History of homosexuality thread

I bet you're that poster from /adv/ who claimed that homosexuality is not considered a sin in Christianity.

1. Yes, animals do it after all.
2. Mostly just not an issue if you kept it to yourself and had kids n shit, seen as just another way to fap in many other cultures.
3. Generally the bottom was the disgraced one, because as a man, you're getting dominated. As a top, it's not as much stigma, sometimes none if you're roman.
4. Muh bible
5. Now this is only arguable, most fags kept it to themselves just like they didn't brag about all the slags in their lap, but Frederick maybe, and all male Romans and Greeks, probably.

Only famous people I can think of (that arn't musicians) have been famous just because they're gay, because it adds yet another trope, like black science man is black, for instance.

If you think about it, heterosexuality is an actual aberration because there were no genders when life only started to exist in prehistorical times.

deep

L-l-ewd

It's not.

>When did it start, did it predate civilization?
Homosexuality as a behaviour? Yeah
Homosexuality as a sexual orientation? XIXth century. The scientific community tried to describe all human experience in terms of conditions, normalcy, diseases, etc. Obviously being mostly burgeois they transcribed their own notions of Christian morality onto that. Prior to this, homosexuality was considered a sin, but it was an act that you commited, not something that affected you ontologically. In response to the defining of homosexuality as a condition, the homosexuals created their own identity around it.
This identity was of course affected by the recently popular notions of marriage as a vehicle for romantic love, of nuclear family etc.

A Greek hoplite or an Edo era samurai, hell, even a modern Pashtun, might have plowed through kilometers of boy ass, but they would have found the notion of starting a family with another dude laughable. Same with the notion of their behaviour making them somehow ontologically different than the rest of people.

This behavior vs orientation thing is pretty insightful, I hadn't thought about it like that. Splitting gay sex away from "being gay" clears up a lot of things actually.
Do you have any further reading, that isn't new age gender and sexuality studies?

>When did it start, did it predate civilization?
Penis in hole shows power. So it began as a no homo showcase of power
>When was it okay, when was it wrong?
When some less powerful people showcased at the same time power over less powerful people. An orgy.
It was wrong because then all sausages were in use and women had any of it.
>Who could do it, who couldn't? Was it shameful for one party, both, why?
Same sex couples could. And it was shameful for the party that was not powerful.
>When was it persecuted, why?
When men were having orgies for maximum power.

Is there really a homosexual gene? If so, why isn't it exterminated by natural selection? Homosexual people wouldn't bear offspring.

it started with the people of Lut (AS). now they are all dead in the dead sea.

A feminizing gene that makes sons fags might also make daughters premium breeding material

>burgeois
Stopped reading here.

This power play is completely post-civilization talk.
You can't talk about power before the city with its king.

There is a gene that makes it much more likely for you to desire homosexual relations. It isn't a 100% you will be gay gene, its a you a predisposed towards being gay gene.
There are people that have it who go all their life never having gay sex, or even being passionate homophones, kind of like how there are people predisposed to breast cancer who don't get breast cancer. Its about greatly increased risk, not about strict rules.

Also, there are genes that predispose people to impotence, and those aren't out either. They can just be dormant for generations, and only activate to end someone's family tree after they carried them for centuries.

>i am such a neo-pseud that even seeing a commonly accepted term loosely associated with an ideology I hate makes me drop the conversation as if I won an argument

Fag.

Veeky Forums - History & Humanities

This sums it up pretty well.
If you're looking for historical evidence of homosexuality, you're going to find almost no sources that straight up state that someone was into men.

Most of the time they just mentions that a historical figure engaged in homosexual acts, even if they had a family on the side.
Greek philosophers are a good example.
Most of them are recorded to have engaged in pederasty in one way or another, but that didn't keep them from (sometimes begrudgingly) starting a family.

Back then, marriage was just something you did so you had a wife to do all the housework, so you can go hang out with the guys.

