Skip to comments.Has Homosexuality Always Been Incompatible With Military Service?
Posted on 04/11/2006 2:58:36 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
While the issue of homosexuals in the military has only recently become a point of great public controversy, it is not a new issue; it derives its roots from the time of the military's inception. George Washington, the nation's first Commander-in-Chief, held a strong opinion on this subject and gave a clear statement of his views on it in his general orders for March 14, 1778:
At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss'd [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose. 1
General Washington held a clear understanding of the rules for order and discipline, and as the original Commander-in-Chief, he was the first not only to forbid, but even to punish, homosexuals in the military.
An edict issued by the Continental Congress communicates the moral tone which lay at the base of Washington's actions:
The Commanders of . . . the thirteen United Colonies are strictly required to show in themselves a good example of honor and virtue to their officers and men and to be very vigilant in inspecting the behavior of all such as are under them, and to discountenance and suppress all dissolute, immoral, and disorderly practices, and also such as are contrary to the rules of discipline and obedience, and to correct those who are guilty of the same. 2
Noah Webster--a soldier during the Revolution and the author of the first American dictionary --defined the terms "dissolute" and "immoral" used by Congress:
Dissolute: Loose in behavior and morals; given to vice and dissipation; wanton; lewd; debauched; not under the restraints of law; as a dissolute man: dissolute company.
Immoral: Inconsistent with moral rectitude; contrary to the moral or Divine law. . . . Every action is immoral which contravenes any Divine precept or which is contrary to the duties which men owe to each other. 3
This meaning of the word "moral" versus "immoral" was understood throughout American society; the practice of sodomy was clearly adverse to and "contravene[d] Divine precept." The order to "suppress all dissolute, immoral, and disorderly practices . . . contrary to the rules of discipline and obedience" was extended throughout all branches of the American military, both the Army and the Navy. 4
It can be safely said that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was precisely that given by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws--the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of significant Founders. 5 In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted:
What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . .
I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; "peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum" (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: "ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei" (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments). 6
Because of the nature of the crime, the penalties for the act of sodomy were often severe. For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. 7 In fact, Jefferson himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. 8 The laws of the other states showed similar or even more severe penalties:
That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead. 9 NEW YORK
That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. 10 CONNECTICUT
Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime. 11 GEORGIA
That if any man shall commit the crime against nature with a man or male child . . . every such offender, being duly convicted thereof in the Supreme Judicial Court, shall be punished by solitary imprisonment for such term not exceeding one year and by confinement afterwards to hard labor for such term not exceeding ten years. 12 MAINE
That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors, aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as felons. 13 [And] shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be kept at such labor. 14 PENNSYLVANIA
[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. 15 SOUTH CAROLINA
That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. 16 VERMONT
Based on the statutes, legal commentaries, and the writings of prominent military leaders, it is clear that any idea of homosexuals serving in the military was considered with repugnance; this is incontrovertible, with no room for differing interpretations. 17 The thought of lifting this proscription is a modern phenomenon, and would have brought disbelief, disdain, and condemnation from those who established our Armed Forces.
Why Should the Military Be Concerned With a Person's Morality?
Concern for the character and morality of military personnel has a strong historical basis. Our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of pure morals in our free society, and that philosophy extended to our military.
