Homosexuality

Please don't equate culturally appropriate nudity in a gymnasium with forced nudity in a concentration camp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Can I just politely add this for another piece of information regarding the Greeks made to gymnast in the nude.
Just so you now that these greek ''bisexuals' with all due respects to them, were made to gymnast/exrcise in the nude. They did not have a choice over the matter.
Let's say it is a bit like the nazis with the Jews.
The jews were made to strip naked ( in the nude) whilst in the concentration camps.
The same idea the same attitude.
One is Greek and another is a nazi.
A bit like one is a roman and another is a Greek.

---

^ This isn't Sparta. This is MADNESS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Please don't equate culturally appropriate nudity in a gymnasium with forced nudity in a concentration camp.

---

Please do not misread heavily into what I wrote.
Nudity in a gymnasium is nothing to do with Culture.
It is quite dangerous and might get everyone involded very hurt.
Running nude and exercising is against health and safety hence sporst wear and gears to protect from possible dangers.
An example to explain what I mean is the gladiatores. They were slaves then forced to prepare for gladiatory life and thrown into the arenas with animals.
A gladiatory life was not a choice but a forced upon way of life for the romans ruling class to entertain their hunger for blood and sacrifices.
The same applies to the gymnasts who were made to train and exercise in the nude whilst the rulingclass sat and watched as an entertainment, to pass the time, and then often got engaged in other degrading activities afterwards with the gymnasts if these lattest did not perform to their best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

^ This isn't Sparta. This is MADNESS!

---

Spartacus from Sparta and mad from madness? Two very different things?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

The same applies to the gymansts who were made to train and exercise in the nude whilst the ruling class sat watch and often engaged in other degrading activities afterwards. It was a kind of entertainment by the ruling class for the ruling clasee.

---

No, in Ancient Greece only those in the privileged ruling class had access to the gymnasiums, they were a public space supported by the government usually (like a park would be today). Sport is a leisure activity, poor people didn't get to throw balls around and wrestle to pass away the day.

The Academy, where Plato taught philosophy, was a gymnasium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

A gladiatory life was not a choice but a forced upon way of life for the romans ruling class to entertain their hunger for blood and sacrifices.

---

Actually just to clarify, this is a common misconception. The gladiatorial games were mainly an event for the plebeians, the masses, the people. Not to say the aristocracy did not enjoy them, well at least some of them enjoyed it, most of the senators with their philosophy and literature and morals and education did not like it, but tolerated it for one simple reason; to wit, the masses loved the games. Whenever in Rome a war was going badly or the economy was failing, badabing badaboom huge games were held. They would distract the people and keep them happy, it would make the masses docile and bade off unrest.

Think of it like this, imagine if Mitt Romney happened to own the Yankees, or if David Cameron owned Chelsea; that would do wonders for them with the people, and in fact the shrewd populist Berlusconi knew this very well and made constant references to his owning and loving A.C Milan during all his elections. And it undoubtedly swayed the Italian masses to elect a pedophile and sexual maniac on a neronian scale to the highest office of power in Italy.


Augustus, the first real roman emperor realized this very well. Rome had just transitioned from a Republic to an Empire, and he knew the senatorial aristocracy would not tolerate to live under a tyrant after a long tradition of freedom. But what Augustus did know and learn from Caesar; is that as long as a man had the support and love of the masses the aristocracy could do little to harm him. What was one of the first things he did when Emperor? He hosted a massive celebration with gladiatorial games and ensured that the stadium would be filled with the common men, ensuring the poor were all given free tickets. He won their simple-minded love and gained enough time due to the bulwark he had created with the common man, to win over the aristocracy to his side and ensure the cementation of his power.

In short, no the gladiatorial games were not to entertain the elite, they mainly existed because the masses loved their blood and violence and the aristocracy realized how useful the games were to manipulate and control them.


Also while most Gladiators were indeed slaves, many which reached a certain level of fame would earn their freedom and become wealthy men, The son of Marcus Aurelius, Commodus famously was the first and last emperor to take part himself in the games as a gladiator. Slavery in Ancient Rome is a very hard thing to define for a modern reader, one must always remember that slaves were on one had often killed if they displeased their owner and on the other hand that Terence and Trimalchio were both ex-slaves. So very complicated and not that relatable to the more recent forms of slavery such as seen in the 19th century in North America with their African slaves.


Just wanted to clarify that historical mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Spartacus from Sparta and mad from madness? Two very different things?

---

Actually Spartacus was a Thracian. And currently I am as stoned as a Scythian, so sorry if my previous post was a bit illegible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Actually just to clarify, this is a common misconception. The gladiatorial games were mainly an event for the plebeians, the masses, the people. Not to say the aristocracy did not enjoy them, well at least some of them enjoyed it, most of the senators with their philosophy and literature and morals and education did not like it, but tolerated it for one simple reason; to wit, the masses loved the games. Whenever in Rome a war was going badly or the economy was failing, badabing badaboom huge games were held. They would distract the people and keep them happy, it would make the masses docile and bade off unrest.

Think of it like this, imagine if Mitt Romney happened to own the Yankees, or if David Cameron owned Chelsea; that would do wonders for them with the people, and in fact the shrewd populist Berlusconi knew this very well and made constant references to his owning and loving A.C Milan during all his elections. And it undoubtedly swayed the Italian masses to elect a pedophile and sexual maniac on a neronian scale to the highest office of power in Italy.


