Homophobic Hellenic recon site

[David19]

I've been reading some of this site, Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum (http://homepage.mac.com/dodecatheon/2M.html) and, while I liked some of what they had wrote, it seems they seem quite homophobic (http://homepage.mac.com/dodecatheon/24-9.html):


On the contrary by interpreting well the true cause of their psychological state it is in a position to answer the burning question of many: "why do I feel this way" and only it explains persuasively that they are neither "perverted" nor "sinners". This has the positive result of allowing them to adjust smoothly to their psychological reality and to consciously accept it, understanding that it is not something that has to be expressed through homosexual practices nor something that needs to be "stated"!
Naturally these people ought not to marry just to avoid suspicion while their living together with a same sex partner ought to be discreet.
The demand of many homosexuals to establish same sex marriages with all the legal consequences this ensues does not sit right with our religion because:
Firstly, the concession by the state of various privileges to married couples is justified, as we see it, by the fact that it represents the only legal form of reproduction. Otherwise, there opens a Pandora’s box of irrational demands. For example, why should one transfer his pension to his partner and not to anyone whatsoever. People could perform marriages just for the economic benefits, one could pass on his pension to his porter if he wanted to! The social status of marriage becomes a farce.
Secondly, just as our religion considers that the marriage of post-reproductive age people demeans the institution and does not bless such marriages, likewise it will not officiate over such marriages which are by definition "sterile".
Additionally, it has to be taken into consideration that the Sacred Tradition prohibits such people from taking ministerial positions. This happens because of the more general prohibition of not permitting to enter priesthood people with any malfunction of the reproductive system (since, among other things, it disturbs the, symbolically expressed in priesthood, male-female polarity, enacted by the priests and priestesses respectively). This prohibition, as shown above, is not the result of any evaluative judgment against homosexuals nor any kind of "special treatment", but rests simply on real and existing reasons which we all should take into consideration and which do not consist "discrimination" any more than saying that a short-sighted person ought not be an airplane pilot!

Even though they say they're "not" discriminating against gay people (or any LGBT person), it seems clear to me, they are, 'cause, 1) they seem opposed to gay marriage, as they think it will "open the door" to other "irrational" demands, which is what I've seen some Christian fundamentalists and even Secular bigots say, and 2) they wouldn't accept LGBT people as a Priest or Priestess 'cause of the "polarity" issues (that sounds more Wiccan-esque to me, though), but, I thought, in ancient Greece, anyone could be a Priest, if I'm wrong, please correct me?. It also uses some incorrect info, like saying gay men are gay 'cause a female soul is reborn in the wrong body, or a male soul born in a female body is a lesbian, that's not it at all (that can describe Trans people, but most gay men and lesbians aren't Trans).

Anyway, I just wanted to post it 'cause it's really the first Hellenic recon site I've seen that held those kinds of prejudices, I have seen some people hold similar views, but, it's never really been presented so directly.

[green aventurine]

I couldn't open your links, David

Is this them?

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/7773/eea2.html

ETA: Just discovered at the bottom of the page a link to your links - perhaps the main site is down

[ignescentphoenix]

The group seems like a bunch of idiots.

[Nox_Mortus]

"...the only legal form of reproduction..." what?

[aluokaloo]

well david...we're all human. which means that pagans of any stripe can also be bigots.

[Toby Stimpson]

I don't think they are being homophobic... certainly narrow minded, but not homophobic. They are basing their decision not to bless same-sex marriage by a logic based on their definition of marriage. Their logic, which I would see as flawed, is that they eqaute marriage as a legal binding underpinned by reproduction. It says that they will not perform marriages for those over the age of possible reproduction, or for sterile couples.

However, I would challenge these views by first stating that marriage is NOT a legalized institution of reproduction in any legal sense in most jurisdictions around the world, especially not one connected to Hellenismos or the Hellenic world (and although I come from complete ignorance of Hellenic reconstructionism, I have never heard any Hellenic Recons state that), and as a recon group I doubt that they are classed an official religion yet universally and so they cannot make that claim. If they are, then their logic has to be completely religious in nature and cannot cross over into the realm of legality. If they try to use that as an excuse to say no to same-sex couples, then those same sex couples should have full legal rights to go after that group and sue them or place a human rights complaint against them.

Of course, that being said upon further investigation of their site, they are based in Athens Greece. So, I would wonder if they have the legal right to state this on their website... but then of course you have the other piece where if a chapter of theirs in the United States or Canada tried to use this same excuse, their logic would probably be challenged.

This logic and excuse would never fly in Canada.

[Fiamma]

Ehh...it seems to me that they're much more overall biased against people without children then they are homophobic, or discriminating against homosexuals (though I do see an element of homophobia/discrimination.) Looks like someone's a bit overly-concerned with people's reproductive systems.

That said, they are consistent, you have to give them that.


I've been reading some of this site, Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum (http://homepage.mac.com/dodecatheon/2M.html) and, while I liked some of what they had wrote, it seems they seem quite homophobic (http://homepage.mac.com/dodecatheon/24-9.html):

Even though they say they're "not" discriminating against gay people (or any LGBT person), it seems clear to me, they are, 'cause, 1) they seem opposed to gay marriage, as they think it will "open the door" to other "irrational" demands, which is what I've seen some Christian fundamentalists and even Secular bigots say, and 2) they wouldn't accept LGBT people as a Priest or Priestess 'cause of the "polarity" issues (that sounds more Wiccan-esque to me, though),

Well, it also says that they're opposed to the marriage of people who are beyond child-bearing age, amongst other commentary:


Secondly, just as our religion considers that the marriage of post-reproductive age people demeans the institution and does not bless such marriages, likewise it will not officiate over such marriages which are by definition "sterile".
Additionally, it has to be taken into consideration that the Sacred Tradition prohibits such people from taking ministerial positions. This happens because of the more general prohibition of not permitting to enter priesthood people with any malfunction of the reproductive system (since, among other things, it disturbs the, symbolically expressed in priesthood, male-female polarity, enacted by the priests and priestesses respectively). This prohibition, as shown above, is not the result of any evaluative judgment against homosexuals nor any kind of "special treatment", but rests simply on real and existing reasons which we all should take into consideration and which do not consist "discrimination" any more than saying that a short-sighted person ought not be an airplane pilot!

The logic is...well beyond me, I must say, how one could compare someone with reproductive issues and their ability to be a priest to someone with vision problems being a pilot.


but, I thought, in ancient Greece, anyone could be a Priest, if I'm wrong, please correct me?.

Different priesthoods were determined in different ways, some were by vote, some by inheritance, I've read that some were bought and sold. It really depended on the specific priesthood. There was a priesthood of Artemis that consisted of nine-year-old girls, for example.


It also uses some incorrect info, like saying gay men are gay 'cause a female soul is reborn in the wrong body, or a male soul born in a female body is a lesbian, that's not it at all (that can describe Trans people, but most gay men and lesbians aren't Trans). To be fair, there are some gay people who believe this, or believe at least that it is the case for themselves, though it's hardly universal.


Anyway, I just wanted to post it 'cause it's really the first Hellenic recon site I've seen that held those kinds of prejudices, I have seen some people hold similar views, but, it's never really been presented so directly.I don't like it either, but they are a private organization, entitled to their beliefs and practices. *Shrug* they won't be getting any support from me but I'm not terribly worried about it.

[Bugscuttle]

Well said Fiama! I couldn't agree with you more. They seem to have a Breeders Only mentality. And they're welcome to it. Personally I wouldn't give them the time of day, but as they say,
"To every cripple his own crutch"
J

[Louisvillian]

To be fair, they're mirroring much of the mores of ancient Greek society (which went hand-in-hand with ancient Greek religion, something they are also trying to mirror), which was not as tolerant of homosexuality (or people that didn't breed in general) as some would like to believe. Ancient Greeks didn't care about homosexual behavior, as long as it ended with that; they were very much opposed to any relationship that varied from the traditional Greek family.

I don't particularly agree with their positions regarding these issues, but they have a right to hold these beliefs.

[Toby Stimpson]

To be fair, they're mirroring much of the mores of ancient Greek society (which went hand-in-hand with ancient Greek religion, something they are also trying to mirror), which was not as tolerant of homosexuality (or people that didn't breed in general) as some would like to believe. Ancient Greeks didn't care about homosexual behavior, as long as it ended with that; they were very much opposed to any relationship that varied from the traditional Greek family.

I don't particularly agree with their positions regarding these issues, but they have a right to hold these beliefs.

This is a great point. However, I think that what is most problematic is the legal and political leanings here which would be problematic if the same logic was used in different jurisdictions. They don;t have a right to speak to legality, like they do.

http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/greece/marriage/marriage.php

Judging from this website, which has no mention of fertility as a grounds for legal marriage, I doubt that this group has the authorityt to say what is legal and not.

[androgino]

To be fair, there are some gay people who believe this, or believe at least that it is the case for themselves, though it's hardly universal.

I can see why it is hardly universal. I myself am an "androgynous soul" and some people assume this means that I therefore must be bisexual (which I am not).

[David19]

I couldn't open your links, David

Is this them?

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/7773/eea2.html

ETA: Just discovered at the bottom of the page a link to your links - perhaps the main site is down


The group seems like a bunch of idiots.

Yes, that's the site, I'm not sure why the site link isn't working, I'll have another check, just to see if I may have copy and pasted it wrongly.


"...the only legal form of reproduction..." what?

I think I missed that part, but, I'm with you on that.


well david...we're all human. which means that pagans of any stripe can also be bigots.

True, I know there are bigots in all paths, my friend left a Pagan/Wiccan group in her hometown in Wales 'cause they were homophobic (she's bi), and, apparantly, quite elitist too. I just tend to get a bit angry (well, anger is probably the wrong word, frustrated might be a better word) when I see such bigotry and stupidity.


Ehh...it seems to me that they're much more overall biased against people without children then they are homophobic, or discriminating against homosexuals (though I do see an element of homophobia/discrimination.) Looks like someone's a bit overly-concerned with people's reproductive systems.

True, I'm just wondering, do they think the Olympians are going to send lightning bolts onto everyone who doesn't have a child or anyone who may be attracted to the same-sex?!.




Well, it also says that they're opposed to the marriage of people who are beyond child-bearing age, amongst other commentary:

I guess that means once you get past 50 (maybe late 60s, if you have IVF), you're put out to pasture in their tradition.


The logic is...well beyond me, I must say, how one could compare someone with reproductive issues and their ability to be a priest to someone with vision problems being a pilot.

I don't know, maybe it's their "special" kind of logic that's only shared by them, and, perhaps, other groups.


Different priesthoods were determined in different ways, some were by vote, some by inheritance, I've read that some were bought and sold. It really depended on the specific priesthood. There was a priesthood of Artemis that consisted of nine-year-old girls, for example.

I didn't know that, I've heard that the head of the Household was considered a Priest, in some kind of way anyway, is that also true, or would Priest be the wrong word for the head of the household?.

That's interesting about the 9 year old girls Priestesses of Artemis, I think in the Roman religion, the Vestal Virgins began their duties at 9 years of age too (and finished at about 39, which was something I learnt on this really funny programme that did a historical reanctment of ancient Rome, apparantly, 40 was the average life expectancy of the Romans, so, they only really had one year to enjoy sexual pleasures (still, at least, some of them must have died with a smile on their faces!)).


To be fair, there are some gay people who believe this, or believe at least that it is the case for themselves, though it's hardly universal.

That is true, I, myself, don't, and, I tend to associate it more with Trans people, but, I guess I can't fault them for holding that view when many others do too (like some Wiccans, some LGBT people, etc).


I don't like it either, but they are a private organization, entitled to their beliefs and practices. *Shrug* they won't be getting any support from me but I'm not terribly worried about it.

That's the way to see it, I won't be supporting them, but, then, I doubt they would really want my support anyway.

[David19]

I don't think they are being homophobic... certainly narrow minded, but not homophobic. They are basing their decision not to bless same-sex marriage by a logic based on their definition of marriage. Their logic, which I would see as flawed, is that they eqaute marriage as a legal binding underpinned by reproduction. It says that they will not perform marriages for those over the age of possible reproduction, or for sterile couples.

