Why are people gay?

[Guest ben+Jen]

they must be missing sumthing in the brain

[Kbzon59]

If you are giving opinions, don't present them as if they are fact.

 

Right back at ya. No one has given facts in this thread. It is quite impossible. The closest thingh to facts is the constant rant about Alexander's homosexual partners and the like. That is not enough base for any conclusion.

[Sayonara]

I fail to see how that does your position any good.

[atinymonkey]

Right back at ya. No one has given facts in this thread. It is quite impossible. The closest thingh to facts is the constant rant about Alexander's homosexual partners and the like. That is not enough base for any conclusion.

 

I wish you would think before you post, backing up your random opinion is foolish if you cannot substanciate what you think.

 

Ok, facts, some historical homosexuals. Just some of the A's here, plenty more kicking around:-

 

Abd Al-Rahman - Born 1880 Died 1901, The Afghani king

Abu Nuwas - Born AD 756 Died 810, An Arabian poet

Alexander I - Born 1777 Died 1825, The Russian czar

Alexander the Great - Born 356 Died 323 BC, Macedonian king

Alexander VI - Born 1431 Died 1503, A Pope

Al-Hakem II - Born AD 961 Died 976, Cordoban ruler

Al-Mutamid - Born 1069 Died 1090, The Ruler of Seville (Spain)

Amunullah Kahn - Born 1919 Died 1929, An Afghani king

Anacreon - Born 570 Died 490 BC, A Greek poet

Hans Christian Andersen - Born 1805 Died 1875, A Danish author

Anne Ioannovna - Born 1730 Died 1740, The Russian empress

Antigonus II Gonatas - Born 276 Died 239 BC, A Greek king

Antiochus I - Born 280 Died 261 BC, Another Greek king

Aristotle - Born 384 Died 322 BC, A Greek philosopher

Ashikaga Yoshimitsu - Born 1368 Died 1394, A Japanese shogun

W.H. Auden - Born 1907 Died 1973, A British poet

Saint Augustine - Born AD 354 Died 430, A Roman theologian

Augustus - Born 31 BC Died AD 14, A Roman emperor

 

Sourced from http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~wyatt/celebs-list.html

 

If you like, you can wander off and find any literature or resource that directly backs up what your saying.

 

Anything.

 

Seriously.

[Kbzon59]

Lemme guess: you are actually thinking that I said that homosexuality did not exist in the past, right? Well, then re-read.

Sayo, what I said is not supposed to help my sayings, it is just a statement: don't ask foer facts in a thread that is naturally fact-less. You have bnot contributed any facts and I have not contributed any facts. We have all expressed our opinions. Now, just because I don't take the time to disguise my opionios as facts, just like you do, does not mean I can't post or anything likhe taht.

As I said before, I never said tghat homosexuality did not exist thru time. I said that the social conception of hiomosexuality has been evolving from... well, I already said it, so read back.

[admiral_ju00]

Anne Ioannovna - Born 1730 Died 1740, The Russian empress.

 

Hmm, some of the above mentioned people started out way way early, eh?

[Sayonara]

You have bnot contributed any facts and I have not contributed any facts. We have all expressed our opinions. Now, just because I don't take the time to disguise my opionios as facts, just like you do, does not mean I can't post or anything likhe taht.

My only problem here is that you expressed those opinions AS IF they were fact.

[atinymonkey]

Lemme guess: you are actually thinking that I said that homosexuality did not exist in the past, right? Well, then re-read.

 

No, what you said was society had no concept of homosexual love. You based that on an opinion the society viewed homosexual relationships as a series of 'one night stands'. What I'm saying is you don't have the faculties to back up such an opinion, nor to do have anything to substantiate such an erroneous position.

 

Take one of the people from the list, W. H. Auden. Read his poem, "Funeral Blues" (1936):-

 

http://tomasz.ii.uni.wroc.pl/auden.phtml

 

And bask in the realisation that the concept of a man loving a man is indented throughout society, past and present.

[Kbzon59]

You actually think taht society has always viewed gay relationships in the same manner they are seen now? Please!. They used to be scandalous, stuff that could end someone life (at least socialy and professionally). Currently the answer of most people is "so what?"

Extending myself in the Alexander and the like leaders homosexuialuity, their homosexual relationshiops were always deemed secondary, maybe not by tehm, but by everybody else. I know what you will say, that their heterosexual marriages were only to bring peace, to bear children or to form alliances.

Besides, was Alexander really homosexual? Or was he bisexual? Given some book I have read on him, it's the latter. Does bisexuality applu to this thread?

