Is it objectively meaningful and functionally correct to class Same Sex Attraction as a genuine form of human Sexuality?

[Elizabeth502]

I wouldn’t call the sodomy accusations as evidence but like I said, it is mentioned in several books that his young apprentice who may have modeled for the Mona Lisa was his lover. There are several young models who were supposed to be lovers of Michelangelo: Gherardo Perini, Andrea Quaratesi, Francesco Urbino, Tommaso Cavalieri.

All rumor. Again, no sources = zero scholarship. You are not an authority on the private sexual inclinations, let alone practices, of Renaissance artists. Not only because you could not have been there (unless you believe in reincarnation, which opposes Catholic dogma), but also because (1) you clearly have a poor understanding of historical context, using modern assumptions to “read” retroactively, into previous periods, cultural behavior that did not necessarily exist and (2) because you repeatedly are unable to come up with anything but rumor and innuendo to “support” your broad suppositions.

Keep going. You’ll soon come up with the intellectually embarrassing notion that “Jesus was gay” because of the ancient Middle Eastern custom of physical familiarity which was an aspect of close friendship (heads resting on each other, mutual embraces and kissing, etc.). And be sure to “source” that one with one of the two discredited scripture cough “scholars” who assert that Jesus is gay because, well, they are. :yup:

Of course I can’t prove that they were both gay and having gay sex with 100% certainty. Is it really important?

Yes. The factualness of a statement is important when discussing issues based on asserted facts.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I see a lot of cases of people looking back into the past and projecting the modern onto it.
Accusing someone of sodomy was not uncommon political shenanigans thing back then. Leonardo’s behaviour with his alleged “lover” could be explained by him being a doting master. A multitude of rumors do not make a fact.

Precisely. And part of the problem with projection of the modern onto the pre-modern is a failure to understand the semantics of the language of the time, as well as cultural expectations which “translate” differently in our era than was true in those time periods.

The way people expressed friendship with each other, including within the same gender, was entirely different. Finally, what characterizes our society more specifically is the sexualization of virtually everything. Everyone apparently has an overabundance of active sexual hormones, 24/7/365. Except that they don’t of course. Nor did the ancients.

 

[Mudgely]

Actuallt Elizabeth did not argue against them being gay, but rather against them being actively gay (that is to say committing homosexual acts).

I watched a special on the history and restoration of the Sistine Chapel. I was not paying that close attention. My recollection is that the narrative described an assistant to the Pope as being inimical to Michelangelo because he was gay. Michelangelo retaliated by painting his likeness in an unflattering way on the ceiling of the Chapel. The assistant complained to the Pope who did nothing about it. If this is true, then indirect evidence that Michelangelo was known to be gay by his contemporaries might be on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. There is a clear homo-eroticism to his work, just like reading Marlowe. You can’t miss it.

 

[razredge]

Research provides a final solution to the dread menace of homosexuality, simply by removing the cause instead of having to live with the effects. There’s evidence that one cause of male homosexuality is the same gene which makes some women extra fertile, so all the most fruitful women must be banned from every giving birth to boys. Also all couples must be barred from having more than one boy, since having older brothers increases the chance of being gay.

Hardly, the causes of homosexuality are not well known and likely involve a variety of biological, social, cultural and environmental factors. It is not as simple as being born with a gay gene, as twin studies have shown.

I think more research should be done into the causes of homosexuality and how to minimise the incidence of SSA as well as any possible treatments for it.

This doesn’t sound exactly Christian and might be going a bit far just to avoid some folk being consumed by what others do in private, but I guess moral is as moral does.

No issue at all with what people do in private, I just dislike being forced to accept homosexual relationships as ‘normal’ and identical to heterosexual relationships, when they are clearly not.

Then comes the whole ridiculousness of gay marriage, which is a contradiction in terms and is an attack on the family.
I am perfectly content with toleration of homosexuality, but the extent of gay lobby’s agenda is ludicrous.

In Ancient Greece homosexual practice was widely spread and in Ancient Rome it was considered natural for men to be attracted to good-looking young men.

Pederasty or ‘Greek Love’ is in no way the same thing or a prefiguration of modern homosexuality as Michel Foucault & others have demonstrated.

