Not a factual answer nor an endorsement for the veracity of the OP question, but I would say that for much of history the rules of society were dictated by the local strongman and had the potential to change wildly when one replaced another.
In more codified realms, like the Roman Republic, you had some amount of legal inertia. But that still wasn’t a complete protection and most of the surface of the Earth was still largely under the control and whim of local warlords.
That said, warlords are good at stopping things, but less good at encouraging them. If they don’t like that you smoke, they can simply have every smoker beheaded. If they want everyone to switch over to practicing something like Bacha Bazi, maybe they can coerce others into practicing it through significantly large enough threats, but it’s probably not something that would take on a life of it’s own as a standard part of the local culture unless the leader is fairly charismatic and has a decent (sounding) rationale for the practice (or enables someone else with those characteristics). And, note, that can be expected to go beyond questions of sexuality and into all sorts of other things - religious practice, table manners, popular dance, etc.
But, if there is merit to the question, I would expect factors like those to be the key ones at play.
Yes. Also of people who are infertile for other reasons doing so. Not so much of asking to be rendered infertile on purpose, but this is one of those things where one, it depends on the case, and two, even the stupidest of priests knows he’d be at risk of losing every female catechist, cleaner, lector and chorus singer if he ranted about it.
sorry to off-topic post but this may have been better suited for moving to debate section. My question initially was trying to get at a solid answer about any correlation between historical normality of homosexuality between cultures (under the premise homosexually has historically been non-normal, or not-accepted), I was actually debating whether I should post it here or there because I knew this topic/question would raise many other topics and opinions.
(I mainly make threads to be informed not to debate or argue, although most of them end up in the debate section)
There’s an interesting book (Everybody Lies by Daviowitz https://www.amazon.com/Everybody-Lies-Internet-About-Really/dp/0062390856/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=everybody+lies&qid=1552320958&s=books&sr=1-1 ). He had the opportunity to analyze Google search data. The general conclusion based on porn searches was that pretty close to 5% of American males were gay. This hardly varied depending on whether the state analyzed was socially open or very close-minded - California or Iowa… (It was harder to determine for women, because apparently even straight women search for lesbian porn.) So the logical conclusion is that it has little to do with outside influences and everything to do with how someone developed from conception.
Also keep in mind that yes, people with unlimited power and wealth tended to have more licentious behaviour, but it has also been noted that many of the excesses attributed to the Roman Emperors tended to be as often slanderous exaggerations by their critics as likely as business as usual.
This is not true. Japan had a long history of pederasty between the samurai and their proteges. When the power of the samurai was broken after the Meiji Restoration, the new code of bushido stigmatized homosexuality as making men effeminate and against the interests of the national power that they were trying to build.
In India there are texts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC that show homosexuality being punished with fines and ritual cleansing by bathing with the clothes on and drinking cow urine. Failure to be purified was punished by loss of caste.
If you are trying to make a point, you should be clear what it is. Since pederasty by definition includes sex between males, it comes under this discussion.
And homosexuality of course continued under the Abrahamic faiths. Though never in favor with the church(s), it seems to have been quietly accepted at least in certain elite circles where wealth and position could buy immunity from consequences. With the medieval Norman juvenes delayed marriage was normal and similar age cohorts of young gentry and nobility tended to move through society together in bachelor packs. As a partial consequence both bisexuality/homosexuality (situational or not ) and lots of bastard children seems to have been common.
The Roman army had the death penalty for a great many things. It was about discipline and not faffing about on duty rather than an abhorrence of homosexuality per se.
Yes, because thems be fightin’ words in any macho society. The problem isn’t with the sex per se, it’s about insulting another man’s virility/manliness. If a drunk bro calls you a queer in a bar, does it mean they condemn your actual sexual mores ? Of course not. They just want to fight.
From what I’ve read and understand the Vikings were happily pansexual. There was a strong social encouragement to hetero marry at some point (and of course a big no-no on boiking someone else’s wife) and men/women who chose to remain celibate were mocked because everybody having children was important for the clan/tribe/village. As well they seem to have had the same attitudes as the Romans re:homosexuality in men, that is to say tops were cool and virile and strong but bottoms were weak and feminized and so forth… but no one’s going to call Snorri names who seemed to really enjoy raping Christian priests during the last raid ; and it also seems that when men became older and already had children of their own it was more acceptable to be a recipient of anal sex.
But much like modern Russian anti-gay propaganda you can thank the Orthodox church for that. Even if the USSR was ostensibly atheist.
Kobal2, you can argue as much as you like, but the fact is there are plenty of examples of cultures not influenced by Christianity or Islam where homosexuality was frowned on or outlawed. Your assertion that it’s due to “100% christianity & Islam” is simply wrong.
It was absolutely correct in the context I was responding to, namely “why did homosexuality become a taboo when it seemed to have been OK in Ancient Greece & Rome”. Within the context of Europe (and northern Africa), it’s absolutely the influence of Christianity & Islam’s stigmatizing all forms of non-procreative sexuality.
I stand to be corrected, but I don’t think any society prior to U.S./Western European society in the modern age ever “normalized” homosexuality, at least as I understand what normal means.
Yes, as you note, some societies did accept what by modern definitions where very unequal homosexual relationships, but is there any society which ever accepted homosexuality as normal in the sense that you could marry or have a life partner with a member of the same gender and have that accepted as no different than heterosexual relationship? I do not believe that ever happened.
Yes. Note how that sentence doesn’t read “And every single culture that ever stigmatized homosexuality in the history of the world is because of those damned dirty christians” ?
We only know the post-conversion laws related to ergi, so no, we can’t say it didn’t come from Christianity. And accusations of being argr were related to being a bottom, not a top, so isn’t just a condemnation of being homosexual.
I don’t think you can equate normalization and marriage. Marriage served purposes that had little to do with personal preferences, love, or to some extent even sexuality. It’s only in our modern society that we came to expect to marry someone mostly because of reciprocal attraction. Not allowing reproduction, an homosexual marriage wouldn’t have served its purposes, and there’s no particular reason in my mind while a society accepting homosexuality would have envisioned it. You perfectly can find sex and companionship outside of marriage. But you won’t have children, and as a result cement an alliance or pass on property with a same-sex marriage, which would as a result have been pointless.