[Sayonara]

You actually think taht society has always viewed gay relationships in the same manner they are seen now? Please!. They used to be scandalous, stuff that could end someone life (at least socialy and professionally). Currently the answer of most people is "so what?"

It was only really "scandalous" in the Victorian era, when it was seen as a convenient way to discredit academic rivals.

 

 

Extending myself in the Alexander and the like leaders homosexuialuity, their homosexual relationshiops were always deemed secondary, maybe not by tehm, but by everybody else. I know what you will say, that their heterosexual marriages were only to bring peace, to bear children or to form alliances.

I'd like to know where you're getting that from, or is it "just your opinion" again?

 

 

Besides, was Alexander really homosexual? Or was he bisexual? Given some book I have read on him, it's the latter. Does bisexuality applu to this thread?

I seem to recall he was bisexual, yes.

 

I don't see why the discussion should not include bisexuality.

[atinymonkey]

You actually think taht society has always viewed gay relationships in the same manner they are seen now? Please!

 

No. I don't. I've provided evidence of societies views on homosexuals though the years. Homophobia has only been prevalent in the west for a 170 year period, after society was convinced that homosexuality was wrong. This was not always the view of society. Your also completely ignoring the myriad of societys that exist and have existed.

 

They used to be scandalous, stuff that could end someone life (at least socialy and professionally). Currently the answer of most people is "so what?"

 

In the Roman Empire, it was expected that you had both male and female lovers, the same as in Greece, the same as in Japan. Your making the mistake of thinking your own perception of homosexuality is new, it is not. Society is not being original, it's simply returning to it's previous system of values.

 

Extending myself in the Alexander and the like leaders homosexuialuity' date=' their homosexual relationshiops were always deemed secondary, maybe not by tehm, but by everybody else. I know what you will say, that their heterosexual marriages were only to bring peace, to bear children or to form alliances.

Besides, was Alexander really homosexual? Or was he bisexual? Given some book I have read on him, it's the latter. Does bisexuality applu to this thread? [/quote']

 

The point of the examples, which was obviously lost, was to show that homosexuality was more than just accepted in past society. Sexual preference had no stigma of any kind attached to it in almost all of the major civilizations in the past.

 

If you continue to spew out whatever random opinions you've somehow formed, show some evidence. If it's an opinion you have, based on absolutely no information, just say so.

[Kbzon59]

Homosexuality has been scandalous thru many times in history. For example, in the time of LongShanks (king of england), his son was almost killed (several times) becuase people "caught" him. Only his royal status keopt him alive enough time to ascend to the throne. That is just one exmple. Oscar wilde is another, remember his trials and such. Reianldo Arenas, Nazis and the pink triangles, Stonewall, etc.

I read Alexanders bio, and made some reserarch of my own(in the web).

I asked if the discussion incvluded bisexaulity because of thee naem of the thread.

In the roman empire, homosexual lovers were commonly slaves, who were always in the "receiving end" of the relationship. Homosexuality was used by patricios as a way to denigrate "lesser" people. In japan, homsexuality was realted to Bushido, I think. (I read such in hagakure's book about Bushido). And you were not expected to have male and female lovers. You could have them.

[Aardvark]

Homosexual lovers in Rome were not always slaves. It is believed that Julius Caesar and Augustus were at one point lovers. Both at the very top of the social scale with no deingration involved.

[Kbzon59]

I think that you have metioned something interesting: julius Ceasar and AAugustus are believed to have been lovers. So that means that there is no (trustworthy) record of that. Being that there are records of their female lovers and wifes, we must suppose that their relationship was surrounded by secrecy. Why?

 

On anopther matter, I have a question: Are phobias considered diseases or something like that? Because if they are, then homophobia "cure" should be sought. I just ask this becuase if it can be cured, then it is not a disease, and not a true phobia. What I mean is that there are perhaps some better terms for homophobia. Besides, doesn't homphobia mean (etimologically) fear of men?

Isn't homosexualphobia a more proper term?

When was thios word first used?

I know that this questions have little to do with the topic, but I thougt taht this would be a place where I could get an answer.

I am genuinally asking, please dont think that I am being sarcastic.

[Sayonara]

I think that you have metioned something interesting: julius Ceasar and AAugustus are believed to have been lovers. So that means that there is no (trustworthy) record of that. Being that there are records of their female lovers and wifes, we must suppose that their relationship was surrounded by secrecy. Why?

It's not a very good secret if everyone knows about it.

 

Your supposition that people creeped around behind their wives' backs is just that: supposition. The openness of gaydom in Roman society is well-recorded; you're just imprinting your own reasoning on a different culture.

