Freud's view, and yours...on homosexuality.

Remove all ads!

Sir Dargorn,

I haven't responded to this ahead of time because... I didn't know. I don't know now either.

I've been briefly looking things up. What I've found are wildly varying estimates of the number of homosexuals in society - from low single % up to 30% in some societies and some species. (Kinda to mean is relevant in discussing whether if it is natural if 30% of some small mammal groups display homosexual behavior but that's another topic.)

This makes it difficult to actually determine whether there is a disproportionate contribution or whether it just seems that way. I dunno, it sort of seemed that way to me but I imagine it would take tremendous research to back up.

That out of the way. I am not sure the contributions made by homosexuals are related to work ethic and can be explained that way. For example, there is no doubt that Wittgenstein was homosexual, he wrote of it himself. Further, there can be no doubt that Wittgenstein was tormented by this and went off to a log cabin in the middle of nowhere for a while to write by himself (after writing much of his great work as a tank commander in WWI on the top of his tank by the way.) However, there is also no doubt that not just anyone could do what he did -- he had to be born one of the most intelligent men and one of the most imaginative in history to have pulled it off.

Also, homosexuality has not been rejected in all cultures historically - even conservative Christians will accept this because they point to the story of Sodom.

So, one way of figuring this out is to find a society where homosexuality was accepted and determining whether the contributions of homosexuals to that society was disproportionately high? Agreed?

One such society apparently was Native Americans. There are books out there apparently on this subject but I haven't been able to read em so I'm just throwing this out there -- apparently though there were a number of important homosexual Native American leaders.

A more famous example perhaps is the ancient Greek society. We have strong evidence for example that Socrates was homosexual. Plato discusses Socrates and his lover Phaedrus in the dialogue Phaedrus. The problem of course is that Plato commonly used his teacher Socrates as a vehicle to discuss his, Plato's, ideas and he also reported his dialogues to discuss what Socrates though. It is probably impossible to know who thought what. Clearly though, Plato wrote of Socrates as having a homosexual relationship and did not condemn it.

Plato probably didn't condemn it because apparently Plato was homosexual himself - or at least he engaged in homosexual relationships.

Alexander the Great engaged in homosexual relationships.

Now, 'homosexual' today is different from the way the Greeks thought about it. One author explains:

Among the many other great Greeks who engaged in what we would call homosexual behavior there was:

Socrates
Plato
Aristotle
Alexander the Great
Thucydides
Herodotus
Alcibades
Sappho
Anacreon
Ibycus
Solon
Theognis

That's just a few. The list is really, really long and actually difficult to parse out because I'm not sure anyone ever sat down and actually tried to make a list.

Now, the question is: is the % of gays making contributions disproportionately high in ancient Greece? I dunno. Like I said, that'd take some serious research - possibly years I'd imagine.

What I feel comfortable about though is that since between Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, and Alexander the Great you have an argument that collectively you've got 4 of the most influential men in Western history that the contribution is rather staggering. Aristotle is widely considered in philosophical circles to be the most influential thinker in western history.

Other influential homosexuals apparently include:

Leonardo da Vinci, Julius Caesar, Gertrude Stein, Michelangelo, Peter Tchaikovsky, T.E. Lawrence, Truman Capote, Bessie Smith, Alice B. Toklas, James Baldwin, Horatio Alger, Hans Christian Andersen, Peter the Great, Richard the Lionhearted, James I..

One caveat, this is all from web research and I have not vested much into the truth of the above. It is possible some of the people in the last list are incorrect or at least arguable. It looked trustworthy to me though. As far as the list of Greeks - it came from Ph.D.'s in anthropology and I feel like it is pretty solid.

So, I dunno, can't dismiss the idea though.

