Origins of Homosexuality

[Rabger]

Only the word for it back then was "homosexuality."

Actually, the word "homosexuality" is relatively new. I can't remember the exact time frame, but it was somewhere around the 18th or 19th centuries that it came about. Back in the time that the bible was actually written, there was no word for homosexuality and the word itself didn't exist.

[Jayann]

At any rate, I've heard several different religious studes students say that homosexuality - like in that quote from Leviticus (I don't think I spelled that right) - in Biblical times referred to prostitution, not to people liking members of the same sex. Apparently in the bible it says that prostitution among women is wrong, and then it also says that prostitution among men is wrong too. Only the word for it back then was "homosexuality." Or else that's how it got translated.

Sorry for taking this kind of/WAY off-topic, but I wanted to address this quote as it confused me.

Allie, I think you're missing a piece of the picture somewhere. Supposedly in the era in which the Bible was authored, neighboring nations were employing sexuality in their religious rites as part of a fertility offering to the gods they worshipped. Often times men would have sex with priests or male prostitutes in ceremonies meant to offer up the man's semen in sacrifice to the god or gods.

Now, Israel was all about making itself a nation very distinct and separate from its neighbors. It is my belief that the leaders of Israel had no particular moral issues with male-male sex, other than the fact that it was something that their neighboring nations did in devotion to (what Israel perceived as being) false gods.

So, among the tenets recorded with the specific intention of separating Israel from the gentiles was this decree that men should not have sex with other men, because it was idolatry. An "abomination," the word Bible folks loved to use in reference to all the stuff you weren't supposed to do, was a direct reference to things that the "heathen" nations did as part of their "false" religions.

Additionally, Israel was very much a patriarchy, and favored men above women in...just about everything, ever. So, words that modern-day folk have come to be lovingly translated to "homosexual" in fact had very different meanings, and very different context in Biblical Israel. A word that is often translated to "homosexual" in the Bible actually directly translates to mean "soft." That is, for one man to "lie with another man as he would a woman" is to treat him like someone who is "soft" - and who were considered "soft" but women! It was considered degrading and humiliating to the man being penetrated, because, Israel viewed, a man does not have the right to be treated like a woman (ie. less than human.) He should only fuck and be strong, and never be fucked be treated as a "soft one", because God is the Father and men are the rulers.

...*big deep breath*

So. That's why the Bible says nothing about female-female sex. Because, 1) they thought sex was impossible without a penis, and 2) females weren't complete humans anyway, and only males mattered.

It DOES say something about male-male sex as an abomination (note: it says nothing about homosexuality, though it does affirm that two men can be one another's foremost loves--see the story of David and Jonathan) because neighboring nations were doing it to worship gods other than the one God of Israel, and because to be penetrated meant that they were being treated like women.

(Anyone who wants to argue about Sodom & Gomorrah ought to know that the supposed "sin" of the cities was being inhospitable toward visitors. Not wanting gay sex. Note also how Lot offers his virgin daughter to be raped in the visitors' stead. Kind of speaks to the gender values I mentioned, don't you think?

If you're wondering, I got much of this information from a workshop with a reverend who studied the culture and societal norms of ancient Israel.)

---

(As a sidebar, Desdenflau, this has is not in reply to the religion stuff you brought up. Cause I noticed you appeared to be having a moment of frustration. I just wanted to address this one topic because I think it's very interesting and important to the way people look at the Bible.)

And now, back to whatever it was this thread used to be about!

[Rabger]

(Anyone who wants to argue about Sodom & Gomorrah ought to know that the supposed "sin" of the cities was being inhospitable toward visitors. Not wanting gay sex. Note also how Lot offers his virgin daughter to be raped in the visitors' stead. Kind of speaks to the gender values I mentioned, don't you think?

I've also heard that the "sin" committed wasn't about wanting gay sex, but that it was in lust. Lust, one of those seven deadly. Big no-no. Apparently, however, its less of a sin to rape a girl in lust than a man. I agree, sexist in nature because women were "less than."

