Medieval attitudes towards homosexuality

sculptingman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2009
3,661
San Diego
And here is the problem.



If you don't have sources, you don't just make it up, which is essentially what you're doing.



No. This is YOUR inference.

You state those inferences as fact, which they are clearly not.

For example:
"The catholic church pretty much included sex with altar boys as a holdover from traditional relations between masters and slaves in the Roman era. In the church they rationalized this as the Sin of Onan having been spilling his seed on the ground- and so priests could not masturbate- they had to deposit their seed in another person and yet were forbidden to have "sex" with women. Boys filled the bill and often ended up being priests as they had been imprinted in puberty with homosexual experiences and so continued the cycle. "

Back this up with evidence.
I am going to, once more, remind you that ANYTHING I state- even if I think it a fact- is what I think. My opinion.

And NO one can cite a 'fact' that is not their opinion- in terms of their 'interpretation' of what any purported fact means.
I point out that OTHERS here are citing THEIR opinions without being similarly challenged
And that you clearly quote that I characterized my comments as intelligent inference- before you accused me of stating things as facts.

So, I get that you have a thing with me-

but let me try and be clear-
I am forwarding an argument.

I have cited evidence.
Catholic abuse of boys is ESTABLISHED FACT and goes back as far as the records the church will allow laity to examine.
That they have been shown to have actively concealed abuse of people alive to testify to their obfuscations suggests a strong motivation as to why they would refuse to open their records of abuse of those long dead.

History is FULL if the mentions of homosxual conduct of which I have cited just a few examples.
I have mentioned Edward II- his history is actually well established- as are the rumors of his homosexuality.

I pointed out that documentary citation of homosexual conduct is rare and I forwarded an explanation of Why that is so that is supported by other analogy and argument.

Here's another- the treatment of Oscar Wilde strongly argues that Britain mostly tolerated and winked at homosexual conduct- as long as it was not too overt.

I have forwarded an Argument.
And thus far neither you nor anyone else has come up with any argument in refutation- other than pointing out that catholic priest screwed women, too.

I am certain that in the long history of the church that there were clergy that never had sex of any kind- and others who screwed sheep.
But evidence of either activity is not a refutation that other priests had sex with boys.


Sorry- but my arguments are not colored by apologia striving to preserve a myth about the past.

Groups of Males in isolation with other males provably and routinely resort to homosexual behavior. All thru history. All over the world.
Greek pottery proves me right.

How about YOU folks offer EVIDENCE of me being wrong.

but be sure to take into account that folks in the past do not readily admit to taboo conduct.
 

sculptingman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2009
3,661
San Diego
PS- your claim that I have not provided evidence is not proof that I have not provided evidence.
I have mentioned several easily checked events well known to history.

And my position regarding cultural anthropology is the current standard of the curricula.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,382
T'Republic of Yorkshire
I am going to, once more, remind you that ANYTHING I state- even if I think it a fact- is what I think. My opinion.

And NO one can cite a 'fact' that is not their opinion- in terms of their 'interpretation' of what any purported fact means.
I point out that OTHERS here are citing THEIR opinions without being similarly challenged
And that you clearly quote that I characterized my comments as intelligent inference- before you accused me of stating things as facts.

So, I get that you have a thing with me-

but let me try and be clear-
I am forwarding an argument.

I have cited evidence.
Catholic abuse of boys is ESTABLISHED FACT and goes back as far as the records the church will allow laity to examine.
That they have been shown to have actively concealed abuse of people alive to testify to their obfuscations suggests a strong motivation as to why they would refuse to open their records of abuse of those long dead.

History is FULL if the mentions of homosxual conduct of which I have cited just a few examples.
I have mentioned Edward II- his history is actually well established- as are the rumors of his homosexuality.

I pointed out that documentary citation of homosexual conduct is rare and I forwarded an explanation of Why that is so that is supported by other analogy and argument.

Here's another- the treatment of Oscar Wilde strongly argues that Britain mostly tolerated and winked at homosexual conduct- as long as it was not too overt.

I have forwarded an Argument.
And thus far neither you nor anyone else has come up with any argument in refutation- other than pointing out that catholic priest screwed women, too.

I am certain that in the long history of the church that there were clergy that never had sex of any kind- and others who screwed sheep.
But evidence of either activity is not a refutation that other priests had sex with boys.


Sorry- but my arguments are not colored by apologia striving to preserve a myth about the past.

Groups of Males in isolation with other males provably and routinely resort to homosexual behavior. All thru history. All over the world.
Greek pottery proves me right.

How about YOU folks offer EVIDENCE of me being wrong.

but be sure to take into account that folks in the past do not readily admit to taboo conduct.
Your old excuse about it being your opinion again. But that's NOT what you said in your first post. You stated it all as fact. Only after being challenged for sources by several people do you come out with this excuse.

You have no sources, no evidence, nothing except conjecture and innuendo.

Thanks for clarifying that. Now, those people who are willing to offer sources can get on with a proper discussion.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,382
T'Republic of Yorkshire
PS- your claim that I have not provided evidence is not proof that I have not provided evidence.
I have mentioned several easily checked events well known to history.

And my position regarding cultural anthropology is the current standard of the curricula.
I don't want "evidence". I want sources. Sources that you are personally familiar with. This post is the equivalent of saying "go Google it", and that is NEVER an acceptable response on Historum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iraq Bruin

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
I am going to, once more, remind you that ANYTHING I state- even if I think it a fact- is what I think. My opinion.

