Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

My Recent Edits which have been omitted

It is not proven that those ancients were among those who say homosexuality was prevalent in Ancient Greece. The whole theory was not introduced until 1907! False material should be taken out. Sac222 22:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry -Smahoney 22:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you guys for once argue against what is said instead of attacking the editors. An argument against a person is a fallacy.Sac222 22:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

An argument that an editor is violating Wikipedia policy is hardly a fallacy. At any rate, your recent edits don't observe WP:V or WP:NPOV. If you'd like to include Georgiadis' argument, you need to provide a citation, and rephrase the section so that it is neutrally worded. You will also need to establish that Georgiadis is a notable scholar, which I doubt you'll be able to do. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While correcting the deletion I stomped on your edit...my mistake.I already forgot 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Adonis Georgiadis has a Ph.d and was a candidate for the Greek parliament. Seems like a better source than any of yours.Sac222 23:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Any admins around to block User:Sac222 for WP:3RR? (I already warned him on his talk page.) -Smahoney 23:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Georgiadis and removed "controversy" text

Can anyone argue that Adonis Georgiadis is not a scholar? He has written several books, has his own show in Greece, and was a candidate for Greek parliament. Seems like it be alright if I added his argument.

You need to provide citations to show that he's a notable scholar, and to show which work(s) the argument that there was no homosexuality in classical Greece is drawn from. Until then, I'm removing the following text from the article: "Some historians, such as Adonis Georgiadis, argue against the theory that homosexuality was a common practice in Ancient Greece. The topic has sparked controversy, especially in Greece." --Akhilleus (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If I provide the book which he wrote, would that be good enough? He is clearly a qualified scholar. His book should be a good source.Cretanpride 23:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Editors should refrain from using terms like "some historians" or "some experts", since they are weasel words. One man's opinion does not speak for all of the critics. --Madchester 23:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the Greek wikipedia page for Adonis Georgiadis. Don't see anything there that indicates he's a "qualified scholar." Just about anyone can write and publish a book. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How is he not a qualified scholar? He has published other works, has his own tv show, and has run for parliament. How are the sources on the footnotes better? They are not.Cretanpride 00:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Cretanpride, are you Sac222, that is, using multiple accounts?--Aldux 00:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to read WP:V. It's WP policy to use reliable sources; for this topic, that means we should stick with mainstream scholarship. A notable scholar should have an advanced degree (Ph.D. or similiar) in classical philology, ancient history, or a similar field, have a record of peer-reviewed publications, and should be cited by other scholars. Marilyn Skinner and H.D.F. Kitto, quoted above on this page, meet these criteria. As far as I can tell, Georgiadis doesn't. In fact, he seems like either a poorly-educated crackpot or someone who willfully misreads classical texts to avoid conclusions he doesn't like.

As for the footnotes in the article, they're from Herodotus, Plato, Xenophon, and Athenaeus. These writers are probably good authorities on ancient Greek culture. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Those writers never said anything about homosexuality. Their quotes have been misinterpreted more than you can imagine. The whole theory did not start until 1907! Did it take thousands of years to discover it? A thousand years from now what are people going to say about our culture? Are football and soccer players gay because they take showers naked together? Are we a gay society because we have tv shows which show a gay lifestyle? Are catholics pedaphiles because catholic priests have molested children? The answer is no. Greeks just don't like having their history altered. There is no proof to say that the Ancient Greeks had homosexuality in their daily life.Cretanpride 02:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Xenophon, Symposium 8 (Socrates is speaking):

I see that you are in love with a person who is not marked by dainty elegance nor wanton effeminacy, but shows to the world physical strength and stamina, virile courage and sobriety. Setting one's heart on such traits gives an insight into the lover's character. [9] Now, whether there is one Aphrodite or two, ‘Heavenly’ and ‘Vulgar,’ I do not know; for even Zeus, though considered one and the same, yet has many by-names. I do know, however, that in the case of Aphrodite there are separate altars and temples for the two, and also rituals, those of the ‘Vulgar’ Aphrodite excelling in looseness, those of the ‘Heavenly’ in chastity. [10] One might conjecture, also, that different types of love come from the different sources, carnal love from the ‘Vulgar' Aphrodite, and from the ‘Heavenly’ spiritual love, love of friendship and of noble conduct. That is the sort of love, Callias, that seems to have you in its grip. [11] I infer this from the noble nature of the one you love and because I see that you include his father in your meetings with him. For the virtuous lover does not make any of these matters a secret from the father of his beloved.”

Now what did all of this have to do with Georgiadis' qualifications again? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How is that quote implying same sex love? Did it take thousands of years to interpret it that way? As for Georgiadis' qualifications, he has written several books, has his own tv show, and was a candidate for Greek parliament.Cretanpride 02:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I might add that this is a mistranslation and that Callius got married to a woman and had a child.Cretanpride 02:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That is true of a number of people, none of which are classics scholars. -Smahoney 02:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Its definitely a stretch to say that Plato, of all people, never said anything about homosexuality (unless you're making a distinction between homosexuality and pederasty). -Smahoney 02:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have Republic right next to me as well as a large book which has the dialogues of Plato. Where does he say anything about same sex love?Cretanpride 02:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually read any of them? -Smahoney 02:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read Republic. I got the other book from the library today. The main theme of Republic is to obtain knowledge and virtue. Perhaps I missed something that you didn't. Maybe you would like to point it out to me.Cretanpride 02:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Try the Symposium, especially the speeches of Aristophanes, Socrates, and Alcibiades; the beginning of the Charmides; the Lysis; and the Phaedrus, especially Socrates' first speech on love (look at 237b especially). Bear in mind, though, that our personal opinions of what Plato means doesn't matter; WP needs to be based on what reliable, verifiable sources say, and the vast majority of scholarly sources tell us that same-sex relationships were a common feature of ancient Greek culture. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, your allegation that the Xenophon passage is mistranslated is silly. The passage clearly indicates that several older men are in love with younger men, a phenomenon found in many ancient Greek texts. And yes, we know that many ancient Greek men were married to women, had children, and also had sexual relationships with males. I don't think you even understand what is mean by "homosexuality in ancient Greece", and you might do yourself well to go read K.J. Dover, or any of the scholars who have written about this issue, so you can see what the evidence is and how it's interpreted. Start by reading the Platonic dialogues I mention above. Then perhaps we could stop wasting all this time. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it silly. In ancient Greek "his" or "her" can be used for both genders. For example if you said "his responsibility" you would use the same word for a female as well. In other words, if you used a greek to english translater "his" in greek may come out as "her" in English. I can't explain it better than that. If it is that clear to you that homosexuality was so prevalent than why did it take thousands of years to discover it? My friends in Greece do not learn of it like that. One goes to the University of Crete and the other in Athens and they have not heard of this until I showed it to them. That means that there are other points of you but you are all not allowing them to be displayed on this page.Cretanpride 03:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but you don't seem to realize that in ancient Greek pronouns, nouns, and adjectives show distinctions in gender. So, if I said in ancient Greek "I'm in love with him", it would be different than saying "I'm in love with her." If I said "I'm in love with a man", it would be very clear that I was not saying "I'm in love with a woman." Moreover, when Xenophon (Symposium 8) has Socrates say, "I know that Charmides here has gained many lovers" (Χαρμίδην δὲ τόνδε οἶδα πολλοὺς μὲν ἐραστὰς κτησάμενον), we can see from the gender of πολλοὺς μὲν ἐραστὰς that Charmides has male lovers, not female lovers. I can't help it if your friends at university aren't taught about Greek pederasty, but I'm pretty sure they at least know how to decline adjectives properly.

