Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » What Does a Homophilics Curriculum Look Like? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: What Does a Homophilics Curriculum Look Like?
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
how does Roman patriarchy (something strongly noted) fit into your worldview which contends that homosexuals were and are the life blood of society?
It's worth noting that Richard has previously stated his opinion that women are one of the most negative influences on civilization. He's about as pro-patriarchal a guy as I've ever seen.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It produce little of scientific or cultural value despite its prominence on the world stage and its dominance of several important cultural centers.
Roman Roads. Arches. Aqueducts. Fortified camps (I'm going to stop here - my head is bubbling with so many examples). Romans were GREAT engineers, and their knowledge in this area greatly exceeded that of other civilizations of the time, and for at least a thousand years after their fall.

[ June 21, 2006, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought as much, but I didn't want to make an unwarranted assumption.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jav,

quote:
The unique feature of Rome was not its arts or its science or its philosophical culture, not its attachment to law. The unique feature of Rome was that it had the world’s first professional army. Normal societies consisted of farmers, hunters, craftsmen and traders. When they needed to fight they relied not on training or on standardised weapons, but on psyching themselves up to acts of individual heroism.

...

The Romans had chariots, but the Britons made significant design improvements and, as Julius Caesar noted, had thoroughly mastered the art of using them. So how come the Romans built roads and the Celts did not? The answer is simple. The Celts did build roads. The “Romans-were-greatest” version of history made the earlier roads invisible until recently. One of the best preserved iron age roads is at Corlea in Ireland, but it was not until the 1980s that people realised how old it is. It was known locally as “the Danes’ road” and generally assumed to be of the Viking period or later. It was not until the timbers were submitted for tree-ring dating that the truth emerged: they were cut in 148BC.

However, the really startling thing is that wooden roads built the same way and at the same time have been found across Europe, as far away as northern Germany. The Celts, it seems, were sophisticated road builders and the construction of these wooden roads was no mean feat of engineering.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2168328,00.html
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Drewmie:

I am only noting the role of Jews and Christians in a homophobic context because, from Moses onward, from Ezra onward, from Philo onward, from Constantine onward, the Jews and Christians have maintained and promoted the Mosaic-Levite code which requires that homosexuals be executed. The Mosaic code is fairly blunt about it, and Paul (and, thus, the Pauline church) advocated the execution of homosexuals well before 0324 when it was inacted into imperial law. At Romans 1:32 (Romans was Paul's most influential epistle, and more written about it than any other), Paul sounds (and apparently is) very confused and hateful, but there is no question but what he is expounding upon the Levite code. They know well enough the just decree of God, that those who behave like this deserve to die, and yet they do it: not only so, they actually applaud such practices.

I'm not applauding the practices per supra; I'm applauding what they did when they weren't having sex.

Paul, like Philo in Alexandria, is calling the 'idea', 'idealism', and the Greek equation thereof as 'beauty' idolatrous. These are the words of an ugly and evil-thinking gnome believing the worst Judaic crap:

For the sin of Sodom is contrary to nature, as is also that with brute beasts ... All thse things are forbidden by the laws; for thus say the oracles: 'Though shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind ... For such a one is accursed, and ye shall stone them with stones: they have wrought abomination.'

What an abysmal summation by Jews in Alxandria of the genius that was Athens -- and the stupidity that was Jerusalem!

I am no defender of the Roman Empire (for the nth time), but I would ask in what way Rome was as superstitious as Jerusalem? We here confronted with exactly what Heine and Matthew Arnold confronted, Heine defending Jerusalem and Arnold trying to defend both. One cannot. There is no earthly comparison of Athens and Jerusalem.

When Drewmie asks if Jesus (skip all those other Christians) thought any of this, I would ask him if he thinks that Jesus was a Jew ...? One could not be a Jew, certainly not a Jewish rabbi, without some level of agreement. I have gone to some considerable lengths to quote Johanssons analysis of the word racca or racha -- which usage Jesus forbade in that famous speech he gave on a hill some place. If the word meant what homophilics scholars believe it to have meant (i.e., 'faggot', 'pansy', 'queer', 'molly', whatever), then Jesus too was a homophobe.

I myself? I would prefer to agree with Diderot, King James, Christopher Marlowe, Jeremy Bentham, and others that Jesus was, in fact, a bachelor, a homosexual, and that his lover was the Beloved Disciple -- except when he was arrested with a boy prostitute (the only 'disciple' who stood by him at the end). (On the other hand, I still have no conclusive data to suggest that he ever lived.)

Now, Christianity skipped the diet stuff, skipped the circumcision stuff, and modified other laws in the Mosaic Code, but it did not change any of the sex laws to my knowledge.

Rather, early Christians -- denouncing paganism and even Antinouism (which Celsus claimed was indistinguishable in practice from early Christianity except for the object of adoration, i.e., Antinous for Jesus), intentionally misconstrued the writings of Plato to support the Mosaic code. Take Clement, e.g.

This all happened in Alexandria -- a very gay, very brilliant, and very smart city to which Jews had come to argue their stupid superstitions with the lights of the world.

Listen to Tertullian: "God's ordinance ... punishes with death ... the portentous madness of lust against male persons." He then quotes Moses himself: "If a man lies with another man as one lies with a woman, both have committed an abomination: they shall be put to death: their blood shall be upon them."

And Potempkyn, I have used the issue of Gibbon because he was put forth here as a major influence on our Founding Fathers -- at a point when somebody brought up the old saw that homosexuals had caused the fall of the empire that they'd founded. It was not an anachronism; it was a lie; and no Founding Father didn't know that that old saw was a lie.

They had also likely read it in Diderot's article on the matter in his encyclopedia. Adams had, in any event. Even Abigail had.

