You're failing to understand, or not reading properly.
Am I now? I understood your post quite well. It is you who missed the context of my post, despite explaining it already - it's a response to claims that religious people are the only ones opposing homosexuality. Something that doesn't have anything to do with your reply.
Where societies originally accepted homosexuality, it was religion that changed the perceptions to something negative. The spring of Islam and Christianity that occurred was responsible for the once normative acceptance.
You do realise that all the civilizations in wich homosexuality has been accepted had various religions deeply rooted in them. Greeks, Egypt, India, any ancient civilization at all. They all had distinct religions wich were rooted in the core of the respective societies and helped form their cultural identity. In fact, there are scenes in some of those pagan religions in wich gods acted in a way that could be described as homosexual.
Japan, for one, had no problem with doing such things to their kami. Zeus also had such stuff, as did various other tales and myths. It was under the banner of these religions that homosexuality got accepted (if it infact did, but I'll get to that just in a second), so to say that people simply embraced it and then big bad religion came and twisted it is ridiculous.
Before the rise of Abrahamic religions, homosexuality was normal worldwide. Granted, certain nation's cultures disagreed like the Israelite's, but there's no such thing as a universally accepted concept; there'll always be opposing parties.
Let me get this straight. You first say that homosexuality was accepted worldwide, and then say that it wasn't? Because that's what it looks like. If something is to be accepted as normal in all parts of the world (
You must be registered for see links
) then it cannot be rejected in some parts of the world because then you wouldn't have it worldwide anymore - it would be limited in acceptance to only a part of the world.
With the bold you also agreed with this which really makes me wonder what's the point you're trying to make.
As for Abrahamic religions being at fault here, ever heard of Zoroastrianism? Non-abrahamic religion right there.
Your ignorance prevails. That is not a fact; that is a lie based on a lack of awareness and knowledge
The truth is that the age of a person perceived to be old/aware enough for sexual relations was quite different, and not even most of same-*** relationships revolved around children.
Not a fact?
"The most widespread and socially significant form of same-*** sexual relations in ancient Greece was between adult men and pubescent or adolescent boys..."
"...Roman men in general seem to have preferred youths between the ages of 12 and 20 as sexual partners..."
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
It only takes a minute-google search to verify it as a fact. Speaking of facts,
"...homosexuality was regarded as a normal facet of life in China, prior to the Western impact of 1840 onwards.[1] However, this has been disputed.[2] Many early Chinese emperors are speculated to have had homosexual relationships, accompanied by heterosexual ones.[3] Opposition to homosexuality, according to the study by Hinsch, did not become firmly established in China until the 19th and 20th centuries, through the Westernization efforts of the late Qing Dynasty and early Republic of China.[4] On the other hand, Gulik's influential study argued that the Mongol Yuan dynasty introduced a more ascetic attitude to sexuality in general.[5][6] It is also argued that the classical Chinese were unable to express homosexuality in a coherent and empathetic manner."[2][7] Thus, it may remain for further research to determine the question of whether anti-gay attitudes in Modern China can be significantly attributed to the entrance of Western attitudes into China, or whether opposition was merely not expressed in a coherent manner."
We do not have enough historical knowledge to make any claims about wether or not there was opposition to homosexuality in China before the westernization. Let alone treat them as a fact.
"Religion has played a role in shaping Indian customs and traditions. While homosexuality has not been explicitly mentioned in the religious texts central to Hinduism, the largest religion in India, Hinduism has taken various positions, ranging from positive to neutral or antagonistic."
It is an established fact that there was opposition to homosexuality in the rows of Hinduism (based on certain interpretations) wich shows that opposition existed long before the rise of Christianity or Islam.
"Homosexuality in Ancient Egypt is a passionately disputed subject within Egyptology: historians and egyptologists alike debate what kind of view the Ancient Egyptians society fostered about homosexuality. Only a handful of direct hints have survived to this day and many possible indications are only vague and offer plenty of room for speculation."
Ancient Egypt doesn't give any valid sources to make its stance on the topic clear, so to state the encouragement of homosexuality as a fact is absurd.
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
I could go on, but the point is that the "everyone accepted homosexuality until Abrahamic religions came" is absurd as lack of historical documents and context of certain recordings leave us with no certainity about one nation's stance on the topic, let alone the entire world.
In Rome, adult men having a relationship, and even marriages were known to occur. In Greece, homosexuality was *not* "justified", because its existence rose with the rest of culture. Justification is for that which is previously undone and no such idea that love between men was superior was ever the norm. The only remotely similar thing is what Plato (which is not representative of an entire culture) is his phrasing about *** between men being special and having something which heterosex didn't. All in all, the structuring of homosexual relationships in the ancient Grecian world was based on age, exactly the same as heterosexual relationships; of which were samely based on adult men and adolescents mainly, similar to the rest of the world. But you don't hear people saying heterosexuality has a strong historical connection with paedophilia do you? Why? Because just like the homosexual relations of the time, they were based on the belief that a younger age was appropriate.
@bold: I never denied this. The thing is, they're a minority. It is the heterosexual couples that would have a higher number of adult relationships, despite both being largely with the minors in one way or another.
Indeed, heterosexual people of the time also took younger women as their wifes. This is a matter of a lower age of consent. This is the problem though. These acts, no matter what the ancients thought of them, are what is considered pedophilic. I never said they were exclusive to homosexuality.
The point with these parallels was simply to show that the fact that ancient civilizations approved of certain matters is irrelevant to wether these matters should be approved today.