What civilizations throughout history have been accepting of LGBT people?

>the steppes.
In The Secret History of The Mongols, Genghis was said to have "shared a blanket" with one of his closest friends. Some historians have taken that to mean buttfucking.

Holy shit try googling some of this yourself, this isn't a search engine

Really the overwhelming impression I get every time I look into this is that most cultures dont care that much as long as you have children. Its mostly just the abrahamic faiths that are violently anti-gay and have dragged most of the world into that mindset

>Its mostly just the abrahamic faiths that are violently anti-gay and have dragged most of the world into that mindset
What is up with that anyway?

Monotheism has anger issues.

Read these, user, and you'll find out.

cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/

cdc.gov/msmhealth/std.htm

The celts and generally old Indo-European cultures were pretty open with man on man sex and relationships. It was considered a bond between warriors in a lot of cases. Many Celts were known to be buried with their partner rather than wife.

Pic related. Read it if you are actually interested in this topic.

Im hardly an expert but I think its just a quirk of the jews faith. They managed to build fanaticism into the very foundation of their culture, and attitudes like that thrive on harshness and very clear ingroup/outgroup signals

The conjecture I've heard says that the Hebrew religious leaders thought gay sex would lead to goddess worship and they couldn't stand any competition whatsoever. Granted it's conjecture like I said.

It's almost universally disapproved of throughout history.

If you're not gay, it's gross, even if you are pro-gay rights, it's gross. People just codified a gut reaction into law; it's as simple as that.

Proofs?

Germanics threw their gays into bogs, as drowning was the preferred execution method for dishonourable people.
Must have been dependent on the mood in the village though, I guess that even during christian times in some communities people may have turned their back to it or simply forced the guy to make a bunch of prayers.

Assyrians during roman times were gay as fuck as far as I know.
There is an account of a christian roman being diesgusted by assrian air-godess priests dressing up as women in public and for ritual reasons while also trying to emulate that sex in all aspects.

Its the exact opposite. You will struggle to find examples of intolerence of gays outside of abrahamic faiths

>Germanics threw their gays into bogs
What period are we talking here?

why are abrahamic faiths so butthurt about goddess worship?

I mean, a lot of life takes a male and female to create another life, why shouldn't the cosmic father have a cosmic wife?

Specifically in the Old Testament God was trying to keep Israel from following Canaanite Gods. Among other things, they practiced child sacrifice to Baal (like the Carthaginians). So he didn't want his people to start doing that.

God doesn't have a gender though. He's just referred to with male pronouns because they convey a sense of authority and respect which is missing with the female pronouns. Men are always the warriors and the leaders in a healthy society.

Why no Greeks? They were the certified world champions of boy fucking...

Symposium is not a meme. Go read Symposium.

You are a guy during medieval/ancient times.
There is no insurance but your family when things go wrong.
Things can go wrong in many ways you dont understand or are helpless to, be it disasters, war and raids, famine, desease or dying from some funny accident because antibiotics arent a thing yet.

So you manage to make children.
You need children.
You know and everyone knows, that your children need children in order to pass on the families work and because it is crucial for every community.
Marriages are complicated and often seen as a kind of trade or business between families in order to ensure social uplifting or simply a continuation of the standart quo.
You have long and tiresome discussions with the jewellers family, as you are likely to have scraped enough valuables togethers to pay for the marriage (to guaranteer that not everything hangs on them) of your son to one of their daughters they have picked and groomed just for this happy occasion in 2 years.
You are a carpenter and consider yourself lucky, intermarrying with the jewellers will give your offspring some leverage to move up the social ladder.

Then you find out your son has been caught being lewd with the fucking baker's son from around the bloc.
Word has been spreading...

Before christianisation, I think Tacticus wrote about it, maybe others too I dont know.
Albeit we know that in some places people contined to sacrifiece dogs to the bog up until the 11th century when the church's power got hardened, so the scale of time concerning the culture shift is we are talking about here is pretty vague and probably depends a lot on the regional mood.
.

So the abrahamic god is both male and female while at the same time not?

Also, thank you for the reply.