 

What would be truly intersting to me is if a member of these boards who actually WAS gay were to participate in this forum, instead of all us jerks who are just pretty much talking out of our asses here. It would be nice to hear the point of view from the very group we are discussing so intensly. I mean think about it - apparantly none of us are gay, so what the hell do we know anyway? I site my personal experiences, Quickie faithfully quotes the Bible, and Laches logically quotes the academic elite. But what it boils down to is what we personally believe to be logical and true, so for that reason - we're all right, and, we're all wrong.

We can theorize all day about what it's like to be, for example, a donut. But none of us will ever fully understand what if feels like - because we are not, and never will be, donuts. Make sense? No amount of talking to, studying, praying, or theories will ever give us the full understanding of something we are not and can not be. So I choose to do the best I can, which is accept them, befriend them, treat them as equals and perhaps one day hope to come to the highest level of understanding I possibly can to the phenomenon which is homosexuality. I choose not to be judgemental or afraid of something I see as greatly misunderstood and totally harmless. I choose not to condemn something I can never fully understand and see no good reason to condemn. This is the stance I've chosen. Whether you agree with it or not, it's mine and it works for me - just like yours works for you. So for that reason, for me, it's the right stance to take.

Happy debating.

 

Hmmm...I suppose a great deal of it depends entirely upon the age in which they lived. Just thinking of poets, you had men like Lord Byron who lived during the age of British Romanticism and were seen as the "rogueish intellectual type" - his sexual escapades both heterosexual and homosexual only served to further flourish his already flamboyant character. As far as I know, he never really faced the threat of isolation.

He, along with Wordsworth, Coleridge, Keats and others, certainly served as the backbone fathers of the romantic age of literature, which some see as the golden age of poetry.

It has been a while since I studied his life, so if anyone knows of any prejudice he was met with because of his homosexuality, I would like to hear it. I dare say he was more despised for his frequent heterosexual affairs with married women than anything else!

By the way, something I ran across about the National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality: http://www.bible.ca/s-Homo-Genetic.htm
I figure if we're going to cite scholarly input, we should do so on both sides of the issue.

[ May 23, 2003, 18:43: Message edited by: Quicksylver ]

 

That's the case in about 70% of all Alley discussions. I am still trying to get into the average Iraqi mind, but I can't find a key.

To Homosexuals and contributing to society: My view still is, it's the minority position, which enables thinking in a new way. Goethe, Napoleon, Heinrich Heine were not gay, as far as I know, but they all were members of a minority. This was lead them to interesting thinking and achievements, which I guess otherwise didn't happen.

To the greeks (and romans). One of my history teachers said, that the next society which has similarities to the roman society is Japan. In other words, the antique societies are very strange to us, because we are descendants of a other society, which migrated into Europe later.

It would be funny if Aristotle and Platon would have been gay. Both are the main philosophers of the western world and the main guidance to the bible and the qurain (Aristotle was brought by the Arabs in the 12th century back to Europe). Therefore, bible-interpretation bases generally on those two and the ideas of sexuality of the protestant and catholic church are nearly the same as that of Platon. Not surprising, because he's the main interpretation tool for the bible.

On greek society and homosexuality, I've found another quote:

http://hometown.aol.com/GraceEACA/chapter2.html

 

To those who have posted about Greek and ancients history in general, I would say that as far as (Alexander the Great) there is nothing in the Egyptian or Greek works that is ((FACT))has survived from that time that say he had any gay attributes.
((Source of that comes from the University Berkley history department and USC.))

Now am I saying that there is nothing in modern books out there that try’s to pin that on him or other famous people…. Well lets be honest many liberals gay writers or just liberals in general will throw out shocking things like that just to make themselves feel better or get attention for their books. (((That parts just my opinion)))
As far as Sodom that city was destroyed for its gay life style so in truth Christians would tell you no it was not excepted by the populist at large just that city that was controlled by gay and child rapists.

But I am not saying there is no one famous who has been gay, or had gay experience in history. but I will say that gay people are less than (#1 percent) of the world population and that we should not jump on every ((Jerry Springer)) shocking statement as fact!