Marriage was a duty towards the clan and the state, while fucking around was something you do for fun.
It was still considered good if you can mix these, and have fun (and love) the person you are also fulfilling your future soldier creating duties with.

I remember someone saying something about Sodom and Gomora not being about homosexuality but about rape.
As in the locals tried to rape the angels sent by God, not that some simply liked men.

Well, homosexuality is found in almost all species of mammals. So it could easily predate human civilisations.

But is it actual homosexuality (preferring same sex) or is it just confused sex because you got the scents wrong or whatever?

Natural selection isn't perfect. Just like with Down's Syndrome, homossexuality is a mistake (evolutionarily speaking). It probably remained among humans because of reasons stated in and and because after homossexuality was defined, most gay men kept themselves closeted, having children and passing the gene on.

Here's your (you)

Pretty sure that homosexuality predates written history by millennia. Cavemen who barely know how to speak to each other sure as hell wouldn't care about which hole they stick their dong in. Of course they understood how pregnancy works, but I doubt social stigmas existed the way they did later on.

>liking something different is a genetic mistake
Wew lad, do you say that to people who don't enjoy things you like? Are you saying people who don't want to have sex in general are a genetic mistake as well?

Something that diminishes your chance of procreation is a genetic mistake.

Interesting, thanks.

>when the religious authoritys were classifying certain behaviors as holy and sinful
ftfy

>buried in the same tomb
that's sweet

Sexual desires in general are sinful in dogmatic Christianity. The mystery of the sacrament of marriage is that it takes away this sinfulness so that sex for the purpose of procreation can be performed. Marital sex without the purpose of procreation is still sinful from a dogmatic Christian viewpoint, of course.

>can't into words

>Natural selection isn't perfect. Just like with Down's Syndrome, homossexuality is a mistake (evolutionarily speaking).

You don't know that. To answer ,
innate homosexuality may well be an adaptation, since childless "aunts" and "uncles" may have increased group fitness by balancing the number of children to be cared for to the number of adults caring for them. The problem of passing on gay genes may be explained by the fact that the gene seem to stay latent under some circumstances (as explained in ). Straight siblings of gay aunts and uncles could still pass the gene on.

I think some Island tribes are still not aware of how pregnancy works.

it could be beneficial for parents to have a gay son. the risk of him not getting children is pretty big so there are more people to care for the children his brothers and sisters get. those children still caries his genes through their grandparents..

ah fuck you beat me to it. and put it more eloquent to :(

Except the post above says it doesn't really diminish them.
And even if it did, it might just be a sign of a different reproductive strategy. Obviously worker ants aren't an error just because they're sterile. Similarly, homosexual males can care for their siblings' offspring more efficiently, giving them a larger chance of survival. Or younger brothers in big families turning out homosexual (as it's been shown in some research) prevents too large concentration of similar genes in a small community, helping its long-term growth.

GAY UNCLE MIND

Intelligent people are good for the community, and bad for themselves. They are a sacrifice - unlikely to reproduce much, or at all, likely to be socially reclusive, prone to addictions and depression, and so on. But very useful, and since the tribe is somewhat inbred, your genes still continue indirectly.
So your case works for the intelligent man - useful to others, a support character, a sacrifice for the greater good.

However, I don't see how a gay man is comparable to an intelligent man. A gay man isn't better in any way (generally), and is bad in one major way.
A gay man is, speaking for the tribe, defective and subpar.

>A gay man isn't better in any way (generally)

Not even him, but that is beside the point. The idea is that for every gay man, there is one more adult protecting and feeding the group's young. To put it simply: the ability to have gay offspring increases the fitness of the parent, since gay aunts and uncles potentially make it easier for their (grand)children to survive.

Every gay man is another adult protecting and feeding the group's young.
Every heterosexual man is another adult protecting and feeding the group's young, AND also making babies.

There is no benefit to homosexuality.

>AND also making babies.

