1:Humans as a species mate between the male and female, and this is the only natural (Test tubes & sperm banks and all of that are not methods given from birth, which is what I mean by natural, meaning abilities allowable at birth), anyone past the age of 10 probably knows this.
2:With Homosexuality, the possibility for a natural child birth is impossible, not the right equipment (Gender-Specific Organs) for such a thing.
3:In the cultures of the biblical era and beyond, creating offspring and the act of procreation for strictly that purpose was likely the normal cultural habit.
4:This notion is supported by several other cultural curiosities (From the perspective of the modern, western industrialized world, i.e., today, 2007) as seen in various ancient cultures, particularly,
Homosexuality in Ancient Greece.
a.
|
Quote:
The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier, as Western societies have done for the past century. In the ancient Greek context, the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are properly used only to describe activities, not identities. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but by the extent to which such desire or behavior conformed to social norms. These norms were based on gender, age and social status.
|
b.
|
Quote:
The most common form of same-sex relationships between males in Greece was "paiderastia" meaning "boy love". It was a relationship between an older male and an adolescent youth. In Athens the older man was called erastes, he was to educate, protect, love, and provide a role model for his beloved. His beloved was called eromenos whose reward for his lover lay in his beauty, youth, and promise.
|
c.
|
Quote:
Elaborate social protocols existed to protect youths from the shame associated with being sexually penetrated. The eromenos was supposed to respect and honor the erastes, but not to desire him sexually. Although being courted by an older man was practically a rite of passage for young men, a youth who was seen to reciprocate the erotic desire of his erastes faced considerable social stigma
|
.
- So as explained above, it would seem that they did not view gender-preference as we did, but they held the act of being sexually awakened, or breaking virginity, as something of value and worth.
As for women?
d.
|
Quote:
Sappho, a poet from the island of Lesbos, wrote many love poems addressed to women and girls. The love in these poems is sometimes requited, and sometimes not. Sappho is thought to have written close to 12,000 lines of poetry on her love for other women. Of these, only about 600 lines have survived. As a result of her fame in antiquity, she and her land have become emblematic of love between women.
Pedagogic erotic relationships are also documented for Sparta, together with athletic nudity for women. Plato's Symposium mentions women who "do not care for men, but have female attachments." In general, however, the historical record of love and sexual relations between women is sparse.
|
A look at the typical household of Ancient Greece will give more insight into the views on Marriage and love:
e.
|
Quote:
A household consisted of a single set of parents and their children, but generally no relatives. Men were responsible for supporting the family by work or investments in land and commerce. Women were responsible for managing the household's supplies and overseeing slaves, who fetched water in jugs from public fountains, cooked, cleaned, and looked after babies. Men kept separate rooms for entertaining guests because male visitors were not permitted in rooms where women and children spent most of their time.
|
And in regards to marriage specifically:
f.
|
Quote:
Types of Marriage: There were two basic types of marriage that provided legitimate offspring. In one, the (male) legal guardian (kurios) who had charge of the woman arranged her marriage partner. This type of marriage is called enguesis 'betrothal'. If a woman was an heiress without a kurios, she was called an epiikleros, and might be (re-)married by the marriage form known as epidikasia.
It was unusual for a woman to own property, so the marriage of an epikleros was to the next closest available male in the family, who thereby gained control of the property. If the woman were not an heiress, the archon would find a close male relative to marry her and become her kurios. Women married in this way produced sons who were legal heirs to their fathers' property.
|
As you can see above, Marriage was much closely tied to producing children and political alliances (Although this was more prominent in Roman culture rather then greek). Very little is mentioned of Marriage for love.
- From the above analysis, it can be surmised that Marriage for Ancient Greeks (Who were also a prominent figure of Homosexual relations) was more of a business transaction then a rite of romantic love. Thus
pure romantic attachments came from men-to-boy shared love. I could not find any records of Male-to-Male marriage, so I assume that practice did not exist or was illegal.
- Now then, for the second part: Homosexual love was not seen as a method of childbearing, so it was unnatural in a biological sense. In a cultural sense its clear to see that since a love between two men or two women would never produce offspring, that it was not of value and so it should be eliminated. In the ancient cultures of Greece, China, Roman Empire, etc., the lifespan of humanity was much lower then it was today, so there was a much greater emphasis on keeping the line of fore-bearers and the "House" of a Family alive, and this was done by child begating child begating child, ad infinitum.