I believe and have said before that people who are gay can work in most jobs, such as scientist, police, lawyer and so on. But not in moral institutions like Boy Scouts, churches, or private schools…..that don’t want that type of person who has that sexual lifestyle.

Now for the last post...You make sound like the majority of people in Greek life practiced Gay sex. That would be wrong and ridicules to say, never the less I will point out that like most towns and city’s through out history you can find a small percentage of people practicing gay sex.

But to say that all Greek teachers and students would condone gay sex or except it that is again an over statement.

In history the laws of the Greek and Roman times have been against Gay life style but that does not mean it was not practiced. Even openly by some, as history shows.

((Please see USC and United Nation reports on the number of gays in the world))

[ May 25, 2003, 05:05: Message edited by: Agudo Archmage of Light ]

 

What Greek laws do you speak of? Do you have a link? thanks.

 

I am curious; do you feel that CONSEVATIVES in general will throw out shocking things like that just to make themselves feel better or *get attention for their books* (Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter)? Because it sounds to me like you have a strong case of anti-liberal bias.

 

Quicksylver -

Don't bring religion into the debate, or you'll open a huge can of worms. I find it interesting that some different forms of Christainity follow some parts of the Bible and some follow others.

Here are some interesting quotes from the Bible. Remember, to believe in one line means you have to believe in all others.

These are quite funny, enjoy!

So, women's rights is outlawed too!

So, kids that rebel against their parents must be put to death. That's pretty harsh justice!

So, bluegeans are outlawed as well. I wonder if this also pretains to hats and socks?

 

Posts above show that the bible does not say that. Or in other words, that's an (possible) interpretation, but still only an interpretation. It's not unchangeble "truth", like you seem to think of it. And no, the average christan would not tell me, what you try to tell me, they'd tell me. I don't think, that the opinions of (fill in huge number, I have now clue, how many christian churches there are) christain churches are summed up so easily.

The last post was intendend to say, that I doubt that Platon and the other greeks were gay. But it is true, that Platon speaks about homosexuality. Now, again, you sound pretty sure about what you're saying, may I conclude that you have read politeia and nomoi ? I haven't. But I've read excerpts and articles and books relating to it. It seems to me, the quoted text is pretty truthfull to the content. Well, certainly the famous eugenics.

Ancient greek and ancient rome are very, very, very different cultures and societies. (Ok, other cultures are even more different, but that does not mean, those two cultures are "similar"). And comparing roman law with greek law........

Again, greece and rome are not the same thing. Different cultures, different history. And, I guess I am not mistaken here, the history of both fills whole bookshelves and stretches over centuries, thousands of years. You sum it up in one sentence.

Hm, but I think, Laches knows a very lot about ancient history. A lot more then I do. Maybe his answer was short and elegant and way more clever then mine.

Slight change in topic:

Being somehow in a minority, that means not only homosexuals, makes people work and think harder. Under circumstances, it gives them a giantic drive:

[ May 25, 2003, 14:10: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

I find it amusing that so many people seems to think that gay people are some sex crazed lunatics that would screw anything that moves. Why should not gay people be allowed to work in 'moral' lines of work? What is there to say that a gay man is more likely to assault or in anyway molest young boys for instance than a heterosexual man is to assault and molest young girls? With such reasoning no man should be allowed to work with women and no woman allowed to work with men. Secondly so are not most pedophiles that molest children gay per se. They are pedophiles and are attracted to children, gender does not matter much.

As I said earlier I can see that gay people should not be allowed in church as most religions condemns homosexuality, but on the other hand I can not see that any gay person would ever want to work in an organisation that think you are an abomination in the face of god.

 

To those who above, who believe ((Greek and Roman culture)) are vastly different…..
Maybe you did not mean it that way, for I know that Email and posting always lacks the human emotion. Let alone the quick question by somebody in the same room with you; who could ask to clear up, some statements you made and be understood.

Never the less lets go with what it seemed like you said.