 

 

On anopther matter, I have a question: Are phobias considered diseases or something like that? Because if they are, then homophobia "cure" should be sought. I just ask this becuase if it can be cured, then it is not a disease, and not a true phobia. What I mean is that there are perhaps some better terms for homophobia. Besides, doesn't homphobia mean (etimologically) fear of men?

Isn't homosexualphobia a more proper term?

When was thios word first used?

I know that this questions have little to do with the topic, but I thougt taht this would be a place where I could get an answer.

I am genuinally asking, please dont think that I am being sarcastic.

Yeah, the term homophobia is technically misused in every day speech.

[Aardvark]

The 'homo' in homophobia does not mean man, it means 'the same as', as in homogenous. As such homophobia is fear of the same, not fear of men.

 

I say Julius Caesar and Augustus are believed to have been lovers, because of the well documented facts of high level Roman gay relationships are openly established, and they behaved in a well recorded manner towards each other in accordance with that type of relationship. No eyewitness accounts of what they actually did behind closed bedroom doors, but i think that's asking for too much.

[Kbzon59]

The openess fo gaydom is Roman culture is not enough to assume taht JCeasar and OAgustus werre lovers.

As a law stuident, I was compelled to do some research about Roman Law. This research included histroy of Roman leaders. The truth is that their relationship was so unestablished, taht some believe they were father an son, others believe they were cousins and many believe they were uncle and nephew.

Going back so mucjh in time brings thsi uncertainties.

[JaKiri]

They were 'lovers' in Neil Gaiman's Sandman, and that's good enough for me.

[Sayonara]

I'm fairly certain they weren't the only same-sex lovers of the ancient world.

 

People use famous historical figures and leaders as examples because their antics are generally recorded in more personal detail.

 

Taking an interpretation that disagrees as being evidence that over-rules any other possible social records is a bad idea. There are plenty of trusted sources who wrote about the society of their times in utterly unambiguous fashions.

[Kbzon59]

Of course taht there were a lot of gay couples back then and of course there was openess in ancient Rome and Greece. I am just saying that openess in such a big grade has been limited to certain lapsus of time. For every Rome and for every Greece, there is a Pink triangle situation and teh like. For every JCeasar and every OAgustus tehre is Geprge Micahel (let's face it: his career was never the same after the bathroom incident) and an Oscar Wilde.

My point has never been that in the past, homosexuals were hated more than today. My point is taht the level of acceptance towars homosexual behavior has changed dramatically thru time. Both up and down.

By teh way, I am not american (Proudly, I am mexican), so I have a question regarding political correctness: Is using the short word "homo" despective? A bad word? Like the "N" word? I am serious, I dont know. What about "queer"?

[Kbzon59]

On the Ceasar and Augustus matter, you seem to start form the point taht they were homosexual. Few studies have arrived to that conclusion.

Should we go with this few studies or with the mayority? While the Ceasar and Octavius Augustus relationship is unimprtant to this thread, I wanna set this thing clear: Very little points towards a homosexuial relationshiop betwwen them.

This opens a question: is it politically correct to immediatly assume that someone is straight? Or gay? Statiscally, heterosexuality has the edge. But... I don't know what you think. For example, Is it OK to meet a man and say: Hey I wanna set u up with a friend of mine named Joe.

[Kbzon59]

Since tolerance has a lot to do with a thread like this, I will ask a theme related directly with tolerance:

Is it ok to hate the haters? Is it OK to be untolerant towards the untolerant?

Feel free to move this question to somewhere else.

[admiral_ju00]

so I have a question regarding political correctness: Is using the short word "homo" despective? A bad word? Like the "N" word? I am serious, I dont know.

 

The answer to that question is the kind of context you're placing it in.

Homo is when taking the scientific perspective is very well accepted and is respectable. Eg: Homo Sapient, Homo Ergaster, Homo Erectus, etc

 

If you say "You're a Homo" to a guy, then it will mean something else, but still not out of context as Homo means 'same'

[admiral_ju00]

Is it ok to hate the haters?

 

Regardless of how you try to justify that one, it is still Hate.

 

Is it OK to be untolerant towards the untolerant?

 

This is more acceptable, but it would depend on your performance.

[Kbzon59]

But does "homo" offend people (gay people).

Culd I say "Look at those homos" instead of "Look at that gay couple" (not that I am gonna stare at them)

Writing "homosexual people" is quite long, so if it is politically corect I would prefer to write "homos"

Dont dodge the question, of course I know that "homo" in sicence is perfectly normal.