However, I would challenge these views by first stating that marriage is NOT a legalized institution of reproduction in any legal sense in most jurisdictions around the world, especially not one connected to Hellenismos or the Hellenic world (and although I come from complete ignorance of Hellenic reconstructionism, I have never heard any Hellenic Recons state that), and as a recon group I doubt that they are classed an official religion yet universally and so they cannot make that claim. If they are, then their logic has to be completely religious in nature and cannot cross over into the realm of legality. If they try to use that as an excuse to say no to same-sex couples, then those same sex couples should have full legal rights to go after that group and sue them or place a human rights complaint against them.

Of course, that being said upon further investigation of their site, they are based in Athens Greece. So, I would wonder if they have the legal right to state this on their website... but then of course you have the other piece where if a chapter of theirs in the United States or Canada tried to use this same excuse, their logic would probably be challenged.

This logic and excuse would never fly in Canada.

Maybe not overtly homophobic, but, there is some prejudice there, and I agree they shouldn't say anything about the legality of same-sex marriages. If their specific group doesn't want to recognise same-sex marriages, then, fine, let them be bigots, but, they can't raise legal objections, they can only use religious objections (just like some fundamentalist Christians and Muslims do).


To be fair, they're mirroring much of the mores of ancient Greek society (which went hand-in-hand with ancient Greek religion, something they are also trying to mirror), which was not as tolerant of homosexuality (or people that didn't breed in general) as some would like to believe. Ancient Greeks didn't care about homosexual behavior, as long as it ended with that; they were very much opposed to any relationship that varied from the traditional Greek family.

I don't particularly agree with their positions regarding these issues, but they have a right to hold these beliefs.

That's actually very true, and, I'm not debating whether they have the right to hold those views, they definitely do, even if they are quite dumb, and belong in another era. Also, it is very true that the ancient world, like Greece and Rome, weren't as gay-friendly as people like to say, they may have been fine with an upper-class male having sex with a "lower-class" male, as long as the former was the top, and, to them, same-sex sex was only about sex, they still fought the hetrosexual family was the norm and how things should be. I started to read this interesting book called 'Homosexuality in Greece and Rome' by Thomas K. Hubbard, and it says those that displayed same-sex desires (as in just same-sex desires) were made fun of, and discriminated against (e.g. at festivals, the younger males would not give up their seat for the older gay male), and that there were known districts where those that preferred the company of the same-sex would hang out (if you think about it, nothing has changed that much).


I can see why it is hardly universal. I myself am an "androgynous soul" and some people assume this means that I therefore must be bisexual (which I am not).

If you don't mind me asking, what's do you mean by androgynous soul?, it's just I haven't heard the term used before.

[androgino]

If you don't mind me asking, what's do you mean by androgynous soul?, it's just I haven't heard the term used before.

Just as some transgendered individuals would say that they are a female soul in a male body or a male soul in a female body, I say that I am an androgynous soul in a male body.

An androgyne (andro = male, gyne = female) is a person who is of a third gender which is itself a mixture of the other two genders. Some however interpret it to mean genderless. I perceive myself in mind, heart, and soul to be an androgynous male. =)

[David19]

Just as some transgendered individuals would say that they are a female soul in a male body or a male soul in a female body, I say that I am an androgynous soul in a male body.

An androgyne (andro = male, gyne = female) is a person who is of a third gender which is itself a mixture of the other two genders. Some however interpret it to mean genderless. I perceive myself in mind, heart, and soul to be an androgynous male. =)

Thanks for explaining it, I hadn't heard of that term before, if you don't mind me asking, and if it's too much of an intrusion, feel free not to answer, but, does that mean you can be attracted to both women and men, or do you prefer on sex over the other?.

[androgino]

Thanks for explaining it, I hadn't heard of that term before, if you don't mind me asking, and if it's too much of an intrusion, feel free not to answer, but, does that mean you can be attracted to both women and men, or do you prefer on sex over the other?.

Like most people I am only attracted to one sex and in my case it is the female.

Many of us feel that gender identity is irrelevant regarding sexual orientation. Take a look at lesbians for example; most of them have a female gender identity and they are only attracted to the female sex. Also consider the gay male; he has a male gender identity and is only attracted to the male sex. Androgynes can be attracted to any sex, all sexes including intersex, or none at all. Some are more attracted to gender identities rather than sexes.

Feel free to ask any more questions if you desire. =)

[Toki Wartooth]

An androgyne (andro = male, gyne = female) is a person who is of a third gender which is itself a mixture of the other two genders. Some however interpret it to mean genderless. I perceive myself in mind, heart, and soul to be an androgynous male. =)

Interesting. Personally, I tend to feel gender-less, but I don't consider it the same as androgynous.

[Lunacie]

I've been reading some of this site, Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum (http://homepage.mac.com/dodecatheon/2M.html) and, while I liked some of what they had wrote, it seems they seem quite homophobic (http://homepage.mac.com/dodecatheon/24-9.html):



Even though they say they're "not" discriminating against gay people (or any LGBT person), it seems clear to me, they are, 'cause, 1) they seem opposed to gay marriage, as they think it will "open the door" to other "irrational" demands, which is what I've seen some Christian fundamentalists and even Secular bigots say, and 2) they wouldn't accept LGBT people as a Priest or Priestess 'cause of the "polarity" issues (that sounds more Wiccan-esque to me, though), but, I thought, in ancient Greece, anyone could be a Priest, if I'm wrong, please correct me?. It also uses some incorrect info, like saying gay men are gay 'cause a female soul is reborn in the wrong body, or a male soul born in a female body is a lesbian, that's not it at all (that can describe Trans people, but most gay men and lesbians aren't Trans).

Anyway, I just wanted to post it 'cause it's really the first Hellenic recon site I've seen that held those kinds of prejudices, I have seen some people hold similar views, but, it's never really been presented so directly.

Re the bolded portion... there is a difference in Wicca between being a Priest/ess and being a High Priest/ess. Anyone, of any gender or sexuality can become a priest or priestess in Wicca, as that is seen as being able to interact with the gods without needing an intermediary such as a Priest in another religion may be seen.

But a High Priest or Priestess is someone who is in a position of leadership, teaching or mentoring others, leading group discussions and group rituals, settling group matters, and many other things such as allowing the God or Goddess to possess them during a ritual (Drawing Down the Moon for instance). And there are some Wiccans who do believe that only a male should become a vessel for the God and only a female should become a vessel for the Goddess which is something only a High Priest/ess is experienced enough to safely and respectfully do.

Personally I believe that the God and Goddess transcend gender and can possess any body at any time if the offer is made by the person inhabiting that body.

[Tim]

I've been reading some of this site, Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum (http://homepage.mac.com/dodecatheon/2M.html) and, while I liked some of what they had wrote, it seems they seem quite homophobic (http://homepage.mac.com/dodecatheon/24-9.html):
We all know the Greeks were not homophobic. What you are getting here is the correct worldview for both marriage and public priests. Homosexuality was a separate issue from marriage, and marriage was for the purpose of family and linage. A Greek simply did not forsake traditional marriage for a same sex relationship. The issue of marrying people who are sterile runs along this same thought. Regarding public priests and priestesses, the rules for such positions are rather clear. Candidates were unblemished, in good health, and without physical defect. This means a person not capable of having children would not qualify.

[Louisvillian]

That kind of thinking was not uncommon for many Iron Age societies. In Ireland, for example, a royal candidate had to be unblemished, in good physical and mental health, etc. And if any of those requirements faltered during their reign, the king was legally supposed to be ousted. The case of Congal Caech, an Irish minor king, demonstrates this.

However, people would do well to remember that this isn't the Iron Age anymore.

[Tim]

That kind of thinking was not uncommon for many Iron Age societies. In Ireland, for example, a royal candidate had to be unblemished, in good physical and mental health, etc. And if any of those requirements faltered during their reign, the king was legally supposed to be ousted. The case of Congal Caech, an Irish minor king, demonstrates this.

However, people would do well to remember that this isn't the Iron Age anymore.
With the Hellenic religion, it has to do with the symbology within ritual, and the use of symbols within cultural contexts. The idea that a priest or priestess is to be unblemished, in good health, and without physical or mental defect comes from the perception that like attracts like. A successful ritual attempts to imitate the higher realities, and mimic the quality of harmony through the symbolism of the expressions and worship. As Sallustius noted, "All congruity comes about by representation and likeness; for which reason the temples are made in representation of heaven, the altar of earth, the images of life (that is why they are made like living things), the prayers of the element of thought, the mystic letters of the unspeakable celestial forces, the herbs and stones of matter, and the sacrificial animals of the irrational life in us." This is at the root of the idealism within Hellenic thought. Virtue brings us closer to the Gods; vice takes us out of their light. A public priest or priestess fits into that symbology, and using an 'inferior' person in that role diminishes, or even negates the effectiveness.

[Twinkle]

I have been tiptoeing around this thread for quite awhile. Since Tim posted, I have been emboldened to type my own thoughts at this time.

It's fairly evident if one looks at Greek History that the Greeks were not homophobic. Men did have homosexual relationships (as well as the women). However; this did not trump the traditional view of marriage - which was considered between a man and a woman for the purposes of lineage and propagation.

So in essence, homophobia is not evident in the OP's post - only the worldview of the Ancients - which we, as Reconstructionists, live.

In regard to Priesthood - while it is true that there was some variation as to age, sex, and so on...what we remained constant was that those eligible for priesthood were healthy, without mental of physical defect, and were pious. This would make a sterile woman ineligible for being a priestess.

Not everyone has to like it - and there are many who do not find Reconstruction to their liking - but this *is* the worldview of the Ancients - and Hellenic Recons live this worldview.

[Lunacie]

So, I've been following along out of curiosity, and now my curiosity prompts me to ask a question - or two.

Men as well as women can be 'sterile' or non-fertile, yes?

How did they know which people were therefore considered unhealthy and proscribed from becoming priests and priestesses? Was it necessary to have produced offspring before one could become a priest or priestess?

[Tim]

@Lunacie

No, no one is saying that the anceints knew which people were sterile. We are talking about the application of the worldview in the modern. Couples who were not blessed with children would have been seen as receiving negative kharis from the Gods... meaning something about them personally placed them in disfavor. A person in disfavor with the Gods is therefore ineligible for the public office of priest or priestess. Today, we know this is a medical condition, but a medical condition such as this still disqualifies a person. I'm sure there were people with unseen, asymptomatic medical conditions that made it into the offices, but they most likely ended up dead and needing to be replaced.

[YoungSoulRebel]

So, I've been following along out of curiosity, and now my curiosity prompts me to ask a question - or two.

Men as well as women can be 'sterile' or non-fertile, yes?

How did they know which people were therefore considered unhealthy and proscribed from becoming priests and priestesses? Was it necessary to have produced offspring before one could become a priest or priestess?

Well, considering that some priestesshoods required the applicant be a virgin, well, judging her fertility when she hadn't yet tested it seems kind of nonsensical. Additionally, there was a priestesshood to Artemis that could only be held by older but still prepubescent girls -- again, hard to gauge "fertility" when one hasn't even experienced menarche.

Then there's the fact that the cult of Kybele(1) had a priest class that when through a ritual castration in order to serve Her -- can't really go around making babies when you're a eunuch.


I find this talk of "imperfection puts us in the disfavour of the Gods" to be the biggest load of crap I've read from other Hellenistai in a long time. I mean, OK, let's forget about the Galli (eunuch priests of Kybele), since they were obviously outside the mainstream. Still, one of the most consistent pieces of Hellenic mythology is the portrayal of Hephaestos -- a dwarven, crippled God. Hephaestos is typically written as being the parthenogenic son of Hera (born without need for a male seed), and when He was born dwarven and ugly, Hera threw Him from Olympos, breaking His legs and crippling Him. For this cruelty, it is then frequently written, that Hera was punished and Hephaestos brought back to the company of the Theoi:
http://theoi.com/Olympios/Hephaistos.html

...and while the call of "the Goids are not Their myths" is definitely true in some light, there are nuggets of wisdom in the mythos -- they are about and inspired by the Divine -- and if this story of Hephaestos has nothing else to teach mortals, it has to teach us that even those who are "flawed" or otherwise "not normal" can have a purpose and thus favour of the Theoi.