Before considering the importance of morality to the military, first consider some general statements on the importance of morality by those responsible for originally creating the rules that have stirred so much controversy of late in the debate over homosexuals in the military. John Adams (the founder of the Navy), on October 13, 1798, while serving as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief, told the military:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. 18
Adams similarly explained:
Statesmen, my dear sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. 19
George Washington, the nation's first Commander-in-Chief, summarized the same truth in his "Farewell Address." Significantly, this address was also partially authored by John Jay (the author of America's first military discipline manual) and Alexander Hamilton (a General during the Revolution). These three military leaders emphasized the necessity of moral behavior, declaring:
Of all the dispositions and habits which leads to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity [happiness]. Let it simply be asked, "Where is the security for property, for reputation for life, if the sense of religious obligations desert . . . ?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. 'Tis substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it [free government] can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? 20
Since moral behavior was necessary for society in general, it was even more necessary for military personnel in whose hands rested the security, and thus the future, of the nation. The importance of good morals in the military can be seen in the following three selections from Washington's general orders:
It is required and expected that exact discipline be observed and due subordination prevail thro' the whole Army, as a failure in these most essential points must necessarily produce extreme hazard, disorder, and confusions; and end in shameful disappointment and disgrace. The General most earnestly requires and expects a due observance of those articles of war established for the government of the Army which forbid profane cursing, swearing, and drunkenness; And in like manner requires and expects of all officers and soldiers not engaged on actual duty a punctual attendance on Divine service to implore the blessings of Heaven upon the means used for our safety and defence. 21
His Excellency [George Washington] wishes [it] to be considered that an Army without order, regularity, and discipline is no better than a commissioned mob; Let us therefore . . . endeavor by all the skill and discipline in our power, to acquire that knowledge and conduct which is necessary in war--our men are brave and good; men who with pleasure it is observed are addicted to fewer vices than are commonly found in Armies; but it is subordination and discipline (the life and soul of an Army) which next under Providence, is to make us formidable to our enemies, honorable in ourselves, and respected in the world. 22
Purity of morals being the only sure foundation of public happiness in any country and highly conducive to order, subordination, and success in an Army, it will be well worthy the emulation of officers of every rank and class to encourage it both by the influence of example and the penalties of authority. It is painful to see many shameful instances of riot and licentiousness. . . . A regard to decency should conspire with a sense of morality to banish a vice productive of neither advantage or pleasure. 23
Consequently, moral improprieties were met with severe punishment in the American military-- as illustrated by the opening example in this paper.
Why Should Homosexuality Concern a Society?
Public discussions concerning homosexuality are a purely recent phenomenon; it was long considered too morally abhorrent and reprehensible to openly discuss. Consider, for example, the legal works of James Wilson, a signer both of the Declaration and the Constitution and appointed by President Washington as an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court. Wilson was responsible for laying much of the foundation of American Jurisprudence and was co-author of America's first legal commentaries on the Constitution. Even though state law books of the day addressed sodomy, when Wilson came to it in his legal writings, he was too disgusted with it even to mention it. He thus declared:
The crime not to be named [sodomy], I pass in a total silence. 24
America's first law book, authored by founding jurist Zephaniah Swift, communicated the popular view concerning sodomy:
This crime, tho repugnant to every sentiment of decency and delicacy, is very prevalent in corrupt and debauched countries where the low pleasures of sensuality and luxury have depraved the mind and degraded the appetite below the brutal creation. Our modest ancestors, it seems by the diction of the law, had no idea that a man would commit this crime [anal intercourse with either sex]. . . . [H]ere, by force of common law, [it is] punished with death. . . . [because of] the disgust and horror with which we treat of this abominable crime. 25
John David Michaelis, author of an 1814 four-volume legal work, outlined why homosexuality must be more strenuously addressed and much less tolerated than virtually any other moral vice in society:
If we reflect on the dreadful consequences of sodomy to a state, and on the extent to which this abominable vice may be secretly carried on and spread, we cannot, on the principles of sound policy, consider the punishment as too severe. For if it once begins to prevail, not only will boys be easily corrupted by adults, but also by other boys; nor will it ever cease; more especially as it must thus soon lose all its shamefulness and infamy and become fashionable and the national taste; and then . . . national weakness, for which all remedies are ineffectual, most inevitably follow; not perhaps in the very first generation, but certainly in the course of the third or fourth. . . . To these evils may be added yet another, viz. that the constitutions of those men who submit to this degradation are, if not always, yet very often, totally destroyed, though in a different way from what is the result of whoredom.
