Not that I went there much anymore, but it seemed like one of the first anti-nonsense subreddits.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (94)
sorted by:
The notion that homosexuality was accepted was popularized by idle 18th century aristocrats. A similar trend exists today, with modern sentiments being projected onto select sources to defend the notion of social constructivism. The advocates in ancient times where the elites of both Greek and Roman society - ritualistic pederasts; I guess some things just don't change. In Sparta it was proliferated by the oligarchy as to maintain hierarchy - domination. Given literacy rates, the selectivity of sources seldom speak to common sentiment. As is seen in the very different sentiments of some Athenian democratic scholars, who despite their concern of offending those in power, at least cautiously referenced perspectives of the vox populi.
That said, even by pederast standards, homosexual acts where considered the destruction of masculinity - a fairly universal sentiment in the west. The limited tolerance was clearly defined and to be practiced on slave boys not yet men. For any freeman to freely engage in such acts was thought disgusting. For any slave to enjoy the act was shameful/impudent. The notion of homosexual union was absurd. So much of what people regard as "acceptance" was prison rape enabled by social status. Literary treatments considered homosexuality with the same gravity as adultery, which is to say severe. That the limited instances of recorded disdain of the elite, by the commonage, frequently include derogatory references to pederasty is telling. As is the fact that being called a "passive homosexual" was regarded as the gravest of insults. You cite the Sacred band of Thebes. When they fought fearlessly to the last man in defense of their people, they earned the respect of Phillip. So much so that he built a monument and issued a decree to preclude their mockery. Such a death was regarded as the highest honor, yet such protections were necessary because of how poorly homosexuals where regarded by the commonage. And yes, the mentions of a disease, now understood to be Syphilis, are inseparable from the pederasty.
With all that said, I was referring to societal norms that don't celebrate fucking children so long as they don't yet have facial hair - that is, after the arrival of Christianity. I appreciate the irony of that statement given the incidence of pederasty in organized religion. I simply regard a belief system that forbids pedophilia and shuns its proponents as a net win. Finding sources of contempt and disgust from that point onwards shouldn't be hard; Both in regards to its deviation from the "natural order", and in regards to the act itself.
Disgust as an adaptive evolutionary response is established. As is the evolutionary motivation of stigmatization. As are the studies reporting similar alpha-amylase activation when straight men are shown pictures of homosexual couples and rotting corpses. Or that syphilis was one of the leading causes of stigmatization in early Europe. The stigmatization wasn't limited to homophobia, but also xenophobia, see "The French disease." Not universal, but consistent.
I don't support abortion - outside of severe medical complications.
If the content of your post is anything to go by, I doubt that doing so would change anything.