I’d suggest trying out Google Scholar [1], or the website of a university library you might have physical access to.

[1] http://scholar.google.com/

[1] http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2008/2008-06-07.html
[2] http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=27-JHbZZqOQC&oi=fnd&pg=PP15&dq=brisson+plato+symposium&ots=iSso8fPQpL&sig=c2uvdG7lXDxKMfiP3qHq7_UkcG4

Thanks for the notice

http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm

Try to debunk this one

As Nazi Germany existed in the Modern World, I'm not sure why it would need to be debunked. (Nor if ideologically driven research into the question is primarily anti-Nazi or anti-Homosexual, heh) I gather from excerpts, such as

“To understand the pagan mind in this context we must recognize the truth about left-right polarities in the political sphere. With minor discrepancies, all left-wing ideology can be identified as “regressive,” and right-wing ideology as “progressive.”

That the author is opposed to both.

Your model is made possible by the decision to define sexual orientation, a psychological concept, in sociological terms from the viewpoint of “relationships”. If we chose to look at the history or cultural variation of same-sex sexuality from the viewpoint of relationship models only, I should not be surprised to find marked differences, just as I am not surprised to find differences in the social organisation of heterosexual desire in different periods and in different cultures. However, if we adhere to the standard psychological definition of homosexuality, we find that homosexuality is an ahistorical constant: men and women have always betrayed a sexual fascination, through whatever outlet, with persons of their own sex. A sexual attraction (whether mutual or unrequited) to a boy, youth or physically mature man is homosexual regardless of the particular social setting in which it occurs.

The artificiality of your model is evident also from your treatment of Agathon and Pausanias in our previous discussion about Symposium. I mentioned then that the two men whose sexual relationship is discussed in the play are based on a homosexual couple that actually lived at the time (link to Brisson below). You tried to explain their homosexual relationship away by saying that their sexuality began as a man-youth relationship and cannot, therefore, be regarded as homosexual at all. I notice that you have now updated your definition of pederasty to include sexual relationships between physically mature men that “originate” in a pederastic relationship. For the record, Agathon's age at the time he became Pausanias' lover falls between 15-20 years, and Pausanias' between 30 and 40 (see the biographical section in Brisson). Their relationship lasted for 30 or so years.

Imagine if a woman of, say, 16 years embarked on a relationship with a man considerably more advanced in years, and this relationship would be strictly isolated from the concept of “heterosexuality” simply because the initial age difference presumably renders it “paedophilic” (although a remarcable double standard exists as to the definition of paedophilia, which results in homosexual relationships being more keenly labelled as paedophilic than similarly age-asymmetric heterosexual relationships). Now, imagine that this relationship would continue to be deemed a non-heterosexual paedophilic relationship even after it had lasted for 30 years, when she may still be beautiful but, really, a woman well past her rosewhite girlhood.

It is your stated opinion that in ancient times a sexual relationship between two physically mature men which had begun as “pedagogical pederasty” has as its psychological motivation a desire that is not at all homosexual. What, then, is this desire that the men presently experience? It seems highly counter-intuitive to presume that it is, on the part of the older partner, still the same desire of a grown man towards a boy on the verge of manhood, considering that the object of his affections is now a fully grown man in his own right. It is also curious how you ignore the experience of the younger partner. Why does he remain in a same-sex relationship that, according to convention, should have ended long ago?

A more probable explanation than the special mature “pederasty” you suggest is perhaps that the age-gap is not always as decisive a factor in Greek homosexuality as is often presumed. What mattered more than the age difference – psychologically, beyond mere social convention – was in fact the Greek ideal of male beauty. Agathon and Pausanias' relationship began as pedacogic pederasty, because this was the socially sanctioned form of homosexuality in their society, but the fact that they defied the taboo associated with sexuality between grown men indicates that Greek homosexuality was not necessarily limited to pederasty. This should be a major problem for any analysis that relies on a categorical separation of pederasty and male homosexuality. However, you seem determined to conceptualise homosexuality out of history, which is why you try to get around such problems by adding yet another category into your already dubious model. Now it is some kind of adult variety of “pederasty.”

The institution of pederasty for some men must have been simply a socially dignified outlet for homosexual desire, a desire which could just as well have found its fulfilment with grown men. The age difference is not as decisive, psychologically, as is often thought and pedacogic pederasty was in fact more a cultural idealisation of sexuality between males than the only conceivable sexual relationship between males. These are positive indications that the type of sexuality you are willing to grant the name “homosexuality” was not unheard of in antiquity. That there was a cultural taboo associated with sexuality between mature men of equal social rank only further presses the point: is there ever a sexual taboo without a conceivable transgression?

Sixteen is now a typical legal age of consent, the age when both males and females are thought to reach their sexual maturity and when they are just beginnig to seem sexually desirable. The younger partner in Greek pedagogical pederasty was, according to Brisson, roughly 12-18 years of age. How would you categorise a man who is attracted to a youth, perhaps 18-years-old, but also to considerably older males, provided they are pleasant to behold? What about the sexual relationships between youths? Which label would you ascribe to a youth who is sexually involved with another youth immediately after a pederastic union with a man (see Brisson)? A teenage pederast? Will you update your categorisation every time some new problematic viewpoint arises, desperately trying to close all doors to the possibility that your understanding of ancient sexuality relies on an unrealistically static categorisation?

Your model seems to be in a permanent state of ad hoc redefinition, which is made possible only by its dismissal of any consideration of the psychological aspect of male-male sexuality. Where will it end? Will the perennial revision of the category of “homosexuality” finally reach the stage when it only includes the sexuality of those men who have sexual relations with men and who are also part of a modern style gay subculture: “There could not have been anything genuinely homosexual in ancient Greece because there were no discos. Show me a discotech in ancient times and I will believe you! Show me just one discotech that dates to antiquity!”

For me, your model is already very nearly that ridiculous. I believe I am not alone in my bewilderment as to the stunning conceptual obfuscation evident in your analysis. It is far-fetched and contrived to the extent of being unintentionally parodical of queer theory. Are we actually to believe that in the ancient times a long-term sexual relationship between two men was “pederastic” without betraying a trace of what we would now label homosexyality simply because it began when the age difference was more pronounced? You seem to divide sexuality to orientations (which are psychological categories) in purely sociological terms with no regard to the psychology behind various acts and relationships. It is all socio-cultural minutae with no consideration of underlying psychology. You speek of the difference between faith and positive evidence. As far as I can see, it is clearly a faith-based assumption to say that homosexuality did not exist when positive evidence to the contrary exists. There is a sexual relationship between two men: the less likely and indeed highly improbable conclusion would be that homosexuality was not at all possible.

Many of the social identities and institutions which render homosexual desire intelligible to the late modern individual differ from those whose development the cultures of ancient societies made possible. But just as Greek antiquity had its own myth of male homosexuality, as embodied by the idealised model of pedagogical pederasty, it also had its transgressions – the tabooed homosexual relationships between men which did not fit an established social form. Our own time has not tried to confine male homosexuality into an established social institution but into a category of psychopathology. Now it is “gays” and all the culture-specific stereotypes and behavioural patterns it entails; the summ of which somehow comprises, in the mind of the average man of the street at least, what is dubbed homosexuality. The surface variation does not, however, cancel out the fact that it was psychologically possible in Plato's time, as it is now, for a man to be sexually attracted to another man.

http://www.chs.harvard.edu/_/File/_/plato_symposium_brisson.pdf