That would be a sin…
In an effort to say something useful in this thread other than merely giving it a bump, let me note that Mr Visible and his partner, who plan marriage this summer, are seriously contemplating adopting a child.
Let me also note that the folks who are opposed to gay marriage and gay civil rights are also engaged in a campaign against gay adoption, because in their opinion the exposure of children to “the evil gay lifestyle” is something that society should not permit. I refer you to Steve and Roger Lofton and their boy Bert at http://www.lethimstay.com/ Here’s the AFA “article” in opposition.
I’d be interested in finding out about lesbianism, or if ancient Hebrew cultures even had a conception of it. The picture I get from most texts is one of simply not even recognizing women as having sexual lives in their own right, or even considerations of sexual purity in their own right, much less acknowledging that two women could actually do anything together. If it’s not addressed at all, does that leave it okay or not okay?
Can you clarify? What do you mean by inconsistent basis (i.e.: “it’s okay if you do it inconsistently,” or “the basis on which it’s supposedly okay to do it is often inconsistent.”
And… Shakespeare is gay now? And Plato?
Well, it’s anachronistic to speak of pre-20th people being gay, since the idea of sexual orientation didn’t exist. Shakespeare may have had homosexual inclinations, judging by the sonnets, but the jury’s still out.
Plato was definitely a rainbow flag boy.
I’ve heard people say that, but do you really think that’s true? I mean, I’d imagine, throughout history, people have had pretty clear sexual desires…that there were people who only liked to have sex with members of the opposite sex, and a smaller number who preferred sex with members of the same sex.
What has changed is the way that people demonstrate affection and friendship to each other. You know, there are some letters and private correspondence that seem erotic today that weren’t at the time. For example, look at the Alexander Hamilton-John Laurens letters. They are extremely affectionate. However, there’s no evidence that the two men ever had anything approaching a sexual relationship with each other, or any other men (and, in fact, Hamilton had a pretty notorious affair with a woman that led to blackmail and scandal). Yet, on the strength of those letters alone, some people include both Hamilton and Laurens in lists of gay men.
Also, in some places outside Western 20th century society, you had two factors,. The first is that most people tended to marry, and marriages weren’t for love. So somebody who might only have been attracted to members of the same sex, would still marry and have children, if only because it was expected of them.
The second was that other societies weren’t always tolerant of homosexuality. It was seen as deviant or sinful. So, the idea of being “openly gay” or proud of your homosexuality would be outside of those people’s experiences.
So I think it’s really difficult to say “[Historical figure] was/was not gay”, not because homosexuality didn’t exist, or the idea of exclusive same sex attraction didn’t exist, but because it would be hidden, shaped by culture, and the historical record just wouldn’t show it, in a lot of cases.
Cap, I think that gobear’s point was not that people didn’t have sexual desires, which for some were SSA in whole or in part, but rather that the identification of oneself as “gay” or “bi” or whatever wasn’t at issue. Leonardo, for example, was well aware that the Church taught that desire for boys or for other men was wrong – but clearly did in fact find them attractive nonetheless. But Leonardo did not, from any evidence at hand, identify himself as a member of a gay subculture within the Italian Renaissance culture. Which the rest of your post pretty well bears out.
Hell, Oscar Wilde married, as was expected of him in that time and place. Probably the first person to be “gay” in the modern sense of self-identification would be Quentin Crisp, followed by the Mattachine group.
What Polycarp said. Basically, the idea that sexual orientation formed an identity is a 20th century idea. Sex was something one did, not what one was. Leonardo da Vinci, to use Poly’s example, was exclusively homosexual in his desires, but he did not see himself as a gay man; he saw himself as a man who had sex with men. Slang words for gay sex referred exlusively to the act itself, not to an identity.
Polycarp, are you a homosexual? In another thread you stated that
I was wondering this because I think it would greatly alter the force at which you argue this subject. Thanks
I’m happily married to the same woman for 28 years now, and love her dearly. As for the “falling in love with a boy” comment, I’ve told the story a couple of times; I’ll link to it below. It was not a sexual liaison – but it was of the same sort of emotional impact as any case of falling in love. And it transformed my life in many ways. Link.
Yes, I completely see how whether or not I were gay would influence the point – but it’s much like the white man in the 1960s who believes that “Keeping the black man in his place” is wrong – though it may not be impacting me personally, it’s my Christian duty to fight it. In addition, I believe that I’ve been specifically called to this task.
er…are you a bi-sexual then because you didnt say yes or no.
bi-sexual as in meaning liking men and women. Im a little unclear as to the meaning of it.
Hmm. Seems to me now you have your God in a box, you want to move one and put your fellow man into boxes.
No, bisexual is not an unclear term. But perhaps you don’t know its meaning?
Sorry, that came out poorly.
Bisexual means precisely what you said–having sexual attraction to both men and women.
What is there to be unclear about?
I thoght it might have meant as a reference to people who cross dress. sorry
Hmm. “Bisexual” usually means either (a) “feeling sexually attracted to both men and women,” or (b) “feeling equally attracted…” – an unequal attraction being described as “straight with slight gay tendencies” or “gay with slight interest in straight sex” or terms of the same stuff.
I’ve always thought that girls, and later women, were pretty interesting creatures, and added libido to that mix when I reached my teens. I’ve seen a few young men whose appearance piqued my interest – I’ll point to Hamish on this board as somebody I think is definitely attractive, and mentioned the son of friends at church as somebody with facial features and a body that I could see very easily why someone might be attracted to.
But for me, there are a number of elements coming into play. I don’t claim these are true for all people, but they work in my case. First, I had a very sheltered childhood, and a low self-image through most of my life, up until age 42. (Coming out of that was a big part of the impact that that linked relationship had – and a large part of it was his doing.) I was also, by about 18 months, the youngest kid in my classes at school.
The products of this were severalfold. First, I did not have a sexual interest in anybody at age 11, like what I gather is a majority view (but with exceptions, I’m intrigued to note). However, the boys in my class at this time were 13 and definitely developing such an interest – and I therefore went through a period of being considered gay by my peers and ostracized, because I was not (yet) interested in girls. You would have to be particularly dense not to see how that fits into my present motivations. Second, when I did develop an interest, I was this geeky little 13-year-old in a group of 15-year-olds – and the girls were, by and large, not at all interested in me. Which in turn reinforced the “outcast” role.
My first sexual experience, as it happens, was gay, and not a negative one. I had gone to the boys’ lavatory for the usual purpose in doing so, and encountered an older boy, a couple of classes ahead, in there, relieving his sexual drive before the urinals, so to speak. Being 13 and naive, I was amazed at the size of his private parts, and developed an erection myself (remember being 13? – the word “girl” or “nude” will bring on an erection all by itself!). He noticed, reached over and began masturbating me, and had me masturbate him to orgasm. This was not so much a gay contact, however, as something that impacted me for quite another reason: that guy was the first person, of either sex, ever to find me desireable, to feel that I was sexually attractive. (And the last for quite some time, unfortunately.)
That fact stuck. And I’ve always had a strong tendency – according to my wife, too strong – to see the other guy’s side in any problem, to be more than willing to look at things from the opposing perspective. So I’ve never had a problem with understanding a gay man saying that he feels much as he imagines I do about my wife, but for the man who’s his life partner. That what he wants out of life is much what I do.
Beyond all this, one of the most important things I got from this less-than-fun adolescence was an early grasp on the idea that it’s the person within, not the body she is wearing, that matters. And, further, the idea that a rock-solid commitment to one’s spouse is very important – I’ve considered myself inordinately lucky to have the wife I have, and to enjoy her loving commitment to me. I would not harm that relationship for anything, much less a casual fling.
So to answer your question, I self-identify as straight, but with a tinge of “I can find a guy attractive” mixed in. And I have little interest in acting on any desires for a woman not my wife – and also a very acute perception that whoever might look attractive to me, I’m fairly certain that that person won’t find me similarly attractive.
ah. That was a thourough answer. I clearly see your standpoint now. Im sorry for your expierences.
Yeah, but how is that different from now? I mean, I identify myself as “gay”, yeah, but when I do, all I mean is that I want to have sex with men and not women. I don’t see myself as substantially different than straight men, except that I find guys attractive and they don’t. Isn’t this typical, or am I missing something?
Well I don’t know if this is ancient enough for you, but it is referenced in the Talmud, which goes back about 1,800 years.
The former.
Why? What difference would his sexual orientation make in his argument? 
And people who cross dress are (variably) crossdressers, transvestites or drag queens, not bisexuals.
Esprix