So let's be clear about this: the classical Greeks talked openly about pederasty, it's not at all an invention of the modern era. Here's a Roman-era source that discusses same-sex love: Athenaeus 13.601a-b (I suppose you'll say this is also mistranslated): "Stesichorus, another man of strong passions, composed the particular kind of lyrics that were called "boy songs" and "boy love." No one used to despise those who had a passionate nature: love affairs were such an open and everyday matter that the great poet Aeschylus, and Sophocles too, put sexual themes on the stage in their tragedies, Aeschylus showing Achilles’ love for Patroclus, Sophocles love of the boys in Niobe (which is why some people call this play Paiderastria) –- and their audiences enjoyed such themes. . . And many men, overall, prefer love with boys to love with females. In the very cities of Greece that have the best laws by comparison with others, this is the mode of behavior that is fashionable. The Cretans, as I told you, and the Chalcidians of Euboea, are both especially fond of love with boys." --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What do I care what some Roman thinks? There is also an article on homosexuality in ancient Rome which I don't beleive is historical either but I bet you do. Regarding the mistranslation, they have happened before and who are you to quickly deny that this one is. I will respond with the paragraph below. Of course this cannot mean anything? Right?

From the time of Homer, in whose epic poetry there cannot be found one iota of a hint of homosexual behavior, to the time of Alexander the Great, such practices as sodomy between adults -- or between an adult and a boy -- were considered abominations, and were strictly forbidden and severely punished. As for Alexander, according to Plutarch in On The Fortune of Alexander, when the Macedonian conqueror was asked by the lickspittle governor of one of the conquered provinces in Asia Minor, if he would like him to send Alexander "...a youth, the like of whom for bloom and beauty did not exist." he received the following reply: "Why you vilest of men, what deed of mine have you witnessed in the past that would make you think I would be interested in such pleasures?" And speaking of Homer, the friendship between Achilles and Patroclus has been the subject of much snide innuendo. This malicious and self-serving commentary always seems to ignore the fact that the whole theme of the Iliad -- Homer's great epic account of the Trojan War, and Achilles' heroic exploits in it -- was the "Wrath of Achilles." And what was Achilles so worked up (wrathful) about? Why, it was that Agamemnon, had taken Achilles' slave girl away from him. When Achilles and Patroclus came back to their tent after a hard day on the field of battle, their two captured slave girls -- taken as booty -- were waiting for them. When they went to sleep, they slept with these girls. The idea that the glorification of friendship that the Greeks so admired could have been nothing more than an excuse for sodomy, is as ridiculous as it is despicable and unhistorical.Cretanpride 06:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that Athenaeus is not a Roman, he is "Roman-era". He is a Greek who wrote during the time of the Roman empire--the 2nd century AD, to be more specific.

As for the paragraph you quote, you ought to cite it properly. A Google search reveals that the website your quote comes from is one step away from endorsing white supremacy, so I don't really think it's a great source for this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh and by the way "Pollous men Erastas" I don't quite speak ancient greek but I don't see how that he is implying to male lovers. Furthermore, my friends in Greece are taught that Eromenos and Erasteis are quite different than what is mentioned in this article. That means that there are professors with Ph.ds who beleive otherwise and something should be included in the article.Cretanpride 06:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.98.122 (talk • contribs)

pollous is the masculine form. It indicates without ambiguity that Charmides' lovers are male. If you can't read or speak ancient Greek then please stop telling us things are mistranslated--you've demonstrated you don't have the appropriate expertise.

If there are really so many professors in Greece that claim the erastes--eromenos relationship wasn't sexual, you ought to be able to give some citations--but so far all you've come up with is a racist website. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Pollous" in modern Greek means "many", It does not have a masculine or feminine form in the context it was said. You can say "pollous loves" (pollous agapes or in this case erastas) or "Poli agapes" Either one and it could go for both genders. I would imagine modern Greek has not changed enough from ancient Greek to change this. If you say it has I will look into it. And next time I see a Greek professor with a Ph.d I will ask for his opinion. Until then I will stop writing onto here because apparently there are similar articles on Rome, China, and Japan, and even one on pederasty in the entire world. Apparently the entire world according to wikipedia was at one point practicing pederasty. By the way noone ever tried to argue against Phallanx.Cretanpride 07:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, one quote does not prove the entire culture embraced same sex relationships.Cretanpride 08:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

---

As an aside, I believe that User:Sac222, User:66.233.24.105, User:66.53.98.122 and User:Cretanpride are the same editor. Apologies if I'm wrong, but the interests, contributions, and tone of these users are quite similar. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets?