Were I not defending the Roman Empire from the Jews and Christians who berate so tiresomely, I should not be defending it at all! They were too picky in what they borrowed from the Greeks, and never did completely homophilicize. They had a good (gay) army, they had good engineers, they had some excellent emperors and administrators, and they produced a few geniuses; but Athens with 150,000 at its peak still outshown Rome with 1,500,000 at its peak.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
'Though shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind ...
I would posit that one can't, by definition, "lie with mankind as with womankind".

Problem solved.

Tricksy, that God is...

Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, that should have read 'then Jesus was NOT a homophobe', but there is no other suggestion in his teachings that he did not believe in the Holiness Code of Leviticus. Jesus was a Jew. That is what Jews believe -- or are supposed to believe.

TD: The worst misogynists I know anything about in history were Jews, Christians, and Muslims (and some of them women!).

Javelin, I agree; but I had to answer one page at a time. When it came to organization, they were nearly 2000 years ahead of us.

Potemkyn: I almost wrote Propumpkin! The Celts built roads in the west, not where they came from. The Germans had few roads.

OTOH, I might add that the roads built by the Celts were not of the calibre of those built by the Romans. The Romans engineered their roads. They have never disappeared short of bulldozing. They were still good enough in Britain that the railway gauge was taken from them. Some of their aqueducts are still in use. Some of their port facilities are still in use. Cripes, some of their buildings are still in use. The greatest building of ancient times, the Pantheon (probably even designed by Hadrian) is still in use -- unfortunately, as a church.

Celtic, German, and slavic roads, most of them corduroy, survived, however, because they were submerged in water or peat or both. This is not to say they didn't have roads (and wagons) but to add also that they did not have the vast slave population necessary to build stone roads with culverts and stone bridges and tunnels. Even the Vikings built a few roads; look at Novgorod.

But let me say clearly and succinctly that I do not denigrate the Celts and Germans for not being (or even becoming) Romans. There society was as least equal to what the Christians turned the Rome into! However, some of the greatest Romans were in fact Celts and Germans, often slave boys trained in the Greek academies who rose in the government -- by way of what passed for Roman pederasty. I have disagreed with homophilicists on this because, of course, The Greek Way is the only way with them, but the humongous slave population which the empire dealt with (amazingly well, the occasional slave revolt excepted), was very different from the homophilic aristos which came to dominate Greek culture.

I've read a book that argues that King Arthur was a Roman soldier. I can hardly doubt it. There was not the clear divide between Celts and Germans and Romans that the Hadrianic Wall suggests. Besides, I think they were Picts on the other side -- and who the hell knows who they were [Big Grin] ?

Homosexuals never dominated Rome the way they dominated Greece.

I would only note that the Celts and the Germans were all homophilic. I tell that same story over and over about which one went into battle with one boy -- and which with two.

Europe was not homophobic! The Jews were. The Christians adopted it. Tacitus was wrong -- on that single point, so far as I know.

What I am generally implying is that homophilia was the natural state of the world until the invasion of Oriental Abrahamism. I was not kidding when I claimed that homophobia has a single identifiable source. Nobody can argue otherwise. What people are offended by is the fact that some people are offended by that homophobia -- and I find it unethical and 'morally' unacceptable.

I want Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to be democratized -- and then I want them to vote out the Levite code. If anything deserved to be burnt by the Nazis (and it wasn't), it was the Code of Leviticus. It's dirty, it's sexophobic as well as homophobic, it's nasty, it's superstitious, it's hateful, it's self-serving, it's loathesome, it's arrogant, it's snobbish, it's pretentious, and it's disgusting. I don't care where it came from, but I want it returned to sender so that humanity can get on with its task of being human.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just some additional thoughts on Rome, and I'm glad they were triggered [Smile] .

Of course there is a lot on Rome. It was BIG! It was the primary disseminator of the Greek "IDEA", "IDEAL", and the principle of "INDIVIDUALITY" (despite Rome's disdain for it!) -- which had an enormous impact on Europe even though 'the natives' were not able at once to adopt what Rome was so good at: engineering, organization, centralization, uniformilization of law -- and on some points still isn't any good [Frown] .

Perhaps I ought to mention that, for example, Trajan and Hadrian were Spanyards, and that it wasn't long before none of the emperors were actually Roman or Italian -- unlike the endless chain of Italian popes! Heterogenous Rome was not homogenous Greece; it handled this 'diversity' issue amazingly well. It had a superlative diplomatic corps for nearly 3 centuries, something the Christians totally abandoned in favor of sending out missionaries and bishops. And one thing that can be said of Rome, its press was so vast that it couldn't do much censoring. Outside the palace, where one could lose one's head, there was an enormous diversity of opinion allowed virtually full reign.

Greece was much more homogenous, despite its sundry autonomous states -- and intellectual matters were far-more intense and far-more restricted to the aristos than in Rome. The Greeks were very aware of the genius, their radicality, and their experimentation. The Romans, frankly, were into power for its own sake.

And to answer the odd retort to my suggestion that men work for women, one way or another, I can only refer them to Edward Bernays (the inventor of 'public relations'. In the next to the last chapter of his magnum opus is "Marketing to Men". That says it all.

Don't you think this an odd coicidence, btw: The Occident and the Orient become conscious at the same time. I'm increasingly a 'believer' in dissemination theory!

As to why I've chosen as straight-forward a chronological approach as I have, which I thought would be knocked about here, my reasoning is thus:

(1) I think history is what is going on in time, not necessarily place; but I want to keep my eye on the

(2) 'hot spot' -- which, it seems to me, separated at Uruk about 4800 years ago, drifting east and west (long before the Jews appear on the stage).

(3) That hotspot in the west may have passed through Jerusalem (though I've been arguing agains that theory), to Athens, to Rome, to Florence, to Paris, to London, to America -- and is now crossing the Pacific and landing in Ding Dong and other new Chinese cities.

Anyway, that, I think, is the 'main road' going west, and I won't have to divert my attention too much from that route.