Whoever, therefore, wishes to ruin a nation, has only to get this vice introduced; for it is extremely difficult to extirpate it where it has once taken root because it can be propagated with much more secrecy . . . and when we perceive that it has once got a footing in any country, however powerful and flourishing, we may venture as politicians to predict that the foundation of its future decline is laid and that after some hundred years it will no longer be the same . . . powerful country it is at present. 26
In view of the arguments listed by historical and legal sources, there is substantial merit for maintaining the ban on homosexuals in the military. 27 The Founders instituted this ban with a clear understanding of the damaging effects of this behavior on the military. This ban has remained official policy for over 200 years and one would be hard-pressed to perceive the need for altering a policy which has contributed to making America the world's foremost military power.
1. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1934), Vol. XI, pp. 83-84, from General Orders at Valley Forge on March 14, 1778.(Return)
2. Journals of the American Congress (Washington: Way and Gideon, 1823), Vol. I, p. 185, on November 28, 1775.(Return)
3. Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (Springfield, MA: George and Charles Merriam, 1849).(Return)
4. Acts Passed at the First Session of the Fifth Congress of the United States of America (Philadelphia: Richard Folwell, 1797), pp. 456-457.(Return)
5. See, for example, James Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (NY: R. Worthington, 1884), Vol. III, p. 233, in his letter dated October 18, 1821. See also the writings of Founders James Kent, James Wilson, Fisher Ames, Joseph Story, John Adams, Henry Laurens, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, James Otis, et. al. (Return)
6. Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1769), Vol. IV, pp. 215-216.(Return)
7. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), p. 211.(Return)
8. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson M emorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, pp. 226-227, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments."(Return)
9. Laws of the State of New-York . . . Since the Revolution (New York: Thomas Greenleaf, 1798), Vol. I, p. 336.(Return)
10. The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1808), Book I, p. 295.(Return)
11. A Digest of the Laws of the State of Georgia (Milledgeville: Grantland & Orme, 1822), p. 350. (Return)
12. Laws of the State of Maine (Hallowell: Goodale, Glazier & Co., 1822), p. 58.(Return)
13. Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: John Bioren, 1810), Vol. I, p. 113.(Return)
14. Collinson Read, An Abridgment of the Laws of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1801), p. 279.(Return)
15. Alphabetical Digest of the Public Statute Laws of South-Carolina (Charleston: John Hoff, 1814), Vol. I, p. 99.(Return)
16. Statutes of the State of Vermont (Bennington, 1791), p. 74.(Return)
17. Randy Shilts' revisionist work, Conduct Unbecoming, attempts to provide historical precedent for homosexuals in the military by claiming that the General Baron von Steuben, a Prussian fighting for the American cause, was gay (see also Newsweek, Feb. 1, 1993, "What's Fair in Love and War," pp. 58-59). Shilts' accusations against von Steuben are unacceptable to the very source he cites--a biography authored by John Palmer (see John McAuley Palmer, General Von Steuben , New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937). Palmer, although acknowledging an anonymous 1777 letter accusing the Baron of sexual improprieties, concluded that it was "probably a malicious slander that originated among Steuben's enemies," further stating that "the charge is inconsistent with the conception of Steuben's personality that has grown up in my mind after eight years' study." Additionally, Shilts claims that the Baron's 17 year old interpreter, Pierre Etienne Du Ponceau, was his lover, citing his youth and lack of linguistic skills as proof. However, Thomas McKean, signer of the Declaration of Independence, says that Du Ponceau had offered "satisfactory proof of his knowledge in the languages." Furthermore, the Dictionary of American Biography says of the married Frenchman that "his contributions to historical and linguistic literature were numerous, particularly on philological subjects." Shilts' claims lack credible historical documentation, and are a hindrance to any substantive debate on this extremely important issue.(Return)
18. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, dated October 11, 1798.(Return)
19. Ibid, Vol. IX, p. 401, dated June 21, 1776.(Return)
20. Address of George Washington . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: Christopher Jackson, 1796), pp. 22-24.(Return)