I share your speculation regarding those users (actually, I think there are a couple more who showed up on the VfD page and made identical arguments). -Smahoney 00:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, it won't be speculation for long.--Aldux 00:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a checkuser utility or something for situations like this? -Smahoney 00:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You guys can't even argue against me so you are making accusations and deriding my sources. Cretanpride 02:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Same users. The IPs are from the same ISP, and the other user only popped up after I pointed that fact out. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Phallanx: Another sockpuppet to add to the list? -Smahoney 05:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. I was going through the talk page history to track down all the unsigned posts, to see if we had more sockpuppets, but User:Phallanx only made one post, back on 4 September 2005. Probably someone else, but I don't know how to do IP checks and stuff like that. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend going here: Wikipedia:Checkuser. I'm an admin, but only those with Checkuser privileges have the ability to run IP traces on actual screennames. --Madchester 05:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wellity wellity wellity, would you look at this? Up above, Cretanpride changed the signature of a comment made by one of the IPs to his own username. If this doesn't seal the deal, I don't know what does. :/ -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. Well, I hate to be the one to break Wikipedia:Assume good faith, but when does this guy get blocked (his other account already has been, for WP:3RR, and he's using a sockpuppet to evade that block) permanently? His sole mission, and that of his alter egos, is to ensure that a particular POV enters this article, and his continuing comments on this page (and responses to them) are not helping the article in any way. And then, when do the citations start to appear in this article? -Smahoney 19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's only that since it's the first time with this guy I decided to extend AGF beyond even the limits of good sence. But I've made a checkuser request, and if positive, I'll block all his socks and know how to proceed if Cretanpride tries the trick again.--Aldux 21:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As suspected, they're all socks of Cretanpride; checkuser has just confirmed this.--Aldux 17:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Not so much of a surprise, I guess. Now for the obligatory "they're not me you guys are conspiring against me you can't even argue with my amazing points so you're trying to discredit me" nonsense. -Smahoney 17:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the verification (Wikipedia:Checkuser#Cretanpride), I will be placing indefinite blocks on all of these accounts for repeated sockpuppetry, per Wikipedia:Blocking policy. --Madchester 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, seems like it's already been done. I have tagged Cretanpride as a sockpuppeteer. --Madchester 00:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

In light of the recent guerilla edits and possible sockpuppetry, this article has been semi-protected until editors can work towards consensus. Thanks. --Madchester 23:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It would make sense to have some discussion, with sources, of how scholars treated this aspect of ancient Greek culture before the 20th century. Something I'm not qualified to write. Gazpacho 05:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

vandalism in progress?

User:Cretanpride has twice tried to put {{disputed}} tags on the page after they were removed by User:CaveatLector (see this diff and this diff, both without edit summaries). Given Cretanpride's combative history on this article, this strikes me as vandalism, rather than constructive editing. Would other editors agree that placing one of the vandalism warning templates on Cretanpride's talk page is appropriate? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Laws against homosexuality in Ancient Greece

Why can't you all be open minded to the idea that Ancient Greece was not a haven for homosexuals. I just finished reading Adonis Georgiadis' book. Say what you want about him but he did a vast amount of research and went directly to the primary sources and pulled quote after quote in the origninal Ancient Greek to disprove the myth. Just because someone has a Ph.d doesn't mean everything he/she says is golden. Here are some quotes:

“And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but it is AGAINST nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.” Plato Laws 1.636c

“If we were to follow in nature's steps and enact that law which held good before the days of Laius, declaring that it is right to refrain from indulging in the same kind of intercourse with men and boys as with women, and adducing as evidence thereof the nature of wild beasts, and pointing out how male does not touch male for this purpose, since it is unnatural,--in all this we would probably be using an argument neither convincing nor in any way consonant with your States.” Plato Laws 8.836c

“I maintain that our regulation on this head must go forward and proclaim that our citizens must not be worse than fowls and many other animals which are produced in large broods, and which live chaste and celibate lives without sexual intercourse until they arrive at the age for breeding; and when they reach this age they pair off, as instinct moves them, male with female and female with male;” Plato Laws 8.840d “We might forcibly effect one of two things in this matter of sex-relations,--either that no one should venture to touch any of the noble and freeborn save his own wedded wife, nor sow any unholy and bastard seed in fornication, nor any unnatural and barren seed in sodomy,--or else we should entirely abolish love for males” Plato Laws 8.841d

“When Zeus created humans and their other soul properties, he ingrained them in every human being. However, he left SHAME out. Since he didn’t know where to insert it, he commanded that it (shame) be inserted in the anus. Shame, however, complained about this and was very upset. Since shame was profusely complaining, shame said: “I will only agree to be inserted this way (i.e., in the anus) and whoever is inserted after me, I will come out.” From this day on, may every sexually inclined person who chooses this method be SHAMEFUL!” Aesop’s Fables, Zeus and Aeschyne (Shame)

There were also laws against homosexuality in Ancient Greek city states written in "Contra Timarchus"-I can post them if anyone does not believe me.

Why can't you all be open minded to the idea that homosexuality was not commonplace in Ancient Greece?Cretanpride 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone's close-minded here, all right. Anyway, thanks for the primary sources, but it would be more impressive if they didn't come from old comment threads on someone's blog. Can't you even quote the Georgiadis book you say you just read? And I'd love to see your quotes from Against Timarchus--why haven't you already posted them, could you not find them on a blog somewhere? Try this site.