((I am speaking in general of the last few posts on the subject))

“Greeks” have been colonist for centuries, way before “Rome” became an empire, or a city. History of early “Rome” is based on “Greek” culture and laws. In fact they based their Empire on the ideals of Athens {Greek}government. Long after the “Greeks,” became part of “Rome.”

((This can be found in any “High School” history books, let alone University history books))

So I know, I am not telling you something, that can be found in the most basic history lesson. That will already have shown you, what I am saying since the sixth grade!

(((NOW))) again please remember about what I said that Posting, and Emails, lacking the smiling, happy face, we all have when typing this…SO… I may sound more negative than I am………

But for the record I think its great that you are making your Ideas known.

OH YA! To the one who says I have a (Liberal Bias)…… When Liberals make it easy on everyone to be disappointed in their ((Political Correctness)) and over zealous
ANTI-Religion bent….. then ya your right!

 

Ahm, yes, they both are very different indeed. We're talking here about the greeks and the roman republic, at a time before bc. The romans and the greeks were very different cultures.

And I pointed out, yes both were mediterranian and therefore had some similarities. The greeks developed their alphabet from the phoenician one, the romans took the greek one and converted it to latin. That does not mean, that at they were culturally-linked, the roman just assimilated (in their very on style) soemthing useful from the greeks and phoenicians.

Yes, greeks colonized big parts of the mediterranean. If you want to imply with that, that romans were "descendants" (sp ?) of the greeks, no. The romans are mixed out of: Latins, Sabines and the famous and so enigmatic Etruscans

Yes, before Rome became an Empire (around 20 something BC).

No, not before Rome became a city, it already existed as loosely linked small villages, 1000 BC. When it exactly became a city is unkown. The Romans later linked the founding of the city with a date 700 and something BC. It was a monarchy at first, by the way.

History of early rome is not at all based on greek culture and laws. The greek colonies in Italy are all found in the southern part of italy, way south of Rome. Later, the famous Via Appia would be build and lead the roman legions there to conquer them (even if the greeks had some phyrric victories and some famous greeks like pythagoras lived there).

To laws. Yes, there has been an influx, like in the whole Mediterranian from the laws of the middle-east. Espacially of course the laws of Hammurabi (but I know that you know them by hard ). But the famous twelfe tables are still enigmatic, because until now, no archaeological remains have been found, but roman literature loves to quote them. Just those quotes are all 2 centuries older then the alleged destruction of the twelfe tables through the gauls.
But Roman law is something very unique. I guess you can ask every lawyer, which law the basic of the law, he uses to day. Greek law has nothing to do with it at all. (Ok, some injections from Beirut to round it up, but hey).

To greek culture. A no. There's a lot of roman sources which can be qualified as "hate-speeches" versus those "weaklings" of Phoenicians, Hebrews, Greeks, Egyptians and all the rest. Oh, of course, the Phoenician sub-tribe of Carthage, oh, they loved them. Especially cato. Yes, yes, celts are always drunk.

The Roman goverment and later Empire based on greek goverment ideas ? Ahm, a small influx, yes, but mainly, the Roman Republic is the Roman Republic. Republic is a distinctive latin term, wheras democracy is a distinctinve greek term. The Roman Empire is the Roman Empire. The word Empire comes from the Roman Empire, an Emperor is a person who wields as much power as Augustus did. The Roman Empire is THE Empire.

Yes, this can be found in most basic history lessons. To simplify things. Roman culture is quite boring, but Greek culture is not. Therefore, a big part of Greek culture did survive, whereas is the biggest part of Roman culture is vanished. Now, to greaco-Roman. The Romans conquered the hellenistic world and found some very interesting stuff. They bought some greek slaves and used them as teachers. So, the Romans were assimilated by their subdued people. Those who studied greek arts became the well-known roman artists. -> THIS is a continuation of Greek culture, which allows to summarize them as "one" in basic history lessons.

