Was Aristotle gay?
The question someone asked about Aristotle and Socrates being "gay".
An article from Stanford about the origins of homosexuality.
Keep an eye on these links, as I'll refer to them from time to time.
I'm taking my previous post a little bit farther and going outside the Bible (shame on me) to what people know and/or understand about Western philosophy...or, at least, the roots of it. We're taking a little trip to Greece, where same-sex unions weren't just tolerated, they were accepted as an exchange between equals. Freaky, huh? Now you know why Paul refers to not engaging in certain acts the "heathens" engage in. Perhaps THIS is why Biblical interpreters thought that "abusing yourself with mankind" meant same-sex unions. Hmm. Interesting. Anyway. Back to Greece!
*reading Stanford article* Good grief. I don't even know how to break this down. Apparently, I'm not a Mensa student. *grin* But I'm going to try to throw some choice quotes at you for your deliberation. One, from Plutarch (apparently a philosopher from ancient Greece), "the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail." (Dialogue on Love) Another quote directly from the article: "Plato, in the Symposium, argues for an army to be comprised of same-sex lovers. Thebes did form such a regiment, the Sacred Band of Thebes, formed of 500 soldiers. They were renowned in the ancient world for their valor in battle."
What I find fascinating is how a same-sex union, in one culture, is considered the height of valor and excellence, while in another culture it is an "abomination." What I will note, though (and I reflected on this, too, in my last post), is that same-sex unions were supposed to be in moderation. Quote: "Even though the gender that one was erotically attracted to (at any specific time, given the assumption that persons will likely be attracted to persons of both sexes) was not important, other issues were salient, such as whether one exercised moderation."
Moderation seems to be a key factor in both Eastern and Western philosophies--even in Christianity (remember the seven deadly sins? All indicative of a lack of moderation: lust, greed, gluttony, etc).
So all of this refines the point of whether homosexuality (as we define it today) is good or evil: it is good in moderation. But we humans seem to have difficulty with that. Lately, I have been thinking about my sexual orientation (like the posts lately couldn't have given that away). I found one online chat group of bisexuals; and they seemingly are only interested in sex (based on their profiles and posted messages anyway...haven't spoken or chatted to a single one). This disturbs me, and I find myself swinging back to the right a little bit when I see it. I know there are gays and bis out there that are not just out for that quick fix.
But I digress a bit. I encourage you to read these links...I know I will. But as a final note, I should point out that these are the same people who looked upon heterosexual acts (opposite-sex unions) merely as a necessity, and that women held an inferior station in society. But, then again, so do a lot of patriarchal societies, Judaism and Christianity included. Just a parting thought.
An article from Stanford about the origins of homosexuality.
Keep an eye on these links, as I'll refer to them from time to time.
I'm taking my previous post a little bit farther and going outside the Bible (shame on me) to what people know and/or understand about Western philosophy...or, at least, the roots of it. We're taking a little trip to Greece, where same-sex unions weren't just tolerated, they were accepted as an exchange between equals. Freaky, huh? Now you know why Paul refers to not engaging in certain acts the "heathens" engage in. Perhaps THIS is why Biblical interpreters thought that "abusing yourself with mankind" meant same-sex unions. Hmm. Interesting. Anyway. Back to Greece!
*reading Stanford article* Good grief. I don't even know how to break this down. Apparently, I'm not a Mensa student. *grin* But I'm going to try to throw some choice quotes at you for your deliberation. One, from Plutarch (apparently a philosopher from ancient Greece), "the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail." (Dialogue on Love) Another quote directly from the article: "Plato, in the Symposium, argues for an army to be comprised of same-sex lovers. Thebes did form such a regiment, the Sacred Band of Thebes, formed of 500 soldiers. They were renowned in the ancient world for their valor in battle."
What I find fascinating is how a same-sex union, in one culture, is considered the height of valor and excellence, while in another culture it is an "abomination." What I will note, though (and I reflected on this, too, in my last post), is that same-sex unions were supposed to be in moderation. Quote: "Even though the gender that one was erotically attracted to (at any specific time, given the assumption that persons will likely be attracted to persons of both sexes) was not important, other issues were salient, such as whether one exercised moderation."
Moderation seems to be a key factor in both Eastern and Western philosophies--even in Christianity (remember the seven deadly sins? All indicative of a lack of moderation: lust, greed, gluttony, etc).
So all of this refines the point of whether homosexuality (as we define it today) is good or evil: it is good in moderation. But we humans seem to have difficulty with that. Lately, I have been thinking about my sexual orientation (like the posts lately couldn't have given that away). I found one online chat group of bisexuals; and they seemingly are only interested in sex (based on their profiles and posted messages anyway...haven't spoken or chatted to a single one). This disturbs me, and I find myself swinging back to the right a little bit when I see it. I know there are gays and bis out there that are not just out for that quick fix.
But I digress a bit. I encourage you to read these links...I know I will. But as a final note, I should point out that these are the same people who looked upon heterosexual acts (opposite-sex unions) merely as a necessity, and that women held an inferior station in society. But, then again, so do a lot of patriarchal societies, Judaism and Christianity included. Just a parting thought.
posted by xanadian at 2:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home