So your argument from Ancient Greek/Roman tradition falls flat unless you are willing to tolerate what they did actually practice which was pederasty (as espoused by NAMBLA)

But of course, to snowclone the ‘we’re all atheists’ non sequitur - actually we’re all ‘bigots’, it’s just that we reject one more form of alternative sexuality than you do.

I think what you mean is that the only readily quantifiable purpose of sex is reproduction. Amongst humans and several other species of social animals, sex serves both as a means of reproduction and a means of social cohesion. The biochemical processes that accompany sexual intimacy facilitate bonding between the parties involved - despite the fact that many people attempt to deny this in our society, usually to their detriment.

Yes - the only objective purpose of sex is reproduction. It is the essential feature of the act.
And yes of course a secondary objective purpose (for some species) is also to provide a means of social bonding between mates.

They can, however, achieve the bonding function of sexual intimacy. Are heterosexual relations that are, for some reason, infertile, also intrinsically different to reproductive sex? Or is it okay because they follow the same format?

 

[Benadam]

But I think that what you are getting at is a unique awareness of being made in God’s image, and being blessed with a soul? I doubt that the peers of the pair-bonded male ducks are quacking and hissing their approbation or disapprobation of the behavior, which leads us to good and evil. The tigress who selects a tender morsel of a child from the village for her meal is doing something different than the sniper who squeezes off a round aimed at that same child.

Exactly. You agree then. In the same way, the conjugal act is something different for the human mother and father than it is for the male and female tiger or the ducks. Yes?
Sexual attraction then, between individuals of the same gender, functions as a means to support reproduction and survival of the species in many animals. I think it’s fair to say that same sex attraction is a genuine form of sexuality for the lower animals.

Since the human dimension of sexuality lacks a reason for such support, is there a distinctly human sexual function that same sex attraction serves? Is same sex attraction, in some way, a means of support for reproduction or survival for humans? Is that required of an act for it to be a genuine form of sexuality?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

books.google.com/books?id=1ha9GgWNmy0C&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=homosexuality+in+tribal+societies&source=bl&ots=MKGDlcpVzq&sig=DAIBAl4QvogspM9fYA489h2VvKA&hl=en&ei=8IqTTtj2FMinhAeL-4nPBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=homosexuality%20in%20tribal%20societies&f=false

One consequence of celibacy may be the tens of thousands of sexual abuse cases in the last 50 years alone in the US. I don’t want to know how many cases have took place in the whole world over the centuries. The perverted behavior of priests who rape young children might be the result of this unnatural sexless life choice.

I’m not sure whether to laugh or to cry…

BTW despite Southern Baptists having married “priests” (they can even marry after being “ordained”) they appear to have it just as bad if not worse.

Precisely. And part of the problem with projection of the modern onto the pre-modern is a failure to understand the semantics of the language of the time, as well as cultural expectations which “translate” differently in our era than was true in those time periods.

The way people expressed friendship with each other, including within the same gender, was entirely different. Finally, what characterizes our society more specifically is the sexualization of virtually everything. Everyone apparently has an overabundance of active sexual hormones, 24/7/365. Except that they don’t of course. Nor did the ancients.

True, in the Middle Ages and Renaissance love between men wasn’t frowned up indeed it was embraced (in a manner). In Mediaeval England for example while blood was thicker than water, the love of friends/companions ran deeper and was more permanent than marriage, indeed the vows were considered to last forever which of course is why the vows were sealed by the Eucharist and done in front of the altar so that the saints could attest to their faithfulness on Judgment Day (if you want to know more read The Friend by Alan Bray, in the book he also rips apart any claims that this was marriage). Frankly men hugging, kissing, writing love letters to each and sleeping in the same bed (this of course happening quite publicly) is rather peculiar. Really it seems to be SSA once strained of sex considering it basically combines all intimacies minus sex.

I watched a special on the history and restoration of the Sistine Chapel. I was not paying that close attention. My recollection is that the narrative described an assistant to the Pope as being inimical to Michelangelo because he was gay. Michelangelo retaliated by painting his likeness in an unflattering way on the ceiling of the Chapel. The assistant complained to the Pope who did nothing about it. If this is true, then indirect evidence that Michelangelo was known to be gay by his contemporaries might be on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. There is a clear homo-eroticism to his work, just like reading Marlowe. You can’t miss it.

