...from The Laws, to be precise:

"So your argument is that whatever gives pleasure is good, and whatever causes pain is bad?"

"That's right."

"What about a catamite? If one of them could have everything he wanted, would you call him 'Gay'?

"HOW COULD YOU EVEN TALK ABOUT SUCH THINGS!?"

"So you agree that morality is part of virtue..."

First, I would never have thought to suggest that morality and virtue were distinct; I always thought of virtue as a moral measure, a unit of abstract value.

Second, you illustrate that some Greeks considered homosexuality immoral (if not necessarily unvirtuous), but do nothing to illustrate that this contradicts the points made by either the review's author or the book's, namely, that "alternative" erotic relationships, regardless of how they were looked upon vis-a-vis morality, weren't looked upon as particularly threatening socially.

.

thelyamhound:

First, I would never have thought to suggest that morality and virtue were distinct; I always thought of virtue as a moral measure, a unit of abstract value.

Second, you illustrate that some Greeks considered homosexuality immoral (if not necessarily unvirtuous), but do nothing to illustrate that this contradicts the points made by either the review's author or the book's, namely, that "alternative" erotic relationships, regardless of how they were looked upon vis-a-vis morality, weren't looked upon as particularly threatening socially.

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

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?

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?

thelyamhound:

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?

You're insisting that even though the Greeks refused to participate in sports with men who had "erections" (whether or not those "erections" were actually the result of circumcision), that doesn't indicate anything about their opinion of homosexuality? Back when I was in high school you had better not been thinking of your girlfriend when you were in swim class, becaue "homophobic" Americans had the same reaction to erections on males who saw them naked that the ancient Greeeks did.

You're insisting that even though the Greeks refused to participate in sports with men who had "erections" (whether or not those "erections" were actually the result of circumcision), that doesn't indicate anything about their opinion of homosexuality?

I'm not insisting on anything, Don; insistence is for people who believe in moral social engineering and mythologies of anthropomorphic dieties. I'm suggesting that what you're talking about could fall under the same heading as any of a number of Greek beliefs about the phallus (for instance, that a large one was a sign of animality) or beliefs about rigid (pardon the word choice) separation of different spheres of being (athletic, political, intellectual, erotic).

Back when I was in high school you had better not been thinking of your girlfriend when you were in swim class, becaue "homophobic" Americans had the same reaction to erections on males who saw them naked that the ancient Greeeks did.

I would consider you lucky to have had a swim class.

Otherwise, yuo illustrate nothing but that fear of homosexuals is widespread. Odd that you think I'd need convincing of such.

Actually, you illustrate one thing that I've been saying for years: That acceptance or proscription of homosexuality does little to increase or decrease the frequency with which it takes place. If Greeks--for whom homosexual activity, publicly displayed, was at least marginally less criminalized, less verboten, than it is today--still by and large felt some personal revulsion toward it (and while I can disdain such revulsion, as I disdain everything that smacks of intelligence inferior to my own), then we can be fairly certain that no one who would not have been gay, say, under the laws of the old Puritan colonies would be any more likely to be gay if, say, individuals of the same sex were allowed to marry.

thelyamhound:

You're insisting that even though the Greeks refused to participate in sports with men who had "erections" (whether or not those "erections" were actually the result of circumcision), that doesn't indicate anything about their opinion of homosexuality?

I'm not insisting on anything, Don; insistence is for people who believe in moral social engineering and mythologies of anthropomorphic dieties. I'm suggesting that what you're talking about could fall under the same heading as any of a number of Greek beliefs about the phallus (for instance, that a large one was a sign of animality) or beliefs about rigid (pardon the word choice) separation of different spheres of being (athletic, political, intellectual, erotic).

Back when I was in high school you had better not been thinking of your girlfriend when you were in swim class, becaue "homophobic" Americans had the same reaction to erections on males who saw them naked that the ancient Greeeks did.

I would consider you lucky to have had a swim class.

Otherwise, yuo illustrate nothing but that fear of homosexuals is widespread. Odd that you think I'd need convincing of such.

Actually, you illustrate one thing that I've been saying for years: That acceptance or proscription of homosexuality does little to increase or decrease the frequency with which it takes place. If Greeks--for whom homosexual activity, publicly displayed, was at least marginally less criminalized, less verboten, than it is today--still by and large felt some personal revulsion toward it (and while I can disdain such revulsion, as I disdain everything that smacks of intelligence inferior to my own), then we can be fairly certain that no one who would not have been gay, say, under the laws of the old Puritan colonies would be any more likely to be gay if, say, individuals of the same sex were allowed to marry.

"Mythologies of anthropomorphic deities"? And what I'm saying is don't believe the fairy- tales told about how the ancient Greeks were all Homosexual.

No one--certainly not I--ever suggested that the ancient Greeks were all homosexual. If you actually parse my last post, you'll note that I went so far as to suggest that the number of individuals in any population or culture who engage in homosexual activity (in relation to the number of people who engage in any sexual activity) or who lack significant heterosexual desire is likely to be constant throughout history, given that it's more or less constant between cultures with wildly divergent levels of tolerance (Iran, say, as compared to the Netherlands).

"Mythologies of anthropomorphic deities"?

Come on, Don. If you were half as smart as you advertise yourself as being, you wouldn't need that one explaine to you. Unsubtantiated (by way of empirical systems) stories of [G/g]od(s) possessing uniquely human (so far as we know) characteristics like will and moral preoccupation.