Edit:
I'm reading ';The Appeal'; by John Grisham. Very interesting book. Bascially this question was from one lawyer to another lawyer concerning gay marriage in the State of Mississippi. I thought it would make a good question to ask? ( ^ _ ^ ) What say you?How could Homosexuals possibly screw up the sanctity of marriage any worse?
It is important in the beginning to define our vocabulary. The term ’homosexuality’ as it is used and understood today is not applicable to Greek antiquity for three reasons: First of all, most Greeks were bisexual. Second, homosexuality and 'gay' as sexual identities are recent developments, emerging only in the 2Oth Century (our idea of what it means to be gay or a homosexual has largely been influenced by recent gay activism and the emergence of gay rights on the cultural landscape). Last, and most important of all, passion and erotic love between two adult men (the model for modern gay relationships), was generally considered unusual and held up to ridicule. Homosexual love in Greece was love between a man and a boy.
The Greek word for homosexual love between a man and a youth was paiderastia (hence pederasty), derived from pais, boy, and eran, to love, meaning emotional and sensual affection for a pais. A common synonym for beloved boys in Greek writings is ta paidika, ’the boyish.’ The youths who attracted men’s attentions ranged in age from adolescence to early manhood, as can be seen from the images that have come down to us on Greek pottery and sculpture. Relationships with overly young boys were frowned upon then as they are now (though some Greek beloved youths would have fallen below the age of consent in many modern countries), one mark of a beloved ripe for a man’s attentions being the ability to “think for himself”.
The Greek male was expected not only to marry and raise children, but also to be available for friendship and homosexual love affairs with worthy youths, not to the exclusion of marriage but as its necessary complement. Thus his destined path through the garden of love would begin some time in adolescence when the boy was courted by many men and would choose one to be his lover. This homosexual relationship would continue till early adulthood when he'd begin courting and winning the love of a deserving youth of his own. Then it would expand to include taking a wife and having children. (Of course there were countless variations on this theme, some noble and others sordid, just as it is with us today in our love life.) This variety of life was reflected in the ‘deep well of time’, the ancient sacred myths on which were based the archetypes of human life and self-knowledge.
That a man should be attracted both to lovely women and to beardless boys was seen as natural and normal. It was also accepted that some men would lean more towards one, and some towards the other. However, young males were considered the fair sex par excellence; the Greek ideal of beauty was embodied by the young man, a fact evident in all of Greek literature and art from first beginnings to last examples. Literary disputes examined the question of which kind of love was preferable, and often the love of youths won out. Apart from purely scientific texts there was hardly a work in which juvenile male beauty was not praised, from casual asides to richly embroidered descriptions. The extent to which the youth was the paragon of beauty can be seen in the arts, where even girls were often represented with boyish traits. Furthermore,a great deal of pottery depicting youths has been found, often inscribed with the epithet kalos (the masculine form of beautiful), while pictures of girls and the feminine kale are rare. Even he great sculptor Phidias payed homage to his beloved by carving kalos Pantarkes on a finger of the colossal statue of Zeus at Olympia.
Besides their physical charm, boys were also valued for their minds, held to be especially capable of reason and debate and therefore meant to be cultivated. Thus homosexual love was the driving force not only of the sexual but also of the pedagogic side of Greek pederasty. Ancient culture was male oriented through and through. To the Greek man, his spouse counted mostly as mother of his children and keeper of his household. With very few exceptions women (and wives in particular) were excluded from intellectual and public life. Girls were considered capable only of chitchat, and unworthy of education. Only hetairas, a class of entertainers / courtesans who were not charged with domestic responsibilities, could enter the political and philosophic arenas. Thus, the intellectual development of most girls was neglected, while the right upbringing of boys was given the highest importance.
The aim of the Greek educational system, the paideia, was summed up by the words: kalos k’agathos, ’beautiful and good’, meaning that beauty of body and goodness of soul were the essence of human i.e. male perfection. Homosexual love between men and youths striving together to develop these virtues was seen as the most effective way to cultivate that ideal. It was said that even Herakles (Hercules) could perform his mighty deeds with more ease when his beloved Iolaos watched him. It was in commemoration of their union that the Iolaeia, gymnastic and equestrian games, werewere celebrated in Thebes.
take care
daveHow could Homosexuals possibly screw up the sanctity of marriage any worse?
Yes you have that right, thank you and take care
dave
Report Abuse
The institution of marriage is a construct for community order. Mankind is challenged by gender to survive. Procreation requires the union of a female and male human. An asocial society where a generation preferred to alter the configuration to same sex pairs would eliminate mankind as we know it.
So essentially Homosexuals can undermine the survival of mankind.
I like John Grisham...I would be interested to see his point of view on the topic. I might research the book.
You asked for my opinion...Marriage has been sanctified throughout the ages of time for over 3000 years of recorded history. Homosexuality has never been sanctioned but seen as an aboration an anomaly in what ever society it has entered. It is usually associated with decadence and a subsequent moral failing of that culture.
I submit this only as my opinion and what I truly believe is reflected in the Bible.
In Yahoo answers you are sure to get positive and negative views to your question...so you should not be really surprised and my comment....thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion.
It's not that they'd screw up the sanctity of marriage people object to; it's that they exist and wish to be treated equally, and marriage rights will help this happen.
I just don't get why gay marraige is anyone elses business or concern. Theres so many REAL problems for us to focus all our energy on like war, our childrens futures/education etc etc etc....and people are going to worry about gay/lesbian marraige? Thats so stupid!
Gay marriage won't change anything for straight marriage. It is legal in Canada and the world seems to keep moving.
No. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals screw up marriage the same amount.
It does not but relgious people are against gay people and use that as an excuse.
They could start showing up at weddings and shooting people. I imagine that would make it worse.
It would make the haters '; come out of the closet ';
The institution of marriage has changed greatly over the past few thousand years. Only in the past century have women been free people with human rights. In the Bible marriage was the sale of a woman by her father to her husband, except when the Israelites were taking women captured during war as their brides. They could do that, because polygamy was common, men took concubines, and also had children by their female slaves and servants.
Why should gay people get to weasel out of good stuff like divorce by having extralegal status? I understand Ted Haggart and his wife are going to be on Divorce Court very soon. I realize we're talking entertainment, but ought not marriage be too sacred for that? ∠°)
No comments:
Post a Comment