[citation needed]

Michelangelo was quite flamboyant, that is not being debated whereas Michelangelo being sexually involved with other men is.

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ Indeed.
Qualities like flamboyance were often a cultural marker, not particularly indicating sexual inclinations one way or another, but rather a characteristic within a spectrum of behaviors not associated with sexual tendencies. Separately, even grace, delicacy, and refinement itself were considered practical virtues of the well-bred man in various eras predating the 20th century. That included characteristics such as attention to personal appearance. It also included the perfection of letter-writing as an art, and as often the primary way to express friendship with others, including of the same sex.

Finally, what we term “effeminacy” itself continues to be misunderstood as supposedly deterministic of sexual attraction, when it is, rather, a personality manifestation that is merely a location on a culturally-normed scale of what constitutes, in a particular time period, “feminine” and “masculine” behavioral traits.

It is remarkable the lack of education in history, especially cultural history, that characterizes the modern age in America. Pretty pathetic.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

^ Indeed.
Qualities like flamboyance were often a cultural marker, not particularly indicating sexual inclinations one way or another, but rather a characteristic within a spectrum of behaviors not associated with sexual tendencies. Separately, even grace, delicacy, and refinement itself were considered practical virtues of the well-bred man in various eras predating the 20th century. That included characteristics such as attention to personal appearance. It also included the perfection of letter-writing as an art, and as often the primary way to express friendship with others, including of the same sex.

Finally, what we term “effeminacy” itself continues to be misunderstood as supposedly deterministic of sexual attraction, when it is, rather, a personality manifestation that is merely a location on a culturally-normed scale of what constitutes, in a particular time period, “feminine” and “masculine” behavioral traits.

It is remarkable the lack of education in history, especially cultural history, that characterizes the modern age in America. Pretty pathetic.

 

[Sair]

Exactly. You agree then. In the same way, the conjugal act is something different for the human mother and father than it is for the male and female tiger or the ducks. Yes?
Sexual attraction then, between individuals of the same gender, functions as a means to support reproduction and survival of the species in many animals. I think it’s fair to say that same sex attraction is a genuine form of sexuality for the lower animals.

Since the human dimension of sexuality lacks a reason for such support, is there a distinctly human sexual function that same sex attraction serves? Is same sex attraction, in some way, a means of support for reproduction or survival for humans? Is that required of an act for it to be a genuine form of sexuality?

How do you know that the ‘human dimension’ of sexuality lacks a reason? Sexual intimacy in humans functions as a means of strengthening social bonds. As I’ve said before, for the vast majority of the time humans have existed, we’ve done so as small bands of foragers and hunters, in which close social bonds indeed were essential for ensuring survival of group members - sexual intimacy can serve to reduce conflict and tension and bind people together in mutual interest.

If you’re looking for something that sets us apart from other species, something that makes us uniquely human, then the way we have sex must surely be an important factor. Very, very few animals engage in sexual intercourse for purely social reasons. Humans are also unique (almost) in being physically constituted such that sexual intercourse can be performed face to face, partners gazing into each others’ eyes, reinforcing intimacy (and yes, gay men can manage this too). Amongst other animals, only bonobos have been observed to do likewise.

Furthermore, any insistence upon some ‘justification’ for same-sex attraction misses the point on a number of levels. Evolution goes with what works for a species’ population. If same-sex attraction works in communities of humans, it will persist. That’s just how it goes. There’s no other justification required. It should be obvious why a higher proportion of adults to children in a clan - adults who are not all themselves reproductive - would produce better survival rates for such offspring as the clan as a whole produces. What’s more, it seems peculiar to claim that there must be some ‘higher’ justification for mutual pleasure and social bonding. It is only repressive moralisers who deny that pleasure serves as an end in itself and who insist it must be merely an accompaniment to a ‘worthy’ pursuit like having babies; and who, if anything, would have us behave more like the so-called ‘lower’ animals - having sex infrequently and only for the purpose of reproduction.

 

[inocente]

Hardly, the causes of homosexuality are not well known and likely involve a variety of biological, social, cultural and environmental factors. It is not as simple as being born with a gay gene, as twin studies have shown.

I think more research should be done into the causes of homosexuality and how to minimise the incidence of SSA as well as any possible treatments for it.

Right, there are various causes and having older brothers is one as I said. Research points to heterosexuals creating homosexuals, so it’s in the power of heterosexuals to stop producing them. And that changes the moral landscape – heterosexuals have only themselves to blame and cannot make homosexuals their scapegoats.

Or they can just stop worrying about what others do in private.

No issue at all with what people do in private, I just dislike being forced to accept homosexual relationships as ‘normal’ and identical to heterosexual relationships, when they are clearly not.

There’s a lot to unpack there . No one has a gun to your head. Homosexuality is as normal as apple pie, there are three times as many homosexuals in the world as the entire population of the UK. And the only reason their relationships might be different could be they’ve been forced into the closet for most of history.

Then comes the whole ridiculousness of gay marriage, which is a contradiction in terms and is an attack on the family.
I am perfectly content with toleration of homosexuality, but the extent of gay lobby’s agenda is ludicrous.

There’s a document on vatican.va produced by the Church to oppose gay union in Spain and other countries some years back. While it has better arguments than many which appear on CAF, it still failed to convince the majority of the population here and elsewhere. The big problem for those who oppose gay union is making a common sense case for why society’s recognition of a loving, monogamous relationship between two adults should depend on their dangly bits.

 

[Lui]

lui

**The perverted behavior of priests who rape young children might be the result of this unnatural sexless life choice. **

Think about what you just said and don’t try to suppress a giggle.

Sex perverts are sex perverts because they don’t have sex?

What does that make sodomites who give each other AIDS? The good guys?

Think about what you said and don’t suppress try to burst out kaughing.
AIDS is not the result of sodomy or homosexuality. It’s caused by the HIV virus that can be transmitted on various ways. Anyone can get it, not just a gay disease because it is the punishment of God as some twisted people think.

It’s odd how many sex perverts exist within the Catholic Church. Do all the perverts decide to become priests or is the unnatural celibate lifestyle one cause that leads to many priests becoming perverted?

 

[Lui]

lui

books.google.com/books?id=1ha9GgWNmy0C&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=homosexuality+in+tribal+societies&source=bl&ots=MKGDlcpVzq&sig=DAIBAl4QvogspM9fYA489h2VvKA&hl=en&ei=8IqTTtj2FMinhAeL-4nPBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=homosexuality%20in%20tribal%20societies&f=false

The so-called academic source on homosexuality you cited was published by McFarland Publishing, a printer who specializes in horror fiction, science fiction, and sports. So I consider the source and dismiss it without reservation after reading two or three idiotic paragraphs.

I do the same when people present the Gospels as evidence that Jesus is God. The so-called academic source on his divinity is written by a bunch of unknowns.

The difference is it is not my mission to convert billions of people that in some societies homosexuality was accepted and that they weren’t considered as disordered perverts. I only started dealing with this hateful claim that being gay is perverted ever since I participated in this thread. I didn’t have 2000 years time to scratch up every little piece of evidence there is.

 

[Lui]

All rumor. Again, no sources = zero scholarship. You are not an authority on the private sexual inclinations, let alone practices, of Renaissance artists. Not only because you could not have been there (unless you believe in reincarnation, which opposes Catholic dogma), but also because (1) you clearly have a poor understanding of historical context, using modern assumptions to “read” retroactively, into previous periods, cultural behavior that did not necessarily exist and (2) because you repeatedly are unable to come up with anything but rumor and innuendo to “support” your broad suppositions.

Keep going. You’ll soon come up with the intellectually embarrassing notion that “Jesus was gay” because of the ancient Middle Eastern custom of physical familiarity which was an aspect of close friendship (heads resting on each other, mutual embraces and kissing, etc.). And be sure to “source” that one with one of the two discredited scripture cough “scholars” who assert that Jesus is gay because, well, they are. :yup:

Yes. The factualness of a statement is important when discussing issues based on asserted facts.

Oh, but I guess you were there when Jesus rose from the dead? How about uploading the video tape that shows it on Youtube. Then I’ll present the same quality of evidence that Da Vinci and Michelangelo were gay.

Also nice to know that you know what I’ll do next. In other words, you can predict the future(isn’t that against the teaching of the Church).
Now let me try to predict the future; I predict you will vote for the Republicans…

 

[Lui]

It is remarkable the lack of education in history, especially cultural history, that characterizes the modern age in America. Pretty pathetic.

History is not based on the ways you decide to see it. I’ve never ever heard that DaVinci or Michelangelo were straight. Why do you so desperately want to prove they weren’t gay. What’s the problem if they were?
I also heard that Liberace was gay but I never met the guy so I’m probably mistaking.
Even if Da Vinci was the greatest stud of all time and only watched football with his “buddies” with a six-pack of beer, it doesn’t mean there were less homosexuals in the 16th century.

Speaking of lack of education: how many politicians believe, including Sarah Palin, that the earth is 6000 years old? I’m a person who works in animation. Who cares if I don’t know every fact in history? I draw cartoon animals for a living. I do care when people who might be President of the US believe in children’s fairytales as actual history. To say the least, it scares the hell out of me that the person who is in control of the red button believes that dinos and man cuddled together 6000 years ago. Supreme ignorance is what comes to mind.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

^ Indeed.
Qualities like flamboyance were often a cultural marker, not particularly indicating sexual inclinations one way or another, but rather a characteristic within a spectrum of behaviors not associated with sexual tendencies. Separately, even grace, delicacy, and refinement itself were considered practical virtues of the well-bred man in various eras predating the 20th century. That included characteristics such as attention to personal appearance. It also included the perfection of letter-writing as an art, and as often the primary way to express friendship with others, including of the same sex.

Finally, what we term “effeminacy” itself continues to be misunderstood as supposedly deterministic of sexual attraction, when it is, rather, a personality manifestation that is merely a location on a culturally-normed scale of what constitutes, in a particular time period, “feminine” and “masculine” behavioral traits.

It is remarkable the lack of education in history, especially cultural history, that characterizes the modern age in America. Pretty pathetic.

Artists tend to be flamboyant in general. Grace, delicacy and refinement were indeed considered virtues, but the US for it’s example of masculinity is burly steelworker, or some other hypermacho dude. The US lacks the cultural refinement necessary to understand Christian masculinity. I’ve read a number of letters that are rather romantic between two guys and these letters weren’t exactly hidden, in some cases they were even circulated to proved how much they loved one another.

Think about what you said and don’t suppress try to burst out kaughing.
AIDS is not the result of sodomy or homosexuality. It’s caused by the HIV virus that can be transmitted on various ways. Anyone can get it, not just a gay disease because it is the punishment of God as some twisted people think.

It’s odd how many sex perverts exist within the Catholic Church. Do all the perverts decide to become priests or is the unnatural celibate lifestyle one cause that leads to many priests becoming perverted?

The number one vector of transmission is actually vaginal intercourse

If the celibate life is the cause why are so many teachers child molesters? Why are so many Southern Baptist minsters child molesters
Do all the perverts decide to be Southern Baptists or teachers or does the married life make them perverts?

Oh, but I guess you were there when Jesus rose from the dead? How about uploading the video tape that shows it on Youtube. Then I’ll present the same quality of evidence that Da Vinci and Michelangelo were gay.

Also nice to know that you know what I’ll do next. In other words, you can predict the future(isn’t that against the teaching of the Church).
Now let me try to predict the future; I predict you will vote for the Republicans…

Damn it! … He’s using the Chewbacca defense!

In the case of Michelangelo we actually have his biographer say that Michelangelo was very chaste, of course this biographer actually knew the guy so what could he possibly know

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Mudgely

I watched a special on the history and restoration of the Sistine Chapel. I was not paying that close attention. My recollection is that the narrative described an assistant to the Pope as being inimical to Michelangelo because he was gay. Michelangelo retaliated by painting his likeness in an unflattering way on the ceiling of the Chapel. The assistant complained to the Pope who did nothing about it. If this is true, then indirect evidence that Michelangelo was known to be gay by his contemporaries might be on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. There is a clear homo-eroticism to his work, just like reading Marlowe. You can’t miss it.

