"Greeks were pro-homosex and pederasts"

>"Greeks were pro-homosex and pederasts"
>research the topic
>turns out its an anachronistic, modern distortion of history
>out of context quotes, out of context descriptions

who else fell for this meme? People think because the greeks made flattering comments about the male body, or young male bodies that it was sexual in nature. Or because they bathed together or wrestled naked they were gay. In fact they made fun of gays.

You may want to Google the term paiderastía

Never fell for the meme, OP. Victorian England is responsible for projecting its own insecurities about male bonding onto the Greeks, and why we think of them as obsessed with buggery. It was the Brits all along.

>athenian noblemen fuck boys during the golden age of greece
>the greeks were all soo gay!

They didn't fuck boys user, they just borrowed their slender thighs for a minute or two. Chill out homophobe.

>Plato will never eat your ass
why even live tbhq

>they just borrowed their slender thighs for a minute or two
This.
This x2

I've never understood the classical scholars, they are among the most liberal professors at universities that spend a vast majority of their time espousing the philosophy and writings of authors who ranged from proto-fascists to ultra-conservatives to violent populists. Bunch of masochists.

hahaha lol

They fetishized it, user. It's the same mechanism that allows women to be terrified of rape but still pay for and devour cheap self-insertion bodice rippers from KMart. In the scholar's mind, the Greeks were artfully barbaric. Their pyres and battles and symposiums are mythic, not the ho-hum barbarity of the 19th and 20th centuries.

>conservative
>professors
Pick one.

Straussians would.

What about the Theban sacred banders? What about the Dorian ritual weddings between mentor and protege practiced in Crete and Sparta?

>Xenophon (Kyroupaideia II, 2 28): "Do you want to introduce that young boi that lies with you to the ways of the Greeks, because he is handsome?"

>Herodotos (Histories I, 135): "A notable instance is pederasty, which they (Persians) learned fron the Greeks."
Face it Classical history is not your conservative safe-space

What does conservatism and homosexuality have to do with each other?

>Hear hear and indeed!

People tend to put pro-gay stances in the Liberal idea group and anti-gay stances in the Conservative idea group.

Wonder if the pedo Greeks had high rates of anal cancer or STDs, like the CDC stats on gay guys who are doing well at punching above their weight when it comes to spreading sexual disease.

Anyone got any books on Ancient Greek epidemiology?

That's silly.

>marcus aurelius pic
>greek

You must be doing poor "research" because fucking boys in the butt was commonplace but it totally wasn't "gay", they didn't adhere to a modern notion of sexuality

Aristotle and Plato weren't exactly big fans of Athenian society

>Wonder if the pedo Greeks had high rates of anal cancer or STDs
No, they didn't. They were more into molesting young boys, and even that mostly as a show of power, not for base sexual gratification. They certainly didn't approve of having your bunghole ripped apart by 40 anonymous pozzed masked faggots, like modern-day homosexuals do.

They made fun of people who loved only men because not having children and a family was considered a disgrace.
Yet, it was considered normal to love little boys.

As this post says >You must be doing poor "research" because fucking boys in the butt was commonplace but it totally wasn't "gay", they didn't adhere to a modern notion of sexuality

That is all there is really to say regarding the subject.

>"Christianity is anti-homosex"
>research the topic
>turns out its an anachronistic distortion
>only negative quotation is by (((Saul))) of Tarsus
who else fell for this meme?

So you agree that being "gay" means molesting young boys, yes or no?

>In fact they made fun of gays
Reminds me of The Birds, where Aristophanes wrote one of the characters saying something like, "Why can't I just live in a world where a man goes up to me and says, 'You saw my son coming out of the baths from the gymnasium and you didn't kiss him or fondle his nuts? What the fuck is wrong with you, faggot'"

Greeks and Romans were not "gay" because such a term didn't really exist. You were a fag if you let yourself get penetrated but if you penetrated others, even other men, that shit was alpha as fuck.

It doesn't matter what I think, the Greeks had no notion of "being gay" as we do now. Which is why they cannot be pro-gay in any way.

HE DISKOVERED STOICISM IS WHAT HE DID
HE WUZ A BRAVE ITALIAN EMPEROR
AND IN THIS HOUSE MARCUS AURELIUS IS A HERO, END OF STORY!

