I’m sorry, but one youtube video does not convince me decades of research that is widely accepted in the historical community is completely wrong. And realistically, for every source you can find that says Greeks didn’t accept gays, I could find one that says they did. We can never really be certain of what happened thousands of years ago.
You are one poorly informed apologist for the acceptance of homosexuality throughout history. It doesn’t take whole lot of basic research to find out that the myth of the acceptance of homosexuality in ancient Greece and ancient Rome is one of the favourite tools of the pro-homosexuality lobby as they push an agenda never before accepted by any society.
Take that esteemed philosopher, Plato who condemns homosexual intercourse in both the “Laws” and the “Republic.” The “Laws” (Book VIII) rejects homosexual intercourse because it can render men unfit for marriage and because it is contrary to nature and a shameless indulgence.
The “Laws” recommends that homosexuality, like adultery, fornication and the use of prostitutes, not be engaged in; that if it is engaged in, it be kept private or closeted, and that if it is discovered, it be punished by deprivation of civil rights, a severe penalty. In effect, the “Laws” recommends criminalization.
Or would you tell us that one old Greek philosopher doesn’t prove anything?
Then how about a Greek playwrite of antiquity by the name of Aristophanes. He mercilessly ridiculed homosexuals in his plays. One homosexual character in particular, Cleisthenes . in the play Thesmophoriazusae,written in 411 BC, is named an honorary woman. The “passive” partner in homosexual acts was derided universally in ancient Greece as being disgracefully effeminate.
Aristotle, another old Greek playwrite, considered that homosexuality was a deformed and abnormal condition that resulted either by natural disorder or by habit.
Homosexuality existed and was only tolerated in ancient Greece and also in ancient Rome, where it was recognised as a subculture. Pederasty was condemned by the Romans as effeminate greek behviour. The Roman Law
Lex Cantina made same sex relations a capital offense. It pertained to free born Roman citiens. As a consequence, slaves could be beaten and rape, or penetration of a slave by a free born man was considered the same as a beating, that is, a form of punishment. Tolerance of homosexual behaviour decreased in the late Roman Empire. The Roman playwrite Martial derides homosexual acts mercilessly and, just as the Greeks did, categorises men into two classes, the penetrator and the penetrated. According to the Romans, the penetration of a man was a most disgraceful abomination. Martial mercilessly mocked homosexual acts as being anti the normal.
I see your argument. However, I still stand by the idea that rejection of homosexuality did not help make the creation of western civilization possible, because the creation of what we consider western civilization occurred in Greece, and the research I have viewed suggests Greece did not reject homosexual relationships. I have no doubt that Jewish civilization did reject homosexuality, but that is not considered western civilization.
The creation of what we consider western civilisation did not occur in ancient Greece. What we know and understand to be the western Judeo-Christian ethic can be traced all the way back to the late Roman empire and in particular the rise of the Byzantine empire as Rome declined. The Emperor Justinian is the single source of the codification of moral and civil law which the west inherited. The moral and civil law was nurtured and fostered by the Catholic Church as the eastern and western Roman Empires faded and Europe’s nation states sprang up. All throughout, homosexuality was tolerated at best and persecuted at most. The move past mere toleration to the demand for homosexual “rights” is a recent phenomena and is peculiar to modernity. It does not, in any way, shape, or form, represent anything that has gone before.
You won’t be able to show me any such reference in her arguments. So, yes, she makes persuasive secular arguments. These are arguments that anyone, including atheists and agnostics, will find meaningful.