clearly condemns it as unnatural and specifically against His ordained order. As we have seen in the discussion thus far, there are passages in both the Old Testament and the New Testament which condemn homosexuality.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homotheo.html
What does any of that have to do with the specific passage I was refering to? Please point it out to me if I missed it.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
What does any of that have to do with the specific passage I was refering to? Please point it out to me if I missed it.
Don't be polite to varrus. If you give him an inch, he is going to want to take 11 more.
Isn't this still ultimately tangential? I really do not give a **** about what Corinthians has to say on the matter.
Bardalicious wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
What does any of that have to do with the specific passage I was refering to? Please point it out to me if I missed it.
Don't be polite to varrus. If you give him an inch, he is going to want to take 11 more.
True...
Quote:
All of this having been said, perhaps it will help people understand the phrase in the bible that says that a man shall not lay with another man "as a woman." It wasn't talking about homosexuality, but emasculation.
Looking at the verse itself your representation isn't accurate. It's not "don't lie with a man as if you're a women", rather it's "don't lie with a man the way you would lie with a women".
Edited, Oct 9th 2009 3:08pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Quote:
Isn't this still ultimately tangential? I really do not give a @#%^ about what Corinthians has to say on the matter.
Sure, it's utter pedantry, but what other straws can they grasp at for support?
Just as Planned.
Recent Visitors: 377
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (377)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Texas is... progressive?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC