Commited Same-Sex Relationships in Plato (ritual, reject, tradition, homosexuality)

[angellous_evangellous]

Commited same-sex relationships:

Plato, Sym. 192a

Some say they are shameless creatures, but falsely: for their behavior is due not to shamelessness but to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome their like. Sure evidence of this is the fact that on reaching maturity these alone prove in a public career to be men. So when they come to man's estate they are boy-lovers, and have no natural interest in wiving and getting children, but only do these things under stress of custom; they are quite contented to live together unwedded all their days. A man of this sort is at any rate born to be a lover of boys or thewilling mate of a man, eagerly greeting his own kind.

====

This is not pederasty or prostitution, but a lifelong commited relationship. I had not previously known that lifelong relationships were considered natural and associated with heroism and manliness in ancient Greece.

[angellous_evangellous]

It is often said that biblical writers could not express committed relationships, or that homosexuality was widely considered unnatural.

Yet we have here an excellent example of a view that homosexuality was natural, willing, and celebrated as a family type.

[NoahideHiker]

If you want to see a different view of homosexuality in a religion rent a movie called Trembling Before G-d (www.tremblingbeforeg-d.com). It is a documentary about orthodox Jews struggling and coming to grips with same sex attraction. Normally most religions would be outside theaters picketing but the Jews would all get organized, actually go and watch the movie and then have a big meeting where they'd all talk about the subject.

I'm a pretty orthodox guy myself but I have yet to have one person give me an acceptable answer as to exactly HOW same sex marriages endangers traditional marriage. I think it's a matter of free will.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I had not previously known that lifelong relationships were considered natural and associated with heroism and manliness in ancient Greece.

Well, then, check out homosexuality in ancient Sparta! It was observed by the Spartans that a warrior would be reluctant to flee the battlefield if that meant leaving his lover behind, so the society decided to strongly encourage homosexual relationships between warriors. (Of course, Spartan warriors were known through out the ancient world as sissys whose wrists were too limp to properly chuck a lethal javelin, much to the amusement of their battlefield foes.)

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Commited same-sex relationships:

Plato, Sym. 192a

Some say they are shameless creatures, but falsely: for their behavior is due not to shamelessness but to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome their like. Sure evidence of this is the fact that on reaching maturity these alone prove in a public career to be men. So when they come to man's estate they are boy-lovers, and have no natural interest in wiving and getting children, but only do these things under stress of custom; they are quite contented to live together unwedded all their days. A man of this sort is at any rate born to be a lover of boys or thewilling mate of a man, eagerly greeting his own kind.

====

This is not pederasty or prostitution, but a lifelong commited relationship. I had not previously known that lifelong relationships were considered natural and associated with heroism and manliness in ancient Greece.

The problem with Plato's argument for homosexuality is that it is based on the idea that women are inferior creatures, and thus the highest love would be between two men. As a woman, I am unwilling to accept this line of reasoning. Also inherent in this is the idea that women are more physical whereas men are more spiritual, so that of course "getting child" is not as noble a desire as engaging in philosophical intercourse. I dislike any line of thinking that subordinates the physical to the spiritual. They are both equally important imo. If one doesn't want kids, that's fine. I don't have much of desire for them myself. But it is not "higher" or "better" to reject such things.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by lilithu

The problem with Plato's argument for homosexuality is that it is based on the idea that women are inferior creatures, and thus the highest love would be between two men. As a woman, I am unwilling to accept this line of reasoning. Also inherent in this is the idea that women are more physical whereas men are more spiritual, so that of course "getting child" is not as noble a desire as engaging in philosophical intercourse. I dislike any line of thinking that subordinates the physical to the spiritual. They are both equally important imo. If one doesn't want kids, that's fine. I don't have much of desire for them myself. But it is not "higher" or "better" to reject such things.

Plato argued against homosexuality, but he did believe that woman was a mutilated man...

The citation above is a speech made by Aristophanes that begins in 189b and ends in 193d. I'm still analysing it, but I haven't seen it before, and I think that it is significant.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Well, then, check out homosexuality in ancient Sparta! It was observed by the Spartans that a warrior would be reluctant to flee the battlefield if that meant leaving his lover behind, so the society decided to strongly encourage homosexual relationships between warriors. (Of course, Spartan warriors were known through out the ancient world as sissys whose wrists were too limp to properly chuck a lethal javelin, much to the amusement of their battlefield foes.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...ancient_Greece

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Commited same-sex relationships:

Plato, Sym. 192a

Some say they are shameless creatures, but falsely: for their behavior is due not to shamelessness but to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome their like. Sure evidence of this is the fact that on reaching maturity these alone prove in a public career to be men. So when they come to man's estate they are boy-lovers, and have no natural interest in wiving and getting children, but only do these things under stress of custom; they are quite contented to live together unwedded all their days. A man of this sort is at any rate born to be a lover of boys or thewilling mate of a man, eagerly greeting his own kind.

====

This is not pederasty or prostitution, but a lifelong commited relationship. I had not previously known that lifelong relationships were considered natural and associated with heroism and manliness in ancient Greece.

The part of the Symposium that you have quoted appears about half way through. The love described is considered above the lowest love (Lust), but it is not representative of the highest form of love which will be described later.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by nutshell

The part of the Symposium that you have quoted appears about half way through. The love described is considered above the lowest love (Lust), but it is not representative of the highest form of love which will be described later.

It is completely indefensible to associate the lowest form of love to that speech. Aristophanes clearly says that there is no shame in what they are doing... lust and the lack of self-control are not associated with this homosexuality at all.

If you have citations to prove your point, I would like to see them. I am still reading and analyzing, but I definately think that your assertion is baseless.

EDIT: The response above is obviously based on a misreading of Nutshell's post. I will let it remain and stand corrected.