Keith, I think you are coming from a place of pure belief and little else which to my way of thinking constitutes prejudice. Have you been around many Gays? They are as normal as you are I. I work with them constantly and find that there are more problems with nationality than sexuality when it comes to social problems. The average non-HIV positive Gay is, in my experience, even more physically healthy than the average heterosexual who tends to have problems with obesity over here.
As for the Greeks and Romans there was less of an issue of same sex than there has been up to the present in the Roman Catholic Priesthood. See yesterday's NYTimes for an amazing story about how they encouraged young boys to express themselves homosexually and even as pedophiles through the church's attitudes as to what constituted a break in the vow of celibacy. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/national/nationalspecial/12PRIE.html (I cannot imagine this article being written by a Roman Catholic man.) In the case of the church, their direct teachings to pre-pubescent priest candidate children about it being a sin to have same sex activities but did not constitute breaking the vow of celibacy, is tailor made to teach heterosexual boys to practice same sex. It doesn't take a psycho-analyst to understand that same sex acts with children between a grown man who has been infantilized since he was 13 is probably a desire to express his rage at the infantilization. That same teaching also is representative of a hatred for women, expressed in the fact that they wouldn't let nuns even take a bath without being clothed. This is world class prejudice, ignorance and oppression from the world's largest religion. As for the Greeks, and Romans, I suggest that due to the fact that they have been dead for a couple of thousand years you have a lot less knowledge about them than we do of Europeans. On Pay Cable Vision here we have a program that has taken the place of the National Geographic and Playboy Magazines for it being OK to watch bizarre sexual activities. The program is called "Real Sex" and purports to show what is OK in the UK on the Television and in national behavior. Most of the bizarre behavior is heterosexual. If I took that program and made the assumption that the program gives, that it was true of England in general, then I wouldn't understand all of those English folks running around this country that I know. Because they are nothing like those folks on the TV. It is still the old adage that he who gets in the library gets to tell the world what it is. And that is the reason that I cannot simply accept this as chat. Of course Indian folks have had those same type of stories pointed at us in "Westerns" for years and have wished for someone to consider us to be the real Indians and the Westerns to be the aberrations. But we have European Americans come up to us all the time and challenge us because we don't match their Westerns. All this in spite of the fact that the first Indians in the movies were neither Indian people or Indian language. Just some Dark European Actor who claimed to speak "Indian" and who grunted a few sounds for effect. They do better with Klingons on Star Trek where they used a few Cherokee words to mean "beam me up" which really meant "How are you?" Anyway, the architectural facts about baths, toilets etc. plus the writings on Greece and Rome are very clear that Greek and Roman Bisexuality is not just a matter of projection off of some upper class book written by Plato. I'm just saying you need to go back to the record again because I don't think you read it correctly. In our case, being a different culture separated by thousands of years and then brutally mixed in the last three hundred, there are people in my own community that make assumptions about homosexuality amongst our ancestors that is pure projection off of the present and was taught to them by some Christian Priest generations ago and is now codified. Generally, even today, traditional Indian people consider that the Creator gives a person their sexual orientation for some reason in their life's path or even in the life of the community itself. They can accept it or reject it. They have free will but being happy has to do with learning to navigate reality more "with the flow" of your basic nature, than against it. For people like Leonard Bernstein and many others this meant that they went the opposite direction from your war stories. They had their families and then came out as Gay after their children were grown and their wives had either died or were divorced. Neither story proves that homosexuality is not as natural a state as heterosexuality. There are other instances as well in nature amongst other animals. In fact the Blue Sea Bass is both male and female. Does a little dance together and then both lays the eggs and fertilizes them. Nature is much too diverse and complicated for human morality to encompass it. Working out one's destiny in a humane manner is one of the things that all Indian religions tend to have in common in spite of our wide differences. That means that if a person is a "berdache" he is accepted and does things that go with being given that roll. The society makes a place for it. Also there are records of societies where Shamans had same sex marriages because the society forbade a Shaman from taking payments for healings and ceremonials. And they had to eat, so that man would marry another man who would be the "breadwinner" for the Shaman so he could do the activities the society demanded of him. (In a very unconscious way the Roman Catholic Church stumbled into that same contract but with the addition of guilt.) Even today there is a huge conflict because of Christian Indians who forbid homosexuality but still demand native ceremonials and healing practices and have cast their spiritual leader into the place where he can't accept payment but he doesn't have time to work outside at a job either and thus ends up being very poor. The lack of prosperity is then assumed to be his desire which is nonsense since they also say that a Shaman accepts a vision or call from the Creator as a sacred honor. Meanwhile in European society a relationship between roommates is OK as long as you "don't ask or don't tell" and we would say those guys get more "Eagle Feathers." Mike Hollinshead has written about the English family where only the Elder children were allowed to marry while the others became bachelors and spinsters and whose genes would stop with them. Because they are not allowed to marry, they have both male and female "friends" if it is the opposite sex or roommates if they are the same. Only the First born carry the family fortune and the others are expected to free the Elder Children from the need to have childcare by teaching the children and having family members responsible for their care and instruction instead of outsiders. Only the children of the First born will get the family fortune unless they have reached the upper crust in which case there might be enough to share. But again Mike is English and I am not as are you. I could be drawing an entirely wrong conclusion from all of this even though I have the basic facts from my library. I ask again, have you had much social (I'm not saying sexual) experience with Gay people? Or are you falling into the European Disease? Writing about only what is written and not from life experience? The