>ignores Christ saying marriage is between man and woman like was intended from the beginning
>ignores Jude referring to the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah
>discounts Paul because he was jew...same as the other apostles, except maybe Luke
>discounts OT, doesn't understand the new covenant.
neat

>it totally wasn't "gay"
>even that mostly as a show of power
>Greeks and Romans were not "gay" because such a term didn't really exist. You

Imagine believing what the TA teaching your sociology 121 class said.

I remember there's a scene in The Clouds where Truth and Deceit have a debate. Deceit convinces Truth he's a faggot and Truth runs out of the theater in women's clothes, pretending to kiss audience members. I forget the circumstances exactly.

It isn't about the term, you absolute idiot, it is about the connotations and viewing of "having sex with boys" that differed. It has nothing with "the term not existing".

It is not gay in the sense that they had romantic relationships, dated eachother, went to the plays holding hands.

>Jesus reiterating God's command on remarriage from Genesis is somehow anti homo
>Sodom and Gomorrah's wickedness is never stated as being gay, and would make no sense for Lot offering his daughters in this case
>ignoring David and Jonathan's formal legal union, their kissing, and their love "surpassing the love of women"
>Trusting a (((Pharisee))) who also was buttblasted about vegetarians and celibates
neat

Are you saying that the love of boys had nothing to do with romantic relationships and everything to do with sodomy (which totally wasn't "gay" btw)?

>in fact they made of gays

You do realize they didn't consider fucking a man to be gay, right? It was getting fucked that was gay/womanly.

>Sodom and Gomorrah's wickedness is never stated as being gay, and would make no sense for Lot offering his daughters in this case
Weren't they wicked for not being hospitable to a stranger? I don't know if I'm remembering that right, though.

Dude according to them, no it wasn't. It was penetrater > penetrated. If you were penetrated, you were a dumb womanly fag. If you penetrated others, no matter their gender, you were alpha because you were the one doing the dominating you fucking nigger.

my point exactly.
the wickedness was never homosex, and this only comes about in later medieval jewish interpretations

In most cases, probably, but we'd both be guessing. And indeed; it totally wasn't gay, in the way we perceive homosexuality in our current age.
It was gay if you take being gay to mean putting your dick inbetween someone's cheeks.

I love this. A couple thousand years ago, the males of our species would pester and chase each other until one finally said "fine you can do me in the ass just leave me alone."

And then the chaser would DO IT. Probably in the street, while getting high fives and thumbs up from passers by.

>the wickedness was never homosex
>libshit exegesis and lies

And [the men of the city] called unto Lot, and said unto him: "Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may ''know'' them.'"

(NRSV: know them, NIV: can have sex with them, NJB: can have intercourse with them, KJV: know them,).

Lot gives the mob of men his two virgin daughters, and states they are virgin, but the mob refuse and get angry trying to break down his door. Their intentions are clearly homo-sex not straight sex. The men/angels come out and blind the degenerates.

>the wickedness was never homosex, and this only comes about in later medieval jewish interpretations

It was always an unspeakable abomination, the bible doesn't like to paint detailed pictures of it. So it'll say things like "if a man lies with a man as he does with a woman, it is an abomination" or "Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

No, not at all. It was plain old mean assrape, the same that happens in prisons today. That's what happens in lawless societies, degenerate violent people float to the top. Ancient Greece was a lawless society.

then they were hanged by vikings and thrown in a bog

I doubt it was "pestering", it was more holding someone down and forcibly raping them. I know Romans had laws stating that freeborn men shouldn't have their rights withdrawn from them if they were raped, but if it was consensual, then yeah whatever fuck them, they're gross.
If I remember right a lot of the reason why slaves, even freed slaves, were looked down upon was 1) people had some ideas about certain groups being "naturally slavish" and 2) it was automatically assumed they were fucked in all holes

>that we may ''know'' them.'"
This is וְנֵדְעָ֖ה, the same "that we may know" as in Judges 18:5
"And they said unto him, Ask counsel, we pray thee, of God, that we may know whether our way which we go shall be prosperous."
Did they pray God for sex? No.
This is not the same word as "to have known" in a sexual instance. NRSV, NIV, and NJB are inaccurate translations giving into later medieval interpretation.
Funny how you should also quote KJV considering King James was quite possibly England's biggest homo.
>It was always an unspeakable abomination
>>ignoring David and Jonathan's formal legal union, their kissing, and their love "surpassing the love of women"
neat

...

also to emphasize, the word in question in Genesis is never, not a single time, used in a sexual instance in the Bible. It is in fact even a different word than the verb used in Genesis 19:8 when Lot says his daughters "have not known man".