Now let's look at one of the quotes you took from the blog entry, the quote from Laws 8.836c. This dialogue is about the constitution of an ideal state, much like the Republic. The laws it discusses are not those of any ancient Greek city. At 8.836c, the speaker, an anonymous Athenian, proposes enacting the law "which held good before the days of Laius"--in other words, a law that is not in effect in the speaker's own time. And the Athenian thinks his contemporaries would disagree with his proposal--as the quote you provide has it, "in all this we would probably be using an argument neither convincing nor in any way consonant with your States", or as the translation of Trevor Saunders has it, "But in Crete and Sparta your argument would not go down at all well, and you'd probably persuade nobody." The Athenian clearly means that Crete and Sparta accepted pederasty, and we have evidence from other sources that confirms this. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, son of Peleus (forgive the Classics geek joke), for beating me to the punch and dealing with this situation. It's quite clear that Cretenpride is dead set on vandalizing and trolling this page. I think his statement (even before he ripped Plato quotes out of context) 'Just because someone has a Ph.d doesn't mean everything he/she says is golden.' reveals the anti-academic attitude poisoning his side of the conversation. Does Georgiadis even gave a degree or academic training of any kind? If he does I might be inclined to pick his book up from my library and see whatever arguments he could possibly make. If not, is there any way we can have an admin come in and put an end to this ridiculous display? CaveatLector^Talk 05:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

We discussed Georgiadis' qualifications above; from the Greek wikipedia article on him, it doesn't look like he has academic qualifications. He's a politician and TV personality, but that hardly makes him a reliable source for this article. In fact, I'd suspect that his views on Greek homosexuality are an extension of his political views; certainly the English language websites that have picked up on his argument are socially quite conservative.

User:Cretanpride's vandalism and general disruptive behavior are quite separate from the issue of Georgiadis' qualifications and I think it's time for administrator intervention. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not quote the book myself because it is in Greek,there are many more quotes to be added. If you would like I could pull out some more quotes and translate them in English as best I can. Also your counterargument is pathetic. Plato clearly states that love between man and woman is the only acceptable form of love. Also, I just noticed that many of the laws in the Greek city states against homosexuality have already been posted on the pederasty article. Cretanpride 05:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Pay close attention, if you are able: the passage from Laws 8.836c clearly says that pederasty was accepted in Crete and Sparta. It doesn't matter what Plato thought the law should be; what matters is that the Athenian doubts that the Cretans and Spartans would be persuaded that male-male sex was unnatural. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what plato thought the law should be? I thought that, according to you guys, that Plato constantly talked about same sex love. Are you contradicting yourself by saying he was agasinst it?Cretanpride 05:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have in front of me the dialogues of Plato and read the pages relating to the quote. It is saying that there are three forms of love: 1) a love of the body,2) a love of the soul and 3) a mixed sort of both. It also talks about the destructiveness of love. This is the quote you are talking about "In many ways Crete and Lacadaeman furnish a great help to those who make peculiar laws; but in the matter of love, as we are alone, I must confess we that they are quite against us." However, it is not referring to them as practicing pederasty. Before that he was quoted as saying "When I came to the subject of education, I beheld young men and maidens holding friendly intercourse with one another.And there naturally arose in my mind a sort of apprehension-I could not help thinking how one is to deal with a city in which youths and maidens are well nurtured, and have nothing to do, and are not undergoing the excessive and servile toils which extinguish wantonness, and whose only cares during their whole life are sacriices and festivals and dances. How, in such a state as this, will they abstain from desires which thrust many a man and woman into perdition; and from which reason, assuming the functions of law, commands them to abstain?" He is talking about abstinence and how man and woman could hold off their lust for each other and avoid perdition(sin). He is not talking about pederasty or same sex love.

But anyway, that is not the point. What about the other quotes? What about the laws against homosexuality? They were out there. They have already been posted on the pederasty article but I can post them here as well to prove it. How can a majority of the population be bisexual? It is biologically impossible.Cretanpride 07:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you can't read the quote that you cut and pasted from someone else's blog, especially the line that says: “If we were to follow in nature's steps and enact that law which held good before the days of Laius, declaring that it is right to refrain from indulging in the same kind of intercourse with men and boys as with women..." That's obviously about male-male sex, including pederasty. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was trying to say that the Cretans and Spartans would not support passing the law based on a number of things he was proposing such as abstinence for example. They would likely not support that. It does not say they practiced pederasty. Some parts of the writing are ambiguous. Cretanpride 04:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Here is the law forbidding homosexuality in Athens:

Whoever Athenian gives his body to be had(sexually) by another man is forbidden to be elected as one of the nine lords and be a priest or lawyer or any place in public office or any other position internal or external by voting or chance and never to be sent as messenger never to speak before the parliament or the forum (Agora) or to enter in public temples or take part in public festivals or wear the festive ring of Demeter and enter the market. Whoever condemned thus breaks the following prohibitions must be tied <<δησαντων αυτον>> and once the civilians have tied him to be delivered to the eleven to be slain before the day has passed.

This is how Adonis Georgiadis translates it: Whoever Athenian gives his body for sexual intercourse with another man is forbidden to become one of the nine archons, nor to discharge the office of priest, nor to act as an advocate for the state, nor shall he hold any office whatsoever, at home or abroad, whether filled by lot or by election; he shall not be sent as a herald;he shall not take part in debate, nor be present at the public sacrifices; when the citizens are wearing garlands, he shall wear none; and he shall not enter within the limits of the place that has been purified for the assembling of the people. Any man who has been convicted of defying these prohibitions pertaining to sexual conduct shall be put to death"

This is how your site translates it: nor shall he prosecute men who have served as ambassadors, nor shall he be a hired slanderer— “nor ever address senate or assembly,” not even though he be the most eloquent orator in Athens. And if any one contrary to these prohibitions, the lawgiver has provided for criminal process on the charge of prostitution, and has prescribed the heaviest penalties therefor. Read to the jury this law also, that you may know, gentlemen, in the face of what established laws of yours, so good and so moral, Timarchus has had the effrontery to speak before the people—a man whose character is so notorious.

So you see there were laws against it. There is another side to this argument and it would not be wrong to add it to the article. After all, you cannot prove that pederasty was commonplace in Ancient Greece.Cretanpride 08:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a law against homosexuality. The law forbids any man who has been a prostitute from holding public office. If a male prostitute violates this prohibition, then he should be prosecuted.

When quoting a source, it is helpful to give precise references. For modern sources, a page number(s) helps; for ancient sources, you need to give the section number. You're quoting Against Timarchus 19-20, but in your third quote, you left something out. Perhaps that's because the Perseus translation doesn't help your argument much. Paragraph 19 is:

And what does he say? “If any Athenian,” he says, “shall have prostituted his person (ἑταιρήσῃ), he shall not be permitted to become one of the nine archons,” because, no doubt, that official wears the wreath; “nor to discharge the office of priest,” as being not even clean of body; “nor shall he act as an advocate for the state,” he says, “nor shall ever hold any office whatsoever, at home or abroad, whether filled by lot or by election; nor shall he be a herald or an ambassador...