[joski]

If you have a religious position against homosexuality it is hateful. There are no two ways about that, it is an indefensible and hateful doctrine. How many people do you need to tell you that they did not choose this before you believe them over your mistranslated aged document you call the word of god? Christ preached acceptance and understanding. Railing against me for something I DID NOT choose is neither acceptance or understanding. So to send a clear message, if your religion takes a position against homosesuality and you agree with them, you should be ashamed to be so backward and hateful.

[bard of aven]

Joski, just got to your skiing meditation/poem on the previous page. Sorry I have been behind the discussion, and thanks very much for posting it. Very eloquent, very moving, very true.

boa

[joski]

Thank you :D

[Des]

The version of the sodom and gomorrah story that I think I agree most with is that the sin was not who they were doing it with, but what they were doing; namely rape. There's a very similar story in Judges (although I forget exactly where) and the city is destroyed in exactly the same manner and the offense is rape.

[rhubarb]

Nargothic said:

“Unfortunately I don't have it with me, but an American author (who I'm still looking for his name) who is a political critic said the AIDS statistics which says heterosexuals are just as contaminated as homosexuals is a product of the gay lobby; he said that in fact homosexual males were the majority among those with AIDS, but that was too unfavorable for the gay lobby to publicize.

If the gay lobby is strong enough for this, it would be no surprise to have a flawed research just to justify homosexuality in a society where many believe sexuality is a choice.”

I’m not sure that a POLITICAL critic is the best person to comment accurately on the epidemiology or demographic of any given disease.

I’m in the UK, and commenting only on my own area (which has a pretty large gay population) for the majority of people who present at our GUM clinic for HIV treatment , the heterosexuals significantly outweigh the homosexuals. In fact the “risk factor” for HIV here tends to be nothing to do with sex, but rather use/abuse of intravenous drugs, and to some degree, country of origin.

Joski said:

“But don't forget that these statistics are for the United States and Western Europe, they do not apply to Latin America or Africa. In fact in Africa the majority of AIDS patients are hetero, and the main reason it spreads so rampantly there is that there is no social construct against inter generational sex like we have. Thus it is assured that the disease is spread to the young population by the older males. That and they believe that having sex with a virgin will cure your AIDS. Fucking brilliant. “

Getting back to genetics, there are other reasons why AIDS is decimating African communities – they are more susceptible to the disease anyway! Sorry to say, but all the discussion about HIV on this thread has been about sex - It is not necessarily just that African people indulge in risky sex practices, it is also that they do not appear to have the CCR5 gene (which is just to mention ONE risk component).

The gene for CCR5 is located on chromosome 3 in the p21.3-p24 region. CCR5 is a chemokine receptor present in different cells, especially in macrophages, monocytes, and T cells, where it acts as a co-receptor for HIV-1 in these cells.

Basically, CCR5 offers protection form HIV in two ways: progression resistance or non progressive infection. The allele’s prevalence varies by ethnicity, being as high as 10%-15% in Caucasians, ~2% in African Americans, and virtually absent in native Africans and East Asians.

So, obviously, (European) Caucasians are that bit less likely to get AIDS anyway. The reason apparently, is that we have Bubonic plague to thank: The huge death toll in Europe from plague would account for the high incidence of CCR5 in Caucasian people, since CCR5 appears to confer some resistance to plague as well – so, a lot of non CCR5’s died 700 years ago, leaving the Europeans with a higher genetic prevalence of CCR5 which happily seems to protect them from HIV in much the same way. This ain’t much comfort to Africans or East Asians however, but it does explain why certain countries and social groups are currently being hit so hard.

See, its not all about sex, lol! This is the trouble with determining the origin of ANYTHING, let alone homosexuality – there are so many variables to consider….the tiniest change in a protein structure can be responsible for all sorts of things. *Dizzying*

Finally (and I will shut up soon, I promise!)

Desedenflau said:

“Whether there is a gay gene or not is irrelevant, isn't it?