The eastern drift has some big-time eddies back into Europe! but just how civilized was Genghis Khan [Big Grin] ? (Yup, he was gay -- quite gay.) and also many of his Moghul descendents.

I am not being all that politically correct about Africa and South America, but I just finished my chapter on Bruce Chatwin in Australia! and Gilbert Herdt in New Guinea. Sometimes 'civilization' isn't as civilized as we might like [Big Grin] .

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mr. Dey,

Forgive me if this seems a bit out of place, but what would the ideal society look like to you? Would you like a return to the Greek city-states of old? Or do you desire something else?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
N.B.:

Just how "patriarchal" is a society, like Rome, where a woman could divorce her husband without his consent? Of course there were exceptions, as when Messilina divorced the Emperor Claudius -- and he sent some soldiers around to chop off her ... "Not my beautiful head ...!" (WHACK!)

Read the texts of the times, TD! Rome was about as much of a "patriarchy" as we are. That's what wasn't "Greek" about it. That is one of the reasons why we are more like Rome than Greece, Roman in our thinking, not Greek (except for our homosexuals, of course).

Now Greece, that was a patriarchy, those were days! Yuh, but wierd, huh? Those were the good old gay days [Eek!] ! but that's why the Symposia (both Platon's and Xenophon's) are so fascinating. The Greeks were very much aware of what they were doing -- to women. They even knew why! and the every man who went to the theatre in Greece knew what they had done, what they were doing, and why!

They had overthrown the mothergoddess -- and with it motherhood. They had replaced the natural family, if there be such a thing or at least what a Jew of that time would have called a 'family' (since they didn't have the word 'natural' in their vocabulary), and had replaced it with pederasty. And of course they didn't have to go the theatre to find out; they weren't living the life that the middle-class and the slaves were living.

It was a very queer experiment ..., but that it produced in a century and a half or less 25% of the biggest-names in history is only coincidence, of course [Smile] .

Did you know that Platon's Symposium was banned in English until Shelley and his wife translated and had it published abroad? You could only get in English Public Schools because you could only get it in Greek -- and if you didn't get it, you got birched [Big Grin] ! Tom Brown's schooldays were gay, and the Church of England well knew it [Wink] .

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by potemkyn:
jav,

quote:
The unique feature of Rome was not its arts or its science or its philosophical culture, not its attachment to law. The unique feature of Rome was that it had the world’s first professional army. Normal societies consisted of farmers, hunters, craftsmen and traders. When they needed to fight they relied not on training or on standardised weapons, but on psyching themselves up to acts of individual heroism.

...

The Romans had chariots, but the Britons made significant design improvements and, as Julius Caesar noted, had thoroughly mastered the art of using them. So how come the Romans built roads and the Celts did not? The answer is simple. The Celts did build roads. The “Romans-were-greatest” version of history made the earlier roads invisible until recently. One of the best preserved iron age roads is at Corlea in Ireland, but it was not until the 1980s that people realised how old it is. It was known locally as “the Danes’ road” and generally assumed to be of the Viking period or later. It was not until the timbers were submitted for tree-ring dating that the truth emerged: they were cut in 148BC.

However, the really startling thing is that wooden roads built the same way and at the same time have been found across Europe, as far away as northern Germany. The Celts, it seems, were sophisticated road builders and the construction of these wooden roads was no mean feat of engineering.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2168328,00.html
Well, yes, the professional army thing was reasonably impressive.

But comparing roman roads (that we can still use two thousand years later, with very little repair) with wooden roads? Sure, impressive engineering - but not even in the same class. And roads, by the way, are hardly the only thing I mentioned - just the first, since most have heard of them.

If you'd like, we can start a new thread on this subject. A couple more engineering feats: the roman baths and the Colisseum (sp).

[ June 22, 2006, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tom Brown's schooldays were gay, and the Church of England well knew it
The wonderful thing about calling everything "gay" is that you've got a 3% chance or so of being right at any given time.

[ June 22, 2006, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The wonderful thing about calling everything "gay" is that you've got a 3% chance or so of being right at any given time."

An interesting premise. I wonder who would do such a thing?

As for English boarding schools, filled with males whose ages hovered around puberty, you can count on it. Homosexuality was the prevailing, and tacitly accepted, norm.

As for calling everything gay: is hyperbole gay? Inneuendo? Ad hominem approaches?

Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As for English boarding schools, filled with males whose ages hovered around puberty, you can count on it. Homosexuality was the prevailing, and tacitly accepted, norm.
My point, as I hope you understand, is that the presence of homosexuality is not necessarily a guarantee of motivational "gayness" in the way Richard has traditionally sought to apply it in broad strokes to every major social movement he considers positive.

[ June 22, 2006, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Very well, Tom. My experience s that there's usually a substantial and rational logic behind your pronouncements. But I simply MUST, dahling, point out ironies such as declaiming another's broad-stroke assertions by means of equally broad-stroke assertions, really ah dew...
Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*laugh* Fair enough. Although you realize that trying to apply a laser scalpel to Richard's rambling would be a full-time job in itself, I hope.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Motivational Gayness. What a wonderful turn of phrase, TD! You may be enshrined in gay history yet [Big Grin] !

But duh, of course the Oresteia has been an inspiration to the gay even as Leviticus has been an inspiration to the homophobic. I won't go so far as to suggest that the Symposium is a comforting work to 'gays' the way Paul and Romans are to the Abrahamists, but of course it was inspirational. Why else was it burnt and banned by the Christians?

Say you're gay, TD, and The Almightiness Above gives you a choice where to be born in the 4th C BC. What's open? downtown Athens, or downtown Jerusalem?

Yes, of course Athens will be the 'more stimulating' environment for your ... your 'way of life'. At least in Athens you would have a chance of surviving to maturity.