Nice trips. He necessarily exists outside of time and space though, so he really has no gender. When he incarnated as a human it was in the form of a man, Jesus Christ, but he could have manifested as a woman if he'd wanted to I suppose.

Interesting and thank you so much for taking the time to enlighten me about something I really don't know much about.

In the Talmud some rabbis write of Elohim like a lover desu

Fair enough. IGoogle has found me some info on a pair of bodies found in a dutch bog that may be a gay couple, but they appear to have been buried respectfully and apparently bog sacrifices were an honourable thing. I dunno its hard to separate out idealogical shit

Every christian alive is gay for jesus

Literally muh greeks and romans.

Aristotle was a faggot degenerate and he was just trying to normalize his perversion

Mostly that they spent a good deal of their history being massacred by civilizations where causal homosexuality was accepted (Spartans, Romans, Assyrians, etc.). Thus, particularly during the various diasporas, it became a matter of cultural identity to defy it.

That, and back then, one of the best ways to keep your civilization alive was to simply outbreed everyone else, and some of these more "gay friendly" civilizations were actually having trouble encouraging their citizens to breed. (Some going so far as to create various financial incentives, or making it law.)

>What civilizations throughout history have been accepting of LGBT people?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender

sage

To be fair I'm a bit sick of seeing the "Passion of the Cut Sleeve" brought up every time faggotry in East Asia is mentioned. Emperor Ai was widely considered an incompetent ruler and was mostly known for giving too much power to his male lover and the story was meant to illustrate how foolish he was rather than some romantic ideal, and emperors routinely got away with stuff that was completely unacceptable for other people (see also: Roman emperors.)
It's a bit like using the "Human Swine Incident" to prove that the Chinese were into hard BDSM and bodymod.

I mean, East Asians certainly were gay as fuck and into hard play (eunuchs were infamous for getting off on torturing women, brothels actually catered to them) but anecdotes about Emperors showcase extraordinary conduct than anything. You don't hear stories about the emperors who had "normal" sex lives with 3 wives and 10 concubines because that was the norm, you hear about the one who only ever kept one wife or who spent all his time fucking 600 women or whatever.

When did the Spartans ever encounter the Jews

>Tfw your husband cheats on you with his best friend again

A lot of non-Abrahamic cultures accepted gays. Acceptance of gender nonconformity is less widespread, though. I've heard that Native Americans accepted it, but I ain't too knowledgeable of Native history so it may be bullshit.

Yeah you'd be disgusted too if you had to watch a pre-op drag queen attempting to be feminine without modern cosmetics.

Her fault for thinking she can compete with the man who drives your chariot.

Celts desu

I actually did a little research. It's hard to get anything definitive because of how protective they are of their history, but it seems like some Native Americans had more genders than we do. Men who thought they should be women were a gender separate from men and women. But there is enough difference among tribes where there's not really an argument to be made for tolerance, but simply for the social construction of gender. On the other hand, one could easily argue that, while gender is socially constructed, the forming of gender roles seems natural.

westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/homosexuality.html
This confirms that basically any society that holes up its women away from the public display will eventually devolve into absolute boy fuckery. It happened with Greeks, Catholics, Muslims, Romans, Japanese etc.

westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/homosexuality.html
This confirms that basically any society that holes up its women away from the public display will eventually devolve into rampant boy fuckery. It happened with Greeks, Catholics, Muslims, Romans, Japanese etc.

Dis nigga gotta have a dick on the seat cuz his ass gon shit if he ain't got a dick

This is certainly true. Buggery was most rampant in monasteries, warbands, prisons or boarding schools, and indeed in societies where pussy was a heavily restricted resource.

>Tacticus

Kek'd

Greeks and Romans.
Just because you say it's a meme doesn't make it a bad answer.