Just because you are born a certain way, just because something is in your genes, and just because the genotype is expressed doesn't mean you have to live with it. Of course, it's your choice, but can't we all choose our own sexuality if we want to? “

I guess I could decide that I was gonna live the straight life – but I suspect this would be at the cost of my mental and physical well being. My life would be easier in many ways if I were straight, and for a long while I wished I wasn’t gay. Now I never wish I was straight – its just not me, not worth the pain of pretending to be something you’re not. In many ways, I’d make a parallel with saying that it is easier in many ways to be a guy, but that doesn’t mean I want to be one! lol

[joski]

What a fucked up world, our ancestors spent so damn much time in crowded cities and villages wallowing in their own shit living with the rats that we have inherited resistances to so many diseases. Hooray for wallowing in shit.

[Silly Green Monkey]

yes.... the polio outbreak early in the twentieth century was attributed to the ending of public outhouses. Babies were no longer exposed while still protected by maternal antibodies, so the kids caught polio hard.

[PlatonicPimp]

Desedenflau said:

“Whether there is a gay gene or not is irrelevant, isn't it?

Just because you are born a certain way, just because something is in your genes, and just because the genotype is expressed doesn't mean you have to live with it. Of course, it's your choice, but can't we all choose our own sexuality if we want to? “

I guess I could decide that I was gonna live the straight life – but I suspect this would be at the cost of my mental and physical well being. My life would be easier in many ways if I were straight, and for a long while I wished I wasn’t gay. Now I never wish I was straight – its just not me, not worth the pain of pretending to be something you’re not. In many ways, I’d make a parallel with saying that it is easier in many ways to be a guy, but that doesn’t mean I want to be one! lol

He never said it was an easy, or a good choice, simply that the choice was there. And It's very important that you made the choice and that the choice you made is your business. You are receiveing a lot of information. You know that you want a specific thing, but that getting it is hard and society at large doesn't approve. You can still choose, but your choice if yours and Fusk anyone elses opinion of it. Choice is sacred.

[joski]

Fuck everyone else, Ive been so much happier since I made that choice. Ive pretty much decided that if you think I am wrong Ill see you in hell, from my little window in heaven where all the cool people are.

[KAGU143]

You aren't wrong, Joski.

I commented once before, many posts ago, that innate honesty seems to be a large part of your character. (Hence your problems with the church.) Working within that framework, you never HAVE had but one choice that would allow you to live with yourself.

I would have a very hard time trusting a person who lived in such a deep state of denial, or even deliberate DECEPTION, that they refused to acknowledge a part of their own nature as fundamental as their sexual orientation. A religious doctrine which requires its adherants to live a lie is WRONG, no matter how many people accept it. Don't let ANYBODY tell you otherwise!

God made only 10 sacred laws. To distinguish them from the laws written by men, they were inscribed on stone. Lying and bearing false witness are specifically forbidden, but homosexuality is NOT. You might take comfort in that if an occasional vestige of your religious past tries to come back and haunt you.

I commend you for making the decision to be honest with the world and with yourself.

-Greybird

[sexiseverywhere]

My friend has this theory that homosexuality is intended to keep the world from being over-populated. It could be true, but if thats the plan then it has failed miserably. Wouldn't asexuality be better explained that way? Why are we trying to explain it in the first place?

[bard of aven]

Does anyone here seriously think or believe that anyone has any choice about what or who makes them hot/turns them on/sexually excites them?

Does anyone here seriously believe that those who know what or who makes them hot/turns them on/sexually excites them should have to/should decide to live in a way that is dishonest about what or who makes them hot/turns them on/sexually excites them to fit in/please others/be accepted?

If such there breathe go mark him well,

For him no minstrels raptures swell.

High though his titles, proud his name,

Boundless his wealth as wish can claim,

Despite those titles, power and pelf,

The wretch concentered all in self,

Living, shall forfeit fair renown.

And doubly dying shall go down,

To the vile dust from whence he sprung,

Unwept, unhonored and unsung.

boa (and Sir Walter Scott, who was acutally talking about omething else entirely)

[joski]

My friend has this theory that homosexuality is intended to keep the world from being over-populated. It could be true, but if thats the plan then it has failed miserably. Wouldn't asexuality be better explained that way? Why are we trying to explain it in the first place?