Or say you have the choice of being born in 3rd C AD Rome or 4th C AD Rome (between which a social cataclysm occurred for 'your kind'). Let's compare the 'gay culture' in each to determine how 'motivational' the society might be for you -- or, in another metaphor, how much wiggle room it would allow you:

In the 3rd C, you get Plutarch, Pausanius, and Aelian. You get Athenaeus's 7-volume Deipnosophists (that's his 'symposium') name-dropping 1200 classical authors, mentioning 1000 plays, everybody tipsy and discussing cuisine, government, law, medicine, poetry, philosophy, sex -- and even women (Bk 13 I think). That wouldn't shore up your pride despite what Christians are whispering behind your back? that wouldn't motivate you?

Now, say, you are born in 0324 -- the year 'your kind' started to be executed for being 'your kind', and miraculously a copy of Deipnosophists has survived the imperial censors, and you happen to read therein (if you were lucky enough to be allowed to learn to read after the gymnasia were sacked and burnt by Christian zealots) that the Cretans, the Chalcidians, the Medes, the Tuscans, and the Celts were 'gay friendly'. Would you

(a) sit there and wait to be found out, to be burnt with a copy of your filthy, disgusting, book of lies?

(b) buy a boat, and row for Marseilles PDQ?

Homosexuals fled Rome in the 4th century like the Jews fled Berlin in the 20th. Unshaven barbarian priests were preaching to the women, and the capital was about to slip into paroxysm of metaphysical paralysis where thinking was unnecessary, where love was reserved not for mankind but for god, and where education and athletics were considered seditious.

Let's stop the clock a minute as the Empire tottered on this cliff -- with the gay Classical Era on one side, and the homophobic abyss of the Dark Ages on the other. Am I going to applaud the idea of holding brilliant dinner parties in the dark? or am I going to cancel the dinner altogether?

What did 'motivational homophobia' do for the academies, the gymnasia, the libraries, and everything that educated Rome? The lit them by burning them down.

What did 'motivational homophobia' do for the army, and everything that defended Rome? They sent out bishops and missionaries instead of trained administrators and the Legions!

'Motivational homophobia' looked to the heavens for sustenance, and to the neonate Christian for protection. The Christians thought that they could apply palace politics (admittedly cut-throat) to the entire empire -- and tried to do just that.

'Your way of life', which was multiplex and negotiable, which was dominated by dinner parties discussing sex and love, bachelorhood and marriage, men and women, peace and war, vacation and politics, gay and straight, watering wine or not, was replaced by one absolute law: the Levite Code. The Senate was replaced by the College of Cardinals.

All I would say about your Rome -- on the edge of auto-emolatio -- is that 'motivational homophobia' was what spurred the Christian radicals, the right-wing fundamentalista, and the ultra-prudes set out to destroy everything Greek that educated Rome, everything logical that kept the beast on keel, and, yes indeedy, everything gay that had built it.

Judaeism and Christianity did not want occidental 'ideas'; they already had the oriental 'law'. For that, Heliogabalus must be held somewhat to blame but, then, he was born in Syria some place and was put on the throne by his mother (whom he found thereafter such an inconvenience that he murdered her). But palace politics was not the empire.

In Plutarch's Dialogue of Love, I disagree with Daphnaeus (who complained that, in pederasty, boys were obliged to play 'the feminine role'), and I do agree with Protogenes who looked upon heterosexuality as something done in a boudoir with frilly curtains, candy-striped wall paper, and something done in a woman's domain under women's rules. As Protogenes argues, 'heterophilic culture' is enervating and effeminating. The female lifeblood of the nation is different from the male lifeblood of the nation. Masculine energy and motivation is more likely to be found on the athletic field or in the philosopher's study.

When Lucian and Plutarch compared 'the love of boys' with 'the love of women', perhaps the gig was up anyway. But the Christian Dark Ages -- which reduced masculine energy to lawless brigandry, piratical trade, and the emotional and physical unhealthiness of the cleansed soul and unwashed body, was no cure for whatever 'motivationally gay' it was that left the Empire prey to barbarism. Indeed, as I would continue to argue, the barbarity was a plague that came from the Levant -- not the so-called Barbarians of the North.

To the level that I would agree with Freud (and most gay writers since Dante and certainly since Ficino) libido is filips all human drives after 'food' and 'shelter'. Our species has survived not by civilization but by its ability to find food and shelter in most every corner of the earth, and I cannot help but agree with the naturists that perhaps humanity itself has been an earthly plague. On the other hand, sex and civilization are a dance unto themselves for who ever controls sexual mores controls what happens after food and shelter are found.

And the fall of the Roman Empire is proof, if proof be needed, that civilization itself is endangered in the hands of prudes.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Broad strokes. Yes, of course, I have used broad strokes. If I said that the United States was founded by geniuses, which I think is a broad stroke of genius, there were, of course, a few exceptions [Wink] .

Is suspect that Drewmie's and TD's difficulty at grasping the 'consequence' of homophilia in the history delineated up to this point (i.e., The Fall of Rome) is the presumption, all too dominant in Abrahamism, that nonhomophilia is the norm, the baseline, and the point of departure for all discussions. My outline should dispel that notion -- at least back to the 3rd millennium BC.

Yes, I have scoured The Homophilic Epic of Gilgamesh and the War Against the Homophobic Reproduction Goddess Ishtar for any sign that the gay lovers found any hint of gay life out there in their quest -- and I have found nothing satisfying. In short, the lovers didn't stop off to refresh themselves at gay bars on their military campaign. However ...,

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Epic of Gilgamesh, arguably the oldest, is a straight-forward explication of male bonding attacking the supremacy of the momgod.

But I am no Sumerian scholar [Frown] , and I have only skimmed the other epics for homophilia.

Enuma Elish (12th C), the Sumerian creationist text, is too late -- though I suspect it is constructed from even earlier material than Gilgamesh.