...I'm not even going to get on my point about how a culture that resists change is like a stagnant pool -- nothing will grow or thrive in it, it becomes a haven for parasites and disease, and it is, for all practical purposes, dead. I will say, though, look to the ancients for inspiration and guidance, but realise that the ancient people changed and adapted to their situation as they needed to -- we live in the 21st Century, and the Theoi want us to act like it. (Of course, I have no doubt in my mind that by the time of Alexander, there were already ancient people bitching and moaning about how "it was so much better before I was even born! Now those people -- they knew how to be Hellenes!" And I'm sure the Hellenes who were able to get with the times had some very choice opinions about those mental dinosaurs painting the past as perfection.)



(1) You know, some people will kvetch and moan about Kybele being "foreign to the Greeks" no matter what, but this ignores the very verifiable fact that Her mythology was thoroughly Hellenised by the time of Hesiod, Pindar even describes Her worship as being paired with Pan, She was incorporated into Orphism (source: Orphic hymns), and hell, what Athenians did was "foreign" to Spartans, and so on, so really, anybody trying to argue that "Kybele wasn't an Hellenic Goddess" is talking bullstick. There are no surviving primary sources that describe Kybele as a part of the mainstream practises of the polis, but many poloi maintained Her cultus on the periphery.

[YoungSoulRebel]

Also:

Ploutos was made blind by Zeus "so that He could distribute wealth indiscriminately":
http://www.theoi.com/Georgikos/Ploutos.html

Hermaphroditos is Intersexed (and most likely infertile -- have born no young in the mythos and considering that Intersexed persons typically are):
http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/ErosHermaphroditos.html

Anybody who says that the disabled or "imperfect" or otherwise "not typical" are unloved by the Divine obviously have no clue that there are Theoi themselves who would fit those descriptives.

There were also the Gerarai, a caste of "old women" priesteses to Dionysos -- and considering that the ancient Greeks tended to define "old woman" as "menopausal woman", well, that says plenty, doesn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerarai

I reiterate: Tim is talking crap. He often, nay, frequently talks crap. He speaks more for himself than he does the Hellenic polytheist community.

[Twinkle]

I don't believe that anyone said that the imperfect were not loved by the Gods.


Humans, being human, are so far away from Divine perfection that we are of course, imperfect. We are *all* flawed. This is why we worship the Theoi - they are closer to the Source and worthy of honor.

What we are providing is the worldview of the Ancients and their view of what is and is not eligible for priesthood and the reasons *why*. Good health, piety, without mental or physical defect were the standards.

Modern adaptation of the office of priesthood still follows this same line. Menopausal women, young women, nine year olds, would still meet this criteria. A barren woman wouldn't. Castrating a person in otherwise good health has nothing to do with a medical issue such as sterility.

In some cases the mentally ill were found to be special to the Gods because of their delusions and psychosis. It still didn't make them eligible for priesthood.

I would disagree that the Greek Culture is a stagnant pool. It is a complete system that leaves nothing to fill in the blanks.

The problem is that some people don't like it, so they choose to change it to suit their own opinions based on a worldview that is different from the Ancients.

Or....they argue points that have nothing to do with the statement that was originally provided and don't actually provide a counter argument.

Or...they resort to insults rather than irenic discussion because they hate the person making the statement.

[David19]

Like most people I am only attracted to one sex and in my case it is the female.

Many of us feel that gender identity is irrelevant regarding sexual orientation. Take a look at lesbians for example; most of them have a female gender identity and they are only attracted to the female sex. Also consider the gay male; he has a male gender identity and is only attracted to the male sex. Androgynes can be attracted to any sex, all sexes including intersex, or none at all. Some are more attracted to gender identities rather than sexes.

Feel free to ask any more questions if you desire. =)

Thanks for explaining it, and I agree gender identity is not important when it comes to attraction and love, whether it's men and men, women and women, men and women, etc.


We all know the Greeks were not homophobic. What you are getting here is the correct worldview for both marriage and public priests. Homosexuality was a separate issue from marriage, and marriage was for the purpose of family and linage. A Greek simply did not forsake traditional marriage for a same sex relationship. The issue of marrying people who are sterile runs along this same thought. Regarding public priests and priestesses, the rules for such positions are rather clear. Candidates were unblemished, in good health, and without physical defect. This means a person not capable of having children would not qualify.


That kind of thinking was not uncommon for many Iron Age societies. In Ireland, for example, a royal candidate had to be unblemished, in good physical and mental health, etc. And if any of those requirements faltered during their reign, the king was legally supposed to be ousted. The case of Congal Caech, an Irish minor king, demonstrates this.

However, people would do well to remember that this isn't the Iron Age anymore.

I get that back in the Iron Age, having kids was important, in a time when there was no social services to look after you when you were old, that would be important, and I can even understand the idea behind a Priest/ess being in good physical and mental health, but, I'm going to agree with Louisvillian, we're not living in the Iron Age anymore, and things change, time moves on. There was a time when women couldn't be Rabbis (or LGBT Jews couldn't become Rabbis), but, Judaism changed its attitudes (most forms anyway). Did you that there's some research going on that suggests men will be able to have children, without women (I believe there's also a lot of research about women conceiving without having sex with a man), so, the idea that same-sex couples are somehow "less perfect" than hetrosexual couples kind of goes out the window. What makes hetrosexual couples more of a reflection of The Gods than same-sex couples?, why does hetrosexuality "reflect the Light of The Gods better"?.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Well, considering that some priestesshoods required the applicant be a virgin, well, judging her fertility when she hadn't yet tested it seems kind of nonsensical. Additionally, there was a priestesshood to Artemis that could only be held by older but still prepubescent girls -- again, hard to gauge "fertility" when one hasn't even experienced menarche..

I think your sort of mixing apples and oranges here. The cult of Artemis with the young girls was mainly located around Athens and they performed as Bear Dancers. Yet they were not priestesses in that sense but served a one year period of service to the goddess and site. It was also a requirement imposed upon all girls before they could be married under Athenian law.

In that working chasity and virginity coupled with prepubescent development was the requirement. It had nothing to do with fertility, that facet came into play when they sacrificed thier childhood things to Artemis and honored Hera as a woman.

Yet one must also look to the other side of Artemis and the elder women that served in her temples that acted as guide and teacher to the younger girls in the community. Those who were seen as almost being returned to a prepubscent state with the loss of blood cycle.

[David19]

With the Hellenic religion, it has to do with the symbology within ritual, and the use of symbols within cultural contexts. The idea that a priest or priestess is to be unblemished, in good health, and without physical or mental defect comes from the perception that like attracts like. A successful ritual attempts to imitate the higher realities, and mimic the quality of harmony through the symbolism of the expressions and worship. As Sallustius noted, "All congruity comes about by representation and likeness; for which reason the temples are made in representation of heaven, the altar of earth, the images of life (that is why they are made like living things), the prayers of the element of thought, the mystic letters of the unspeakable celestial forces, the herbs and stones of matter, and the sacrificial animals of the irrational life in us." This is at the root of the idealism within Hellenic thought. Virtue brings us closer to the Gods; vice takes us out of their light. A public priest or priestess fits into that symbology, and using an 'inferior' person in that role diminishes, or even negates the effectiveness.

I'm still not seeing why hetrosexual Priests or couples fill tick those boxes more than same-sex people. LGBT people can be just as, if not more, healthy as hetrosexual people (for some gay people, it can become a bit of obsession to be fit and healthy and feel and look good). I have read Sallustius 'On the Gods and the World', and I'm still having trouble seeing what makes hetrosexuals more beloved by The Gods, and I apologise if it comes across as annoying to you, but, I'm just not sure why LGBT people couldn't match the requirements for being a Priest (I'm not saying every LGBT person could meet the requirements, but, there are those who are LGBT and also Virtuous, who are in great health, etc, I'm just not seeing why the fact that The Gods would reject someone as a Priest, just 'cause they are attracted to the same-sex, or in the case of bi people, both sexes, especially, if, as I said earlier, in the future, creating babies/life won't be the sole property of hetrosexual people).



I have been tiptoeing around this thread for quite awhile. Since Tim posted, I have been emboldened to type my own thoughts at this time.

It's fairly evident if one looks at Greek History that the Greeks were not homophobic. Men did have homosexual relationships (as well as the women). However; this did not trump the traditional view of marriage - which was considered between a man and a woman for the purposes of lineage and propagation.

But, the view of marriage has moved on from that, for example, now, it's not really about producing kids, or for political alliances, economic reasons (although, some are for the latter), etc, I think all religions should move with the times and be willing to admit marriages are no longer the sole property of hetrosexual couples (and, if you read, John Boswell's 'Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679432280)' or 'Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century' (http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Social-Tolerance-Homosexuality-Fourteenth/dp/0226067114), it seems that they never were), so, I don't think there's any reason why the Hellenic tradition couldn't bless or perform same-sex marriages, just like Jewish Rabbis are doing (over here, a local Jewish Synagogue was one of the first to perform a same-sex ceremony, even before Civil Partnerships became legal), and other religious groups (including some liberal and good Christian groups).



In regard to Priesthood - while it is true that there was some variation as to age, sex, and so on...what we remained constant was that those eligible for priesthood were healthy, without mental of physical defect, and were pious. This would make a sterile woman ineligible for being a priestess.

But, like I said, those can all describe LGBT people - healthy, without mental or physical defect and pious, again, I'm not advocating the Hellenic tradition goes out and ordains every single LGBT person, or makes itself so open that there's group of Hellenes marching at the front of Pride singing It's Raining Men (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0uf5l_OBLU) or YMCA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9OO0S5w2k), but, I just mean that I don't get why hetrosexuality is so beloved of The Gods (and, it's not just Hellenismos that has given me that question, but, many other traditions too).


I don't believe that anyone said that the imperfect were not loved by the Gods.

That's true, but, it just feels like that when it's stated LGBT people are somehow "lesser" than hetrosexuals, in that they cannot become Priests.



Humans, being human, are so far away from Divine perfection that we are of course, imperfect. We are *all* flawed. This is why we worship the Theoi - they are closer to the Source and worthy of honor.

That I can definitely understand, and I agree all humans are imperfect ('cause if we weren't, we wouldn't be humans, we'd be Gods, or, at least, Angels).


What we are providing is the worldview of the Ancients and their view of what is and is not eligible for priesthood and the reasons *why*. Good health, piety, without mental or physical defect were the standards.

All of which can apply to LGBT people.


Modern adaptation of the office of priesthood still follows this same line. Menopausal women, young women, nine year olds, would still meet this criteria. A barren woman wouldn't. Castrating a person in otherwise good health has nothing to do with a medical issue such as sterility.

Again, I can understand that view, but, I'm not seeing why that would bar LGBT people from becoming a Priest (or Priestess), if a castrated person could be a Priest, why not a gay male? (I mean, if they're in perfect health, what is there to stop them?).


In some cases the mentally ill were found to be special to the Gods because of their delusions and psychosis. It still didn't make them eligible for priesthood.

I've heard before, although, do you mind if I ask what was the reason for that?, I think that's quite cool that in ancient Greece, they found a place for everyone, but, is there a specific reason why someone suffering from delusions or psychosis were special to the Gods?.

Also, I've just remembered something, and this may indeed be wrong, so, please someone correct me if I am wrong, but, I've read that Artemis had Lesbian Priestesses, or her Cult tended to attract more women who loved women, is this true?, again, I don't know if that's true, but, I'd appreciate if anyone could clear that up for me.

[David19]

I think your sort of mixing apples and oranges here. The cult of Artemis with the young girls was mainly located around Athens and they performed as Bear Dancers. Yet they were not priestesses in that sense but served a one year period of service to the goddess and site. It was also a requirement imposed upon all girls before they could be married under Athenian law.

In that working chasity and virginity coupled with prepubescent development was the requirement. It had nothing to do with fertility, that facet came into play when they sacrificed thier childhood things to Artemis and honored Hera as a woman.

Yet one must also look to the other side of Artemis and the elder women that served in her temples that acted as guide and teacher to the younger girls in the community. Those who were seen as almost being returned to a prepubscent state with the loss of blood cycle.

Actually, you'd probably be the best person to ask, as I think you're a worshipper of Artemis, and know a lot about her Cult in ancient times, do you know anything about Artemis having lebian Priestesses or attracting more women to her Cult who loved other women?.

[Twinkle]

David -

Nowhere did I say that homosexuals had mental or physical defect or were not pious. And I never said that I thought that homosexuals could not be priests.

What I did say was that Traditional Marriage did not trump these relationships that were commonly had outside of the marriage, among both men and women.

Can you show me where this website said that homosexuals could not be priests? I must have missed it.