Moralfags gtfo this is a Greco-Roman Queer thread. Gnaeus, fetch my spatha.

>city known for being full of degenerates
>"we want the two men, so that we may know them"
>no, but take my daughters instead, who have not known man
>no, we want the men, reeeeeeeeeee
>angels come out and blind all the degenerates

ya the mob clearly just wanted to chat with the men.

>This is וְנֵדְעָ֖ה, the same "that we may know"....
>we want to know the men
>have my daughters, they have not known men

You understand context changes meaning?
So Lot literally meant his daughters had never met or known or encountered any man, they were kept in solitary confinement all their lives? The context was sexual in nature, hence Lot mentions the virginity of his daughters. To "know" a man or woman in the biblical sense also means to lay with them, i.e have sex.

>king james was a homo
nice meme

>ignoring David and Jonathan's formal legal union, their kissing, and their love
Dumb modernist drivel.

Read Xenophone last year. Would totally hang out with Socrates.

This is the exact problem with proddies.

Google sacred tradition and convert already.

>It is in fact even a different word than the verb used in Genesis 19:8 when Lot says his daughters "have not known man".

The word means the same thing in this context, to have sex, hence Lot mentions the virginity of his daughters.

>People that unironically post this every thread

>No textual indication of sex
>But it was about sex because I feel like it
Cool.
>You understand context changes meaning?
>>the word in question in Genesis is never, not a single time, used in a sexual instance in the Bible

>>nice meme
>Robert Carr and George Villiers suddenly don't exist now
Nice cop-out
>Dumb modernist drivel.
Oh same-sex kissing and "love surpassing the love of women" is not gay now so you can conveniently ignore it, cool
>OT is modernist
kys

Is there a word for people who fetishize Jewish laws from the Iron Age?

Jews

Hasidic Jews
most modern (Conservative) Jews are pretty normal

Will all of the Jews in this thread please shut up about your dumb interpretations we're trying to talk about buttsex.

>>No textual indication of sex

Everyone in the town was degenerate.
Lot believed their intentions were sexual, so he mentioned the virginity of his daughters.
Why would the angels blind the mob if all they wanted to do was "talk" ?

>>OT is modernist
Homosexuality is an abomination in the OT and NT. Nothing changed and no libshit new-age twisting of scripture will change thousands of years of tradition.

repent, learn hermeneutics, your soul is sick faggot.

Sexual aesthetic.

>it's not gay, I swear!

Why would Lot offer his daughters, if he knew the citizens were ravenous homosexuals? It is much more likely that they wanted to see the guest to expel them, mistreat them, rob them, or otherwise kill them as Sodom was inhospitable to strangers.
Ezekial 48-50: "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.
‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
They abused the poor and needy, and if you consider the "detestable things" as gay sex, then why is this not the chief sin of Sodom and mentioned as such?
>no libshit new-age twisting of scripture will change thousands of years of tradition.
Does your traditional marriage include polygamy? Do you put people who remarriage to death? Are vegetarians and those who do not marry equally as abominable as homosexuals?
If not, your following a "libshit new-age twisting of scripture".
>muh tradition
Stay plastered, papist. I guarantee you'll leave your church as soon as a Pope admits gays.

>we've collectively turned ourselves into sexual commodities
>implying that's unnatural in any way
you're just mad because you don't have any capital.

checked and rekt

>see for yourself how any sort of relationship in fiction or otherwise that ISN'T sexual is just confusing and strange to most people.
This pisses me off quite a bit tbqh. Just because two characters are close doesn't mean there has to be something sexual between them. Friendship is a thing that exists after all.

>why Lot give gays his daughters
bisexuals. pansexuals. freaks. pedos-fags aren't picky about the holes they put their penises in.

Anyway even if the Sodom event wasn't in the bible homosexuality would still be an abomination against God and man and all things holy and good.

