In order to establish homosexuality in ancient Greece, you would need to establish male-male sexual bonding that was neither

pedophilia (man-boy)
pedastry (man-youth)
or faute-de-mieux (single-sex environments)

and give a precise reference.

“I also already pointed out the presence in ancient Greek society of men who defy the cultural norm of man-boy or man-youth sexuality by seeking sexual gratification with men more close to their own age, but curiously enough you chose to ignore this information.”

No, I addressed the information. You provided a second-hand source which discussed some contextless quotes by a comedian.

“You admit it yourself: homosexuality, in one form or the other, has been with us from the ancient times to the present. “

Pedophlia, pedastry, and faute-de-mieux have ancient providence, yes. But is this a meaningful providence for homosexuality as we know it? Do we see homosexualists embracing pedophiles, pedastrists, and prison rapists? (Well, sometimes..)

“sexuality is always automatically legitimate within any rationally acceptable ethics”

and

“Actually, the historical and cultural universality or the generality of a behaviour is not a measure of its social acceptability in any rationally acceptable ethical analysis.”

A differnet discussion, as you admit. Still, I wonder what you mean by “rational.” I am familiar with the “rationality” being used in one of two ways

1. as a synonym for “well-reasoned”
2. in reference to a bargaining game among near-peers

The first definition is banale (who would say they have bad reasons?), the second is spurious (how do the outcomes of a bargaining game give us normative guidance?). Perhaps you are using it in a third manner?

“but the presence of men in that society who were attracted to persons of their own sex despite the presence of females.”

Here is where your casual and broad use of the term “homosexual” hurts discussion. That's not the question as all, as I grant the existence of pedophiles, pedatrists, and faute-de-mieux in ancient Greece.

“I already mentioned that the article to which I provided the link includes an analysis”

Yes, you provided a second-hand source. Is there any good primary evidence?

“You wrote that “lesbian is qualitatively distinct” which I took to mean that female homosexuality, in your view, is somehow more historically continuous and transculturally constant than male homosexuality. If I interpreted your meaning correctly, I would like to hear some reasons as to why you should think this is the case.”

Lesbianism has no ancient providence of being considered sex, as sexual relationships were constructed to imply a release of seed. That is why, for example, the (generally unpleasant) Puritans executed homosexuals but not lesbians.

“”Straight-male-friendly” simply referres to the double-standard”

If by “double standard” you mean “recognition of qualitative differences between the sexes,” yes.

“Good Homosexuals” and must be referred to as “lesbians”

I haven't given any normative judgements in your discussion. You use a lot of them.

“I have personally been especially interested in the berdache or two-spirit people among the North-American Indians.”

Clever use of both terms, as I assume you are aware that berdache means “male prostitute.” There are whores in many all-male bonds. That doesn't mean they are homosexuals. (Unless you want to claim prisons as wildly successful homosexual conversion factories which is, of course, absurd)

If, however, you are arguing for homosexuality among plains indians (that is neither pedophilic, pedastric, or faute-de-mieux) — provide an actual source. It's easy to make up a secondary source on any topic under the sun. To provide primary sources, also refered to as historical evidence, is a bit harder. Especially for something that isn't there.

The androphile site you mention doesn't seem to make a distinction between pedastry and homosexuality.

Curtis,

I apologize for the difficulty you are having with blogspirit's spam filter. Can you send your comment directly to me? I will make sure it is posted.

tfreridge — glad you liked the humor

matti –

“If you think you can explain homosexuality (by which I presume you mean MALE homosexuality)”

Yes, as lesbian is qualitatively distinct.

“You cannot prove the historical nonexistence of something of which there are historical examples.”

Such as?

This isn't an empty question. Curtis of Phatic Communion, [1] who I admire very much, tried to provide some but could not find examples (outside of pedophilia, pedastry, and samesex environments) that show an old providence. References to “ancient China,” for instance, typically involve the Qing dynasty, which is the most recent of the Imperial Dynasties of that country.

I've heard the rhetoric before, but I would be very grateful for solid examples.