And then the third quote above begins. The word ἑταιρήσῃ refers specifically to prostitution, even though your first and second quotes inaccurately translate it as "gives his body to be had (sexually) by another man" or "gives his body for sexual intercourse with another man". I don't know whether Georgiadis and your first quote mistranslate ἑταιρήσῃ deliberately or though ignorance, but I suspect that Georgiadis is deliberately distorting the meaning of the Greek to advance his argument.

The law does not forbid homosexuality; it doesn't even forbid male prostitution. It simply says that a prostitute can't serve in public office, and if he does, then he will be punished. If you had bothered to read the rest of the speech, instead of just looking at the paragraphs mistranslated by Georgiadis, you would have seen that Aeschines refers to contracts for male prostitution several times. Think about that for a second: there were actually legal contracts for male prostitution. Sounds like homosexuality was a recognized feature of Athenian life.

By selectively quoting from the Perseus translation, you show that you are either unable to read carefully or dishonest. And now that you've given us a sample of Georgiadis' work, we can see that he's either unable to translate ἑταιρήσῃ properly, or (more probably) dishonest. In either case he's not a good source for this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Adonis Georgiadis' book is in Greek, I translated it into English as best I could. I may have slightly mistranslated. Also, I did not selectively quote from Perseus. I typed in the passage I wanted and that is what showed up. Regardless, there were laws against prostitution, child abuse, and homosexuality. Anal intercourse was actually illegal. Kenneth Dover in his book would even acknowledge that anal intercourse was looked down upon. Here is the law written in Greek:

Ἐάν τις Ἀθηναῖος ἑταιρήσῃ, μὴ ἐξέστω αὐτῷ τῶν ἐννέα ἀρχόντων γενέσθαι, μηδ’ ἱερωσύνην ἱεράσασθαι, μηδὲ συνδικῆσαι τῷ δήμῳ, μηδὲ ἀρχὴν ἀρχέτω μηδεμίαν, μήτε ἔνδημον μήτε ὑπερόριον, μήτε κληρωτὴν μήτε χειροτονητήν, μηδ’ ἐπὶ κηρυκείαν ἀποστελλέσθω, μηδὲ γνώμην λεγέτω, μηδ’ εἰς τὰ δημοτελῆ ἱερὰ εἰσίτω, μηδ’ ἐν ταῖς κοιναῖς στεφανηφορίαις στεφανούσθω, μηδ’ ἐντὸς τῶν τῆς ἀγορᾶς περιραντηρίων πορευέσθω. Ἐὰν δέ τις ταῦτα ποιῇ, καταγνωσθέντος αὐτοῦ ἑταιρεῖν θανάτῳ ζημιούσθω. (Ἀισχίνης κατὰ Τιμάρχου 1.21) Cretanpride 22:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your quotations are sloppy. The first two translations of Aeschines you give above (from an unnamed source and Georgiadis) are Against Timarchus 21, whereas your third quote (from the Perseus Project) is Against Timarchus 20. Did you really not notice that you were quoting different parts of the speech? Whatever your intent, you left out the Perseus Project's translation of ἐταιρήσῃ, which occurs both in section 19 and 21 (section 19 is a paraphrase of the law quoted in 21). As I already pointed out, ἐταιρήσῃ is properly translated as "shall have prostituted his person", not, as your translation of Georgiadis would have it, "gives his body for sexual intercourse with another man". Whether it's your translation of Georgiadis or his understanding of the ancient Greek that's at fault, I don't know; but you have misrepresented the meaning of ἐταιρήσῃ, and it looks like you left out a translation that contradicted your argument.

To repeat, it's absolutely clear that this law doesn't forbid pederasty or any same-sex relationships. The law prevents prostitutes from serving in public office. As I've already said, if you read the whole speech, you'll see that there are many references to pederastic or homosexual relationships, and the speaker himself says (1.135-136): "And just here I understand he is going to carry the war into my territory, and ask me if I am not ashamed on my own part, after having made a nuisance of myself in the gymnasia and having been many times a lover, now to be bringing the practice into reproach and danger. And finally--so I am told--in an attempt to raise a laugh and start silly talk among you, he says he is going to exhibit all the erotic poems I have ever addressed to one person or another, and he promises to call witnesses to certain quarrels and pommellings in which I have been involved in consequence of this habit. Now as for me, I neither find fault with love that is honorable, nor do I say that those who surpass in beauty are prostitutes. I do not deny that I myself have been a lover and am a lover to this day, nor do I deny that the jealousies and quarrels that commonly arise from the practice have happened in my case." Far from supporting the argument that pederasty was uncommon, this speech shows that it was a normal feature of life in 4th century Athens. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote which you just wrote is very ambiguous. It does not show that pederasty was a common practice, like I said, it is ambiguous. Regardless, there were similar laws in many Greek city states and Plato and Aristotle wrote about homosexuality as being "unnatural" At times they would go further and say that any sex that is not intended for procreation is wrong. Kenneth Dover in his book "Greek homosexuality" would even say anal sex was looked down upon.As for the Georgiadis translation, that was my fault. At any rate there are others who believe the evidence supporting pederasty is weak. Bruce Thornton, a qualified scholar, writes in his book Eros: The myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality "Very little if any evidence from ancient Greece survives that shows adult males or females as couples involved in an ongoing, reciprocal sexual and emotional relationship in which the age difference is no more significant than it is in heterosexual relationships." (Pg. 100)Cretanpride 04:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous? How so?