>The famous Chigo no sooshi or Acolyte scroll is also often cited in this context[17]. This is a series of five tales with illustrations produced some time in the fourteenth century and kept in the Shingon Daigo-ji temple. It depicts in graphic detail how a young acolyte had a servant prepare his bottom with various unguents and lubricants so as to assist his aged abbot in achieving penetration. I have seen a (censored) modern reproduction of the whole of this scroll in the British Library with a translation into modern Japanese and it seems to me more the product of a pornographic imagination than a description of an actual occurrence. At one stage, the servant becomes so excited by his job that he pleads with the acolyte to let him first have a go; a request to which the acolyte graciously agrees. It is unlikely that in a society like Japan, which is fiercely aware of status differentials, that a higher status man would allow himself to be penetrated by a man of lower status in such a manner. However, this scroll is preserved by a Buddhist institution as a ‘national treasure’

>no Memes like muh Greeks
>the theban sacred band literally exists as a thing

Retard alert

There have always been people 'grossed out' by it. They simply didn't partake and never developed a taste for it. If a homosexual made advances on them I'm pretty sure it became known to not try that man/women ever again.

That's not to say there weren't the degenerate types who developed a taste for homosexuality later in their lives, as if developing a taste for something off a buffet platter of pleasures.

But for all the people who did not have a taste and did not partake in it, I doubt there were laws against it. But again, I wouldn't assume everyone/all were 'okay with homosexuality.' I'm sure some were genuinely not intrigued by it in the slightest if not completely repelled against it out of their own nature.

>Then you find out your son has been caught being lewd with the fucking baker's son from around the bloc.
So you have one of your other sons marry the jeweller's daughter while you send your obviously gay son to the priesthood, where he will be cloistered away in a monastery with other obviously gay sons from well-to-do households and no female presence to speak of, only toil, austerity, and a bunch of other really lonely men to call brother and share a bunk with.

and while you go about the rest of your days tending to your pedestrian worries like paying your bills and putting food on the table, your neglected son is working for the closest medieval equivalent of the central bureaucracy and laying down the theoretical groundwork for western civilization, without the corresponding headaches that come from being obligated to get married and raise children.

There was a time when a mans strength was in his family alone. There was a time when there wasn't constant safety and supervision from government officials like police etcetc

A man's protection was essentially based on the size of his family and friends. Children were considered blessings for many reasons. A large clan meant protection and more people to take care of each other ie; work the fields and manufacture goods. The younger could take care of the older, the older teach the younger. The larger the clan the larger the protection from thieves and similar groups and the larger the over all yield of their work etc etc

That's why you read in the early stages of the Bible for example, Abraham and the ones before pleading for large families to be as numerous as the sands and stars. They wanted numbers to lighten the burden of what it takes to be men and women on earth.

Homosexuality essentially cut's the family tree off, it's synonymous with death this way. It cuts off growth. If it ever crept into Israel, which (I think) it eventually did along with other acts of death like child sacrifice and male prostitution which was adopted from neighboring nations who worshiped false gods that Israel was warned about, but they eventually allowed these people into their walls. Also sexual immorally wasn't limited to homosexual acts, but straight sex as well.

Abrahamic religions sole opposition, was degeneracy. Any frenzied behavior that could lead to bondage to the flesh and avoidance of the discipline needed to live in harmony. Degeneracy, any form of it, leads to lust for power, finances, which is greed, which could lead to a plethora of heinous acts against your brother/sister.

How the laws have evolved though in terms of how theyre executed in Abrahamic "religions"- also have succumb to evil. ie; the ones who look for excuses to condemn others and enjoy it all out of self hate or pride, which are also considered degenerate behavior models/patterns, which would render an imbalanced exercising of judgement in relation to those laws.

So the only way homosexuality can be a sustainable lifestyle is if the society no longer has importance for offspring and family,ie; a society that essentially worships money and various forms of prosperity. Where ones possessions and financial stance can support ANY desirable lifestyle.

Which is why I don't think it's a coincidence that the more prosperous the nation, the more prone to degenerate behavior they are. They have nothing to worry about other than maintaining financial ground and leverage, and many become tempted and succumb to maintaining this leverage by way of exploitation through practices of everything from thievery by way of lying, or extortion and various other corrupt exploits. This is what generally accompanies prosperous nations. Not everyone practices this, just the ones who lust for higher ranks in the society.