By the way, the Roman conquerors in hellenestic terretories dropped their language and began to talk and write greek. A process, which still has left traces in Europe, one half writing with the latin, the other half with the greek and cyrrilic (based on greek) alphabet.

Roman Cultural achievements are huge, I guess the most important can be summarized as:

Streets (they rule till today)
Aqueducts (they rule till today)
Law/Administration (Needs no comment)
Military (Legions)
And, ahm, shaving

The rest is all greek.

I'd love to comment on that, but political correctnes and the forum rules are not allowing it.

 

From the top post by (YAGO)

********************************************************************
Espacially of course the laws of Hammurabi (but I know that you know them by hard ). But the famous twelfe tables are still enigmatic

Yes, this can be found in most basic history lessons. To simplify things. Roman culture is quite boring, but Greek culture is not. Therefore, a big part of Greek culture did survive, whereas is the biggest part of Roman culture is vanished

Streets (they rule till today)
Aqueducts (they rule till today)
Law/Administration (Needs no comment)
Military (Legions)
And, ahm, shaving
**********************************************************************

Yes Yago, I know a lot of…. “hard”…. and (Heart)……. “twelfe”…. Twelve or twelfth….

But I am not making fun of simple spealing mistakes. Because when I put my “fantasy stories” on the “Board,” Some people, can be over “zealouse” on spelling. (Just for the sake of being picky, and not helpful.)

But you did put that (devil smile) next to the words, as a harmless “jab” so I thought you would understand if I did the same, in good humer.

Now we could debate, and debate, how far the {Greeks, and Romens, intermingled.} “Yet” lets just say, we have differing views on how far, and how long, the “Greeks” became apart of the Romen society.

Now as far as Roman culture being boring?….. Um… No!
I think that is you personal opinion and not of history buffs as a whole.


I like your mintion of Roman achievements, such as….

Streets (they rule till today)
Aqueducts (they rule till today)
Law/Administration (Needs no comment)
Military (Legions)
And, ahm, shaving

I would like to say that the Roman (Arch,) is one of their greatest achievements, and lets not forget, the (Roman Baths!)

(Hot, Lukewarm and Cold baths anyone?)

“I hope, we did not highjack this board, from its gay theme”

[ May 27, 2003, 06:04: Message edited by: Agudo Archmage of Light ]

 

*sigh*

I have been rather busy lately and haven't had enough time to follow the boards as closely as I would have liked, and when I come back to a scientific topic, what do I see?

Religious quarreling. Talk of history and comparision of people wearing sheets. Long-winded speeches and repeating of the same things again and again and again. *shakes head. Tsk Tsk Tsk.

I think it is time for drastic measures.

Well, I am not exactly *gay*, but does bisexual female count?

Yes, folks, this is it. My official "Getting out of the closet" for all the SP to see. Some of you already know, some have guessed, some will probably sit there slack-jawed. Feel free to do so.

Now, I myself am not an expert on Christianity, nor the Ancient Greeks, or genetics or any other topics discussed here. Nor would anything I know shed anything new to any of these subjects.

What I CAN tell you is this: I myself can tell you no reason, can pinpoint no whys or hows of "That's the reason why I am like I am". I simply am. I was not "coerced" to the lifestyle. I was not sexually abused as a child. I did not just wake up and decide that hey, I like girls too.
Am I genetic anomaly? Possibly. Am I sick? I am diagnosed with a mental ilness, manic-depressiveness, but I don't think these two things are related in any way, shape or form. Am I a pervert? Define pervert. Some say I am from my choice of attraction only. Some from certain other things. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not.

Now.... the question is: Now that I am suddenly "sick" and "perverted", one of "them"... What now?

 

@Arabwel: So? I'm manic-depressive, and I think I'm a schizophrenic, (I actually argue with myself, meaningful conversation etc.)but it just helps me more in writing.