How does this quote from Thornton support the argument that pederasty was uncommon? Does Thornton believe that pederasty was "an ongoing, reciprocal sexual and emotional relationship in which the age difference is no more significant than it is in heterosexual relationships" in which adult males or females were couples? Do you even understand what the word pederasty means? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt this will surprise anyone, but User:Cretanpride has selectively quoted again. A full quote from p. 100 of Bruce Thornton's Eros:

Part of the problem is that homosexuality, contemporary as well as ancient, is no easier for us so-called moderns to understand than it was for the Greeks. One of our difficulties when reading about ancient Greece is that the most common manifestation of homosexuality in the evidence concerns pederasty, the quasi-ritualized, transient, physical and emotional relationship between an older male and a youth, an activity we now view as criminal. Very little, if any, evidence from ancient Greece survives that shows adult males (or females) as "couples" involved in an ongoing, reciprocal sexual and emotional relationship in which sex with women (or men) is moot and the age difference is no more significant than it is in heterosexual relationships. Thus the evidence from anicent Greece involves either man-youth homosexuality (the idealized social relationship we will discuss in Chapter 8), or the precisely defined passive homosexual or kinaidos, the adult male who perversely enjoys being penetrated by other males and who has sex with women only because of societal pressure.

In exact contrast to User:Cretanpride's claim, Thornton says that the evidence for pederasty is strong. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, do not accuse me of selectively interpreting when you yourself have not read that book. If you read the previous several pages to the quote you will see that he was leading up to that conclusion. The previous page he gives an example of a conversation between Socrates and Callicles. Socrates brings up the subject of homosexuality and asks whether or not it is shameful. Callicles responds by asking Socrates whether Socrates is shameful for just merely bringing up the subject. Bruce Thornton then sarcastically writes "Aren't these men Greeks, those enthusiasts of pederasty, the liberated icons of 'Greek Love?' (pg. 99)Cretanpride 03:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

More evidence that suggests homosexuality was not common in Ancient Greece

As for the evidence to support the argument that homosexuality was not commonplace in Ancient Greece, there is plenty. There are also scholars such as Robert Flaceliere and Bruce Thornton who agree.

Here is just some evidence:

In Plato’s laws the anonymous Athenian states “in the matter of love we may be able to enforce one of two things-either that no one shall venture to touch any person of the freeborn or noble class except his wedded wife, or sow the unconsecrated and bastard seed among harlots, or in barren and unnatural lusts; or at elast we may abolish altogether the connection of men with men; and as to women, if any man has to do with any but those who come into his house duly married by sacred rites, whether they be bought or acquired in any other way, and he offends publicly in the face of all mankind, we shall be right in enacting that he be deprived of civic honors and privileges, and be deemed to be, as he truly is, a stranger.” (laws 841)

What this basically means is that no man shall touch a woman except his wedded wife and that love between males should be prohibited.

Megistess responds “I, for my part stranger, would gladly recieve this law.”

The Athenian would shortly later say “We had got about as far as the establishment of the common tabels, which in most places would be difficult, BUT IN CRETE NO ONE WOULD THINK OF INDRODUCING ANY OTHER CUSTOM.” Meaning that the Cretans would adopt the law.

Here are more quotes:

If someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy's soul and tried to make of

him an ideal friend without reproach and to associate with him, he [Lycurgus] approved,

and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy's outward beauty, he banned the connection as

an abomination; and thus he caused mentors to abstain from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers :and sisters with each other. (Lacedaemonian Constitution, II. 13.)

Regarding the myth of Ganymede and Zeus, the myth is compared to

“[as in] Homer pictures us Achilles looking upon Patroclus not as the object of his passion but as a comrade, and in this spirit signally avenging his death. So we have songs telling also how Orestes, Pylades, Theseus, Peirithous, and many other illustrious demi-gods wrought glorious deeds of valor side by side, not because they shared a common bed but because of mutual admiration and respect.” (Symposium, VIII. 30 - 32.)

Affectionate regard for boys of good character was permissible, but embracing them

was held to be disgraceful, on the ground that the affection was for the body and not

for the mind. Any man against whom complaint was made of any disgraceful embracing

was deprived of all civic rights for life. (Ancient Customs of the Spartans, 7. 237 - c.)

Robert Flaceliere writes

"[I]t appears extremely likely that homosexuality of any kind was confined to the prosperous and aristocratic levels of ancient society. The masses of peasants and artisans were probably scarcely affected by habits of this kind, which seem to have been associated with a sort of snobbery. The available texts deal mainly with the leisured nobility of Athens. But they may give the impression that pederasty was practiced by the entire nation. The subject, however, of the comedy by Aristophanes entitled Lysistrata suggests that homosexuality was hardly rampant among the people at large. It would be an error to think so.

(Robert Flaceliere’s Love in Ancient Greece pg 49-50)

He also writes "The permanent popularity of courtesans [hetairai] in ancient Greece is surely the best proof that homosexuals were either not consistently so or not particularly numerous. We have already suggested that inversion was never very prevalent except in one class of society and over quite a limited period." (pg 140)

"Whether such matters are to be regarded jestingly or seriously, I think that the pleasure is to be deemed natural which arises out of the intercourse between men and women; but that the intercourse of men with men, or of women with women, is contrary to nature, and that the bold attempt was originally due to unbridled lust." (Plato's Laws 636)

"The teachers of the boys shall open the school-rooms not earlier than sunrise,

and they shall close them before sunset. No person who is older than the boys

shall be permitted to enter the room while they are there, unless he be a son of

the teacher, a brother, or a daughter's husband. If any one enter in violation of

this prohibition, he shall be punished with death. The superintendents of the

gymnasia shall under no conditions allow any one who has reached the age of

manhood to enter the contests of Hermes together with the boys. A gymnasiarch

who does permit this and fails to keep such a person out of the gymnasium, shall

be liable to the penalties prescribed for the seduction of free-born youth. Every

choregus who is appointed by the people shall be more than forty years of age."

(Contra Timarchus 12.)

So as you can see, not only is there strong evidence to suggest that homosexuality and pederasty was not commonplace in Ancient Greece but there are also qualified scholars who think this way as well. For Example Robert Flaceliere and Bruce Thornton.Cretanpride 03:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

More laws allegedly against homosexuality

Here are more laws. Someone had posted them on the pederasty article:

   * NOTE: Ensuing text has some useful primary source material.

