Some of the things one finds while doing research for a novel re LGBT rights

[nadinbrzezinski]

I think I have found the origin to the PHOBIA to the LGBT community...in our three western religions... no, none gets a pass.

No not the bible, well almost not the bible. In ancient times fertility rites were common. They involved sex and lots of it. The involved sex that involve men and women... men and men, women and women and any variation of the above and beasts... bulls in particular, who were supposed to be imbued with sexual power...

So our phobia for something that humans (like any other higher mammal) will do... lies in this competition between El, Yahveh, Ba'al and Asher...

Yes, the novel includes Ba'al... so who knew what I would find when going pocking around... after all homosexuality was not only accepted in the ancient world, but was part of many a religious ritual... so when the religious leaders of the three major faiths say... this is a sin to the father (complete the rest)... they mean it. It is a sin to the ancient vengeful god that needed to kick all the others out of the pantheon. Perhaps some of these folks are afraid that if we accept this is a natural thing... (I know the horror) next we will start praying to Asher (the Snake Goddess) and for god sakes, go to the temple to engage in the services of the Kedeshites (female prostitutes) and Kadeshim, (male prostitutes)... and there was plenty of sex, even public sex in ancient times... the other reason why they are afraid of any of this.

I doubt most of our leaders have a clue as to the true origin, but there you have it... I am sharing because to me it is critical to understand why things happen to be able to fight them. History and all that.

[paulsby]

1. one thing i don't hear mention

is that the bible (as far as i know) doesn't even mention lesbianism, one way or the other.

iow, i guess a pure constructionist bible person could object to MALE same sex relationships, but i see no biblical justification for female sex prohibitions

maybe i'm missin' something

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Yeah you are, indirectly, the cult of Asher

[Cleita]

7. That's because it was expected in the harems and considered normal

so there was nothing to write about. The only reason heterosexual sex is written about is because it was important for having children and propagating the blood line.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Another historical factor to include.

While the act of homosexuality was generally "accepted," homosexual relationships were frowned upon, if not outright illegal, even among the ancients. IMHO, it would be more accurate to say bisexuality was acceptable, whereas homosexuality, as exclusive, was not "fashionable."

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Not among certain cultures, such as the Spartans

[Behind the Aegis]

5. You may want to check on that, unless you are thinking of the Thebeans.

[blogslut]

6. I've heard it explained thusly

Homosexuality and Lesbianism has been practiced for as long as history records but that the act of living as a gay/lesbian person is a recent phenomenon - Being that most societies were all about procreation. In other words, it didn't matter if a person was hard-wired to desire same-sex, they did their social duty, got married and had kids because that was the norm.

[NuttyFluffers]

8. i think the fear comes from theosophic/philosophic dichotomies to perpetuate strict patriarchy.

remember, almost all major patriarchal societies have public injunctions against behavior of "men lying with other men as a woman." this includes The Great Vedic Tradition (Hinduism), its heterodoxies -- Buddhism (starting out as secular and having religious sects later), Jainism, Confucianism (which started and maintained being secular throughout), religious Taoism, Legalism, Korean Shamanism, Japanese Shinto, Manichaeanism, Zoroastrianism, Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, Yoruban, Mayan pantheons, etc. even down to almost a majority of animist and "pagan" philosophies and/or religions. further, i see several societies have less of a religious hold onto these ideas and more of a secular purchase into them. secularization offers zero protection against this injunction on behavior, but dovetails seamlessly with patriarchal strictures. it explains why patriarchal societies, who have retained an unusual level of secularization, and have had limited to no contact with Abrahamic faiths, still held similar injunctions upon contact.

so, i think the big key is the "as a woman" caveat. male citizens, a.k.a. those who are not the penniless masses, women, children, intersexual/transexual outcasts, or slaves, had strict expectations placed on the production of heirs and tracing male lineage. this went beyond the other false dichotomy that this is derived from either religious or philosophical injunctions of tradition, because both placed these expectations that the male line must continue and property organization must follow codices to fall back on when there are extenuating circumstances. the last thing such a patriarchal society wants is people "messin' with the natural order of things" by going off and having pleasure but not fulfilling their responsibility to their "dynasty," if you will.

homosexuality, of any stripe, is well documented, but note that the issues of pederasty or homosexuality with slaves or religious "vestigal virgins" was never the big issue. it was, to be blunt, to take it from another male citizen, break the class boundaries, and endanger the lineage and legal codices. the only exception is during liminal periods, such as soldiers who have sex with each other for various reasons and are usually justified for morale. war, like pregnancy, and coming-of-age are routinely couched in ceremonial regalia (occurring with just as much having nothing to do with religion as it does with -- people in general will be surprised at the societies that existed). this is because liminal states, where identity definitions are being broken down and then reconstructed, and where great stresses will occur, are great emotional, social, and psychological threats to the community. to control such states ritual is used to confine them into a manageable structure.

so, during liminal periods, you may transgress the normative framework. but once you return to "peacetime" as it were, you cannot enjoy the pleasures of the liminal without censure. so, male sexual pleasure without producing heirs: bad. male sexual pleasure transgressing social class rules: even worse. male sexual pleasure transgressing social class rules within the same class, outside the liminal periods, subverting your own class into a submissive posture like the lower classes, and to accept this organization as equal and legitimate to the normative standard (a.k.a. lying with a man as a woman): all holy hell breaks loose.

in fact, i vote with some transsexual theorists that the real target of all this fear is not homosexuality but transsexuality. that there are male citizens who are "female inside" -- but have not been outed and reclassified into the sexual limbo classes -- and thus are like "booby traps" leading "normative, healthy male citizens astray." they are not the already known quantity of male-&-male love for pleasure and camaraderie (if you dig even further, most male patriarchies grudgingly admit this goes on all the time, and the elites are excused to play as they like), but the male-&-male-as-female unknown quantity that tries to emulate legitimization. however, since it cannot produce heirs, transgresses citizenship status, and stays perpetually in a liminal state, completely throws the legal codices for a loop -- BECAUSE IT CHALLENGES THE FIRST DICHOTOMY PARADIGM THAT JUSTIFIES PATRIARCHY: That Man Is Not and Shall Not Be Woman.

break the binary of gender identity and suddenly a lot of scary, unknown possibilities pop-up... from the one begat two, from the two begat three, from the three birthed the myriad of things.