[Tim]

@YoungSoulRebel

I'm not saying I completely agree with Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum's application of the worldview. In fact, I believe they may be taking it a bit too far. But the fact is, you are just trying to poke holes, and attempting to find loopholes to make the exceptions the rule. The fertility of a prepubescent girl would not be called into question in ancient times. The priests of Kybele (putting the "foreign to the Greeks" thing to the side) went through a ritual castration as a form of sacrifice.

The idea behind a priest or priestess being unblemished, in good health, without physical or mental defect, and of good moral standing is based on good history, an understanding or Greek ritual, symbology and idealism, and the fact that a priest or priestess is our representative to the Gods. They are to be an example of everything good in humanity, and our potential. A representation of excellence. If a person exhibits signs or physical manifestations of gluttony, laziness, or any other characteristics not representative of Greek ideals, then they have no business being a priest or priestess.

I would also point out, the 'crap" Tim is talking is in defense of others in the Hellenic polytheist community, and not just me spouting crap. Maybe you would have known that if you read the thread. I'm defending the position of the Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum, an Ethnikoi Hellenes' organization in Athens.


@David19

I agree that things change, and times moves on, but we don't just change for the sake of change. We don't just change because someone claims their "feelings" are hurt. There is nothing wrong with a religion espousing the ideals of family. The public aspect of the Hellenic religion would not have existed without the household. The household religion would not have existed without the family. Hellenismos is a family centered religion, regardless of who's feeling are hurt by it, feel left on the fringes, or want to try to recreate it in their image.

I also DID NOT say that same-sex couples are somehow "less perfect" than heterosexual couples. I said that homosexual relationships in Ancient Greece were a separate issue from marriage and family, and that a Greek man (or woman) did not forsake traditional marriage for a same-sex relationship. Marriages are for the creation and maintaining of family. Even if the day comes when the government forces SSM down an unwilling public's throat, they still will not be able to force religions to perform them or recognize them.

[Tim]

I'm still not seeing why hetrosexual Priests or couples fill tick those boxes more than same-sex people. LGBT people can be just as, if not more, healthy as hetrosexual people (for some gay people, it can become a bit of obsession to be fit and healthy and feel and look good). I have read Sallustius 'On the Gods and the World', and I'm still having trouble seeing what makes hetrosexuals more beloved by The Gods, and I apologise if it comes across as annoying to you, but, I'm just not sure why LGBT people couldn't match the requirements for being a Priest (I'm not saying every LGBT person could meet the requirements, but, there are those who are LGBT and also Virtuous, who are in great health, etc, I'm just not seeing why the fact that The Gods would reject someone as a Priest, just 'cause they are attracted to the same-sex, or in the case of bi people, both sexes, especially, if, as I said earlier, in the future, creating babies/life won't be the sole property of hetrosexual people).
Did I say heterosexuals were more beloved by the Gods! I said no such thing. I said nothing about being heterosexual, married, or having had children as part of the qualifications for being a priest or priestess. I addressed your issue why this group would not marry same-sex couples and people who were infertile, or incapable or unwilling to have children, and I addressed why infertile individuals would not qualify for the office of priest or priestess. I do believe there are exceptions to the incapable or unwilling to have children idea for marriage, and this groups stand may be taken a little too far in areas, but the thought behind it is sound. No one is forcing you to adopt Hellenismos, and I don't see why you chose to bash this group's beliefs and practices.

[Twinkle]

To break it down in a nutshell - since a lot of words and assumptions seem to be made about what people *think* we are saying rather than what we are *actually saying*:

1. The thoughts behind this website, while maybe going too far, are still historically sound - and follow the worldview of the Ancients, and not a case of homophobia - since we all know the Greeks were not homophobic.

2. Homosexuality has nothing to do with piety, eligibility for priesthood, imperfection or being more beloved/hated by the Gods.

3. The standard for priesthood was, and still is 1. Piety 2. Without mental or physical defect. (Good Health).

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Actually, you'd probably be the best person to ask, as I think you're a worshipper of Artemis, and know a lot about her Cult in ancient times, do you know anything about Artemis having lebian Priestesses or attracting more women to her Cult who loved other women?.

Darn David thats a tough one to answer. Her cult was honored in about as many various ways as there were various locations that honored her.

Artemis Turopolis focuses heavly on the stepping from prepubescent to womanhood and marriage. When the cult was moved to the site outside of Athens it still held much of that focus. Artemis Orthia in Sparta was another blood cult that focused on marriage and rites as well.

I think the most likely spot for such a setting probally would have been at the temple to Artemis in Ephesos (Ephesus) from the shere size and number of priestess. But I have not read or heard of any such specific accounts of such.

I have not found anything that says for sure about the lesbian facet. The closet I can think of off the top of my head is the association that Artemis has with the Egyptain goddess Bast and her association with Lesbian priestess. Yet most of that is pretty modern day comparissons and deductions.

[Lunacie]

Well, considering that some priestesshoods required the applicant be a virgin, well, judging her fertility when she hadn't yet tested it seems kind of nonsensical. Additionally, there was a priestesshood to Artemis that could only be held by older but still prepubescent girls -- again, hard to gauge "fertility" when one hasn't even experienced menarche.

Then there's the fact that the cult of Kybele(1) had a priest class that when through a ritual castration in order to serve Her -- can't really go around making babies when you're a eunuch.


I find this talk of "imperfection puts us in the disfavour of the Gods" to be the biggest load of crap I've read from other Hellenistai in a long time. I mean, OK, let's forget about the Galli (eunuch priests of Kybele), since they were obviously outside the mainstream. Still, one of the most consistent pieces of Hellenic mythology is the portrayal of Hephaestos -- a dwarven, crippled God. Hephaestos is typically written as being the parthenogenic son of Hera (born without need for a male seed), and when He was born dwarven and ugly, Hera threw Him from Olympos, breaking His legs and crippling Him. For this cruelty, it is then frequently written, that Hera was punished and Hephaestos brought back to the company of the Theoi:
http://theoi.com/Olympios/Hephaistos.html

...and while the call of "the Goids are not Their myths" is definitely true in some light, there are nuggets of wisdom in the mythos -- they are about and inspired by the Divine -- and if this story of Hephaestos has nothing else to teach mortals, it has to teach us that even those who are "flawed" or otherwise "not normal" can have a purpose and thus favour of the Theoi.

...I'm not even going to get on my point about how a culture that resists change is like a stagnant pool -- nothing will grow or thrive in it, it becomes a haven for parasites and disease, and it is, for all practical purposes, dead. I will say, though, look to the ancients for inspiration and guidance, but realise that the ancient people changed and adapted to their situation as they needed to -- we live in the 21st Century, and the Theoi want us to act like it. (Of course, I have no doubt in my mind that by the time of Alexander, there were already ancient people bitching and moaning about how "it was so much better before I was even born! Now those people -- they knew how to be Hellenes!" And I'm sure the Hellenes who were able to get with the times had some very choice opinions about those mental dinosaurs painting the past as perfection.)



(1) You know, some people will kvetch and moan about Kybele being "foreign to the Greeks" no matter what, but this ignores the very verifiable fact that Her mythology was thoroughly Hellenised by the time of Hesiod, Pindar even describes Her worship as being paired with Pan, She was incorporated into Orphism (source: Orphic hymns), and hell, what Athenians did was "foreign" to Spartans, and so on, so really, anybody trying to argue that "Kybele wasn't an Hellenic Goddess" is talking bullstick. There are no surviving primary sources that describe Kybele as a part of the mainstream practises of the polis, but many poloi maintained Her cultus on the periphery.

"the Goids are not Their myths" I love typos like this - and I think the Goids do too. :lol:

Anyway, what you wrote confirms what I believe myself. That there was no "one true way" of worshipping the gods, and no one kind of person who was qualified to be a priest or priestess of the gods. It could and often did change from one god to another, and possibly even from one temple to another dedicated to just one god.

So I have grave doubts that homosexuality or bisexuality made it completely impossible to become a priest/ess in all of the temples of ancient Greece.

[Tim]

Anyway, what you wrote confirms what I believe myself. That there was no "one true way" of worshipping the gods, and no one kind of person who was qualified to be a priest or priestess of the gods. It could and often did change from one god to another, and possibly even from one temple to another dedicated to just one god.
No one is saying there is one true way of worshiping the Gods. The methods, beliefs, and practices of Hellenismos say nothing about methods, beliefs, and practices of other religions. If your religion wants to allow a morbidly obese drug dealer to be a priest or priestess, that's your business. I'm certainly not going to tell you are wrong, or your religion is wrong, and I would kindly ask that you not imply that the methods, beliefs, and practices of those practicing Hellenismos are wrong. I would suspect if Hellenismos was your cup of tea you would be practicing it.


So I have grave doubts that homosexuality or bisexuality made it completely impossible to become a priest/ess in all of the temples of ancient Greece.
Show me who said that homosexuals or bisexuals could not become a priest/ess in Ancient Greece.

[Twinkle]

It was never said - at least by the website, you, or me. I asked already for some documentation - but I'm not seeing it, and as of yet no one has provided it.

Where people are getting that from is beyond me.

[Lunacie]

No one is saying there is one true way of worshiping the Gods. The methods, beliefs, and practices of Hellenismos say nothing about methods, beliefs, and practices of other religions. If your religion wants to allow a morbidly obese drug dealer to be a priest or priestess, that's your business. I'm certainly not going to tell you are wrong, or your religion is wrong, and I would kindly ask that you not imply that the methods, beliefs, and practices of those practicing Hellenismos are wrong. I would suspect if Hellenismos was your cup of tea you would be practicing it.


Show me who said that homosexuals or bisexuals could not become a priest/ess in Ancient Greece.

Whoa, wtf? :wtf:


I thought there was a question about whether homosexuals could or could not become priest/ess in Ancient Greece. I wasn't saying that such a thing is/was true. In fact, I was saying just the opposite.

My asking a couple of questions in no way gives you the right to bash my own religious beliefs. We don't have a central council who adjudicates who can or cannot be a priest/ess of Wicca. We have charlatans and poor representatives, just as anyreligion or other grouping of people does.

I - in no way - was implying that "the methods, beliefs, and practices of Hellenismos are wrong." I was interested in learning something. Apparently questions from "outsiders" are unwelcome here? Sorry for the intrusion. :ugh:

[Twinkle]

That's not it at all, Lunacie.

The thread wasn't about homosexuals not being priests/priestesses - the OP was talking about the website being homophobic, and somehow gleaned that homosexuals could not be priests/priestesses.

You apparently missed that part.

No one is bashing you, no one would bash your beliefs.

You being an "outsider" has nothing to do with it.

You stating your opinion on something that has nothing to do with the topic, does.

[Tim]

Whoa, wtf? :wtf:


I thought there was a question about whether homosexuals could or could not become priest/ess in Ancient Greece. I wasn't saying that such a thing is/was true. In fact, I was saying just the opposite.
The issue is if the modern homosexual lifestyle conforms to a person being allowed to be a priest or priestess, not if homosexuals or bisexuals could become a priest/ess in Ancient Greece.


My asking a couple of questions in no way gives you the right to bash my own religious beliefs. We don't have a central council who adjudicates who can or cannot be a priest/ess of Wicca. We have charlatans and poor representatives, just as anyreligion or other grouping of people does.
That is true of NeoWicca, but not true of Traditional Wicca, which has specific myths and Gods, beliefs and practices, and specific requirements for priests and priestesses... and I've known of individuals who have been defrocked. NeoWicca may allow for self-proclaimed priests and priestesses, but Traditional Wicca does not.


I - in no way - was implying that "the methods, beliefs, and practices of Hellenismos are wrong." I was interested in learning something. Apparently questions from "outsiders" are unwelcome here? Sorry for the intrusion. :ugh:

...and no Reconstructonist on this thread many any kind of statement about "one true way" of worshiping the Gods. This whole thread has been nothing but an attack on how the Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum are wrong for having their standards, and recon bashing.

[Lunacie]

That's not it at all, Lunacie.

The thread wasn't about homosexuals not being priests/priestesses - the OP was talking about the website being homophobic, and somehow gleaned that homosexuals could not be priests/priestesses.

You apparently missed that part.

No one is bashing you, no one would bash your beliefs.

You being an "outsider" has nothing to do with it.

You stating your opinion on something that has nothing to do with the topic, does.

