Normal Greeks were offended by the mere mention of homosexuality, and you don't think that they considered homosexuality "threatening"?

What "normal" Greeks thought is still up for debate, but even granting arguendo that your quote reflected the "normal" Greek view, the offense appears to me not to be at the mention of homosexuality, but at the notion of a homosexual getting everything he wanted . . . or rather, at the notion of the homosexual getting everything he wanted and considering himself virtuous.

More importantly, we still see that they didn't see it as threatening enough to proscribe the actions surrounding it. Homosexual activity remained a part of Greek life, and does not appear to have been proscribed by law.

Did you know that Jews who wanted to compete naked in sports first received a painful procedure called "epispasm" to re-grow a foreskin, because the Greeks thought it was obscene if any part of the phallus poked out of the foreskin, whether it did so because the man was aroused or circumcised?

I did not know that. Fascinating bit of trivia; thanks for that! But . . . um . . . What does that have to do with the matter at hand? Are you illustrating that the Greeks were prudish about male erogenous zones (perhaps about erogenous zones in general)? Does that really tell us anything about how they saw the relations in question?

What's more, while you and the book's author are clearly on different sides of the issue, I'd ask you both the same question: Except as a collection of interesting anecdotes and a blow to the broader notion of argument-from-tradition, of what real relevance is what the Greeks thought?