Sexual Crimes in ANCIENT GREECE α. Child Abuse & Sex Offenses

<<Εαν τις υβριζη εις τινα η παιδα η γυναικα η ανδρα των ελευθερων η των δουλων η παρανομον τι πιοηση εις τουτων τινα γραφεσθω προς τους θεσμοθετας ο βουλομενος Αθηναιων οις εξεστιν οι δε θεσμοθεται εισαγοντων εις την ηλιαιαν τριακοντα ημερων αφ ης γραφη. Οτου δ αν καταγνω η Ηλιαια τιματω αυτου παραχρημα οτου αν δοκη αξιος ειναι παθειν η αποτεισαι>>. (Νομος υβρεως,Δημοσθ.Κατα Μειδιου 47)

Meaning <<Whoever abuses any child or woman be they free or slaves or breaks the law regarding to them should be accused of commiting a public offense from any Athenian that wants and has the right (to sue) before the lawmakers and they must to the latest in a month to bring him to trial to be judjed and suffer the consequenses of the law >>.

β.Pimping To those condemned for pimping freeman or slave ,child or woman the penalty of death is given.

-<<Και τους προαγωγους γραφεσθαι κελευει (the law) καν αλωσι θανατω ζημιουσι>>. Αισχιν. Κατα Τιμαρχου -<<Υμεις Μενωνα μεν τον μυλωθρον απεκτεινατε (=execute) διοτι παιδ ελευθερον εκ Πελληνης εσχεν (=abused,raped) εν τω μυλωνι... Ευθυμαχον δε διοτι την ολυνθιαν παιδισκην εστησεν επ οικηματος (=put up in a brothel)>>. Δειναρχος ,κατα Δημοσθενους ,23

WHORING & *ΚΙΝΑΙΔΙΣΜΟΣ(=homosexuality) <<Αν τις Αθηναιων εταιρηση μη εξεστω αυτω των εννεα αρχοντων γενεσθαι μηδ ιεροσυνην ιερωσασθαι μηδε συνδικησαι τω δημω μην αρχην αρχετω ουδεμιαν μητε ενδημω μητε υπεροριον μητε κληρωτην μητε χειροτονητην μηδ επικηρυκειαν αποσταλλεσθω μηδε γνωμην λεγετω μηδ εις τα δημοτελη ιερα εισιτω μηδ εν ταις κοιναις στεφανηφοριαις στεφανουσθω μηδ εντος των της αγορας περιρραντηριων πορευεσθω . Εαν δε τις ταυτα ποιη καταγνωσθεντος αυτου εταιρειν θανατω ζημιουσθω>>. (Αισχινης Κατα Τιμαρχου 52 , 1)

Meaning <<Whoever Athenian gives his body to be had(sexually) by another man is forbidden to be elected as one of the nine lords and be a priest or lawyer or any place in public office or any other position internal or external by voting or chance and never to be sent as messenger never to speak before the parliament or the forum (Agora) or to enter in public temples or take part in public festivals or wear the festive ring of Demeter and enter the market. Whoever condemned thus breaks the following prohibitions must be tied <<δησαντων αυτον>> and once the civilians have tied him to be delivered to the eleven to be slain before the day has passed

<<τεθνατω αυθημερον>> . Ο Δημοσθενης reports the <<περι της εταιρησεως νομον >> (Κατ Ανδροτιωνος 21), [εταιρειν= το τους ανδρας πασχειν τα των εταιρων εταιρει μεν ουν και πορνευεται ο πασχητιων] ενω στον ιδιο λογο του (παρ. 30) μνημονευει τον σχετικο νομο του Σολωνος συμφωνα με τον οποιο ο δραστης εστερειτο το σημαντικοτερο για τον Αθηναιο πολιτη δικαιωμα το δικαιωμα του λογου ενωπιον της βουλης και της εκλησσιας αλλα και αυτο της υποβολης <<γραφων>> και <<εισαγγελιων>> δηλαδη δημοσιων μυνησεων. <<μητε λεγειν μητε γραφειν εξειναι τοις ηταιρηκοσιν>> And Λυσιας (Κατ Αλκιβιαδου Α) gives us safe information about the cruel treatment of homosexuals(κιναιδων) in Ancient Athens not only by legislation but by its "liberal" society that mocked and stigmatized this practice . Ο Αριστοφανης δε αθυροστομος τους παραδιδει σε δεινη χλευη παρουσιαζοντας τους με θηλυπρεπεις ενδυμασιες ακκιζομενους (=κουναμενους) ως εταιρες κ.λ.π. και αποκαλωντας τους με ασεμνες ονομασιες π.χ. <<Χαονες>> προκαλωντας ατελειωτους γελωτες στο κοινο.

Στους εταιριζομενους <<τους ομοτεχνους πορναις>> (Δημ.Κατ Ανδροτιωνος 58), συνεχιζει ο Δημοσθενης << οι νομοι ουκ εωσι ουδε τα εννομα τους αισχρως βεβιωκοτας νομον θειναι>> (Κατ Ανδροτιωνος 24), meaning <<the law forbids them to propose laws>>.