[1] http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/06/homosexualism_v.php

Another issue altogether is this: from what point of view is the existence or nonexistence of a 1-to-1 equivalence between ancient/medieval/pre-industrial/whatever forms of male-male sexuality and modern male-male sexualities relevant in the first place? If you don't find a perfect match or a striking historical continuity, is it somehow that much easier to question the moral legitimacy of contemporary homosexualities? Is this yet another attempt at evading the impossible task of presenting a rational argument for the categorical condemnation of male-male sexuality? You should know that any attempt to draw authority for such a totalising prohibition from history is as futile as trying to derive moral principles from the assumption of a natural moral law.

There are continuities and discontinuities between historical and contemporary conceptualisations of male-male desire and sexual practice. Today, there are obviously men who desire boys and young men as there were in the ancient times and there were in the ancient times men who desired other men as there are such men now. For examples of both ancient man-man sexuality and the difficulties they pose for simplistic social constructionist explanations, I suggest you consult this article by philosopher John Thorp (see below). He concludes his analysis of the differences and similarities perceived in ancient and modern understandings of male homosexuality by saying that, in the light of the undeniable presence in ancient Greek society of a socially stigmatices minority of adult male couples and Aristophanes's discussion of male-male desire as a deep physical attraction in Plato's Symposium, the Greek imagination about sexual categories comes very close to our own.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/thorp.html

By the way, I find your suggestion that the female homosexual or, to be more straight-male-friendly, the “lesbian,” has existed throughout the ages as a distinct type of sexual person highly amusing. Even the “heterosexual” is not an ahistorical and natural category.

Apologies for not being more precise.

“If it was possible for a philosopher of the ancient world to formulate a theory about why some people are “that way” (as opposed to some other), how is it possible to assert with a straight face, as you appear to do, that nothing even remotely similar to the contemporary hetero-homo divide existed prior to modern times?”

Let me rephrase my previous statements: pedophilia, pedastry, and sexual relations in unisexial environments have been with us since antiquity. All of these are more than “remotely similar” to much of modern “homosexualithy.” If you wish to establish the antiquity of homosexuality as we know it, you must find references to homosexuality as we know it in ancient literature.

“why do we find religious meanings and special social status attached to same-sex relationships among the Native Americans “

What is your reference for this? (I have heard similar claims before, but they are claims of no providence — someone just saying something, in other words, without outside evidence.)

“or in medieval India and Arabia?”

Again, I will ask for references.

“Another issue altogether is this: from what point of view is the existence or nonexistence of a 1-to-1 equivalence between ancient/medieval/pre-industrial/whatever forms of male-male sexuality and modern male-male sexualities relevant in the first place? I”

I'm not sure what you mean by a 1-to-1 equivalence.

“If you don't find a perfect match or a striking historical continuity, is it somehow that much easier to question the moral legitimacy of contemporary homosexualities?”

Obviously the same question can be turned back — is it that much easier to defend teh moral legitimacy of contemporary homosexuals by showing it existed previously?

To me, the question of ancient providence relates to what degree homosexuality is part of a “human nature” developmental program, and thus how it should be dealt with socially. That something is universally widespread is doubtless important to how it should be dealt with.

“in the light of the undeniable presence in ancient Greek society of a socially stigmatices minority of adult male couples and Aristophanes's discussion of male-male desire as a deep physical attraction in Plato's Symposium, the Greek imagination about sexual categories comes very close to our own.”

Your second-hand citation of an ancient comedian from a misogynic culture who concludes that women are socially inferior is strange, as it doesn't imply anything than misogynists love to joke about how worthless women are.

“By the way, I find your suggestion that the female homosexual or, to be more straight-male-friendly, the “lesbian,” has existed throughout the ages as a distinct type of sexual person highly amusing. Even the “heterosexual” is not an ahistorical and natural category.”

I don't understand this paragraph. Could you rephrase?

