If you type "lgbt" in Google, you get a cool color scheme.

[ultimamax]

Holy stuff maybe you should go to /r/handicap for even doubting he's being sarcastic

I don't know. Stocking and Otis have said more outrageous things, and they're usually elaborate trolls.

[Ad Bot]

[Foxscotch]

Would you also complain about homoloveuals if I told you that when you search for gay research, you get gay research?

wait seriously? theyre even ruining gay research now? freakn homoloveuals ruin everything

[Ipquarx]

wait seriously? theyre even ruining gay research now? freakn homoloveuals ruin everything

The nerve of them

[Oasis]

Don't you think it would be a bit different compared to how it is now if people could just choose to stop being gay?

That's not my point.

Being homoloveual, biloveual, heteroloveual, aloveual, etc; choice or not, is fine. That's my point, and to look at the debate from a "well if its a choice then isn't it really their fault for choosing to be gay" is repugnant and should be ignored in every one of these threads.

[Harm94]

you serious?

according to my history of art teacher the greeks would force people to leave cities and go colonize other places or move the to start other cities should their city's population grow too big. While Greek soldiers were known to rape defeated foes as part of humiliating them, I believe that gay love part by choice was theory because it was a hassle to move large enough portions and resources of people out of the cities to go settle else where. Don't know if that is true or if the professor made it up just to keep his job I will never know. The old man did show me some interesting places though.

[ultimamax]

That's not my point.

Being homoloveual, biloveual, heteroloveual, aloveual, etc; choice or not, is fine. That's my point, and to look at the debate from a "well if its a choice then isn't it really their fault for choosing to be gay" is repugnant and should be ignored in every one of these threads.

If I ever make the argument that it's not a choice, it's not because I'm suggesting choosing it would be repugnant. Rather I'm saying even if it were moral to say choosing homoloveuality is repugnant, it doesn't matter because they don't choose regardless.

[sir dooble]

according to my history of art teacher the greeks would force people to leave cities and go colonize other places or move the to start other cities should their city's population grow too big. While Greek soldiers were known to rape defeated foes as part of humiliating them, I believe that gay love part by choice was theory because it was a hassle to move large enough portions and resources of people out of the cities to go settle else where. Don't know if that is true or if the professor made it up just to keep his job I will never know. The old man did show me some interesting places though.

Exceedingly vague (which I expect from a history of art teacher). There were numerous Greek city-states and kingdoms and tribal areas in what we concider modern day Greece.
What time period is any of this in, and in what part of Greece?

Lot's of different things may have happened by anyone from any region, and the various areas of Greece had wildly different cultures. You'd have difficulty getting someone from Argos to claim to be the same as someone from Sparta, let alone a Peloponnessian and Macedonian or someone from the Ionian islands and the Aegean islands.

There was a lot of differing acception of homoloveuality in ancient Greece. In Sparta for example, homoloveuality was rife and common in the military (of which most fit males were part of), and young boys joining up would be paired with older veteran men who would teach and train them, and often times have loveual relationships with them. In some cases Spartan men had to dress their wives up as young boys in order to be aroused to have love with them in order to produce an heir.
But not all cultures accepted it so much, Athens being notable, as public figures in the forming ages of democracy were ridiculued for such behaviour.

[Harm94]

Exceedingly vague (which I expect from a history of art teacher). There were numerous Greek city-states and kingdoms and tribal areas in what we concider modern day Greece.
What time period is any of this in, and in what part of Greece?

Lot's of different things may have happened by anyone from any region, and the various areas of Greece had wildly different cultures. You'd have difficulty getting someone from Argos to claim to be the same as someone from Sparta, let alone a Peloponnessian and Macedonian or someone from the Ionian islands and the Aegean islands.

There was a lot of differing acception of homoloveuality in ancient Greece. In Sparta for example, homoloveuality was rife and common in the military (of which most fit males were part of), and young boys joining up would be paired with older veteran men who would teach and train them, and often times have loveual relationships with them. In some cases Spartan men had to dress their wives up as young boys in order to be aroused to have love with them in order to produce an heir.
But not all cultures accepted it so much, Athens being notable, as public figures in the forming ages of democracy were ridiculued for such behaviour.

He crammed all the Greek nations into one section and mentioned it during the Classical period.

[Headcrab Zombie]

That's not my point.