Adapa and the food of Life I've never read.

Descent of the Goddess Ishtar into the Underworld I need to revisit. The rescensions are contradictory.

The Seven Evil Spirits. This I gather had a huge impact on Zoroastrianism and, if Johansson's suspicions are correct, then on Hebraic homophobia.

The Code of Hammurabi is much too late, but takes homosexuality as 'normal'.

The Babylonian Story of the Deluge. This is a take-off of a scene in Gilgamesh and came into Genesis (~0600?). I'll have to revisit 'the bad guys' in it.

Genesis, btw, can be read as a monotheistic reduction of the polytheistic Creation text even though virtually no other changes have been made. And I agree with most everybody at this point, that Judaic monotheism came from Athenism -- whether or not the Jews were actually in Egypt or not; but I insist that 'Mosaic law' is not from Moses but, rather, from Babylon. The Levite code is not 'informed' by Ikhenaten's religion beyond its monotheism; rather, the sex laws of Jaweh are borrowed directly from the laws of Ishtar (Asherot, Ath-terot, Ath-Anna, Athena, whatever you call her). Athena is Ishtar in her 1st trinity, that of nubile maiden. In Gilgamesh, incidentally, she grows through all 3 phases: she is a nubile innocent maiden approaching the gods, she 'creates' Enkidu, and then she kills him.

In the occident, of course, we have no documented homophilia until the Solonic rescension (0580?) of Homer's Iliad (~0750) about incidents (1250-1240) which had happened by then 6 centuries previous.

And I agree with the gay Samuel Butler (the Erewhon one) that the Odyssey was written by a woman except that I think it was a compilation of women's stories. Gah! compared to the Iliad, the Odyssey was such a bloody bore! [Wink] .

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Enki made his voice heard ...
Dismantle the house, build a boat!
Reject possessions, and save living things!


Story of Atrahasis ...; Akkadian rescension, [I]1640[I] BC

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Is suspect that Drewmie's and TD's difficulty at grasping the 'consequence' of homophilia in the history delineated up to this point (i.e., The Fall of Rome) is the presumption, all too dominant in Abrahamism, that nonhomophilia is the norm, the baseline, and the point of departure for all discussions.
Well, no.
Rather, it's the presumption that homophilia is little more important to history than someone's favorite fruit. You can argue if you want about whether the early Romans liked tamarinds more than bananas, or whether the "norm" is to actually prefer oranges, but there are only a few cases in history where one's food preferences have made much of an impact.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gilgamesh had a night job -- deflowering the virgins of Uruk. These are the stairs he had to climb: http://www.mingyuen.edu.hk/history/1baby/16sumeria/3uruk/uruk-ziggurat.jpg
Only a homo would get sick of such a job, stairs or no [Big Grin] !

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Boy, it ain't easy keeping up with the past! Last visited Gilgamesh in 1984 when Gardner's translation came out.

Gilgamesh Tomb Thought Found

i.e., 'Gay Bible Proven by Archaeology' [Big Grin] [Big Grin] !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2982891.stm

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom:
quote:
Rather, it's the presumption that homophilia is little more important to history than someone's favorite fruit.
Interesting choice of words...
Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, I'm confused. How does that article prove that Gilgamesh was gay? Considering that the article doesn't even say that it's definitely Gilgamesh's Tomb?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
These come recommended:

¶ Cooper, Jerrold S. [2002], "Buddies in Babylonia - Gilgamesh, Enkidu and Mesopotamian Homosexuality", in Abusch, Tz (ed.), Riches Hidden in Secret Places - Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, Eisenbrauns, 2002, pp.73-85.

[Smile] Hammond, D. & Jablow, A. [1987], "Gilgamesh and the Sundance Kid: the Myth of Male Friendship", in Brod, H. (ed.), The Making of Masculinities: The New Men's Studies, Boston, 1987, pp.241-258.

Then, if you want to know why Dey is an raging anti-effeminist and post-post-deconstructionist, check out the misinterpretations here:

http://www.glbtq.com/literature/gilgamesh.html

The assumption, for example, that Gilgamesh was raping the Palace of the Virgins is so fugging political correctionist as to be a complete and total fabrication. It was his job. He was irritated with his job, and taking it out on the people, most notably on the Ishtarists who dominated the city.

I ... I? have a tendency to rewrite history ??? Read this crap!

"Their decisive encounter occurs when Enkidu prevents Gilgamesh from entering a bridal house, intent on despoiling the bride." This is not the story at all! Gilgamesh was, in fact, on his way to work -- and Enkidu had been made and sent by Ishtar to overthrow him and bring Ishtar worship back into power in Uruk-hai. It was not a 'bridal house', it was the goddess's Temple of the Virgins where brides-to-be were taken and trained to be good wives by priestesses of Ishtar. Before they actually married, they were deflowered so that the nuptial bliss would not be interrupted by any pain.

The author is from the U of Central Arkansas (wherever that is!), and has authored: "reclaiming the Sacred: The Bible in Gay and Lesbian Culture." Argh! [Mad] What postcoital slop!

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The article isn't about Gilgamesh's homosexuality, Javelin; it's about the possibility that the tomb of Gilgamesh -- which is very famous, unique, and well described in the epic has probably been found. What does his tomb have to do with his homosexuality? I can't imagine anything except to suggest, at least to me, that Gilgamesh was indeed a King of Uruk and not merely the figment of mythical fancy like the Bible!

Nobody in his reading mind is questioning that Gilgamesh was 'gay'. That's what the epic is about!

The fact that Gilgamesh and Enkidu were lovers, and that Gilgamesh turned down the marriage offer a lifetime with the Goddess of Love to remain with Enkidu, is the love story that The Epic of Gilgamesh is all about.