Homosexuality α. Of the Athenian State <<Ει τις πεπορνευομενος η εταιρηκως εστι εξειργεσθω ειναι των ρητορων>> (Αισχινης κατα Τιμαρχ. 5,2). ( It is forbidden to whoever has given himself as prostitute or a girl or boy to be a council of the state ). Despite things told and written even in certain universities that homosexuality & pedophilia were not only sanctioned but a normal practice is PROVEN FALSE BY THE ATTIC LAWS . What impresses especially is the cruelty of the penalties to the offenders from total loss of civil rights and death (μη εξεστω αυτω λεγειν και γραφειν = απαγορευεται σε αυτον να λαβαινη το λογο στις λαικες συνελευσεις και να υποβαλλη δημοσιες καταγγελιες) the same day the verdict was pronounced by the Ηλιαστικο δικαστηριο . Sex crimes were of the heinest type and belonged to the category of public offenses . This derives from the fact that every citizen had the right ( a moral and political obligation in Ancient Greece) to bring against them <<γραφην εταιρησεως >> according to the special <<περι φθορας νομον>> meaning a public suit because the above offenses were public as they attackes against the state itself ( All of Athens). Beyond the harsh treatment against sex offenders the public opinion was especially hard against them . Homosexuals were called χλευαστικως <<κιναιδους>> meaning those that move shame & aversion <<κινουν την αιδω>> and bring about the punishment of NEMESIS. They were also called ανδρογυναια,γυνανδρους,ημιανδρους,πορνους,ομοτεχνους εταιραις ο δε Αριστοφανης οπως προαναφερθηκε που ηταν ιδιαιτερα καυστικος εξαπελυε εναντιον τους προκαλωντας εκρηξεις γελωτος και χλευασμων του λαου στα θεατρα επικλησεις ως χαονες και αρσενικες πορνες . Ειναι πραγματι εντυπωσιακη αυτη η σταση της Αθηναικης πολιτειας και κοινωνιας απεναντι των ατομων αυτων που εφτανε μεχρι και τον κοινωνικο αποκλεισμο τους θα ελεγε κανεις οτι η ποινη τους ηταν η οιονει capitis deminutio του ρωμαικου δικαιου δηλαδη νομικος αποκεφαλισμος μη αποκλειομενης και της παραπομπης τους στον δημιο οπως ρητωςπροβλεπονταν απο την σχετικη διαταξη. The only logical explanation for this harsh treatment from the most free and liberal state of ancient greece is the regard of such actions as ABOMINATION ΜΙΑΣΜΑ as a disgusting act that made them οιονει εναγεις , that <<εμιαινον>> polluted the city thus and divine wrath would fall on everyone . This is also proven from the fact that they had the same treatment as murderers . To remain out of any public event or sacred place and lose all civil rights. . Χαρακτηριστικη και διαφωτιστικη ειναι η πληροφορια που μας δινει ο Δημοσθενης (Κατ Ανδροτιωνος) και αφορα βεβαιως τους <<ανδροφονους>> στους οποιους απαγορευονταν και η εισοδος <<εντος των περριραντηριων της αγορας>> δηλαδη του <<καθαγιασμενου δια ιερων ραντισματων χωρου της αγορας>> ως μη εχοντων <<καθαρας τας χειρας>>. Εξ αυτου σφοδρως μπορει να πιθανολογηθη οτι επιβαλλονταν η αυτη απαγορευση και στους εταιριζομενους ως μη εχοντας <<καθαρον>> το σωμα τους.

β. The Spartan Laws Against child Abuse Against the commonplace mythicaly regarded as commonplace like <<δωρικους ερωτες>> an excellent source of Spartan Legislation and life , the honest Ξενοφων ο Αθηναιος in his work <<Λακεδαιμονιων πολιτεια>> ΙΙ,13 reports the law attributed to Lycurgus according to which child abuse is condemned as an ABOMINATION = <<Εις τις παιδος σωματος ορεγομενος φανειη αισχιστον τουτο θεις εποιησεν (ο Λυκουργος) εν Λακεδαιμονι μηδεν ηττον εραστας παιδικων απεχθεσαι>>. [The lawmaker Λυκουργος charakterized as most horrid if someone desired the body of a child and set that lovers should abstain from this (lovers of the same sex in ancient greece are Spiritual Brethren not sexual partners, remember this & please learn Ancient Greek dont read "translations" in other languages Ancient Greek cannot be translated)] . Ο Πλουταρχος also (Λακεδ. επιτηδ. 7,237 c) informs us that whoever tried to abuse someone was striped of his civil rights for life = <<Εραν των την ψυχην σπουδαιων παιδων εφειτο το δε πλησιαζειν αισχρον νενομιστο ως του σωματος ερωντας αλλ ου της ψυχης ο δε εγκληθεις ως επ αισχυνη πλησιαζων ατιμος δια βιου ην>>. Meaning = The (Λυκουργειος) law allowed admiration towards the mental gifts of the youths but any physical desire was an abomination that declared carnal and not spiritual love . Whoever by law was condemned thus was dishonoured (striped of his civil rights) for life .

γ. Of Magna Grecia (Lower Italy) Even in Magna Grecia where customs and morals where supposedly more lax CHILD ABUSE WAS PUNISHED WITH THE MAXIMUM PENALTY MEANING DEATH THAT TOOK THE FORM OF THE HANGING OF THE OFFENDER. Particularly ο Μαξιμος ο Τυριος (20,9α) informs us=

<<Εν Λοκροις τοις Ιταλιωταις εφηβος ην καλος και νομος καλος και ερασται πονηροι εραν μεν ηναγκαζοντο υπο του καλλους ειργοντο ομως υπο του νομου κακως εραν οιστρουμενοι δε υπο του παθους προς την υβριν τον μεν εφηβον ουκ επεισαν ηξαν δε οι δυστυχεις επι βροχον παντες>>. [To those greeks that reside in Italy Λοκρους (η Επιζεφυριους) there were a handsome youth and cunning lovers but also a proper law . And the lovers where possesed by strong desire because of his physical beauty but were stopped by the law to manifest the carnal part of love but in the end by their strong passion to abuse him tried to lure him but were lead all of them to the gallows.]

And while in Greek Legislation the maximum penalty is given for the heinous crime of child abuse in the Roman it is absent as a crime (Α' βασιλειων ιδ,ιε 12 ,κβ 46, β βασιλειων κγ 7)

   * Κιναδος δηλ. ο κινων την αιδω

Liddel-Scott τομος ΙΙ σελιδα 719 Κιναιδεια,homosexuality= η παρα φυσιν ασελγεια(animal lust,abuse), Αισχινης 18,29 Δημητριος Φαληρευς 97. Κιναιδευομαι= ειμαι κιναιδος Κιναιδος,homosexual= ο καταπυγων(degenerate,One who has annal sex) , ο καθολα αισχρος (all shamefull,dishonourable), κακοηθης ανθρωπος (immoral person)Cretanpride 22:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an unformatted, unreadable mess. The Greek lacks the proper breathing marks and accents. I'd like to take it out, as I don't think anyone can get anything useful out of it.

Also, it's just a bit offensive to have homosexuality lumped in with child abuse and prostitution. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not lumping homosexuality with child abuse. I am arguing that pederasty was not commonplace. If there were laws against homosexuality and child abuse, then pederasty was not accepted.Cretanpride 23:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)