Augustus, the first real roman emperor realized this very well. Rome had just transitioned from a Republic to an Empire, and he knew the senatorial aristocracy would not tolerate to live under a tyrant after a long tradition of freedom. But what Augustus did know and learn from Caesar; is that as long as a man had the support and love of the masses the aristocracy could do little to harm him. What was one of the first things he did when Emperor? He hosted a massive celebration with gladiatorial games and ensured that the stadium would be filled with the common men, ensuring the poor were all given free tickets. He won their simple-minded love and gained enough time due to the bulwark he had created with the common man, to win over the aristocracy to his side and ensure the cementation of his power.

In short, no the gladiatorial games were not to entertain the elite, they mainly existed because the masses loved their blood and violence and the aristocracy realized how useful the games were to manipulate and control them.


Also while most Gladiators were indeed slaves, many which reached a certain level of fame would earn their freedom and become wealthy men, The son of Marcus Aurelius, Commodus famously was the first and last emperor to take part himself in the games as a gladiator. Slavery in Ancient Rome is a very hard thing to define for a modern reader, one must always remember that slaves were on one had often killed if they displeased their owner and on the other hand that Terence and Trimalchio were both ex-slaves. So very complicated and not that relatable to the more recent forms of slavery such as seen in the 19th century in North America with their African slaves.


Just wanted to clarify that historical mistake.

---

Quote:

---

ActuallySpartacus was a Thracian. And currently I am as stoned as a Scythian, so sorry if my previous post was a bit illegible.

---

I see that is all interesting. I Never heard of Thracia until now.
I suppose I just went with the movie.

About Scythia I found this I quote:

''In a broader sense, the name "Scythian" has also been used to refer to various peoples seen as similar to the Scythians, or who lived anywhere in the area known as Scythia''

Is this suggesting that Scythians from Scythia are not Scythian?!!:confused:

You guys and your mythology era. Regardless of what was mainstream acceptable. I can bet you they had just as much homosexuality in "both" sexes as we do now.

The same way women had to hide their sexual activities through little clubs and other behind the scenes secret sex societies.

Sex is a funny thing, there are no real rules for it. And the stranger the sex (as long as it is not violating) the better the sex. It's not a new concept, it's just a bit more open now. But even today we have people being killed for being gay, and some of them are just suspected of being gay.

^ Just wait until the Call of Duty kids grow up, yikes.

My wife came across a satirical rebuttal of biblical condemnation of homosexuality which she laughed at and shared with me.

It's well worth a look.

http://www.yuricareport.com/Parody%2...ToDrLaura.html

Awesome, Paul. Going on FB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

Awesome, Paul. Going on FB.

---

Oops I nearly read that as FBI. I was wondering where the I got to. :smilewinkgrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revolte

You guys and your mythology era. Regardless of what was mainstream acceptable. I can bet you they had just as much homosexuality in "both" sexes as we do now.

The same way women had to hide their sexual activities through little clubs and other behind the scenes secret sex societies.

Sex is a funny thing, there are no real rules for it. And the stranger the sex (as long as it is not violating) the better the sex. It's not a new concept, it's just a bit more open now. But even today we have people being killed for being gay, and some of them are just suspected of being gay.

^ Just wait until the Call of Duty kids grow up, yikes.

---

Most cultures look at non-straight sexual orientation being equal to crime or sin, their debate on the subject is that sex is supposed to be a reproductive process for humanity and not a thing of pleasure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monamy

Most cultures look at non-straight sexual orientation being equal to crime or sin, their debate on the subject is that sex is supposed to be a reproductive process for humanity and not a thing of pleasure.

---

Hi Monamy I guess it all depends onwhat would one define pleasure.
I am guessing those who cannot, for reasons other then theirs, comprehend or realise/achieve pleasure as a result condem and abuse.
There is french saying Moliere in fact
''qui se send morveux se mouche''
What I mean is when one does not comprehend then one condemns. Anger which manifests itself in overpowering others is often mislead for strength when it is in fact the complete lack of it all.
The less one have from what others naturally have the more one want to curse and accuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monamy

Most cultures look at non-straight sexual orientation being equal to crime or sin, their debate on the subject is that sex is supposed to be a reproductive process for humanity and not a thing of pleasure.

---

What do you mean by most? It may be interesting to look at which societies look at it this way, and which don't, and then look at the cultural basis for this.

their debate on the subject is that sex is supposed to be a reproductive process for humanity and not a thing of pleasure

The problem with this is that it is not the experience of humans that it is merely a reproductive act.

Okay, I still don't have time to respond to everything (it doesn't help that I was "glutened" a few days ago). I just wanted to say Turquoise, I agree with you that not everyone has an adjenda and I apologize if I sounded "all or nothing."

My bottom line is, I'm not a biggot because I believe that homosexual acts are a sin. If I was biggoted against sinners, then I'd probably commit suicide because I'm a sinner too. I don't get angry if people don't share my opinions, but I don't like when people put words in my mouth because I believe a certain way. I'm not out to take rights away from anyone.

I do want to address this statement though:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revolte

Wait, what? I think if you think you can choose to be gay, then you're in the closet. No offense though, I just think that's the logical application for that statement.

---

If you'd notice, I also said that I don't have the urge to get drunk. I have about as much chance of being gay as I do of being an alcoholic.

It is a form of love like any other, and for that reason alone deserves to be respected.