These type of people are written about in proverbs and the psalms though.

"Oh how long with the wicked go unpunished"
"Why do the innocents perish and the wicked prosper" etc etc

But yeah, to get back on point, if anyone thinks the laws against homosexuality that stems from the word of God were conceived as an excuse to exercise hate....well, you're mistaken. They were put in place to make sure God's chosen people at that time wouldn't sell themselves short and cut off their strength before they even got the strength. You can't fall to degeneracy and expect to achieve anything other than failure.

Now God knew in advance that not only would Israel fail though, but that man in general fails. That is why we have Christ. But the thing that confuses people is whats the point of all this? Well, if you think about it, if there is a court hearing that awaits us all. God has all his bases covered for any argument that awaits him.

Ask why hasnt God intervened? He has, but some in the world didnt want His intervention. They wanted the pleasures of the flesh,

which He tried to explain weren't pleasures at all. But hidden sources of suffering. All the evils lead to other evils which eventually lead to the world we have today.

Every nation is in a game of chess and constant state of war for land and resources. Without love, which is what God is, you have a constant state of lack of contentment. The world right now is just a few massive lions constantly testing each other for their share of the meat.

Go proselytize somewhere else.

>So the only way homosexuality can be a sustainable lifestyle is if the society no longer has importance for offspring and family,i
That's just silly. If you have 5 children and one of them is gay, your other 4 still pass on their genes, still increase the overall size of the human population, only now they have an extra working adult providing for them.

This is less of an issue for rural farming communities where more kids = more free labor, but for cosmopolitan societies a child is a considerable investment of energy and resources, so there are more working adults investing scarce resources into fewer children. It's the exact same reason why families voluntarily made one of their sons into eunuchs, or why some were sent to a celibate priesthood. A larger adult to children ratio means more hands supporting fewer mouths.

And the reality is that "moral decay" affects rural communities as readily as it affects cosmopolitan ones. In the United States alone the states with the most violent crime, the most teen pregnancy and STD rates, the lowest literacy and quality of health are the rural ones.

The rise of faggotry is a sign of the end of empire, always.

You really don't need to be offended, I'm just pointing out that the prohibition of homosexuality goes far beyond baseless hate and discrimination. Because it wasn't just homosexuality that was prohibited, but anything that could potential stunt the growth of this specific people. That included sexual immorality among people who weren't even homosexuals.

I'd agree with you, but again, sexual immorality alone was a part of what was prohibited as well. Not just homosexuality.

So what does all this have in common with the rest of what was prohibited in those Abrahamic laws? All of what was prohibited were potential sources of degeneracy. All of them were associated with sin, which sin means death. And despite percentages and reasoning for advocating of such things, like 1 out of 4 children being homosexual, homosexuality alone, does indeed stunt growth. Now I'm not judging, I personally have not a single ounce of hate for any homosexual person, anyone who does, is doing so because they want to feel superior for whatever reason. I'm not judging anyone, I'm just stating that prohibition of homosexuality goes beyond baseless discrimination and hate. There was a purpose for it.

And the small point I think you're missing is the fact that if homosexuality is perceived from another, it can spread as a desire to one who wasn't previously desiring same sex practices. It becomes something to ponder upon as a practice one would either want to, or not want to participate in. So the practice would no longer be among just homosexuals alone, but among people who are just "bored," which in turn would double the practitioners. Which all in all, would go against the overall command to exercise discipline against unbridled appetites in general.

I mean everything about the the God of Abraham was evolutionary. It literally killed off the gods the that wanted child sacrifice, the old gods of Greece and Rome that were the cause/reasoning behind various exploits..

..agaisnt humanity.

I'll just point this last example out, but if you saw someone thriving in the exploit of theft. Lying and theft. Extortion. That to could spread as a practice and cause the once disciplined, or the ones who were commanded to be disciplined, to become undisciplined.

Once one person gets a whiff if any exploitation and they're hungry or struggling or just desiring gain...they are now susceptible to practice the same thing. Which in turn would infect the whole community as a whole and would eventually set a standard for some. That lying and stealing is a way to gain leverage. Now in the even the entire community decides to cave in and start doing the same, you have that many more people suffering.