How closely, in your mind, would ancient Greek male-male sexuality have to resemble the homosexuality of our time in order to pass as evidence of a continuity of homosexuality from ancient times to modernity? This question is all the more relevant due to the fact that there is in fact no specific “modern homosexual” that could be easily contrasted with some radically different variant found in ancient times. I also already pointed out the presence in ancient Greek society of men who defy the cultural norm of man-boy or man-youth sexuality by seeking sexual gratification with men more close to their own age, but curiously enough you chose to ignore this information.

And yet, even if there were no documented incidences of adult male couples in ancient times, what is to stop us from concluding that the paederastic homosexuality and the homosexuality that occurred in unisex environments establishes a stage in a developmental line of Western homosexuality from antiquity to the present? You admit it yourself: homosexuality, in one form or the other, has been with us from the ancient times to the present. What is more, there is evidence of the man-man variety of which I already made mention, albeit on deaf ears as it seems.

“Obviously the same question can be turned back — is it that much easier to defend teh moral legitimacy of contemporary homosexuals by showing it existed previously?”

Luckily, those who are homosexually inclined do not need to draw support for the legitimacy of their sexuality from historical data because their sexuality is always automatically legitimate within any rationally acceptable ethics due to the fact that it does not constitute a violation of the individual autonomy of other human beings.

“To me, the question of ancient providence relates to what degree homosexuality is part of a “human nature” developmental program, and thus how it should be dealt with socially. That something is universally widespread is doubtless important to how it should be dealt with.”

Actually, the historical and cultural universality or the generality of a behaviour is not a measure of its social acceptability in any rationally acceptable ethical analysis. In a rational ethics, you would need to indicate that a sexual union between two men, for instance, is of some objectively detrimental consequence to someone outside the relationship who is not willing to accept the consequence. If you cannot indicate such an effect inherent in the behaviour under scrutiny, you are without a rationally acceptable argument. Historicalness or generality, or indeed some assumed “human nature,” has nothing whatever to do with it.

“Your second-hand citation of an ancient comedian from a misogynic culture who concludes that women are socially inferior is strange, as it doesn't imply anything than misogynists love to joke about how worthless women are.”

First, the issue at hand here is not whether ancient Greece was the most advanced of societies in terms of gender equality but the presence of men in that society who were attracted to persons of their own sex despite the presence of females. Any reference to misogyny does not really further your argument at all because it does not change the fundamental fact that sexual affection between males was within the sphere of cultural intelligibility in ancient Greece. Second, I already mentioned that the article to which I provided the link includes an analysis of documents outside the Symposium which explicitly discuss public debates about the nature of male-male sexuality and, more specifically, debates about what varieties of male-male sexuality should be socially accepted. Thorp makes the important observation, disasterous in its ramifications for any simplistic constructionist analysis, that one of the forms of male-male sexuality known to the ancient Greeks was the man-man variety.

“I don't understand this paragraph. Could you rephrase?”

You wrote that “lesbian is qualitatively distinct” which I took to mean that female homosexuality, in your view, is somehow more historically continuous and transculturally constant than male homosexuality. If I interpreted your meaning correctly, I would like to hear some reasons as to why you should think this is the case. “Straight-male-friendly” simply referres to the double-standard present in male heterosexual attitudes to homosexuality according to which homosexual women are the “Good Homosexuals” and must be referred to as “lesbians” in order not be defile them with the dirty name of “homosexual” (which would, by extension, also taint male heterosexuals because the “lesbian” is such an integral part of their erotic repertoire).

Oh, I almost forgot, you mentioned that you have heard about forms of same-sex sexuality in Native American tribes and in non-Western cultures of the medieval times. There is an extensive anthropological literature on this, I have personally been especially interested in the berdache or two-spirit people among the North-American Indians. While some social constructionist have argued that the modern formulation of homosexuality as the “androgyny of the soul” has no precedent in other cultures or times, the Indians actually put this idea into practice by establishing the role of the two-spirit, one who is both a male and a female within the same person. There is much information about this and other topics related to historical homosexuality at http://androphile.org/.

[1] http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/08/godwinism.php

[2] http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social19.htm