My other URL references the mistranslation of "Temple of the Virgins" as "a bridal house". It was long located since it is above ground it's so big, has excavated, and is no "house". It was not a bridal house, it was a monumental temple whose purpose is well known: all the virgins were kept there (from puberty until ready for marriage), and were then married off by the King in return for services to the crown. It is hardly unknown in many cultures that 'the king' or 'the chief' got to 'deflower' the virgins which he then gave as rewards to his soldiers. If the king wanted, he could 'sit on his virgins' until the men in his kingdom came to do as the king wanted.

In short, the king acted as a 'pimp' or a 'marriage broker'; and the peasants got the leftovers.

As king, it was the job of Gilgamesh to 'deflower the virgins'; the updated translation makes him look like a rapist. The epic does not state in what way Gilgamesh was lording it over the people, why they cried out to heaven for relief from their own king; it is only known that the Goddess of Love sought to have Gilgamesh put in his place. Being a 1/3 human (which clearly demonstrates that the Sumerians did not quite comprehend paternity), Gilgamesh was vunerable.

Ishtar managed to get the gods to make an animal-man, Enkidu (that's enki + du) who could be sent into Uruk to overthrow Gilgamesh and become himself king. The harlot who trains Enkidu on how to make love to a woman (the way the Goddess of Love likes it) is a priestess of Ishtar (i.e., Ishtar-Her-Representative). When this happens, Enkidu becomes weak and powerless (!) and no longer strong enough to defeat Gilgamesh.

In the translation cited, they just skip over the big fight scene which, in the original, causes the whole city to shake like an earthquake! Rather obviously, it was a social revolution which shook the city, because -- in the fight -- Enkidu and Gilgamesh fall in 'love' (or whatever you want to call it).

Ishtar wants to have sex with the winner, being the Goddess of Love, but Gilgamesh (who was the actual winner of the fight) refuses her hand in marriage to stay with Enkidu. In short, Gilgamesh and Enkidu have declared war on normal heterosexuality and normative heterophilia.

Ishtar ultimately kills Enkidu, and Gilgamesh tries to bring him back from the dead -- where he learns all the antediluvian secrets from the only two survivors of the world flood. One thing he learns is that humanity dies, and he cannot live by being only 2/3 alive.

Enkidu says it's hopeless, Gilgamesh goes back to Uruk the wiser, and resumes his job of deflowering virgins -- and the people are happy again.

In short, Gilgamesh was no rapist. He was a gay king who was bored with his job.

Gilgamesh was supposed to have completed 12 marriage 'labors' (just like Herakles would). When he kills the 'bull of heaven', this in reference to the fact that Shamash (the sun) has moved from Taurus the bull (under Ishtar=Venus) into Gemini (= Gilgamesh and Enkidu, the gay twins). The sun moves into the next constellation every so-many centuries, I forget how many, and that's one confirmation of the age of the epic. The gay grandson, I think it was, of President Arthur, was the one who announced (I think a bit prematurely) that we have entered into 'The Age of Aquarius', which -- [Wink] -- the waterbearer, who's Greek name is Ganymedes, eromenos of Zeus, i.e., is ruled by Uranus, "the gay planet".

It's like a puzzle, I'm not into astrology, but it all fits if you have all the pieces. In short, Gilgamesh is a shorthand for everything the Bible tried to predict -- AND DID NOT.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I can't imagine anything except to suggest, at least to me, that Gilgamesh was indeed a King of Uruk and not merely the figment of mythical fancy like the Bible!
Um....
So, to clarify, archaeological evidence for the Tomb of Gilgamesh backs up the entire Epic of Gilgamesh more effectively than archaeological evidence for the reign of David backs up the entire Old Testament? Is it just that the Old Testament is longer and therefore makes more assertions, and thus your standard of proof is higher?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I refer you back to Richard's statement that assertions in favor of "gayness" do not require proof to be considered true.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*slaps forehead* Sorry. Forgot.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TD:

I don't think there is any "archeological evidence" for "David". What are you proposing as evidence?

I have no different qualifications for a gay 'character' like David than I do for a gay 'character' like Gilgamesh. They are subject to the rules of UnNatural Selection just like anybody alive or dead. Your phrase "backs up the entire" is sheer fancification.

The tomb found at Uruk-hai, if his, would, however, confirm the physical evidence of Gilgamesh -- which to my knowledge has never been more doubted than the existence of "David". The tomb recently found of Philip II confirms his existence, but did you ever doubt it?

David is held by most scholars to be a composite character. Nothing like that is suggested in the Gilgemetic epic -- which merely attributes sundry actions to 'gods' (just as the Bible attributes sundry actions to an Egyptian 'god'). Graves's dictum, what is happening in the heavens reflects that which is going on below rather works in reverse, no?

The assertion that the Jews were not homophobic before their sojourn to Babylon is not based on David and Jonathan alone but on the lack of homophobic testamental literature before the 2nd half of the 1st millennium -- i.e., whent he Greeks were at their cultural height.

The Jewish testament is a pastiche of innumerable genres from numerous sources, innumerable writers -- almost all of them hateful, xenophobic, superstitious, authoritarian, and self-serving, and it has extensive internal contradictions.

Gilgamesh, contrarily, is an epic, a single dramatic story by a single author, signed, and without internal contradictions. The author is, in fact, the first signed author in history. It is the subsequent rescensions that differ but, then, they constitute different works.

I would suggest that it is the model for the Iliad (before or after the Solonic rescension) and the Odyssey and even the AEneid[/I] -- though I would argue against the usual academic claim that it 'informs' the Odyssey more. The characters of both [I]Gigamesh and Iliad are more human (to coin a word), ambitious but ambivalent, hopeful but thwarted, confident but questioning -- in a word far more human than anybody in the Bible until the Christian Jews. The pre-Christian Jews were just interesting in justifying themselves, not in questioning nature (human or godly).