21. Washington, Writings, Vol. III, p. 309, from General Orders from Cambridge on July 4, 1775.
22. Ibid, at Vol. IV, pp. 202-203, from General Orders from Cambridge on January 1, 1776.(Return)
23. Ibid, Vol. XIII, pp. 118-119, from General Orders from Fredericksburgh on October 21, 1778.(Return)
24. James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967), Vol. II, p. 656, from lectures given in 1790 and 1791.(Return)
25. Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1796), Vol. II, pp. 310-311.(Return)
26. Sir John David Michaelis, Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, Alexander Smith, translator (London: F. C. and J. Rivington, 1814), Vol. IV, pp. 115-117.(Return)
27. For a summary of the current medical and military arguments supporting the ban on homosexuals, see Gays: In or Out? The U. S. Military & Homosexuals--A Sourcebook, by Col. Ronald D. Ray, USMCR (NY: A Maxwell Macmillan Company, 1993). Col. Ray's Bibliography lists many of the numerous books and studies detailing homosexuality's inherent physiological, sociological, and psychological problems.
We got in the Alexander discussion and no one could come up with anything but conjecture.
I'd be interested in some chapter, verse, etc. from a book of the era that demonstrates Spartan homosexuality.
In the UCMJ shacking up is still against the rules, according to article 134. But, it is ignored. Isn't this the same policy with homosexuality?
Written by Spartans or their enemies?
Relatively books written by Spartans exist. High culture wasn't their forte, generally.
Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle deny it. Others (many of them enemies, or those who would probably be hostile to the Spartans) allege it.
Lotta words to say pillow biters don't belong around real men.
It sounds as if it is speculation, then. Perhaps it is an academic fiction hoped for by pederast classicists.
Why Lesbians Aren't Gay:
Mentions differences between Lesbians and Gays, including military issues. Mostly stereotypes that are observable to be mostly true.
"You think the Goths will sack Washington?"
And how else would you describe Marion Barry and his 'constituency'?
No one has used shelter halves in years. I turned mine in because I knew I would never use that piece of crap and it's one less piece of gear to keep up with. I use my poncho and bungee cords or a 8 x 10 foot woodland tarp. It is big enough for two soldiers and all their gear and it's a lot more waterproof.
Not in today's Army it's not. Fraternization is handled pretty harshly, especially if one or both of the parties are mid to senior NCO's and officers.
This is an excellent piece by David Barton. It's just a shame that it is even an issue at all. Homosexual behavior is unnatural - - sexual activity is nature's way to survive and continue as a species, and the physical "parts" were designed specifically for procreation - - and unnatural acts creep people out instinctively. It's not something you need to think about - - you just know it in your gut from the time that you are a child. Whether people can "live and let live" doesn't matter in civilian situations where you can choose the people with whom you live and work.
However, in the risky and deadly serious business of warfare - - where trained, testosterone-fueled combat warriors tape their dogtags together so they don't jingle, and tread carefully through the brush at night with long twigs to check for tripwires - - any distraction can be fatal. To deliberately allow people who engage in creepy, unnatural behavior (sodomy) into the mix would amount to creating an unnecessary distraction. It would be pure idiocy and it would ultimately put lives at risk, all because liberals want to pander to a significant part of their Democrat Party's "base" - - the sodomites.
Probably somewhere in between. Pretty good proof exists that it was a common phenomenon in ancient Greece. Good proof also exists that it was used to slur various peoples too.
Probably existed in Sparta. Probably significant, but not as widespread as people think/thought.
Bingo. The Romans tolerated homosexuals to the point of allowing them to own catamites, young boys passed about for their sexual pleasure. These boys were bought and sold openly by the homosexual community for fun, pleasure, and torture of many of the boys. Sickening thoughts, but I fear we follow the same Roman road.
In the memoirs of Casanova, he recounts his meeting with Frederick the Great of Prussia. He states that Frederick the Great had a regiment of soldiers who all carried a pocket watch. This watch was supposed to be a gift that signified that the possessor had had sex with Frederick.
Many people in European and Hispanic cultures distinguish homosexuality not based on whom a man sleeps with, but if he plays the male or female role in intercourse. The shame isn't so much being homosexual but in being effeminate.
War, I think you're busted.