- Now that we have established that, we can then perhaps imagine, that the original instructions of God were perhaps, indicative of the notion that Marriage and the act of sexual intercourse was best reserved for a man and a woman, as they would produce a child and the family would continue. It would likely be a hard 'sell' to allow for homosexual love when there was no obvious 'effect' that came of it (Sex between a man and a woman gave a child, thus it had an 'effect'), so God says "Marriage is to be between a man and a woman".
Take this original transcript, and attempt to convey the context and word-for-word meaning of what was said, combine that with the human element-- translating a word as something else because "Well, god OBVIOUSLY meant Travel and not Traverse" (An example of a word being changed), and add up many many years of small changes and language translations and add to that the bigotry of biblical text which does not seem 'correct' to a powerful group of men (Look no further the the Apocrypha Texts), and have that cycle continue for well over a few centuries, and you will end up with a translation of text which is far removed from the original source in literal meaning.
Of course, for those who would scream at me 'heretic' and 'blasphemer', keep in mind that even today, translators work on a 'meaning' and the 'intent' of what is said, and not the literal word-for-word message. This is why word-play jokes, puns, culture-specific references, etc., are often vastly different then the original source.
An example from the movie "Lost in Translation", which as you might tell by the title, deals with this very issue:
|
Quote:
A scene in the film illustrates being "Lost in Translation" quite literally. Bob, a director (played by Yutaka Tadokoro), and an interpreter (Akiko Takeshita) are on a set, filming a whiskey commercial. The audience witnesses several exchanges where the director speaks several sentences, with passion, followed by a pithy translation. At one point a slightly exasperated Bob asks "Is that everything? It seemed like he said quite a bit more than that." The scene is played without subtitles, so those viewers who don't speak Japanese feel as lost as Bob does. Motoko Rich of The New York Times translated the scene in a 2003 article.[2] One of the exchanges translated by Rich illustrates the scene in general:
Bob: Does he want me to, to turn from the right or turn from the left?
Interpreter (in formal Japanese, to the director): He has prepared and is ready. And he wants to know, when the camera rolls, would you prefer that he turn to the left, or would you prefer that he turn to the right? And that is the kind of thing he would like to know, if you don't mind.
Director (very brusquely, in colloquial Japanese): Either way is fine. That kind of thing doesn't matter. We don't have time, Bob-san, O.K.? You need to hurry. Raise the tension. Look at the camera. Slowly, with passion. It's passion that we want. Do you understand?
Interpreter (In English, to Bob): Right side. And, uh, with intensity.
|
As you can see, the original meaning and the English produced were very different. The same meaning was carried across "Intensity and to the Right", but Passion may mean a whole something else to a Japanese than to an American, and while Intensity is a valid word to be used in place of Passion, Passion itself carries connotations not seen with the word 'intensity'.
So, to finally answer your question lurker, the non-emotional base reason, I feel that a lot of people do not consider Homosexual love the same as the love provided by God is thus simplified:
- Homosexuals do not have the right equipment for making babies.
- Babies are the primary reason for Marriage up until perhaps 100 years ago (Marriage out of love)
- God intended (This is my theory and not to be held as hard fact) that Men focus on producing children, and the bit about the homosexuality was probably that "Hey, homosexuality is fine, but once you get married, drop it, ok?", meaning that the priority of producing children and the sacrament of the act of sex should be reserved for people who with you share a deep emotional attachment with. One night stands and such are likely what he was trying to say was bad, and that while you can certainly have a deep emotional connection with a person of the same gender, that Marriage to that person was a symbol that they would not only be the producer of your child, but also your life-time partner and lover. THAT is what the meaning of marriage was original intended for, I hypothesize.
- and to conclude (The near-complete answer to this, covering ALL possible aspects could be a doctoral thesis in and of itself, so I will stop short) this expose on your question, lurker, I think that by a combination of Tradition, Childbearing/Biology coming first, and the over-time corruption of Church Members and Officials to fear and eliminate that which did not fall in with the teachings, is why today Homosexuality is viewed as wrong, and not of the same kind of love as the kind indicated by the Bible.
85242
35212
Dark Nation