It only takes once to make a baby. Really crappy population control if you ask me. I don't think homosexuality really does anything to slow population growth. And we shouldn't have to try to explain it, it hurts no one.

[Des]

If you have a religious position against homosexuality it is hateful. There are no two ways about that, it is an indefensible and hateful doctrine. How many people do you need to tell you that they did not choose this before you believe them over your mistranslated aged document you call the word of god? Christ preached acceptance and understanding. Railing against me for something I DID NOT choose is neither acceptance or understanding. So to send a clear message, if your religion takes a position against homosesuality and you agree with them, you should be ashamed to be so backward and hateful.

But I'm not being hateful. I have friends who are homosexual, and not just to say I have them. It's not like I'm some heterosexual guy who just doesn't get it; that's why I'm here.

It's not as simple as you're making it out to be. I'll try to explain as clearly as I can.

The bible says people aren't supposed to have sex with people they're not married to. Therefore, if you are a heterosexual, bisexual, whatever, and you're having sex with someone you're not married to, it's a sin.

The bible doesn't actually say that much on the subject of homosexual relationships, except to say that people of the same gender are not supposed to have sex. Well, we've already covered that nobody, regardless of sexual orientation, is supposed to have sex with someone they're not married to, so the issue is not what your orientation is, what sort of relationship your in, or anything like that, it's only whether you're married and who you're having sex with.

I am not against homosexuals just because they are homosexual. I am not against heterosexuals just because they are heterosexual. I am not against ANYBODY, but I am opposed to the sin of adultery, and I don't think anyone should have sex with someone they're not married to.

I know a lot of you disagree, because I know at least a few of you are atheists. But that's what I believe, and once again, it's your choice. After all, we're along way away from each other and it's not like I can stop you.

But I wouldn't even if I could, because it's not my decision.

I'm not hateful. I'm not backwards. And I'm not ashamed to own the Lord.

[joski]

First of all I do not disagree because I am an Atheist. I resent being portrayed as such simply because I do not believe that the bible is the word of god. I don't think sex outside of marriage is a sin, I think hurting people is a sin. As long as it is consensual and both parties have a clear understanding of what is expected afterward, it's okay. I think the bible has some divine truths interspersed with hateful doctrine put forth by the Megolomaniac patriarchs who wrote it. There is divinity everywhere and there is spirituality throughout the land. But I believe that this dichotomus relationship between good and evil, heaven and hell, right and wrong that the abrahamic theologies hinge on is flawed in concept. They are constantly having to explain away the "gray areas" well I say that the whole world is a gray area and if we are to be judged, we will be judged on the kindness in our hearts and nothing else.

[O'Really]

But even the "kindness" of our hearts is so so partial... I can be the best friend to one and a monster to another.

Besides, those who are Atheist should be careful when choosing their morals. Bible's morals start from the presumption that Man doesn't know what is Good or Evil for him so that God has to tell it, make him 10 laws, etc. But, if there's no god, you know that these 10 laws weren't given by God but by some man. If you are an Atheist who follows Bible's morals you should be aware that you are taking prejudices and ignorances from people of the 1st century into account.

[Rabger]

The bible says people aren't supposed to have sex with people they're not married to. Therefore, if you are a heterosexual, bisexual, whatever, and you're having sex with someone you're not married to, it's a sin.

So let me ask you this. I know homosexual couples that are married. As in they had the ceremony, said their vows, etc. But obviously its not legal because here in NY, gay marriages aren't recognized. Then there are the homosexual couples in CA that got married and it is or at least was legal at the time. So what exactly are you opposed to? People that aren't legally married? Or marriages that aren't recognized by certain churches? Or just are you not against these people because they are married, even if others refuse to accept it? If you don't mind, I'd like a little clarification. Because many homosexuals are married. And in certain European countries, and hey, Canada, its legal there too.