And in this, I think they are not sick, they just choose to be gay, their are quite a few kids in my school that are gay. However, some of them makes me feel really uncomfortable, but others are pretty cool.

 

Well, I don't really think I am sick, either... for one, I am not taking my meds (Except for taking an allergy medicine twice the maximum daily sdose because its the only way to get it work... I am nearly immune to the damn thing...)
But I did mention ths little "ilness" because the whitecoats have labeled me with it, so technically, I am sick. Zick in ze head, to be more presice.

 

I have read a lot of b********* about ancient Greece but this surely is a runner up for the prize. First and foremost the homosexuality in ancient Greece was not a taboo but this doesn't mean it was encouraged or even punished severely, secondly the teacher was severely punished if he had SEXUAL relationships with any of his students he was there to teach not to f****.
Also i want to say that the Greek word malakoi does means soft and the word malakes translates in English more close to a****le the Greek word for homosexuality is the same since this is a Greek word "omophulophilos" the one who loves his own "phulo" sex. The u is used to mark a different spelling in Greek.
And yes Alexander the Great did had homosexual expierences many historians say that behind their mustaches.
Me personally have nothing against the homosexual or the bisexual people. And i do not believe that it is a disease but rather an rash since for me and according to Plato there are two kinds of love the sexual and the mental also known as platonic.
I do believe that sometime when they are very young the homosexuals had a very good relationship with someone of their own sex and in fact they had shared a platonic love with a person of their own sex and try to recreate it with their relationships. Of course as they get older the subject of sex comes up. Anyway this is nothing more than my humble opinion and a point of view to the matter at hand.

 

I read in the latest Time, that homosexuality mostly happens within males with older brothers, because the mother produces some type of chemical that affects the child.

 

I would like to add something here that is slightly off-topic but which whom many 'self-styled' lunatics like to label themselves with. Scizophrenia has nothing at all to do with multiple personalities. Scizophrenia is a chemical disorder in the brain giving you illusions and the like. It is quite common. Multiple personalities is *extremely* rare and is almost only found in persons being severly abused and thus created another persona to bear that abuse for them.

 

At Mithrantir:

I posted this quote, because of the theory, brought into discussion by Laches, that most of the famous ancient greeks were gay.

So, I posted my quote, which explains why in the texts of Platon so many gay people can be found. The bottom line of the quote I used, was that it's rather problematic to say, he used gay people because Platon himself was gay, but because ancient greek had a other relationship to homosexualtiy.How exactly that relationship was is, imp, not important. The importance lies in:" it was different from today." I took that quote, because I found it (irrc, the first google result google showed) and I think the bottom line of it (different relationship to homosexuality) is correct, because it's fits together with other articles I read about greek culture.

Ok, the most questionable point in my quote, in my own view, is the rather "superficial" description of hedonism. Which represents the Roman view of greek things, which, as I said in another post, has always to be taken with a grain of salt.

Sidenote: When talking about different societies (ancient greece): I just realized somehting: Women. Women. No woman. Why ? If women have no brain, how can someone use them in a book, without causing people get very, very, very angry at him. Women ? Brains ? Are you mad ! Are you a commie ! The next thing you want is to let them vote ! (By the way, Platon is for emancipation of women, in his description of the "ideal state")

At Arabwel:

I answered that question already to you, but I gladly take the chance to repeat my view: It because of the way mother nature made reproduction. Mother nature uses a dice when human beings are reproduced, this makes evolution possible. A sideeffect of using the dice is, next to generate people with blond, brown, red or dark hair, to produce people with different sexual inclinations (sp ?). So, following my on view point, you're wrong like people are wrong who have long noses instead of short noses.

Ok, than to the history. The catholic view, sex is only there for reproduction, is in my point view valid. The other view, take the testament and say it condems homosexuality (and bis-exualty) does NOT STAND. Because it's working with total ignorance of ancient culture, the culture in which the testaments were written. And it only works by fully ignoring the times they were written in. And that's my view.