Nice catch. :-)
You're definitely right. Ask him to tell you how many books he's written. I'll bet he can't remember from his last little lie. LOL
"It" showed up again? He can't hide his spots. LOL
That attitude is somewhat contrary to military service. In the military if you are told to assault the enemy position in the face of withering enemy fire, you assault the enemy position, even if you are "signing your own death warrant." Same with getting in a B-17 and flying to Nuremberg, even is there is a 1 in 10 chance that you will be shot down and die. You do anyway.
You recognized his style right off, dbehsman! Look for some freepmail from him if he persists in his MO.
I'd have to agree with him. I would hesitate to help somebody whom I knew to be a flamer if they were bleeding all over the place.
And the hesitation is enough to get you killed.
And wouldn't that be a little bit of heaven for the gays.
He does have a point on homo's in the military... while few in number, they did exist. Manchester writes of at least one in his memoir of the Pacific Theater in WWII... 'Goodbye Darkness'. This individual was a Marine who 'snapped' during a long artillery barrage... a 'model-soldier' till all hell broke loose. He alludes to another... an officer who distinguished himself on Okinawa at 'Sugar-loaf'. If I remember correctly, he received the Navy Cross for his actions.
I'm sure they did exist... but it was never 'excepted' behavior in the armed services.
With 19 years in the US Army and two wars under my belt I hardly think I have a problem defining what is and what is contrary to military service, thank you.
So you'd just leave your dying friend to the enemy if going to rescue him meant exposing yourself to hostile fire? I don't get it. How is that any different from exposing yourself to a bloodborne disease that possibly could kill you? Should firemen not go into burning buildings to rescue people because they might get killed?
I would never leave a wounded soldier behind. But if I am going to die, I want it to be from a bullet and not a disease passed to me by a fag.
You seriously need to get a life.
I'll repeat myself: you need to get a life. And contact with some real people.
Hey Child! Don't go away mad, just go away!
Warchild again? Mommy must have left the liquor cabinet unlocked again.
Probably does not amount to much of anything and it proves even less. The idea of Alexander "probably bisexual" or ancient Greece's probably tolerance to "homosexual" relationships is interesting in the sense that it reflects what is often the case in a society based on assumptions fed by a popular culture that thrives on innuendo instead of actually searching out the original sources and reading them for ones self and not relying on sixth source information from people who obviously have alternative motives for saying what they do. So the "may be he/they were" shows that for most part the "proof" is nonexistent and without proof one is talking mere fantasy and allowing such fantasy to go unchallenged is the indulgence of fools and mental vagrants....yes I am talking about modern society here.
Here is another food for thought for people out there: What is interesting with this whole subject is that the biggest supporters of homosexuality being openly accepted in ancient Greece is put forth by openly homosexual "academians" such as David Halperin, Gore Vidal, John Winkler, Jonathan Ned Katz, John Boswell and Michel Foucault. It was Walter Pater (1870's a poet and tutor) he and his band of "merries" that just out of a weird coincidence were all homosexuals, originally began this fiasco of a theory in Oxford. We find them introducing a totally new "theory", in which Platonic love has nothing to do with "phyche" but is totally based on phisical attraction. Later we find a list of wanna-be "historians" of Hellinic sexuality, see: Michel Foucault, John Boswell, John Winkler and David Halperin that were or are all homosexuals, strange coincidence once again striving to make some connection between homos and Hellinism. The reason, of course, is simple and I mention it above, similar to those of Eurocentrics and Afrocentrics. Ancient civilizations such as Greece's have always been viewed as a model of civilisation. So what better way to justify their lifestyles than by connecting it to one of greatest civilizations and thus legitimise same-sex?
