I majored in Classical Languages in my B.A. program, and
despite the fact that it made me perhaps less
employable than not having any degree at all, I have never regretted the
decision, for a variety of reasons.
One of the reasons I appreciate the study of the Classics is
that it provides some perspective from which to evaluate and analyze
contemporary culture. To enter into the
world of ancient Greek literature, for example, is to enter a society and
culture quite different from twenty-first century America. By doing so, I became more aware that many of
the values, opinions, and customs that Americans accept as obvious or natural,
were not shared by all people at all times, and are in fact the product of our
unique cultural and intellectual history.
One of the shocking aspects for Christian students of the
Classics—at least it used to be shocking—is to discover the widespread practice
and approval of same-sex physical relationships among ancient Greeks. Take, for example, the term “Platonic
relationship.” If modern people have
heard of this concept, they think it refers to a non-sexual friendship between
a man and a woman. But Plato was not
actually much concerned with male-female relationships. The discourses he wrote which gave rise to
the terms “Platonic love” or “Platonic relationship” were actually advocating
non-sexual friendships between men. Male-to-male eroticism was widely practiced
among elite Greek men in Plato’s day; in fact, it was assumed that the ideal
love relationship between to human beings was not between a husband and wife,
but between an older man and younger (usually adolescent) man.
Plato didn’t really care for sexual acts between men, because he regarded sexual desire and passion essentially as an irrational appetite that had little to nothing to do with true love. If men loved each other, in Plato's view, they ought to form a friendship founded on a common commitment to seek out truth, beauty, and virtue —not perform sexual acts with each other. So Plato's mouthpiece Socrates dialogues with Glaucon in the Republic:
Socrates: “But let me ask you another question: Has excess of pleasure any affinity to temperance?”
Glaucon: “How can that be”? he replied; “Pleasure deprives a man of the use of his faculties quite as much as pain.”
Socrates: “Or any affinity to virtue in general?”
Glaucon: “How can that be”? he replied; “Pleasure deprives a man of the use of his faculties quite as much as pain.”
Socrates: “Or any affinity to virtue in general?”
Socrates: “Any affinity to wantonness and intemperance?”
Glaucon: “Yes, the greatest.”
Socrates: “And is there any greater or keener pleasure than that of sexual love (lit. ‘the things of Aphrodite’)?”
Glaucon: “No, nor a madder.”
Socrates: “Whereas true love is a love of beauty and order—temperate and harmonious?”
Glaucon: “Quite true,” he said.
Socrates: “Then no intemperance or madness should be allowed to approach true love?”
Glaucon: “Certainly not.”
Glaucon: “Certainly not.”
Socrates: “Then mad or intemperate pleasure must never be allowed to come near the lover and his beloved; neither of them can have any part in it
if their love is of the right sort?”
Glaucon: “No, indeed, Socrates, it must never come near them.”
Glaucon: “No, indeed, Socrates, it must never come near them.”
Socrates: “Then I suppose that in the city which we are founding you would make a law to the effect that a lover may seek the company of his
beloved and, with his consent, kiss and embrace him like a son, with honorable
intent, but must never be suspected of any further familiarity, on pain of
being thought ill-bred and without any delicacy of feeling.”
Glaucon: “I quite agree,” he said.
Glaucon: “I quite agree,” he said.
So, in Plato’s view, sex between an older and younger
man—the primary form of male-to-male sexuality practiced among the
Greeks—was coarse and vulgar, because sexual passion was intemperate and
irrational in its nature, and thus not in keeping with “true love, which is a
love of beauty and order.”
Whether one finds Plato’s argument compelling or not, it is
nonetheless provocative in the current Western cultural context, where it is
frequently asserted that the only arguments against the practice of
male-to-male sex acts are religious ones.
Plato’s objection is not based on religion, but his philosophical
worldview, and, perhaps, his observations of social reality.
In Greek culture of Plato’s day, men did not marry each
other. This was not due to prejudice
against men having sex with men. Far
from it! If anything, male-to-male sex
acts were more common and accepted in ancient Greek elite culture than they are
in most modern nations. Instead,
the issue was that male-male marriage simply did not make any sense to the
ancient Greek mind. The purpose of
marriage was to produce children, to establish a family, and to perpetuate
one’s name, lineage, and memory through heirs.
The Greeks noticed that male-to-male sex acts rarely led to conception
and birth. Since a sexual relationship
with another man could not produce children, heirs, or family, the Greek elite
had no need or desire to “marry” another man.