And NO one can cite a 'fact' that is not their opinion- in terms of their 'interpretation' of what any purported fact means.
I point out that OTHERS here are citing THEIR opinions without being similarly challenged
And that you clearly quote that I characterized my comments as intelligent inference- before you accused me of stating things as facts.

So, I get that you have a thing with me-

but let me try and be clear-
I am forwarding an argument.

I have cited evidence.
Catholic abuse of boys is ESTABLISHED FACT and goes back as far as the records the church will allow laity to examine.
That they have been shown to have actively concealed abuse of people alive to testify to their obfuscations suggests a strong motivation as to why they would refuse to open their records of abuse of those long dead.

History is FULL if the mentions of homosxual conduct of which I have cited just a few examples.
I have mentioned Edward II- his history is actually well established- as are the rumors of his homosexuality.

I pointed out that documentary citation of homosexual conduct is rare and I forwarded an explanation of Why that is so that is supported by other analogy and argument.

Here's another- the treatment of Oscar Wilde strongly argues that Britain mostly tolerated and winked at homosexual conduct- as long as it was not too overt.

I have forwarded an Argument.
And thus far neither you nor anyone else has come up with any argument in refutation- other than pointing out that catholic priest screwed women, too.

I am certain that in the long history of the church that there were clergy that never had sex of any kind- and others who screwed sheep.
But evidence of either activity is not a refutation that other priests had sex with boys.


Sorry- but my arguments are not colored by apologia striving to preserve a myth about the past.

Groups of Males in isolation with other males provably and routinely resort to homosexual behavior. All thru history. All over the world.
Greek pottery proves me right.

How about YOU folks offer EVIDENCE of me being wrong.

but be sure to take into account that folks in the past do not readily admit to taboo conduct.
You should google what historical evidence means. It doesn't mean you just stating yuor opinion.

You pointing out your opinion is not evidence, that is not what Nao is asking for, nor me, nor any of the other posters who asked you to back something up. They weren't asking you for more of your opinion. They want a historical primary or secondary source. Youv'e not provided a single one. You've provided opinion and anecdotes.
 

sculptingman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2009
3,661
San Diego
Your old excuse about it being your opinion again. But that's NOT what you said in your first post. You stated it all as fact. Only after being challenged for sources by several people do you come out with this excuse.

You have no sources, no evidence, nothing except conjecture and innuendo.

Thanks for clarifying that. Now, those people who are willing to offer sources can get on with a proper discussion.
That is disingenuous. You're stating I have offered no evidence is not a fact- but your opinion.
You are not the arbiter of what constitutes evidence.

I have an Argument. Not an innuendo.

I cited the existence of innuendo and what innuendo reveals about history that is often whitewashed as evidence in support of that argument.

Fact- a rumor about a red hot poker circulated regarding Edward II and his demise. His homosexuality was both forbidden by the church and yet tolerated.
Are you arguing that that is not true? That I made that up?

If not- then it is a well established fact.

The same with the citation of Richard III- you gonna argue that he was NEVER rumored to be a hunchback? How is that conjecture? How is that innuendo?
I am not referencing obscure factoids that no one interested in history would be unaware of nor would find difficulty verifying on the first page of any search.


You hold me to a standard that you do not hold others posting here to. If I cited water as being wet you would accuse me of providing no evidence.
I get that and have come to expect it.

That's fine.

I forwarded an argument- If you have no counter other than saying I did not... then that is not actually a refutation, not a counter argument.
But its a fallacious position to say that you do not accept my evidence as evidence. That's how flat earthers 'argue'.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
PS- your claim that I have not provided evidence is not proof that I have not provided evidence.
I have mentioned several easily checked events well known to history.

And my position regarding cultural anthropology is the current standard of the curricula.
The very fact that not a single sentence you wrote at any point can be finished by a "..., according to (source" is evidence you didn't provide evidence. Your opinion is not evidence.

Also, Margaret Mead was a fraud, and that is the current standard for cultural anthropology.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
Fact- a rumor about a red hot poker circulated regarding Edward II and his demise. His homosexuality was both forbidden by the church and yet tolerated.
Are you arguing that that is not true? That I made that up?
Prove this is a fact using historical primary and secondary sources.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,253
Italy, Lago Maggiore
That is disingenuous. You're stating I have offered no evidence is not a fact- but your opinion.
You are not the arbiter of what constitutes evidence.

I have an Argument. Not an innuendo.

I cited the existence of innuendo and what innuendo reveals about history that is often whitewashed as evidence in support of that argument.

Fact- a rumor about a red hot poker circulated regarding Edward II and his demise. His homosexuality was both forbidden by the church and yet tolerated.
Are you arguing that that is not true? That I made that up?

If not- then it is a well established fact.

The same with the citation of Richard III- you gonna argue that he was NEVER rumored to be a hunchback? How is that conjecture? How is that innuendo?
I am not referencing obscure factoids that no one interested in history would be unaware of nor would find difficulty verifying on the first page of any search.


You hold me to a standard that you do not hold others posting here to. If I cited water as being wet you would accuse me of providing no evidence.
I get that and have come to expect it.

That's fine.

I forwarded an argument- If you have no counter other than saying I did not... then that is not actually a refutation, not a counter argument.
But its a fallacious position to say that you do not accept my evidence as evidence. That's how flat earthers 'argue'.
I have noted your attitude ... may I ask you if you know the Theodosian Code?