So when I spread, I mean through perception and as a potential practice one may want to adopt if that one feels as if he can benefit from said practice. Whether it be gratifying to him or beneficial in some other way.

So when I say spread*

Or... and hear me out....

Or your gay son gets caught by the baker and both boys are brought before the local lord and the bishop.

The boys are tried for sins against God and unnatural acts, and are burned at the stake or drowned or some other awful way to die. The bishop is a little sad about this, because he would have liked to nail the baker's son too.

>does indeed stunt growth
You know what else stunts growth? Having more children than you can reasonably afford to achieve success.

Again, not an issue with farmers who stand to benefit financially from socially isolating their children. But in the developed world where having children is an investment of resources rather than an expansion of them, this growth at any costs mentality leads to huge numbers of destitute people at best, and at worst can lead to dangerous and unsanitary living conditions, starvation, and more. And if you don't have enough resources to adequately invest in them, what makes you think that they are going to want to invest in you or your "family"?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't keep a rural mindset and built a prosperous economy. The best investment strategies are conservative, favoring patient but steady growth. Fewer children with a higher probability for success yields better long-term returns than "breed like rabbits without thought given to future planning".

>Now I'm not judging,
right, right "hate the sin, not the sinner". Now if only more Christians could practice what they preach.

>You know what else stunts growth? Having more children than you can reasonably afford to achieve success.

On paper, that's true. In relation to Abraham's God, God will support the righteous. Lol and yes, I know that rebuttal doesn't fly among many.

With that said, you'd have to consider, wonder, if what you stated would be true in the event everyone lived content and by what Abraham's God would consider "righteous lives." Meaning; if everyone only took and consumed what as needed, versus unbridled excess in relation to consumption. Would your statement still hold true? Just something to think about.

>With that said, you'd have to consider, wonder, if what you stated would be true in the event everyone lived content and by what Abraham's God would consider "righteous lives." Meaning; if everyone only took and consumed what as needed, versus unbridled excess in relation to consumption. Would your statement still hold true? Just something to think about.

It depends on what the make up of this hypothetical righteous society would look like.

If you are assuming that cosmopolitan society collapses utterly and people revert to living in small farming communities where the market simply isn't large enough to support a consumer economy, then I would say that my statement would not be appropriate because their goal would be to quickly regenerate their numbers so that they could return to having the same conversation that you and I are having at this moment.

If you are assuming some kind of communistic society which systematically prevents its population from abusing each other for profit, then I would say that my investment strategy becomes even more important, since reputation and pedigree would still be a scarce commodity, and they would need lots of both if they want to attract a worthy mate.

Yeah I hear what you're saying, but I mean, just from studying and attempting to understand, to form what I think is the definition of righteousness and applying that definition to a society or nation even, I think something like over population would essentially be avoided out of an already perpetuated state of contentment. I don't see people who are content with having just what they need, as ever being victims of lack. Sounds like fantasy, but reasonable in theory.

But evil has it's influence in the world. An ever adverse nature that's sole purpose is to squander our efforts to find truth and ultimately our potential harmony. So many different pulls and tugs on the human flesh and soul to steer away and to. If anything, all this creates an intriguing perplex puzzle and problem to solve.

>think is the definition of righteousness and applying that definition to a society or nation even, I think something like over population would essentially be avoided out of an already perpetuated state of contentment.

Overpopulation is a myth, invented by people who literally wanted to cull the poor. The truth is that over time humans are growing more food using less land, and the reason poverty exists is for entirely human reasons.

Having lots and lots of kids did nothing to help impoverished Irish factory workers in the 19th century, it just severely impacted the quality of their lives and forced working adults to have to compete with plentiful and easily exploitable child labor, which is prone to hooliganism and crime. And to quote scripture

3 If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he.

4 For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness. ~Ecclesiastes 6:3-4

This text says that it is better for a person to suffer an “untimely birth,” meaning to die from miscarriage, than to live miserably.