Certainly the thread started out as a discussion of the possible homophobia of a particular website, but it also certainly evolved to include the discussion of whether homosexuals could be priests or priestesses. That was the part I was asking questions about. I didn't see any point in questioning the original assumption that the other website was homophobic because that was answered clearly enough in the first few responses.

Your remarks about people misusing the position of priest/priestess in Wicca was uncalled for and could be considered "path bashing."

You say yourself that the topic had digressed and also included the question of homosexuals as priests or priestesses, therefore my question was not off topic.



The issue is if the modern homosexual lifestyle conforms to a person being allowed to be a priest or priestess, not if homosexuals or bisexuals could not become a priest/ess in Ancient Greece.


That is true of NeoWicca, but not true of Traditional Wicca, which has specific myths and Gods, beliefs and practices, and specific requirements for priests and priestesses... and I've known of individuals who have been defrocked. NeoWicca may allow for self-proclaimed priests and priestesses, but Traditional Wicca does not.


...and no Reconstructonist on this thread many any kind of statement about "one true way" of worshiping the Gods. This whole thread has been nothing but an attack on how the Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum are wrong for having their standards, and recon bashing.

I think you've missed an important distinction between priest/ess with a small 'p' and the role of High Priests and High Priestesses. There is a difference in those roles within the Wiccan community, just as I suspect there is in the Hellenismos community. Traditional Wicca does not have a stringent requirement list for people to become simple priests and priestesses. They do have requirements for those who may become High Priest/esses.

As you say, those who stray too far may be "defrocked", and beyond that, there are many who claim to be High Priest/esses who have no real claim to the title in the first place. There is little that Wiccans as a community can do about those poseurs.

As well, there is more than one Tradition of Wicca, so the requirements can, and do, vary somewhat. What is acceptable in a High Priest/ess in one Tradition may not be acceptable in another Tradition. So I was saying that it is wrong to imply that Wicca "allows" these less-than-perfect people to claim the title.

I've known David on these boards for a long time now, and he does tend to get a bit emotional when he thinks GLBT folks are getting a raw deal, but he asks questions, he reads, and he thinks things through, and he learns. I don't believe for a second that he was "recon bashing", but if you do the proper way to handle it is to use the report button and let the Admins sort it all out.

[Twinkle]

I made no remarks about Wiccan HP's or HPS, Lunacie. Please show me where I did. Otherwise, I expect an apology for your libelous remark.

I suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills - you're obviously having issues with them with this particular thread.

[Tim]

I think you've missed an important distinction between priest/ess with a small 'p' and the role of High Priests and High Priestesses. There is a difference in those roles within the Wiccan community, just as I suspect there is in the Hellenismos community. Traditional Wicca does not have a stringent requirement list for people to become simple priests and priestesses. They do have requirements for those who may become High Priest/esses.

As you say, those who stray too far may be "defrocked", and beyond that, there are many who claim to be High Priest/esses who have no real claim to the title in the first place. There is little that Wiccans as a community can do about those poseurs.
I don't know who you know, and what they are claiming to be, but Traditional Wicca *does* have a stringent requirement list for people to become simple priests and priestesses. Not everyone is allowed to join a coven, not everyone is allowed into the inner court, and not everyone is allowed to move up the ranks.


As well, there is more than one Tradition of Wicca, so the requirements can, and do, vary somewhat. What is acceptable in a High Priest/ess in one Tradition may not be acceptable in another Tradition. So I was saying that it is wrong to imply that Wicca "allows" these less-than-perfect people to claim the title.
I'm talking about Traditional Wicca, not Traditions of Wicca. There are many that claim to be a Tradition of Wicca, but few that can claim any true linage.


I've known David on these boards for a long time now, and he does tend to get a bit emotional when he thinks GLBT folks are getting a raw deal, but he asks questions, he reads, and he thinks things through, and he learns. I don't believe for a second that he was "recon bashing", but if you do the proper way to handle it is to use the report button and let the Admins sort it all out.
David is on Fiamma's "Hellenic" forum. If he wanted the real answer, there are Ethnikoi on that forum willing to answer. Instead, he came here to get the answers he wanted to read, and allow the swiping of a religious organization undefended.

[Lunacie]

I made no remarks about Wiccan HP's or HPS, Lunacie. Please show me where I did. Otherwise, I expect an apology for your libelous remark.

I suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills - you're obviously having issues with them with this particular thread.

Ah - I see, I confused you with Tim. Your siggies are very similar, and your posting style seems similar as well. So, I made a mistake.

Calling my remark - no matter who it was addressed to - "libel" is a trifle ridiculous. As usual, you're totally overreacting and blowing things way out of proportion.

[Twinkle]

I accept your apology. Thank you.

[Lunacie]

I don't know who you know, and what they are claiming to be, but Traditional Wicca *does* have a stringent requirement list for people to become simple priests and priestesses. Not everyone is allowed to join a coven, not everyone is allowed into the inner court, and not everyone is allowed to move up the ranks.


I'm talking about Traditional Wicca, not Traditions of Wicca. There are many that claim to be a Tradition of Wicca, but few that can claim any true linage.


David is on Fiamma's "Hellenic" forum. If he wanted the real answer, there are Ethnikoi on that forum willing to answer. Instead, he came here to get the answers he wanted to read, and allow the swiping of a religious organization undefended.

There are many traditions of Wicca, and if Gardnerian Wiccans don't want to recognize them, that's fine. But that doesn't take away from the validity of those other traditions. Gardner himself understood that various groups would have differences, and he knew that he himself was practicing a variation on what he had been taught.

Gardner and his coven were initiating people who he had only just met, so the idea of him expecting stringent requirements simply to become a priest/ess of beginner level is something that this non-Gardnerian finds silly at best, and elitist as worst.

Sounds like you followed David here from another forum. Apparently you not only have a very low opinion of him, you have a very low opinion of those who frequent this forum here at MW. You could simply walk away, or you could try to improve the quality of the responses here.

[Twinkle]

It's difficult to improve the quality of the responses when people aren't actually reading the responses - merely pulling out what you (the general you) think we are saying, rather than what we are actually saying.

Perhaps people could ask for clarification, instead of blaming us for reading comprehension problems.

[Twinkle]

I did break down my stance about two pages back. If anyone needs clarification I would be more than happy to re-hash it again.

[Tim]

There are many traditions of Wicca, and if Gardnerian Wiccans don't want to recognize them, that's fine. But that doesn't take away from the validity of those other traditions. Gardner himself understood that various groups would have differences, and he knew that he himself was practicing a variation on what he had been taught.

Gardner and his coven were initiating people who he had only just met, so the idea of him expecting stringent requirements simply to become a priest/ess of beginner level is something that this non-Gardnerian finds silly at best, and elitist as worst.
Who said anything about anything being valid or not? You made a general statement about Wicca that was blatantly not true. It may be true about your brand of Wicca, and NeoWiccans in general, but you and I both know Traditional forms of Wicca do have very high standards for both practitioners and leadership. Your anti-Traditional Wiccan attitude is as clear to read as your anti-recon one.


Sounds like you followed David here from another forum. Apparently you not only have a very low opinion of him, you have a very low opinion of those who frequent this forum here at MW. You could simply walk away, or you could try to improve the quality of the responses here.
Sorry to be interfering with your recon bashing.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I think part of the issue with the LGBT notion is that to me it can not be applied across the board but must be addressed on a god to god or goddess to goddess basis. Not only that but also on the basis of what did each particular god / goddess represent and mean to the community as a whole.

For instance, Hera as the representive of home and marrige I think would have trouble with the notion of same sex marriage. Not so much from the facet of the LGBT position but from the facet that she became the focus upon a girls life once she reached the age of marriage and childbirth.

Artemis in her capacity as Nymph and insistence of virginal females I find highly unlikely to have sexualy active followers. Yet in her capacity as mistress of animals, fertility mother, guardian of sailors and such I'm not sure thier would be the same stigma or limitations.

A god similar to Baccus or Dionysus (yes I know spelt wrong on both) being associated with wine, song and such probally would not be so opposed to ones sexual orientation in my opinion.

Granted these are just a few examples but I think it shows that there are more facets to this than just LGBT and the social perspective on it.

[Tim]

I think part of the issue with the LGBT notion is that to me it can not be applied across the board but must be addressed on a god to god or goddess to goddess basis. Not only that but also on the basis of what did each particular god / goddess represent and mean to the community as a whole.

For instance, Hera as the representive of home and marrige I think would have trouble with the notion of same sex marriage. Not so much from the facet of the LGBT position but from the facet that she became the focus upon a girls life once she reached the age of marriage and childbirth.

Artemis in her capacity as Nymph and insistence of virginal females I find highly unlikely to have sexualy active followers. Yet in her capacity as mistress of animals, fertility mother, guardian of sailors and such I'm not sure thier would be the same stigma or limitations.

A god similar to Baccus or Dionysus (yes I know spelt wrong on both) being associated with wine, song and such probally would not be so opposed to ones sexual orientation in my opinion.

Granted these are just a few examples but I think it shows that there are more facets to this than just LGBT and the social perspective on it.
Your position seems based on making theoretical arguments rather than an authentic reconstruction, which is the focus of groups like Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum and the Supreme Council of Ethnikoi Hellenes (I actually don't know how they specifically address with situation).

[Twinkle]

I think part of the issue with the LGBT notion is that to me it can not be applied across the board but must be addressed on a god to god or goddess to goddess basis. Not only that but also on the basis of what did each particular god / goddess represent and mean to the community as a whole.

For instance, Hera as the representive of home and marrige I think would have trouble with the notion of same sex marriage. Not so much from the facet of the LGBT position but from the facet that she became the focus upon a girls life once she reached the age of marriage and childbirth.

Artemis in her capacity as Nymph and insistence of virginal females I find highly unlikely to have sexualy active followers. Yet in her capacity as mistress of animals, fertility mother, guardian of sailors and such I'm not sure thier would be the same stigma or limitations.

A god similar to Baccus or Dionysus (yes I know spelt wrong on both) being associated with wine, song and such probally would not be so opposed to ones sexual orientation in my opinion.

Granted these are just a few examples but I think it shows that there are more facets to this than just LGBT and the social perspective on it.


I really think it's sort of a moot point. Homosexuality has never been forbidden. What the real issue is is whether a person meets the criteria of priest/priesthood. I don't think homosexuality comes into it.

Historically, a homosexual person would still be expected to marry and have children. That is the worldview of the Ancients.

[Caitlin.ann]

I really think it's sort of a moot point. Homosexuality has never been forbidden. What the real issue is is whether a person meets the criteria of priest/priesthood. I don't think homosexuality comes into it.

Historically, a homosexual person would still be expected to marry and have children. That is the worldview of the Ancients.

Makes sense to me, thanks for explaining. I've only been following this for the last few posts or so.

[Lunacie]

Who said anything about anything being valid or not? You made a general statement about Wicca that was blatantly not true. It may be true about your brand of Wicca, and NeoWiccans in general, but you and I both know Traditional forms of Wicca do have very high standards for both practitioners and leadership. Your anti-Traditional Wiccan attitude is as clear to read as your anti-recon one.


Sorry to be interfering with your recon bashing.

Perhaps you should save your "expert opinion about Wicca" for the Wicca forum? Although over there you will find quite a few people who follow various Wiccan traditions that will let you know that your opinion isn't worth much to anyone but those few who believe that there are only handful of Proper Wiccan Traditions.

I'm not "anti-Traditional", I simply accept that there are more than just a handful of perfectly valid Wiccan traditions.

Again, if you think anyone here is "recon bashing" please feel free to use the report button and see if any of the Admins agree with that notion. I don't see any point in further discussion of our different opinions of Wicca in this forum, so I'll say "hail and farewell."

[Lunacie]

It's difficult to improve the quality of the responses when people aren't actually reading the responses - merely pulling out what you (the general you) think we are saying, rather than what we are actually saying.

Perhaps people could ask for clarification, instead of blaming us for reading comprehension problems.

Reading comprehension? That would be taking my previous response for an apology rather than admitting I made a simple mistake. :lol:

[MonSno_LeeDra]

No actually my argument and position would be based upon looking at not only social but regional and era differences and positions. I find that the so called world view is only effective if one limits themselves to a specific location, period of time and social concept.