first fallacy of education is "I tell therefore you know!" With the second being "I read therefore I know!" Only experience creates knowledge that is safe to use in the judgment of others IMO based upon my education and 43 years of teaching. I will draw a parallel between the Arts today and Indians in the past which may seem strange to you but is common knowledge in Indian Country. It is even found in the book about the famous Lakota Medicine Priest John Fire Lame Deer. The book is Lame Deer Seeker of Visions and is in collaboration with Richard Erdoes. Lame Deer confirms that Artists in America in their economic place are put in the same positions as Indians. It was Rousseau, also an artist, who gave up his children to the church because he couldn't support them and become the philosopher, but his sacrifice motivated his writings on child rearing which were radical and Iroquois. European tradition, pre-Rousseau, is experiencing a renaissance these days in Florida where they have condemned children to life in prison for actions that their brains are not yet formulated to understand. Homosexuality is judged outside the brain in much the same manner. We place severe moral and economic strains on the Gay community, requiring them to accept our judgment of them and even murder them occasionally to make the point. Given the same rhetoric used sixty years ago, against Blacks in America, you would imagine that we would be more careful given the colossal failure and judgment of history on our European ancestor's as human beings. We have buried all of the little racial manuals that carried as much weight as today's religious ideas about homosexuals. Not so long ago the same statements were made about Jews killing Jesus being central to Christian teachings. Life changes, people grow up. They always like and need a scapegoat and Indians and Gays have suffered many of the same prejudices right up into the present. The lifestyle forced on traditional Indians was even more severe but I've talked endlessly about that and will forego it here. The homosexual lifestyle with no children and a societal ban on marriage type relationships naturally equips them for the terrible, brutal life of the Artist and like Blacks to basketball they go where the door is open and where their lifestyle gives them an advantage. And it does, in the Arts. It also is a distinct disadvantage to anyone who is heterosexual and wishes a married life with children and that is just economics. Indian people have found the Arts open to them and many Indian consider the Arts to be synonymous with being Indian because of the economics in the country. Remember the Casinos are a form of Arts and Entertainment in the Economics books and at the US Depart of Labor. Well I've said more than enough and I hope that passion does not translate as aggression in my posts to you. It is a tough subject and we both live in that world. I do passionately disagree with you on your analysis about everything that you've said thus far about Gays. And that is the gist of it. Thanks again for you writing and honesty, REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 3:51 AM Subject: [Futurework] Greek and Spartan 'Homosexuality' > A FWer has written to me privately to say that the ancient Greeks and > Spartans practised homosexuality to an 'extreme degree' and that I mustn't > be nasty about gays. Well, I'm not being nasty. I would deplore any sort of > animus against homosexuals. I'm just philosophical that the current fashion > of homosexuality-as-normality will die away in due course -- as it always > does. > > The "extreme degree" bit of this is a myth, I'm afraid. Or, rather, I'm > pleased about. Among aristocratic Greeks it was certainly the case that > some of their sons at puberty were adopted in a very intimate way by > individual adult members of Symposia -- male discussion groups. (Whether > one calls that homosexuality or paedophilia in modern language I don't > know.) But this was with express permission of the father of the boy and > the main intention of the arrangement was the boy's education -- so that he > could listen to the discussion and pick up the latest thinking and ideas. > No doubt some mild sexual practice took place between the boy and his > individual sponsor but there is no grek artwork showing penetrative sex > between males. Indeed, it was also expected that the sponsor would > introduce the boy to wider adult society, to women, and indeed to > prostitutes so that, in practice, such a young man was probably ambisexual > for a while before becoming almost totally heterosexual when, later, he > married and raised children. However, even this particular cultural > practice lasted only for a generation or two (just as the present fashion > will!). > > In Sparta, homosexuality was much more widespread among young men -- at > least, among those who were selected from boyhood as potential warriors, > survived the gruelling training, and lived together in all-male groups for > some years. However, they all knew that if Sparta were to survive, then the > warriors would also have to produce children in turn. This was often > difficult because they had become conditioned to sexual practice among > males only. It was the custom, therefore, that, when married, the new wife > would cut off her long hair and comport herself as a boy in order to arouse > her husband. After a night together, the new husband would then go back to > his all-male group for a while before returning to his home and spending > more time with his wife. Gradually, normal hetersexual sex was practised > and children were conceived. Thus, the Spartans practised a process of > behavioural conditioning of the sort which is done today by those who want > to become completely heterosexual. At least, this is done in England among > a knowledgeable minority who can afford a course of behavioural treatment > -- which, of course, includes attractive and experienced women therapists. > It's also the case that in our royal family great care is taken that the > young royals soon after puberty are introduced to extremely attractive women. > > I sometimes have arguments on FW list as to whether this behaviour or that > is primarily due to genes or environment. For most behaviours, genetic > predisposition is more powerful than environment -- intelligent behaviour, > for example. For sexual behaviour, however, environment is almost > completely responsible for completely conditioning a young man's sexual > drive to males or females or even fetishes of the strangest items. Genes > come into the matter only in so far that the female sexual drive is > dependent on a wider mix of hormones in her body compared with the male and > so her sex drive is far less conditionable. One rarely hears of female > fetishes and sexual crimes among females are almost unknown. Female > homosexuality is rare compared with male practice. > > I don't know whether the above will have persuade my private correspondent > but perhaps some other FWers might be persuaded to be philosophical about > the present cultural craziness of accepting homosexuality as normal. > > Keith Hudson > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > -------------- > Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England > Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ________________________________________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
