by blukatzen » Fri 06 Feb 2009, 00:13:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('outcast', 'A')nd generally traditional monotheistic societies were extremely intolerant towards any form of homosexuality. I should have been more clear about that, but since we are referring to rural America this is the kind of society that is relevant.
Yeah, lots of tolerance in those traditional, non-industrialized countries.

Ah, now we're changing the terminology somewhat. You are now speaking of MONOTHEISTIC culture, which is *not* really "traditional" because a lot has been changed to fit into whatever monotheistic traditions have overtaken tribal cultural norms.
For instance, even now, in Africa, tribal chieftans that are by nature more inclined towards male partners in a relationship, will be forced by their culture to marry/mate with a woman/women to produce heirs, because that is what they are supposed to do. Once they have done that, the woman/women are free to do what they will within the marriage culture will allow, and the man will co-habit with the preferred male partner, in a relationship that is not frowned upon.
In the article that I directed you towards, you LEFT OUT a LOT of information (I wanted to see what you'd do, and of course took the easy way out.) At that place, and several other places on wikipedia (google greek and roman views on homosexuality) it was basically viewed that a man who was "the bottom" was one who was not capable of making decisions, where the "top" was one who was the one running the situation.
In Greco-Roman society (esp. Greek) "Pederasty" was the term used for an older man who had a younger man he was in a relationship with, in a way, "grooming him" for adulthood and responsibility. It was viewed in ancient Greek culture as normal, unless the man did not fulfill his situation where he was married, and fulfilled his responsibility as a husband and father, and one who would take care of household, aged parents, etc.
What he did on the "side" was nobody else's business.
HOWEVER...it was shameful to be "used" in a relationship if one were a conquered person. Many times, men were raped as well as women in a conquered village, and were shamed by further castration,etc. before being sold into slavery. This was something that was COMMON in the ancient pre-conversion Europe.
The Viking article that I quoted from considered a man who was a bottom as one who was in no position to "act for himself" and make his own decisions, therefore, he was not, (or his opinion) was not valued in society.
However (and this is another seperation) SHAMANS were also viewed as having a somewhat dubious character because some of them *did* cross-dress and live in an "inside-out" situation. In the lore of Northern Europe, Odin is castigated as wearing a Woman's frock when he is learning some of the arts of magic from Freya.
I wouldn't say that this is "wide-spread", but this is not an unknown phenomenon either.
The possibility of homosexuality was not an unknown in the early Christian church either. There was a rite, noted by historian John Boswell, of the rite of Adelphopoiesis, or "brother-making'. Whether they were in a relationship of mind or mind and body, so to speak, could be up for conjecture. It was sanctioned by the early Greek Orthodox church and spread for a bit into the Orthodox Slavic church.
Whether it was a continuation of one form of ancient pederasty, already accepted in the Greek Culture since ancient times, I cannot say for sure, but it could be said that it could be the reason why it was accepted there, where it was not accepted anywhere else.
Of course, when the Monotheistic view is overlaid upon an ancient, pre-conversion view, we'd be talking of apples and oranges.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')DIT: And I'd also like to add that homosexual activity was illegal in the US until, starting in the '70's the laws against it started getting repealed.
Homosexuality was never truly successfully banned anywhere on earth, and I doubt it ever truly will be. What laws are made or repealed over the course of ages has no bearing on the activity made, many times, by the very same folks that legislate against it, or who rail on against this activity over the pulpit.
We have seen those who have one set of values on the surface, and then again, once "found out", have to own up to another set altogether.