In that notion to utilize Artemis the social relationship to her and her influence varied greatly from spot to spot. In Sparta she is seen as the guardian of warriors and Mistress of animals and honored greatly in the blood rites. In Athens also a guardian but more so to young girls and again blood rites as originated in Artemis Turoplois. At her temples at sea ports she is a protector of sailors and Mistress of Animals in that her influence extends out to the off shore industries. In Ephesos she is the fertility goddess.

So one must look at the region, the time frame of each persona, the social and cultural influences (Asia Minor verus black sea versus southern Greece versus mainland compared to Island.)

Granted one must also look at the interaction between the individual goddess and the other gods / goddesses. But even that facet changes depending upon locale and time frame.

[Twinkle]

Now you're just baiting, Lunacie.

Do you have anything of value to add to the discussion?

[Twinkle]

No actually my argument and position would be based upon looking at not only social but regional and era differences and positions. I find that the so called world view is only effective if one limits themselves to a specific location, period of time and social concept.

In that notion to utilize Artemis the social relationship to her and her influence varied greatly from spot to spot. In Sparta she is seen as the guardian of warriors and Mistress of animals and honored greatly in the blood rites. In Athens also a guardian but more so to young girls and again blood rites as originated in Artemis Turoplois. At her temples at sea ports she is a protector of sailors and Mistress of Animals in that her influence extends out to the off shore industries. In Ephesos she is the fertility goddess.

So one must look at the region, the time frame of each persona, the social and cultural influences (Asia Minor verus black sea versus southern Greece versus mainland compared to Island.)

Granted one must also look at the interaction between the individual goddess and the other gods / goddesses. But even that facet changes depending upon locale and time frame.


I still don't think that homosexuality has a place in it one way or the other. Homosexuality was widely practiced....and people were married and having children at the same time.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I still don't think that homosexuality has a place in it one way or the other. Homosexuality was widely practiced....and people were married and having children at the same time.

I do not disagree that procreation was the first rule, I was just pointing out that there were many facets that must be considered in not only what traits one must posses to be a priest/priestess but also what is demanded by the god goddess one is a priestess to.

[Tim]

Perhaps you should save your "expert opinion about Wicca" for the Wicca forum? Although over there you will find quite a few people who follow various Wiccan traditions that will let you know that your opinion isn't worth much to anyone but those few who believe that there are only handful of Proper Wiccan Traditions.

I'm not "anti-Traditional", I simply accept that there are more than just a handful of perfectly valid Wiccan traditions.

Again, if you think anyone here is "recon bashing" please feel free to use the report button and see if any of the Admins agree with that notion. I don't see any point in further discussion of our different opinions of Wicca in this forum, so I'll say "hail and farewell."
Just like a security guard is not a policeman, Traditional Wicca has standards that NeoWiccans generally don't meet. It has nothing to do with being "perfectly valid". It has to do with most who claim to identify as Wicca don't meet their standards... standards they are allowed to have. If you (the general you) want to worship the Great Pumpkin and Red Barron you should do it because you buy into it, not because some other group validates you.

Fact is, you still made a general statement about Wicca that is not true whether you accept that there are more than just a handful of perfectly valid Wiccan traditions or not... and even that statement smacks of anti-Traditionalism. Gods forbid they be allowed to have beliefs and practices that conflict with yours.

[Twinkle]

I do not disagree that procreation was the first rule, I was just pointing out that there were many facets that must be considered in not only what traits one must posses to be a priest/priestess but also what is demanded by the god goddess one is a priestess to.

I don't disagree - but I'm not sure that a lesbian priestess or homosexual man is a necessary requirement for priesthood for a God/Goddess- since homosexuality was widely practiced among the populace.

Am I not understanding what you're saying?

[Tim]

I do not disagree that procreation was the first rule, I was just pointing out that there were many facets that must be considered in not only what traits one must posses to be a priest/priestess but also what is demanded by the god goddess one is a priestess to.
I don't think there is any precedence for any public priest or priestess, of any God or Goddess, to be homosexual. If you have evidence of it, I would be happy to look at it. I really don't think it came into play, and since homosexual encounters were accepted and common, there was probably no specific restrictions either. The basis of not allowing homosexuals to be priests (with this group) seems more based on the modern homosexual lifestyle, rather than homosexuality period.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I don't disagree - but I'm not sure that a lesbian priestess or homosexual man is a necessary requirement for priesthood for a God/Goddess- since homosexuality was widely practiced among the populace.

Am I not understanding what you're saying?

Not saying that one had to be seen as a LGBT person to hold the postion. Only that depending upon the god / goddess in question and where that trait might deny them for some but not others.

Hera as guardian of women and families I realy do not see it as an option. Artemis in her capacity as leader of nymphs and demands of virginity again not an option. Artemis in her capacity as protector of sailors probally not an issue, same for Artemis as fertility mother in Ephesus.

[Twinkle]

I don't believe that there would be any denial outright for homosexuals holding the office.

I haven't seen anything that says there would be.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

All I know is that their are stories of Artemis where certain people are denied positions / associations because they are not virgins in some instances. If they are denied the right to be with her because of sexual issues I can see where her priesthood would deny others for similar reasons.

But truthfuly in the end I do not find any reference to ones sexual orientation mentioned in to many, if any older texts. In that light most of the whole issue on LGBT and priesthood must be drawn from what we know of each individual god / goddess and their acceptances.

In that light I can make the probable truth derived from her histories. The Arcadian Artemis is associated with nymphs and virginity so no they would not be her priests / priestesses. Artemis Turopolis doubtful especially with its association of human sacrifice. Artemis with associaition to Athens, highly doubtful again with the association of prepubescent girls and mandate that they must perform in that capacity in order to get married.

Granted a lot of that would fall under UPG and analysis of existing tales and stories.

[Twinkle]

All I know is that their are stories of Artemis where certain people are denied positions / associations because they are not virgins in some instances. If they are denied the right to be with her because of sexual issues I can see where her priesthood would deny others for similar reasons.

But truthfuly in the end I do not find any reference to ones sexual orientation mentioned in to many, if any older texts. In that light most of the whole issue on LGBT and priesthood must be drawn from what we know of each individual god / goddess and their acceptances.

In that light I can make the probable truth derived from her histories. The Arcadian Artemis is associated with nymphs and virginity so no they would not be her priests / priestesses. Artemis Turopolis doubtful especially with its association of human sacrifice. Artemis with associaition to Athens, highly doubtful again with the association of prepubescent girls and mandate that they must perform in that capacity in order to get married.

Granted a lot of that would fall under UPG and analysis of existing tales and stories.


It's sort of a huge leap, though. Virginity doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

It's sort of a huge leap, though. Virginity doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation.

Actually not if you get into the stories and legends. It's like the stories of the nymphs and such. She demanded they be unknown to man and virginal in her capacity as Artemis of Arcadia. Any that broke that bond were severly punished and expelled from her presence. Even to the point of being transformed to escape being taken and their virginity being lost.

Human females that tried to join her ranks in other areas had to be proven to be untouched. Males and females many times allowed in her teachings only until they reached the age of marriage.

Yet the requirements and specifications varying from place to place depending upon the total image of her worship and position.

Yet one also had to look at the social background. The family and right to rule in Asia Minor influenced upon Artemis of Ephesos and Artemis temple in Sardis.

[Twinkle]

True - but we don't just look to the myths for our answers. We have to look at everything, and take it in context to have the most well rounded accurate opinion - focusing on the worldview of the Ancients at the time.

If we have nothing that says homosexuality was a deciding factor in eligibility for priesthood - then we can't just grab a myth and claim it as "truth".

It's just not part of the methodology.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

True - but we don't just look to the myths for our answers.

Agreed

We have to look at everything, and take it in context to have the most well rounded accurate opinion - focusing on the worldview of the Ancients at the time.

The problem with worldview is which period is one looking at? Again using Artemis the worldview is really lopsided depending upon which persona one is looking at and which period of time.

If we have nothing that says homosexuality was a deciding factor in eligibility for priesthood - then we can't just grab a myth and claim it as "truth".

I do agree actually. That's why I said myths, social lore and customs, etc.

It's just not part of the methodology.

One piece I am finding for Artemis especially but also Hekate is the issuance of coins and money. When you look at the changes and overlaps you get an excellent picture into the world politics and social turmoil of the times.

[Twinkle]

You could make a guess - but that's all it would be - a guess.

Without any primary sources backing up that guess, I would rather err on the side of caution.

[Tim]

You could make a guess - but that's all it would be - a guess.

Without any primary sources backing up that guess, I would rather err on the side of caution.
...not even a guess. It is a bit of a stretch to say that specific Gods or Goddesses should have homosexual priests of priestesses without evidence, based only on speculation.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Ah but then you get to the notion of is it an educated and researched guess or is it a SWAG (standard wild ass guess). I'll admit I am more resceptive of considering an educated guess than a swag.

At least with an educated guess you can list your reasons for reaching the conclusion you did.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

...not even a guess. It is a bit of a stretch to say that specific Gods or Goddesses should have homosexual priests of priestesses without evidence, based only on speculation.

Who said should have, I implied that it makes more sense that some might and some might not based upon the gods / goddesses cultural function.

[Twinkle]

Absolutely. A SWAG gets treated like a SWAG. I'm more than willing to look at educated opinions, compare and contrast,and all that. You (the general you) have to be able to back it up with cited sources, though.

[Tim]

Ah but then you get to the notion of is it an educated and researched guess or is it a SWAG (standard wild ass guess). I'll admit I am more resceptive of considering an educated guess than a swag.

At least with an educated guess you can list your reasons for reaching the conclusion you did.
In my experience, a person being able to list their reasons is no proof of a valid educated guess. Many times, people with "creative ideas" alter the facts to fit their views, taking statements out of context or reinterpreting them outside the original worldview. I remember debating a person who swore up and down that Plato was a pacifist, taking statements he made out of context, and despite Plato making statements in support of a defensive military.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

In my experience, a person being able to list their reasons is no proof of a valid educated guess. Many times, people with "creative ideas" alter the facts to fit their views, taking statements out of context or reinterpreting them outside the original worldview. .

Yes but if they are willing to list thier reasons and open to discussion of them then you at least have a place to start the discussion. I do admit that it also revolves around the notion of the person being willing to accept that their analysis might be wrong and be willing to be receptive of other positions.

Though I do openly admit I am stubborn and it takes a pretty good discussion to get me to change. Though I hope I come across as being receptive to considering it and acknowlidging that I am wrong at times.

[Twinkle]

Yes but if they are willing to list thier reasons and open to discussion of them then you at least have a place to start the discussion. I do admit that it also revolves around the notion of the person being willing to accept that their analysis might be wrong and be willing to be receptive of other positions.

Though I do openly admit I am stubborn and it takes a pretty good discussion to get me to change. Though I hope I come across as being receptive to considering it and acknowlidging that I am wrong at times.


It's an absolute pleasure to speak with you. :) I think that we all have to allow ourselves room to have irenic discussion, and admit when we are wrong and change our stance.

It seems that Recons especially have a tendency not to back down - and we will fight to the end if we are right and feel we can prove it.

Courtesy is always a good thing. :)

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Absolutely. A SWAG gets treated like a SWAG. I'm more than willing to look at educated opinions, compare and contrast,and all that. You (the general you) have to be able to back it up with cited sources, though.

I agree with cited sources. I think where many make a mistake is that frequently the citation comes as part of the discussion and reference points. Until needed most will use overviews and recall of material.

[Twinkle]

I agree with cited sources. I think where many make a mistake is that frequently the citation comes as part of the discussion and reference points. Until needed most will use overviews and recall of material.

True enough.

Oftentimes we see primary source material taken out of context in order to prove a biased assumption.

I have been guilty of this, myself. It's an ongoing learning process, and I learn much from the Ethnikoi Hellenes and others who are far more educated and intelligent than myself.

This would include you, as well. :)

[_Banbha_]

Well, I've been following this thread since it was posted and it has taken some twists and turns today. As a Reconstructionist, albeit from a different tradition, I don't think there has been any bashing of said path and its methodologies. I see people with questions or different perspectives and perhaps some heated debate instead. Just my take on it. :)



The issue is if the modern homosexual lifestyle conforms to a person being allowed to be a priest or priestess, not if homosexuals or bisexuals could become a priest/ess in Ancient Greece.


What are the modern Reconstructionist viewpoints on LGBTI's (or any heterosexual who choses not to marry and/or have children) becoming priestesses or priests? Just curious, I don't have a horse in this race, so to speak.

