In my post the wording *where certain same-sex sexual activities are tolerated * was deliberate. I realize that living as what we’d call a gay couple would be looked down upon (though it certainly happened- Sulla went into retirement with his male lover and Hadrian of course was famous for Antoninus), but what a man did with male slaves was generally accepted (Augustus’s fondness for eunuchs, for example, was fairly well known in his lifetime).
Right. There is an interesting Roman silver cup which appears to show two males of equal status gettin’ it on, but it is notable for being the only one and its high quality also means it was almost certainly commissioned privately.
And of course, what the emperor did, no one really had the freedom to challenge. (there is an interesting line from the biographer Suetonius, reporting that the emperor Claudius was thought odd for preferring only women and Nero was thought odd for preferring only men - this is only about perception of course).
Huh. I think we might have it backwards. I think people invent and adopt religion to validate their existing prejudices. I think homophobia (particularly male homophobia towards male homosexuals) is a logical, understandable phenomenon.* In coming up with, say, the Law of Moses, it would be only too easy to say that God forbade the activities that the prevailing culture already found distasteful, just to give added weight to their antipathy.
- logical and understandable != good, right or fair