In a very famous court speech prosecuting the notorious courtesan (“call
girl”) Neaera, the Attic orator Demosthenes summed up ancient Greek views of
the various intimate relationships that might exist between a man and a woman,
which were primarily three:
"For
this is what living with a woman in marriage is: for a man to beget children by
her and present his sons to his fellow clansmen and members of his district and
to give daughters as his own in marriage to their husbands. Courtesans (Gk hetairas) we have for pleasure, concubines for daily
service to our bodies, but wives for the procreation of legitimate children and
to be faithful guardians of the household."—Demosthenes, “Against
Neaera”
Interestingly, Demosthenes lists no intimate relationship
with a woman which is for the sake of love.
Courtesans are for pleasure, concubines for bodily needs, and wives for
children. Love, however, was usually
pursued with a younger man, as we see
above in the extract from Plato, where the older man and younger man are referred
to as “loving” and “being loved” respectively. (It would be interesting to contrast Greek views with St. Paul's teaching on marriage in Eph. 5:21-33, but lack of time prohibits us from developing the point.)
So we can affirm that it is not from prejudice, bigotry, and
hatred of homosexuals that ancient Greek society did not practice male-to-male
marriage. We can affirm this for more
than one reason.
First of all, the category “homosexual,” as well as others
such as “bisexual,” were not known among the ancient Greeks. The Greeks developed advanced philosophical
systems, but did not know of a category of “sexual orientation.” Men did not think of themselves a belonging
to a category “homosexual” or “bisexual” because they had a sexual relationship
with a boy or teenager. The concepts of
“sexual orientation,” “homosexuality,” “bisexuality,” and the such like are
modern social constructs. That is to
say, they are recently invented categories by which persons in modern Western
society perceive reality, but they are not biological or material realities
recognized by all cultures. For more on this, click here.
The idea that one is “born gay” due to genetics is known to
be false from several lines of research. Some of the most compelling research has been done on male identical twins in Australia, where the
presence of same-sex attraction had only around an 11% rate of
correlation. That is, if one twin
experienced attraction to persons of the same sex, there was only an 11% or
lower chance that the other twin would also manifest same-sex attraction. Since identical twins are genetically
identical, if same-sex attraction were genetically determined, there should be
close to a 100% correlation between twins on this characteristic. Therefore, we can say confidently that
genetics play only a small role in the development of what we commonly call “homosexuality”—probably about the same role genetics plays in any of our personal desires and preferences. For a survey of the peer-reviewed studies, with analysis, click here and here.
As mentioned above, gay academics themselves recognize that the category
“homosexual” is a recent cultural phenomenon, and that no one is “born that way.”
In sum, ancient Greeks did not even have the concept of
“homosexuals.” Therefore, their lack of
recognition of same-sex marriage could not have been due to hatred of a
category of person they did not even have.
Secondly, Greek society was largely controlled by a male
elite, most of whom would be categorized in our thought system as “bisexuals,”
because of their free sexual activity with both women and boys. They could hardly have forbidden homosexual
“marriage” out of hatred of themselves.
During the oral arguments on [gay marriage] before the
Supreme Court some weeks ago, a somewhat frustrated Justice Alito asked the
lead attorney for proponents of redefining marriage to include same-sex unions whether it could really be the
case that every society in human history prior to about the year 2000 had defined
marriage as a union between a man and woman solely because of “invidious and
improperly motivated discrimination.”
Mary Bonauto, the lead attorney, responded: “Times can blind.” Indeed, Ms. Bonauto.
Including our own time.
Actually, Mary Bonauto knows full well that not all
societies defined marriage as between a man and a woman out of “invidious
discrimination.” In fact, probably none did. Mary Bonauto is a very
smart, well-educated woman who surely did the background research before
presenting her case before the Supreme Court, including reading the briefs of
her opponents. She is aware, for example, that Greek
society was controlled by men whom we would characterize as “bisexuals,” and
that nonetheless they did not recognize same-sex “marriage” because it was
completely contrary to what they perceived the purpose and ends of marriage to
be. So she wisely gave an ambiguous
answer to Alito’s question. “Times can
blind,” is a truism that means nothing of relevance: we can be blinded by our
own time, just as much as every previous generation. But I give Ms. Bonauto credit for not
prevaricating by answering Alito’s question with a clear “Yes.”
No comments:
Post a Comment