When people say 'lifestyle' in connection with homosexuality, transgender, etc. it can generally mean they're implying it's a choice, because a lifestyle is something you choose. Is it your contention that being LGBTI is indeed a lifestyle choice? Again this also relates to current Hellenic Reconstructionism.

(the 'I' in LGBTI is for intersexual or intersexuality)

[Tim]

What are the modern Reconstructionist viewpoints on LGBTI's (or any heterosexual who choses not to marry and/or have children) becoming priestesses or priests? Just curious, I don't have a horse in this race, so to speak.
We are not talking about all Reconstructionists, or even all Hellenic Reconstructionists, we are talking about this one specific organization, listed in the OP, based in Athens. I've already stated in this thread that I think they are going a little too far, but their reasoning of the worldview is correct, and I was simply not going to allow this group to go undefended.


When people say 'lifestyle' in connection with homosexuality, transgender, etc. it can generally mean they're implying it's a choice, because a lifestyle is something you choose. Is it your contention that being LGBTI is indeed a lifestyle choice? Again this also relates to current Hellenic Reconstructionism.
Again, we are not talking about being a homosexual (bisexual or transgendered) person as a lifestyle choice. We are talking about the modern lifestyle of some/most/many who are LGBT. In Ancient Greece it simply was not acceptable to forsake traditional marriage and family for a same-sex relationship, despite the fact same-sex relationships were socially acceptable (and we could possible say promoted). The accepted lifestyle is one of traditional marriage and family first, regardless of sexual orientation.

[Twinkle]

Once again, this has nothing to do with the morality of same sex relationships.

There is no moral taboo with homosexuality and Ancient Greece.

[Twinkle]

And Banbha - if I misunderstood you, I'm sorry.

I don't want to put words in your mouth.

[_Banbha_]

We are not talking about all Reconstructionists, or even all Hellenic Reconstructionists, we are talking about this one specific organization, listed in the OP, based in Athens. I've already stated in this thread that I think they are going a little too far, but their reasoning of the worldview is correct, and I was simply not going to allow this group to go undefended.

I know. I wanted to know what other modern "viewpoints" there are within Hellenic Reconstruction. Saying you think this group goes a little to far is not really a clear viewpoint, so I asked. Perhaps there are are others (besides yourself and Twinkle, with all due respect) who might have an opinion as well. :)



Again, we are not talking about being a homosexual (bisexual or transgendered) person as a lifestyle choice. We are talking about the modern lifestyle of some/most/many who are LGBT. In Ancient Greece it simply was not acceptable to forsake traditional marriage and family for a same-sex relationship, despite the fact same-sex relationships were socially acceptable (and we could possible say promoted). The accepted lifestyle is one of traditional marriage and family first, regardless of sexual orientation.

I'm aware of what you were talking about and what was done in ancient Greek territories but I was asking about modern Recon positions, perhaps yours, on what's done or acceptable now. I hope I was clear on that.

I think it would be wise to leave the word 'lifestyle' out in this conversation when discussing the modern context unless you want to suggest or do believe LGBTI's are indeed making a choice in their sexuality and were not born that way.

Being gay is not a lifestyle but a life, as the saying goes.

[_Banbha_]

Once again, this has nothing to do with the morality of same sex relationships.

There is no moral taboo with homosexuality and Ancient Greece.


And Banbha - if I misunderstood you, I'm sorry.

I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I appreciate the second post because you did indeed misunderstand me.

I was going to ask what the top quoted post had to do with anything I said. :weirdsmil

[Twinkle]

Not a problem. I'm a bit tired, now.

[_Banbha_]

Not a problem. I'm a bit tired, now.

Not a prob here either.

I admire your tenacity. :hahugh:

[Tim]

I'm aware of what you were talking about and what was done in ancient Greek territories but I was asking about modern Recon positions, perhaps yours, on what's done or acceptable now. I hope I was clear on that.
If you think there is an anti-homosexual message to Hellenismos, there isn't one. Having said that, the religion is family centered, and some people do feel disenfranchised because of that. It's just the way it is. One religion cannot be all things to all people.


I think it would be wise to leave the word 'lifestyle' out in this conversation when discussing the modern context unless you want to suggest or do believe LGBTI's are indeed making a choice in their sexuality and were not born that way.

Being gay is not a lifestyle but a life, as the saying goes.
The issue is yours. I was talking about a lifestyle, and a choice. While being homosexual is not a lifestyle choice, the way a person chooses to live is.

[YoungSoulRebel]

Modern adaptation of the office of priesthood still follows this same line. Menopausal women, young women, nine year olds, would still meet this criteria. A barren woman wouldn't. Castrating a person in otherwise good health has nothing to do with a medical issue such as sterility.

In some cases the mentally ill were found to be special to the Gods because of their delusions and psychosis. It still didn't make them eligible for priesthood.

What you and Tim are thus suggesting then is NOT in "[the] same line" as ancient criteria for priesthood. So, basically, you're contradicting yourselves and, as usual, talking crap. If this is how you two want things, nobody's stopping you from running your own religious polis in such a manner -- but considering that I've seen photos of Tim, he should realise that his tattoos are out of line with Athenian perfection, his tendency toward chub isn't in line with "ideal physical health", and his mental state is suspect, so obviously you two would need to elect somebody better for priesthood. Sorry, but that's the way it goes -- just because you've set down the rules doesn't mean you're exempt from them.




I would disagree that the Greek Culture is a stagnant pool. It is a complete system that leaves nothing to fill in the blanks.[/url]

But you're not talking about Greek culture -- you're talking about re-enactment of ancient standards, as if social progress hasn't been made. Hindu culture has changed and adapted in the last five thousand years while still remaining Hindu culture. I can pull up LJ entries of yours talking about the "purity" of "Classical Athens" and then fawning as if what's now known as the Hellenistic period should never have happened -- but it did, and it is evidence of change and adaptation while still remaining Hellenic.


[quote=MonSno_LeeDra;4007012]I think your sort of mixing apples and oranges here. The cult of Artemis with the young girls was mainly located around Athens and they performed as Bear Dancers. Yet they were not priestesses in that sense but served a one year period of service to the goddess and site. It was also a requirement imposed upon all girls before they could be married under Athenian law.

In that working chasity and virginity coupled with prepubescent development was the requirement. It had nothing to do with fertility, that facet came into play when they sacrificed thier childhood things to Artemis and honored Hera as a woman.

Yet one must also look to the other side of Artemis and the elder women that served in her temples that acted as guide and teacher to the younger girls in the community. Those who were seen as almost being returned to a prepubscent state with the loss of blood cycle.

No, I wouldn't say that I'm talking apples and oranges -- the fact that this position even existed is proof positive that priesthoods, other religious positions, etc..., had varying requirements -- and thus, Tim, as usual, is talking crap. Bringing up the elder women in service to Artemis also supports this. Different positions, different priesthoods, had different requirements.



But, the view of marriage has moved on from that,

Depends on which region of ancient Hellas we're speaking of.

Athens was rather heteronormative when it came to marriage, sure, Sparta was notorious for heteronormativity to the point that they insisted (and one guy on the lists who claims to be of Spartan descent still insists), in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that their homosexual activity was "completely chaste" (seriously, the Spartans had an all-male festival where a prize was given to the boy who was the best kisser -- you can't tell me that's "completely chaste") -- but Boeotia, for example, notoriously (to the Athenians) formalised their same-sex relationships in a manner that was often regarded as being akin to a marriage. Not all of these unions were temporary pederastic pairings, either.



"the Goids are not Their myths" I love typos like this - and I think the Goids do too. :lol:

Yeah, typos can have a charm all their own.


So I have grave doubts that homosexuality or bisexuality made it completely impossible to become a priest/ess in all of the temples of ancient Greece.

When you consider that, in most of Hellas, some degree of bisexuality was accepted, even expected to some poloi, this blasts any group's advocacy of homophobic standards. Now, just based on having grown up in the Anglosphere, where religious freedom is practically expected, and my own understandings of the socio-religious climate in modern Hellas, if any one group wants to do things "their own way", even if their standards are homophobic, I'm not going to say that they shouldn't -- but when they or others start citing that these standards "are in line with cultural / historical fact", I'm going to call bullshit. One can speak for oneself all one likes, as well, but as the guy who started this thread even stated, this bullshit should be understood not to represent all Hellenic polytheist traditionalists. I've felt called to a Boeotian tradition, and so while it's kind of a "no duh" to other Hellenists that somebody following what they believe to be "Athenian standards" wouldn't represent me, those not as familiar with Hellenic religious and social history wouldn't automatically understand the differences.



What are the modern Reconstructionist viewpoints on LGBTI's (or any heterosexual who choses not to marry and/or have children) becoming priestesses or priests? Just curious, I don't have a horse in this race, so to speak

Honestly, ask ten different self-identified "recons", you'll get twelve to fifteen different answers -- and this is about anything, not just GBLTI issues. In fact, it's one of the reasons that some people who otherwise fit the definition of "recon" prefer to call themselves "traditionalists" or "revivalists", because "recon" is quickly and ardently morphing into a synonym for "re-enactor".

Now, to answer for myself, basically, I think the purpose of polytheistic reconstruction / revivalism / etc..., is to ask oneself "if these traditions survived unbroken since ancient times, how would it look today? Again, Hindu culture has adapted to the changes that have come with the times -- there are a few non-mainstream sects that remain far less changed since ancient times, but again, these sects are not mainstream Hinduism. Similarly, as somebody else pointed out, mainstream Jewish culture has changed and adapted with the changes of the times -- there are a few ultra-traditionalist Orthodox sects, but these sects have fallen out of the mainstream. Menonite (Amish) Christians even believe that they have one of the largest retention rates among their young people (over 90% stay with the Menonite church and Amish culture while the remaining ~10% fall out of it) because they have the "rumspringa" -- the "running around time", where Amish teens are permitted to live outside the community, dress in "English" clothing, engage in all sorts of vices of the outside world, and generally to make an informed decision of what they'd be giving up by formally joining the sect and contrary to popular belief, the Amish have also adopted several modern technologies -- what sets them apart from those outside their culture is that they only adopt what they feel has absolutely necessary to living in this world, living a life of necessity rather than consumption. If even the Amish can adapt to the changing times, then there is absolutely no reason that Hellenic polytheism shouldn't -- those who don't are re-enactors.


When people say 'lifestyle' in connection with homosexuality, transgender, etc. it can generally mean they're implying it's a choice, because a lifestyle is something you choose. Is it your contention that being LGBTI is indeed a lifestyle choice? Again this also relates to current Hellenic Reconstructionism.

(the 'I' in LGBTI is for intersexual or intersexuality)

I'll have to agree with this.



Being gay is not a lifestyle but a life, as the saying goes.

Eh... I'm going to nip-pick and tangent just a little bit.

Having homosexual, bi-, or TS/TG inclinations, predilictions, etc..., is not a lifestyle (implying choice), but a hardwired state of being. On the other hand, step into and gay or lesbian-patroned pub, bar, or nightclub, and you'll see an associated lifestyle -- I mean, nobody can help being same-gender oriented, for example, and I guess some guys can help liking synthpop and some women can't help liking folk music -- but not call homosexual men enjoy or even tolerate disco music, and not all lesbians have those kinds of feelings about folk music. There is a lifestyle associated with being same-gender oriented, but it's not a prerequisite for being so, and many same-gender oriented people actively eschew the associated lifestyle, preferring to just be whatever else "...who happens to also be gay / lesbian / bisexuial". I'll say, though, that the TS/TG/GQ/I folks seem different in that there isn't really an associated lifestyle (like there seems to be with homo- and bi- non-Trans* men and women), but then again, hardwired gender identity isn't the same thing as hardwired sexual orientation.

Sorry, but... as a queerboy, myself, i had to.

[Tim]

but considering that I've seen photos of Tim, he should realise that his tattoos are out of line with Athenian perfection, his tendency toward chub isn't in line with "ideal physical health", and his mental state is suspect, so obviously you two would need to elect somebody better for priesthood. Sorry, but that's the way it goes -- just because you've set down the rules doesn't mean you're exempt from them.
Show me one post, on any forum or list, where I claim to be the "Priest" or "Oracle" of anything. You may want to add that my nose has been broken a half dozen times, my jaw has been broken, and I have a long prominent scar across my right check... all from my younger, more "adventurous" days. I know I don't meet the standard. You just don't hear me crying about it, or whining how it's not fair.