Being homoloveual, biloveual, heteroloveual, aloveual, etc; choice or not, is fine. That's my point, and to look at the debate from a "well if its a choice then isn't it really their fault for choosing to be gay" is repugnant and should be ignored in every one of these threads.

This is true, but you're never going to convince hateful people of this. They hate, and need a reason to justify it. The claim that someone is some way not by choice, but should still be punished anyways, is hard to explain and morally justify, so they either need to convince themselves and others that it is a choice, or accept that they shouldn't be hated, and since they'll never accept the latter, their only option left is to try to argue (entirely fruitlessly, of course) that it is a choice.

That's my theory, at least

[sir dooble]

He crammed all the Greek nations into one section and mentioned it during the Classical period.

I suppose if it's just in passing then it's not necessary to go into detail.
You just can't really use it to claim "the Greeks" did this, or that. The region and power is just too fragmented to ever say there was near-unanimous agreement on anything.

But relating to the topic, it's not unusual that some Greeks would've had various views on homoloveuality, or that anyone would.
It's a thing that humans observably do, as do other animals.

It's only because different societies then apply morals to it, cause by religions or cultural or societal requirements (such as in early society, particularly nomadic, homoloveuality would be of no benefit as it means 2 men who are no longer producing children, should they stick together), that anyone has a view on it.
Homoloveuality isn't unnatural. It's not a recent phenomenon. It's just a trait held by a minority of the population, so society does with that as it will.

There's no validating homoloveuality as good or bad, just that it is. It's a brute fact.

[Nonnel]

how about the romans and their big gay bathhouse orgies

[Harm94]

I suppose if it's just in passing then it's not necessary to go into detail.
You just can't really use it to claim "the Greeks" did this, or that. The region and power is just too fragmented to ever say there was near-unanimous agreement on anything.

But relating to the topic, it's not unusual that some Greeks would've had various views on homoloveuality, or that anyone would.
It's a thing that humans observably do, as do other animals.

It's only because different societies then apply morals to it, cause by religions or cultural or societal requirements (such as in early society, particularly nomadic, homoloveuality would be of no benefit as it means 2 men who are no longer producing children, should they stick together), that anyone has a view on it.
Homoloveuality isn't unnatural. It's not a recent phenomenon. It's just a trait held by a minority of the population, so society does with that as it will.

There's no validating homoloveuality as good or bad, just that it is. It's a brute fact.

What I want to know is how far back the said practice goes. There already seems to be evidence that is nature, so there is no point in condeming it. I guess if people wanted to debate nature vs nuture vs dna they could look to ancient greek history. Although I believe it goes back to the first humans.

[sir dooble]

how about the romans and their big gay bathhouse orgies

Romans traditionally weren't so big on the practice. It happened, and many notable Romans were likely homoloveual, or biloveual, including Julius Caesar. But it was a reserved thing.
Orgies in a Roman sense weren't typically loveual, but rather large feasting parties.

homoloveuality for the Roman man was a thing kept behind closed doors, as were heteroloveual acts. It was un-roman to be licentious and not appreciated. At it's core, love was reserved for the act of creating a child as an heir, and it was to be kept within a marriage, which was a solemn and political act, and behind closed doors.
To be otherwise was un-pious, rude, show-offy, barbaric, and very much 'Greek'.

What I want to know is how far back the said practice goes. There already seems to be evidence that is nature, so there is no point in condeming it. I guess if people wanted to debate nature vs nuture vs dna they could look to ancient greek history. Although I believe it goes back to the first humans.

There's no knowing how far back the practice goes, as far as society is concerned.
Romantic behavious between men go as far back as Homer, which is the Bronze age (approx 5000 years ago), and that's known simply by the survival of the earliest works of oral poetry.

I wouldn't be hesitant to suggest that homoloveuality is an older and natural thing that is as old as humanity.
Humans certainly didn't create it for themselves at a certain point in time.

There's no argument, as far as I am concerned that it's unnatural. Whatever the reasoning behind it, whether genetic, hormonal or anything else unknown, it's not been caused by men.
You could argue perhaps whether or not it is on the increase, and maybe there are reasons for that. But not that it's not a natural phenonemon.

[Twerky]

What if Eve was a dude named Evan

[sir dooble]

What if Eve was a dude named Evan

Then he wouldn't have been tricked by some dumb snake.