[Rabger]

Besides, those who are Atheist should be careful when choosing their morals. Bible's morals start from the presumption that Man doesn't know what is Good or Evil for him so that God has to tell it, make him 10 laws, etc. But, if there's no god, you know that these 10 laws weren't given by God but by some man. If you are an Atheist who follows Bible's morals you should be aware that you are taking prejudices and ignorances from people of the 1st century into account.

I'm an Atheist and I don't follow bible morals. I follow whatever I can justify and have reason behind than just saying "so-and-so told me to follow this and I'm going to just because they told me to." I'm against a number of things but I would never consider them sins, because that just sounds like religious stuff to me. I'll list a few of my morals just for some examples.

- I don't care about marriage at all, I think mostly its just a control tactic. However, I don't think anyone should cheat on anyone they're with in any way, married or not. To me, one of the main things about relationships is trust. If you break that, it hurts the person you're with.

- I'm against drugs of any kind, which includes smoking and drinking. However, I'm also for free will, and I say you should be able to do whatever the hell you want to your own body as long as you're not hurting an unwilling party (such as drunk driving, smoking around kids, etc).

- I think hurting a living creature (excluding humans) is horrible. This includes purposely stepping on a roach or a worm. They have every right to live too, and just because they exist isn't a good reason to kill them. Its not funny, its cruel, and you wouldn't like it if someone did the same to you.

- I also don't think its right to jsut go around hurting people, though I'm more lenient on this one in certain ways because I'm so anti-Taker (this means most humans, though not all). If you have a good reason, fine. I'm all for and eye for an eye, but I don't think it should turn into an on-going family feud. It should be between those that started it, and leave it at that.

There, four works for me, I don't feel like ranting on and on and on right now. About the bible though, I firmly believe it was just written by men, because there is no god. And even if there was a god and it was written by god, the damn thing has been retranslated so many times, by so many people, for so long, you can not in all honestly tell me what the original said. And humans always have bias' and it always shows even when you try not to let it. Its very very hard to overcome. And since the bible was written by men that believed the earth was flat, I find it hard to believe anything written it in. Oh, and on organized religion, it is quite well known and documented that certain organizations were horribly corrupt and pwer hungry. Example. The Pope and such organization refuses to acknowledge the Gospels of St. Thomas because it is believed to be the closest thing to Jesus' spoken word, and in this scroll it says that Jesus was against churches and organized religion. If you refuse to acknowledge it, then, they get to keep their power. This includes being able to tell people unwilling to come to their own conclusions what to do and believe, such as being anti-homosexuals. The pope is just a man.

Hmm, okay. That got kind of off topic and I forgot my main point, but it might be in there somewhere. Either way, I stand by it all. My morals are because I have found reason to have them for myself, not just because someone told me to have them.

Oh, one more thing. I have a book that does nothing except take bible quotes directly from the bible. It takes two quotes and puts them next to each other. These two direct bible quotes contradict each other, totally going against what the other said. Side by side, its very easy to see. The book is hypocritical.

[joski]

Besides, those who are Atheist should be careful when choosing their morals. Bible's morals start from the presumption that Man doesn't know what is Good or Evil for him so that God has to tell it, make him 10 laws, etc. But, if there's no god, you know that these 10 laws weren't given by God but by some man. If you are an Atheist who follows Bible's morals you should be aware that you are taking prejudices and ignorances from people of the 1st century into account.

I'm an Atheist and I don't follow bible morals. I follow whatever I can justify and have reason behind than just saying "so-and-so told me to follow this and I'm going to just because they told me to." I'm against a number of things but I would never consider them sins, because that just sounds like religious stuff to me. I'll list a few of my morals just for some examples.