Back in the 1960s it was commonly bandied about that Plato was a homosexual. But when you read Plato you find that he was definitely opposed to homosexuality in his Laws.

So the lies continue to be told with Michelangelo the current victim. You can’t miss it.

 

[Lui]

Artists tend to be flamboyant in general. Grace, delicacy and refinement were indeed considered virtues, but the US for it’s example of masculinity is burly steelworker, or some other hypermacho dude. The US lacks the cultural refinement necessary to understand Christian masculinity. I’ve read a number of letters that are rather romantic between two guys and these letters weren’t exactly hidden, in some cases they were even circulated to proved how much they loved one another.

I’m the last one to deny that being an artist myself. I dress in expensive designer clothes(my favorite is Paul Smith and Dries van Noten), I groom myself, I love art, I hate watching sports(but do competitive swimming) and many people think I’m gay from my appearance(although women love it) that’s why I love to hang out with gay guys but I’m NOT gay and never will be. From all people I would understand this but it doesn’t ignore the fact that many art historians claim they were gay. No one says van Gogh, Picasso or Gauguin were gay and I never heard the claim.
Picasso: nndb.com/people/373/000024301/
Gauguin: nndb.com/people/808/000024736/
Van Gogh:nndb.com/people/803/000024731/
Da Vinci:nndb.com/people/813/000029726/
Michelangelo:nndb.com/people/977/000024905/

If the celibate life is the cause why are so many teachers child molesters? Why are so many Southern Baptist minsters child molesters
Do all the perverts decide to be Southern Baptists or teachers or does the married life make them perverts?

Of course there are much more dads that molest their children or teachers than there are priests. One reason is there are much more fathers and teachers than there are priests. I did not say celibacy is the cause. I said it might be a reason referring to the statement of someone who said sodomy causes death while celibacy causes zero harm.

In the case of Michelangelo we actually have his biographer say that Michelangelo was very chaste, of course this biographer actually knew the guy so what could he possibly know

I already stated that at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter. We’re beating a dead horse. My point was that there were as many homosexuals in Da Vinci’s time as today but in those days you couldn’t go on a gay parade because people would have executed you. You guys are too fixated IF those two artists were gay or not. That wasn’t my point. Today luckily gay people can be openly gay without the fear of punishment although I’m sure right wing Christians would like to see them on death row.
The German foreign Minister is gay and in a gay marriage. Is Germany going downhill because of this?

 

[Elizabeth502]

History is not based on the ways you decide to see it.

Wrong. Even the approach to the study of history is shaped by whatever current era is studying that time period. Which only proves how little studying you have done of any era prior to this one. All one has to do is read history textbooks, for example, including encyclopedia of previous eras, to see how obvious this is. One doesn’t have to go back too far to find history books in which the entire chronology was shaped by military battles. I don’t mean ancient history, either. Today we would simply call that ‘military history,’ or history dominated by military events, and descrbied as an aspect of military conquest.

Other eras have stressed political history almost to the exclusion of everything else. In textbooks of such periods you read chapter after chapter of political intrigue – heavy on biographical detail and tales of personal in-fighting.

More modern history has shifted to a social-cultural emphasis, interpreting all events from the lens of social forces and cultural changes as the principles of causation, and describing virtually all changes in those terms (including political changes).

I have already seen a further change in modern history textbooks which are being shaped by an emphasis on technological aspects of geo-political dynamics.

Who cares if I don’t know every fact in history?

People who are discussing facts with you. That’s who.

 

[Lui]

People who are discussing facts with you. That’s who.

Dream on.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Oh, but I guess you were there when Jesus rose from the dead?.

LOL. Now verifying the historicity of the Resurrection is the litmus test for determining personal sexual behavior from earlier and later eras.

(Psst: the Resurrection is a cornerstone of believing Christians: an aspect of faith. While there is scriptural and some historical confirmation of the event, religion is not an exercise in “proving” every event, but in affirming the spiritual truths signified by the life and sayings of the Redeemer and the sacred tradition of writing and witnessing lives of others which have followed that example for those 2000 years.)

Way off-topic here.