Ironically, where the Bible depicts a complicated, self-contradicting single source of truth (and, thus, priestly authority), the Epic depicts 'character gods' who make indepdent decisions. The uniqueness of the Epic, however, is in the development of character, in character development. It is as sophisticated in delineating character change as the epics of Beowulf or Roland. The Bible doesn't reach that stage of development until more than a millennium later -- and then LO AND BEHOLD! -- borrows not only from Ikhenaten's Hymns but from the Epic of Gilgamesh!!!

Homophilia existed long before homophobia; well, big surprise! It is homophobia which is unnatural, inhuman, and inhumane. It is homophobia which is the mental illness. It is homphobia which sick. And it is homophobia which should pay for its own rehabilitation -- first by abandoning its homophobic lifestyle and second by getting a sex-attitude change. Failing that, they should be stoned to death.

I would suggest that the problem you may be having with the Gilgamesh issue is that you aren't grasping that the Bible is nowhere near as old, dating as it does from the classic Greek era at the earliest. Much of Greek comedy and tragedy predate the Bible. The Jews never thought it important, apparently, to date or sign anything -- attributing it all to a timeless god. Ergo, its final form is as late as the current era.

Gilgamesh, contrarily, is old. If we knew the date of the Jewish testament (which we do not), we could determine the differential, but the absolute minimum is 1200 years -- and Johansson suggested more than 2000 years. That does not by any stretch of the imagination render the Jewish testament more true than the Gilgamesh epic. Indeed, the contrary would appear to be increasingly confirmed in my lifetime.

I'm no more suggesting that the Gilgamesh of the Epic is the same Gilgamesh who was the 5th King of Uruk any more than I'm saying that the Richard II of Shakespeare is the Richard II of history or that the David of Michelangelo is the David who founded the Jewish dynasty. What I am saying, however, is that Uruk was the largest and most-important city in the world under Gilgamesh and already had a history of his dynasty. David OTOH was an upstart from nowhere who may or may not have seized the throne from its rightful matriarchal dynasty and moved his capital from Hebron to an old momgod shrine. We simply don't know.

Did love David love Jonathan as much as Gilgamesh loved Enkidu? There's a sure winner for you to work out for a TV drama [Wink] .

As to the influence of Gilgamesh on the Greeks (and the character of Herakles in particular), I repeat that there was a copy of Gilgamesh in a library a day's walk from the siege of Troy throughout the full decade of the war.

I will go further than that hint! I would suggest that the Gilgemetic epic 'informed' the whole reformation of male banding, the virtual overthrow of matritheism, and the institutionalization of male bonding right across Celtic Europe before the Jews were even taken off to Babylon, let alone before they got back and institutionalized homophobia or wrote up their 'bible'. Indeed, it influenced the Jews themselves -- but because they perverted it they with their newfound transsexual monotheism, they botched it.

The War of the Trees, i.e. the tree alphabets and ogham, remember, is as early as the 4th or 5th centuries -- and that in northwestern Europe. Robert Graves has gone so far as to suggest that defrocked priests of Aten reached not only Thessaly but Britain -- i.e., about the time of the Trojan War and centuries before "David".

Underneath all the twitter, I'm saying that homophilic culture is older, nobler, and more consequential to civilization than Jewish culture -- and we have more archaeological evidence for that fact, yes. What is suggested, however, is even more shocking.

I say again, read Raphael Patai and Robert Graves: The Hebrew Goddess. Jehovah was a woman. Still acts like one.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now on to China and then Araby ... [Big Grin] . Now those guys knew what gay was!
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Homophilia existed long before homophobia; well, big surprise! It is homophobia which is unnatural, inhuman, and inhumane. It is homophobia which is the mental illness. It is homphobia which sick. And it is homophobia which should pay for its own rehabilitation -- first by abandoning its homophobic lifestyle and second by getting a sex-attitude change. Failing that, they should be stoned to death.

You know, this is as succinct a mission statement as I've ever seen you make. But the fact that you keep interjecting stuff like this into historical speculation makes me wonder: do you really consider this history? Are you seriously arguing that Sumerian culture constituted a "homophilic" culture that stands in opposition to, say, "Jewish" culture?

It's like you're trying to view the world through rainbow-colored glasses.

[ June 23, 2006, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Isn't looking at history through homophilic eyes just as bad as looking at it through eurocentric eyes?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TD:

Quite the opposite, TD! What I said 2 years ago, in laying out Matthew Arnold's contention, was that I intended to support the Hellenic against the Hebraic claims to western civilization.

At that time, I stated quite clearly as well that I supported Fraser, Graves, Hawkes, the UnNatural Selectionists, the homophilicists, et al., in claiming that

Human psychological development is comparative to, indeed instrumental in human social development.

In that context, if you'll pat your finger tips together for a minute, is delineated baldly in The Epic of Gilgamesh and Enkidu and Their Revolt against the Momgod -- and why the Epic resonated like a bomb well into the 1st century BC.

The 'homophilic society' described in the Epic consisted of two people. 2000 years later, whole societies could be identified as homophilic. Remember, the Epic of Gilgamesh is found in tablet form in a huge swath from Persia to Anatolia and, as most everybody agrees, Herakles 'is' Gilgamesh, the same heroic figure doing much the same things, fighting the same fight, and suffering the same social stigma.

Hebraism was a transsexualized regression. The Hebrews responded to the social revolution. They were reactionary rather than revolution.

What I'm trying to do is solve the question of the origins of homophobia -- which I cannot believe that the Jews actually 'invented'. Right now the trail goes cold on the Jews. The Jews are the guilty party.

My argument goes psychologically and sociologically further back. I'm suggesting that Urukian society was homophobic -- or trying to -- insofar as it was dominated by the goddess of heterosexuality.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Phil:

That's a very interesting question, but I wouldn't phrase it quite that way. I would ask,

Isn't looking at history through homophilic eyes just as bad as looking at it through homophobic eyes?