Another food for thought: contrary to what some would like us to believe, of the inumerable quantity of writings, literature, plays and written records of daily life in ancient Greece and history of the civilization which the Greeks legated to posterity, only a minuscule 5% of writings make some mention about homosexuality. As for painted vases, out of all the thousands of ancient Greek painted vases that have so far been discovered, over 80,000 have been found in Attica alone, that's the prefecture in which Athen's is located, only .02% have an overtly homosexual/bisexual theme on them. Pretty low percentage for a socieity that is so openly homosexual, don't ya think? From the inconsequential evidence available only individuals with alternative motives would manufacture allegations of such an unsustainable nature. Given the narrow selection found of such activities, (i.e. pederasty/homosexual/bisexual) in literature and artifacts, it should be kept in perspective that there is no real reason to believe such activities were the "norm" or representative of ancient Greek society as a whole any more than media distrubution of modern pornography(child, same sex, etc.) indicate what is normal and accepted in modern times by the majority of the population.
What are you doing here, defending the honor of one of your Pervert Pals?
Those societies always included pederasty. The complaint among old men was concerning their young boys who would become young men and dump them for a younger more beautiful man or boy.
Spartans killed babies who were considered imperfect. When boys became ready to leave their mothers they were mentored by older men..introduced to the "joys" of homosexual sex. The boys became conditioned to be homosexual.
Women were only used as breeders. The men used each other for entertainment and discussions and soulmates...women were always second class citizens in homosexual societies...like in ancient and preWWII Japan and many other cultures.
You have no equality between the sexes in homosexual societies and slavery always existed. Lust is the No. l virtue along with pleasure (which never included women).
Homosexual cultures are extremely ugly for children and women. Christianity is what elevated the status of women and built upon the Jewish concept of marriage and the importance of sexual fidelity to strengthen the survival of women and children by having a protective male in their lives. It is a superior model to all other models that gave status and equality to women and gave protection to boys particularly.
In Sparta? Spartan women enjoyed rights not “provided” by the men in other Greek poleis. Women were essentially the head of household, very athletic, and educated (Taught to read and right).
Aristotle made fun of Spartan men because they actually gave certain privileges to the women, in which he found repugnant. Also, Spartans were not very fond of pederasty (You are thinking Athens). Spartan men were conditioned to marry and breed. Sodomy was practiced, but to be an exclusive homosexual was frowned upon. Same in other poleis. A full blown homosexual was the lowest of the low in Greek city-States.
Sorry, write, Friday cocktail is kicking in
But, I don't want to start no trouble here. :)
Not true, although different periods did have different laws, but there was widespread pederasty in Spartan military culture as well as in Athens. Judaism is the first religion to ever put sex into a moral framework (restraints by sex and age) as we have come to understand as natural, particularly through the development of Natural Law Theory and Christianity.
The ideals of beauty and perfection were the the objects of sex in Greek and Roman cultures...no sexual morality among their gods or anyone. Some Greek city-states did have to make laws that discouraged homosexuality so the men would leave their lover for a few years and take the time to mate with a woman. The Greeks and Romans did understand the need for future generations and at some periods felt the need to discourage the homosexual acts for some years in a man’s life.
There are many places where you can research this on the net and I don’t have the time to find all the info again. There are also many books on the subject, if you are interested.
How about Stanford....
I graduated with a Fine Arts degree and we studied ancient art and I saw numerous depictions of homosexual sex which included boys, not only in ancient Greek and Rome art, but in Japanese and Asian art. We also saw a ton of homoerotica which was the art and statues that the pervert Hitler surrounded himself with, along with all his homosexual aides and Brownshirt homosexuals. Why do homosexuals never claim the Nazis as homosexuals...hmmmmm
They go after everyone else like Lincoln....they ignore all the homosexuals like Jeffery Dahmer and all the other homosexual serial killers?
There is an effort to make homosexuality a genetic condition which is a complete fraud, so yes, I agree that on the net there is a covert effort to scrub all sites of evidence of homosexual behavior as being “learned”. Kinsey, even that degenerate, considered sexuality fluid.
It is learned ....Remember that politician that recently was accused of trying to initiate sex with a teenager....he said he was molested by a 12 year old boy when he was 6 and he had this deep desire to have sex with boys that never left him.
Many of the priests (homosexuals) said they had been molested when they were boys and they couldn’t suppress that sexual urge when with young boys, even with extensive counseling and religious study....You could study Freud on the reason for fixations.