Clearly Nargothic reads Neitsche and Xendara doesn't. I happen to agree with Neitsche and any atheist should know about him. Perhaps Nargothic can suggest some reading material. I personally think that atheism is the most faith based belief out there. Atheists have faith in human understanding, and human understanding is fickle at best. I don't necessarily say that an atheist should be careful in selecting their morals although I applaud Nargothic for being so blatant. Atheists should however understand that their morals stem from a religious tradition, like it or not. Theology of any kind is fundamentally flawed in some way, and religion is a theology and so is atheism a theology. Oh shit, I just professed a theology, dammit. Since it's inescapeable I suggest you believe any and everything, be a collector of religions like me. :D

[Rabger]

Clearly Nargothic reads Neitsche and Xendara doesn't. I happen to agree with Neitsche and any atheist should know about him. Perhaps Nargothic can suggest some reading material. I personally think that atheism is the most faith based belief out there. Atheists have faith in human understanding, and human understanding is fickle at best. I don't necessarily say that an atheist should be careful in selecting their morals although I applaud Nargothic for being so blatant. Atheists should however understand that their morals stem from a religious tradition, like it or not. Theology of any kind is fundamentally flawed in some way, and religion is a theology and so is atheism a theology. Oh shit, I just professed a theology, dammit. Since it's inescapeable I suggest you believe any and everything, be a collector of religions like me. :D

Exactly what by Neitsche do you think I should read? Besides, I never once said that religious influence doesn't exist in anything I believe. You grow up in a society from the day you are born, things sink in. Most societies revolve around some sort of religion, pieces of it sink in. It doesn't exactly make it religious in nature when you are not following things because people told you to, because of a book, or a church, etc. You can agree with something that happens to be stated in religion without agreeing with the religion itself. As for human understanding, I think humans in general are idiots, so I really don't have faith in that. Exactly how is atheism the most faith based belief out there? The only real thing that links most atheists is the disbelief in gods.

[joski]

Disbelief in gods is is not the same as believing there is no god. A true atheist believes that there is no god. If you believe in nothing, rather, if you accept all things as possibilities, you are agnostic. I suggest you start with "The Antichrist" because thats the only one I can think of right now. Maybe Nargothic knows of some better ones to start with. In order to explain this fully I would need to write a book, but Nietsche already did that. So read Nietsche.

[Jayann]

I disagree. The definition of "agnostic" is the concept that anything beyond this physical world cannot be known by any means. It literally translates to a belief in an inability to know. Agnosts believe that the existence of a deity or deities cannot ever be found out to be true or false.

I would call someone who believes in nothing in particular a nontheist.

[joski]

Tousche.

[Jayann]

*whips her fencing foil around* *French accent* Unh hunh hunh! Touche, eendeed!

*whips herself in the face* Ow!! Motherfu--*cups face in hands*

Good thing I kept the rubber tip on. Owie.

[Rabger]

Disbelief in gods is is not the same as believing there is no god. A true atheist believes that there is no god.

To me its the same thing. I believe there is no god, goddess, gods, etc. That is a disbelief in something. I know what an atheist is.

[joski]

*whips her fencing foil around* *French accent* Unh hunh hunh! Touche, eendeed!

*whips herself in the face* Ow!! Motherfu--*cups face in hands*

Good thing I kept the rubber tip on. Owie.

Next time we'll try boxing instead.

[O'Really]

Joski, the only Christian influences I saw in her morals were the belief in free-will and compassion (for animals).

Morals were a central issue for Nietzsche - from "Daybreak" to "Genealogy of the Morals", Nietzsche did a real campaign against Western prejudices, morals and philosophic tradition - according to Nietzsche, philosophers until then were nothing but priests undercover. Today philosophy is divided between anti and pro-Nietzsche, and it doesn't happen just because he became famous: Nietzsche was the first real western atheist philosopher - there were atheist thinkers before him but they were still attached to Western, in his words, Christian morals and prejudices. Nietzsche was the first western philosopher to completely deny God and metaphysics in all his abstractions.

For someone who's going to read him for the first time, I would recommend "Beyond Good and Evil" and then "Genealogy of the Morals". "Antichrist" is too harsh, other Nietzsche books are very placid and even gay, but "Antichrist" is too virulent for someone who will have a first impression.

In Genealogy of the Morals, for example, Nietzsche takes our morals and culture as coming from a history of cruelty and imposition of powers, not as being democratic resolutions or an utilitarian laws.

http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/onthe.htm#1e2

http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/onthe.htm#1e14 <- this chapter is a must

Nietzsche has never, ever mentioned homosexuality.