I would answer no, if homophobia had dominated European culture for 1700 years at the expense of homophilic history.

Just how 'European' is a European view that is dominated by oriental religions like homophobic Judaism and homophobic Christianity?

A European view, in my opinion, is faggy -- not fagophobic [Big Grin] . The Christianization of Europe was its homophobicization. That may sound like an incidental footnote to you unworthy of incorporation in the text itself, but I'm here to state flatly that it was exegeted by force.

I can go on infinitum comparing Arnold's Hebraic and Hellenic social systems but the answer is always the same: the occidental Greeks were geniuses; the oriental Hebrews were not.

Arnold says, well the constant battle between the two in European civilization was like an engine, producing energy by friction. Maybe I agree with Arnold -- and maybe [Confused] I doon't; but for the sake of argument I have chosen to side with the Greeks (and the Palestinians [Wink] ).

Meanwhile, homophilics does not take a Eurocentric position on these matters. What is coming out of China (after 100 years of communist homophobia) clearly suggests that the same process of overthrowing the matritheism, creating a hagiography of heroes (deified originally, in both Europe and China), and organizing armies, governments, and 'academies' led largely by bachelors (and eunuchs in China!) ... well, that was the road to civilization.

And, if the most of Africa and North America wasn't 'civilized' indigenously, well, that is no fault of mine. I give a lot of credit to the Celts, Germans, and Slavs -- and I give a lot of credit to Africans and North Americans. On rare occasion, I even credit to women [Big Grin] ! It's not my fault that most of them never married [Smile] .

That's the high road to Scotland (one of the greatest concentrations of gay influence on western civilization -- eventually), and that's the road I want to be on. UnNatural Selection is not just a psycho-social theory of human development anymore; it's a road map. It's just a rather crude corduroy-road map.

Curious though, isn't it? The Macadam road is a straight invention [Smile] . I do, I really do try to give credit where credit is due. I wouldn't want fags to be accused of stealing the Roman Empire from anybody [Smile] .

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What about history according to lefthanded peopple, or redheads?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
drewmie
Member
Member # 1179

 - posted      Profile for drewmie   Email drewmie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Richard Dey wrote: When Drewmie asks if Jesus (skip all those other Christians) thought any of this, I would ask him if he thinks that Jesus was a Jew ...? One could not be a Jew, certainly not a Jewish rabbi, without some level of agreement.
Of course Jesus was a Jew. And not only that, He was the very individual to whom Abraham and Moses spoke. He was Jehovah, the person who gave the Jewish law in the first place. This is precisely why he had the authority to replace it with the new law.

Your mistake is in consistently taking the word of "an ugly and evil-thinking gnome" and others like him, and imposing it upon the Lawgiver. But if I (and most Christians) don't accept their interpretations, then you're arguing against a non-existent religion, and pretending it is mine. Just as you do in another perfect example of interpreting MY religion with YOUR worldview:
quote:
If the word meant what homophilics scholars believe it to have meant (i.e., 'faggot', 'pansy', 'queer', 'molly' whatever), then Jesus too was a homophobe.
So Richard, do you think am I lying about my religion, i.e. MY BELIEFS? I don't believe any of the ridiculous trash regarding Christianity or Judaism from the homophilics or apostates whom you quote. Your constant repetition of them seems to be trying to convince me of what I believe, or trying to get me to believe something different, rather than arguing based on what I (and most Christians) ACTUALLY BELIEVE. Can you not see what a Straw Man this is?
quote:
Is suspect that Drewmie's and TD's difficulty at grasping the 'consequence' of homophilia in the history delineated up to this point (i.e., The Fall of Rome) is the presumption, all too dominant in Abrahamism, that nonhomophilia is the norm, the baseline, and the point of departure for all discussions.
Yet again, assuming motives of others that will bolster your side. I've never said anything of the kind, and I don't believe it. I think "the norm" (or the "natural man" in LDS lingo) is for people to be selfish, greedy, sex-driven, dishonest, petty, and so on. If this were not an integral assumption of Christianity, it would not have made any sense for Jesus to talk about how "strait and narrow" the road to exaltation is. It obviously implies that there are billions of other directions that won't get you there.

It has nothing to do with what is "natural," which is precisely why the genetic, "born that way" theories regarding homosexuality may very well be true, and yet not put a dent in Christian doctrine. We are "born" to do a lot of things that we shouldn't do. I'm sure even you wouldn't be very happy with someone accepting their "natural" state of sitting on the couch all day drinking beer, rather than actually getting a job and feeding their kids.
quote:
Tom's response to Richard's statement above: Well, no.
Rather, it's the presumption that homophilia is little more important to history than someone's favorite fruit. You can argue if you want about whether the early Romans liked tamarinds more than bananas, or whether the "norm" is to actually prefer oranges, but there are only a few cases in history where one's food preferences have made much of an impact.

Ha! Exactly! Well put. And of course, Richard's fallacy of card stacking is best portrayed by John Stuart Mill:
quote:
He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.
In other words, until you argue against an honest portrayal of what Christians (myself and others) actually believe, your arguments against it are worthless.

[ June 23, 2006, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: drewmie ]

Posts: 3702 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Phil:

You've heard the homophobic version of history (in fact that's all you've heard); now it's time to hear the other side, the homophilic side. It's different.

Homophobes don't get to monopolize everything anymore. The tables have been turned. We're on "the other side".

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Then could you please present something relevant? And it would be nice if you didn't distort facts to make your arguments. And when you talk about belief systems that you don't adhere to, can you try to accurately reflect that belief system? And it would be nice if you present actual evidence in support of your conclusions. And if its evidence for your conclusion, then the same sort of evidence in support of a different conclusion has to be given the same weight as you give to the evidence you use to support your conclusion.

Oh. And, if you could, I think it would further discussion if you recognize the fact that not everyone who is not a homophilicist is a homophobe.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1