Better yet....Read the Pink Swastika. The homosexual groups are vigorously suppressing that book as you can see in Wikipedia (yes that site has cr*ppy info....ESPECIALLY when you have a rabid group who can’t stand TRUTH shining on their sickness.
The Wandervogel was founded by a homosexual who wanted to camp with German boys....get them away from their parents to seduce them and play with them (sexually)and condition them into the homosexual lifestyle (which he learned from being molested). It is disgusting.....to pervert the nature of man....Aristotle came up with logic and the idea of Natural Law which Cicero expanded on....
It was the idea of Natural Law which became prevalent with Catholic Theology in Western Civilization which was based on reason, logic and science, that finally stuck that vile lifestyle into the closet where it needs to stay. It corrupts the innocence and nature of young boys. The Founding Fathers couldn’t even mentioned the act they thought is so vile and evil and so destructive to the civil society.
The homosexuals are trying to revise history as are all Cultural Marxists. They twist and lie. It is exactly what the Bible predicts....good will become evil and evil, good.
This is such an example of the Progressive/Marxists twisted thinking from a “credible” Stanford site...ha ha. Note the unbiased word “fascinating” and the affirmation that there is “sharp debate”.....Right==only with Cultural Marxists or Atheists and those Cultural Marxists who took over “Christian” churches and installed their practicing homosexual pastors. HA HA.
“Exactly what attitude the New Testament has towards sexuality in general, and same-sex attraction in particular, is a matter of sharp debate. John Boswell argues, in his fascinating Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, that many passages taken today as condemnations of homosexuality are more concerned with prostitution, or where same-sex acts are described as unnatural the meaning is more akin to out of the ordinary rather than as immoral (Boswell, 1980, ch.4; see also Boswell, 1994). “
Your assessment of the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism's (Political Correctness) goals are spot on. The self-hating Jews who fled Hitler and settled in Columbia University are the bane of American society right now.
I have read somewhere that by the age where man should be a “father” they were discouraged in some instances from all homosexual relationships. This condemnation was necessary because of the obsession and lust inherent in homosexual relationships which exclude the necessity of companionship of women who were never considered an equal to men in those times, nor given much worth for anything other than being the “breeder”.
Women certainly were never considered intellectual equals, and, therefore, never desired for serious dialogue nor companionship. Since they were not needed for sexual release they were easily ignored and never sought for any reason unless to breed.
Homosexuality was an acceptable practice and not condemned in any meaningful way for teenagers or older men. What was considered immoral was how the younger man would dump his homosexual “older” man for a more beautiful “younger” man. There was never immorality applied to homosexual behavior UNLESS they refused to reproduce at the appropriate age. Ancient civilizations did understand the value of reproducing.
The idea of Natural Law, especially as conceived by Cicero was the concept that eventually put total condemnation on the practice, such as in the Old Testament by the Jews that classified homosexual as immoral. Jews never had the universality that Christ eventually had. Christianity, since it was aligned to Natural Law Theory (logic, reason and science), was the major force that wiped out the practice in Western Civilization because Christianity became the dominant force in the culture.
Today, homosexuality is one of the forces being used by the Marxists to destroy Christianity in Western Civilization. They understood the strength in Capitalist countries was the Christian family which had the abiltity to produce emotionally secure people and one who had a strong sense of loyalty to family and were individualistic—that quality which will not allow communes and state slavery. Christianity had the tremendous force of giving value to all human beings, therefore Marxist ideology of killing the useless eaters never is acceptable.
Other cultures, such as the one in Afghanistan, still doesn’t look upon the definition of “homosexuality” of Post Modern society as being relevant. They are much more inclined to the pagan practices of ancient civilizations which excluded women in the same way. Look there for your “condemnation” of homosexuality and their use of the beautiful little boys which is a curse in their culture (that is if you hate NAMBLA ideals which is based on ancient societies and obviously current non-Christian/Jewish ones).
Pinging a couple of you from that pulled thread (wish I could remember another name or two) to three older articles detailing why homos in the military is a Very Bad Thing.
Plus a good BTTT for people who have not read these articles.
And you too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.