...thus reducing the parent's relative contribution to the care of the group's children. If innate homosexuality is a adaptation, then it is probably a way of balancing the number of adults to children. In this case it would make sense for homosexuality to be more common for people with many siblings, like the studies on fraternal birth order and homosexuality would seem to imply:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation#Non-conforming_studies

Messed up the link, but even that section mostly talks about how there are problems with those studies and FBO seems to affect sexuality after all.

If you can't feed your 12 babies, you throw one away. This isn't the 21st century ethics. We know it happened. In parts of the world it still happens.

You are rationalizing instead of reasoning, having the conclusion you want and trying to link it to anything that could support it.
Please reconsider your views.

>You are rationalizing instead of reasoning

Actually you are doing that. Throwing away your own babies reduces your own evolutionary fitness, since a baby you throw away doesn't pass your genes on. In contrast, one of your 12 babies that are being cared for by their gay aunts or uncles in addition to their parents just might. Even one childless adult making a full contribution (simplistically) makes it 33% easier for you to care for your children.

Unless you have some modern Europe tier fertility, the fact that this man isn't fathering his own children more than "makes up" for any contribution he makes.

Not necessarily, a mechanism like the FBO effect (= your ability to have gay offspring is activated only when much help with the grandchildren will be needed) could guide the homosexual birth rate towards the correct balance.

The Greeks were surprisingly tolerant of homosexuality, hence the expression "going Greek"

>Natural selection isn't perfect. Just like with Down's Syndrome, homossexuality is a mistake (evolutionarily speaking).
>Thinking there is a universal metric for "successful", "good"etc.
>implying natural selection follows your guidebook or adheres to rules applicable to all species
>mfw people don't have gills
>mfw we don't spit venom from hollow canines
>mfw you are trying to apply armchair sophisms to science

I wonder how loose Greek assholes were back in the day.

Is your ass "loose" from taking a shit every other day?
Thats not how human anatomy works.

Romans actually had alot of stereotypes back in the day. They say that someone was "Greek" was to imply they loved getting fucked in their boipussy

>, homossexuality is a mistake (evolutionarily speaking)
The problem with the line of the argument, are if it was: The traits would have died out.
Instead its a sign that sexual dimorphism isn't a that strong traits, and it keeps on happening.

Also this. Marriage social identity is really really weird in modern times.
There is no casual side sex homo anymore, in the way it used to be.
There is also the extremely weird notion of "small nuclear family" instead of extended large family of 2-4 branches somehow living together

>Throwing away your own babies reduces your own evolutionary fitness,
Assuming you have no babies? Thats correct

Assuming you have a lot of babies, and the bottleneck is nutrition or disease? Throwing is a good action, so is using a favor to get somebody to adopt them(19th century version)

>comparing the natural function of your sphincter to taking a dick up your ass for 10-20min multiple times a day

You can totally stretch your asshole out to where you're incontinent today from taking too much dick up the ass so I imagine it would have been much the same for the greeks who chose to be promiscuous enough.

A study was made on twins, in which it turned out that twins brothers in which one was gay, the straight twin brother was more promiscuous than the twins of the control group.
The hypothesis is that one of the gay gene is linked with sex drive and is just so useful on average for reproducing that it overweights the drawback

>BLACKED, chinese version

It wasn't even about raping angels (although that was probably a way to show that they were extra evil) it was about raping Lot's guests, which was a sin against hospitality and basic human decency. Basically "these people would just gangrape visitors to their city, they got what was coming for them"

That's plausible in the sense that some of them forgot how fire works, but basically all primitives have notions like "seed goes in hole, baby comes out of hole".
Birth control is actually critical technology on smaller islands so I expect them to at least know to pull out or use different orifices. Of course there's always infanticide...

Premodern Homosexual activity was very often frottage or intercrural precisely because of the health risks associated with ravaging your asshole before modern medicine was invented.

This is just complete conjecture, grasping at straws.

all evolutionary teleology is a just-so story