The bible doesn't like to paint detailed pictures of it. To have sex is to "know" someone or "lay" with them. It doesn't use vulgar jargon. So it'll say things like "if a man lies with a man as he does with a woman, it is an abomination" or "Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Only straight marriages were sanctified and approved of scripturally and by tradition. Gay marriage was never an option, never mentioned, never celebrated. So gay sex is impossible, since sex outside marriage is fornication.

Jesus reiterated the heterosexual nature of marriage in the NT. Paul did as well.

> papist.
nope, wrong again.
your soul is sick, seek God.

to like something != to study it for your entire life

>sodom was just inhospitable to strangers and mean to the poor ;)

No.

"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." - Jude 1:7

Repent.

Are you really suggesting that to appreciate somebody's contributions you have to agree with all of their views? I guarantee that almost nobody who reads Tolstoy is some kind of clerical anarchist, just like how almost nobody who listens to Schoenberg is a weird secular Habsburg royalists.

Humanities professors tend to be staunch liberals or socialists simply because their line of work offers them a greater freedom to study ideas concerning hierarchy, equality, and liberation.

>Jesus reiterated the heterosexual nature of marriage in the NT
He repeated God's law to Moses at the behest of Pharisees, saying it was written for the hardness in their hearts. He also said that the law should consist of the love of God and love for one's neighbors.
Jesus himself never mentions homosexuality. He does say that women who remarry commit adultery though.
Do you also condemn those who remarry? Vegetarians as Paul says? People who wear polyfibers?
Are you fine with polygamy, because this is included in "traditional marriage". Solomon had hundreds of wives.
>Gay marriage was never an option
Jonathan and David had a same-sex covenant - which implies formal union in the OT - where their souls were "knit".

>sex outside marriage is fornication
>Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire
But suddenly fornication is specifically homosexual in the case of Sodom? Nice one.

niggers, christians, even faggots claim to be what ancient greek pagans stood for. They're all just pathetic wastes clinging to some imaginary world history that would make Herodotus chuckle. They start to say that it was 'discovered' that something 'came to light' when in reality they just basically retconned ancient greek history. In athens socrates was literally put on trial for fuckign boys, and was found not guilty. They then executed him anyway because of their suspicions of him.

I don't know what you've read, but Republic and Nicomachean Ethics both directly reference the fact that Greeks liked to bugger boys.

There wasn't such a thing as homosexuality, simply because in both ancient Greece and Rome there wasn't any taboo in regards to same sex fornication. It was perfectly normal to be attracted to and fool around with men, but naturally it would be nonsense to marry a man or to think of having sex with only men, since without women there's no children. So homosex was a strictly for-fun kind of thing, and neither heterosexuality or homosexuality really exist.

When it comes to age, they didn't care either. Child prostitutes and child sex slaves were common, and ''women'' could get married at 10 years old. Pederasty was different, it wasn't with children but with young men and teens, and it was a tutorship kind of relationship beyond just sexual.

Granted Plato is against it, leading to one of the greatest lines in the history of philosophy, something like "It's okay for men to date boys and even kiss them, but if a man gets sexual with a boy we'll say he isn't educated in music and poetry." But the point is it was a common enough issue to be addressed.

I read their actual works. You read a cock's veins to get your crack-pipe of an account of ancient Greek societal norms.

>in class about Greek law
>Reading Lysias
>A whole case about who gets to fuck an imported live-in rentboi

>socrates was literally put on trial for fuckign boys, and was found not guilty
Hot fucking damn user, are you willfully misconstruing or did you misinterpret this badly?

>i pay money for SJW doctored works
enjoy your ideology, you can swallow that down your throat like all the other priders.

...

what the fuck

>anything that doesn't agree with me is just the swjs rewriting history

>dude the greeks were gay lmao are you dumb??!1???
eat shit you apologist

whend I say that you pathetic excuse of a scholar. A donkey at least knows when to leave, you just linger like a sore on the face of the earth.

He's reeing now.

Socrates was not a real person, you dirty philistine

What about Plato's Symposium?

I was once told that the sexual immorality of sodom related to having sex with angels not having gay sex.

>faggot hating fake christians probably don't even believe in literal angels and will dispute this