Thanks for showing your true colors once again with another personal attack. :thumbsup:

[MonSno_LeeDra]

YoungSoulRebel wrote:



No, I wouldn't say that I'm talking apples and oranges -- the fact that this position even existed is proof positive that priesthoods, other religious positions, etc..., had varying requirements .... Bringing up the elder women in service to Artemis also supports this. Different positions, different priesthoods, had different requirements.


If one is looking at the concept of different positions with a religious or social content that does not qualify as a priesthood but has a connection to a temple then I agree. I further acknowledge that those same positions often had criteria that maybe drawn moreso against a political slant coupled to a religious slant.

The Bear Dancers one such example. Their service to the temple derived because of an afront to Artemis and the killing of one of her bears. Plus a decree based upon the political position of Athens and marriage requirements for girls. Plus the added fact of an annual celebration / ceremonial march to the temple to Artemis for a victory the Athenians had early on.

[Twinkle]

The priestess requirement is different for different goddesses, but it actually does seem to protect the ability of a woman to experience childbirth and marriage, as was expected - since the Greek religion was centered around the family.

Very few requirements of chastity were lifelong priesthoods. Most were quite short, even as long as one festival. Part of the reason why these women were displayed in that way was so that they could be seen and be eligible for marriage.

Those that were longer priesthoods were held by older or menopausal or widowed women who already experienced childbirth and marriage.

The ancient Greeks were quite practical.

[David19]

The idea behind a priest or priestess being unblemished, in good health, without physical or mental defect, and of good moral standing is based on good history, an understanding or Greek ritual, symbology and idealism, and the fact that a priest or priestess is our representative to the Gods. They are to be an example of everything good in humanity, and our potential. A representation of excellence. If a person exhibits signs or physical manifestations of gluttony, laziness, or any other characteristics not representative of Greek ideals, then they have no business being a priest or priestess.

That I can definitely agree with, and is something, IMO, a Priesthood should be, one of the things anyway.




I agree that things change, and times moves on, but we don't just change for the sake of change. We don't just change because someone claims their "feelings" are hurt. There is nothing wrong with a religion espousing the ideals of family. The public aspect of the Hellenic religion would not have existed without the household. The household religion would not have existed without the family. Hellenismos is a family centered religion, regardless of who's feeling are hurt by it, feel left on the fringes, or want to try to recreate it in their image.

The ideals of family can still be espoused, but, families are more than just husband, wife, kids, a dog and a white picket fence, it can be 2 men and kids (and a dog), or 2 women and kids, etc. I understand the importance of the Household religion, in both ancient Greece and modern Hellenismos, that's why I really liked reading this article that Mano posted on Household worship (http://labrys.gr/index.php?l=householdworship). What harm would it do to, in the 21st century, broaden the definition of families to include same-sex families, I'm not saying to make Hellenismos into what you want it to be, or bringing in foreign elements or modern Neo-Pagan elements or anything like that, but, if it's done in the Hellenic spirit (e.g. the right rituals, the right practices, the right mindset, etc), then, what would be the problem?. That's what I don't understand about Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum, all religions change and adapt, especially to the issue of same-sex couples and LGBT people, I'm sure you've seen the changes, in both some Christian Churches (the liberal ones accept us, some are more debating it, like the Anglican Church), in Jewish Synagogues (aside from the Ultra-Orthodox, quite a lot of Jewish denominations have accepted and do not condemn LGBT people or homosexuality), Buddhist's have adapted, some Muslims are trying (although due to the current climate in Islam, there hasn't been much success), and I think some Hindus have adapted. If those religions can adapt, and yet not compromise their central teachings (no one, again, aside from the Ultra-Orthodox, could accuse Reform Jews, or even Conservative Jews, of somehow "betraying Judaism"), couldn't the same thing happen in Hellenismos?.


I also DID NOT say that same-sex couples are somehow "less perfect" than heterosexual couples. I said that homosexual relationships in Ancient Greece were a separate issue from marriage and family, and that a Greek man (or woman) did not forsake traditional marriage for a same-sex relationship. Marriages are for the creation and maintaining of family. Even if the day comes when the government forces SSM down an unwilling public's throat, they still will not be able to force religions to perform them or recognize them.

Marriages used to be about creating and maintaining a family (although that wasn't always true in the past either), but, marriage is also about expressing your love for the partner you want to be with, and, also, same-sex couples are perfectly able and willing to be create and maintain a family. I'm sure if the government, one day, does "force same sex marriage down peoples throats", the people who are unwilling are the same people who would have been unwilling when the government "forced" equal rights for black Americans "down peoples throats".

[David19]

Darn David thats a tough one to answer. Her cult was honored in about as many various ways as there were various locations that honored her.

Artemis Turopolis focuses heavly on the stepping from prepubescent to womanhood and marriage. When the cult was moved to the site outside of Athens it still held much of that focus. Artemis Orthia in Sparta was another blood cult that focused on marriage and rites as well.

I think the most likely spot for such a setting probally would have been at the temple to Artemis in Ephesos (Ephesus) from the shere size and number of priestess. But I have not read or heard of any such specific accounts of such.

I have not found anything that says for sure about the lesbian facet. The closet I can think of off the top of my head is the association that Artemis has with the Egyptain goddess Bast and her association with Lesbian priestess. Yet most of that is pretty modern day comparissons and deductions.

Thanks for the info, like I said, I don't know much at all about Artemis's Cult, maybe what I read was just a modern interpretation (if I recall it was a website, a Pagan one, so, probably not the best source for accurate info).

I have just 2 more Artemis questions (I know we might be getting a bit OT, though), but, the basic stereotype of Artemis that a lot of people seem to have is that she's a Goddess who tends to prefer the company of women, a woman's woman!, kind of like her brother Apollo also has a thing for guys, but, is that true?, did/does Artemis tend to have a thing for girls, just like Apollo liked guys?, and, I've again heard that in Artemis's Cult, Priestesses that left her service, especially for another man, were struck down by Artemis, along with the man, is this true?.

Again, thankyou for your help :).

[Tim]

That I can definitely agree with, and is something, IMO, a Priesthood should be, one of the things anyway.

The ideals of family can still be espoused, but, families are more than just husband, wife, kids, a dog and a white picket fence, it can be 2 men and kids (and a dog), or 2 women and kids, etc. I understand the importance of the Household religion, in both ancient Greece and modern Hellenismos, that's why I really liked reading this article that Mano posted on Household worship (http://labrys.gr/index.php?l=householdworship). What harm would it do to, in the 21st century, broaden the definition of families to include same-sex families, I'm not saying to make Hellenismos into what you want it to be, or bringing in foreign elements or modern Neo-Pagan elements or anything like that, but, if it's done in the Hellenic spirit (e.g. the right rituals, the right practices, the right mindset, etc), then, what would be the problem?. That's what I don't understand about Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum, all religions change and adapt, especially to the issue of same-sex couples and LGBT people, I'm sure you've seen the changes, in both some Christian Churches (the liberal ones accept us, some are more debating it, like the Anglican Church), in Jewish Synagogues (aside from the Ultra-Orthodox, quite a lot of Jewish denominations have accepted and do not condemn LGBT people or homosexuality), Buddhist's have adapted, some Muslims are trying (although due to the current climate in Islam, there hasn't been much success), and I think some Hindus have adapted. If those religions can adapt, and yet not compromise their central teachings (no one, again, aside from the Ultra-Orthodox, could accuse Reform Jews, or even Conservative Jews, of somehow "betraying Judaism"), couldn't the same thing happen in Hellenismos?.

Marriages used to be about creating and maintaining a family (although that wasn't always true in the past either), but, marriage is also about expressing your love for the partner you want to be with, and, also, same-sex couples are perfectly able and willing to be create and maintain a family. I'm sure if the government, one day, does "force same sex marriage down peoples throats", the people who are unwilling are the same people who would have been unwilling when the government "forced" equal rights for black Americans "down peoples throats".

Like I said numerous times, I think they take some things a little too far in their application of the worldview. My Uncle (we are very close in age, and more like brothers) and his partner just adopted a nine year old boy out of foster care. I have no issue with same-sex couples, or families with same-sex parents. With that in mind, I also don't have in issue with an ultra-Traditional religious organization maintaining their standards. It is their right.

On this issue of the government forcing SSM on the public... I support SSM, and the right of same-sex couples to adopt, the use of surrogate mothers, or any other method at having children. What I completely disagree with is like what happened in California where the public spoke, passed a law, the courts reversed the law, then the people pass a Constitutional Amendment, and then activists are trying to fight that. You just don't change hearts and minds that way.

[~Elise~]

due to the # of reports from this thread, it is closed pending further admin review.

[~Elise~]

Thread reviewed...infractions issued as deemed necessary.

That said, I'm re-opening the thread. KEEP IT ON TOPIC. This goes for BOTH side, recon and non, BE RESPECTFUL. This thread has been decidedly not that way.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Thanks for the info, like I said, I don't know much at all about Artemis's Cult, maybe what I read was just a modern interpretation (if I recall it was a website, a Pagan one, so, probably not the best source for accurate info).

I have just 2 more Artemis questions (I know we might be getting a bit OT, though), but, the basic stereotype of Artemis that a lot of people seem to have is that she's a Goddess who tends to prefer the company of women, a woman's woman!, kind of like her brother Apollo also has a thing for guys, but, is that true?, did/does Artemis tend to have a thing for girls, just like Apollo liked guys?, and, I've again heard that in Artemis's Cult, Priestesses that left her service, especially for another man, were struck down by Artemis, along with the man, is this true?.

Again, thankyou for your help :).

Ok lets give this a try.

The imagery most often seen for Artemis in Pagan circles seem's to be a combination of (1) The Arcadian Artemis and (2) the Roman notion of Diana. Both of these play heavy on the notion of Artemis (Diana) being this near tomboyish young girl that hangs around with Nymphs and generally distrustful of males.

Of note the Arcadian Artemis is not associated with Apollo at all and is a much older version of an existing goddess. Of equal interest is that as Diana she is also seen as a mother and is not the eternal virgin.

In that scenario (Arcadian Artemis) she is quite adament about her companions being loyal to the group. Those that are seen to be disloyal and have relations with a male are dealt with harshly. Callisto is one who received such treatment for she is changed into a bear, killed then placed in heaven as Ursa Major and her son Ursa Minor.

Yet in other scenarios she equally changes her followers to avoid rape. As the Artemis of Syracuse she changes one of her companions into a fresh water stream to avoid being raped. Artemis equally changes herself into a stream as well.

As a rule I have not found anything about being vengeful for other facets of her persona that have a preistess leave. The bear dancers of the Baruronian Artemis only served for a year. Yet their attachment to Artemis also only lasted until they reached an age of marriage. At that time they sacrificed their childhood thing to Artemis.

Artemis of Orthia (Sparta) is another variant of the Artemis of Baruronian. Both have blood rites and rituals yet Baruronian is famous for the Bear Dnacers while Orthia is famous for the scouring of boys as they try to steal the cheese from her alter. Yet both trace their origins back to Artemis Turopolis and the story of Iphigeneia and Orestes and human sacrifice in Tauris (Black Sea Area).

The Taurin Artemis is also the one connected to Artemis and Hecate. Though in some instances Hecate is the priestess position in others she is the name for Artemis as the goddess. Most closely associated with the story of the stag and daughter of Agamemnon being switched and holding the fleet bound for Try.

In most instances the Anotolian Artemis is different than the Olympian Artemis. The Anatolian Artemis is best known as Artemis, Lady of Ephesos (Ephesus - Romanized). In that capacity she is not the eternal virgin but a goddess of fertility with some connection to a Mistress of Animals type facet. This is the Artemis that is famous for the Temple that is one of the ancient wonders of the world.

Her capacity with childbirth comes from the Leto stories and her assistance in helping her mother to give birth to Apollo. This is also the persona that is seen as the one which administers death to women as her brother does to males. Which is also part of the association of her to women as easer of childbearing pain or dispatcher in death.

Sorry theres much more to it than that but I hope that gives you some ideas.

[Intonsus]

May I ask what the point of this thread is David, you accuse a Hellenic Recon site of being homophobic, and state why in your original post.

What I fail to see is why bring your opinion of what the site is to the general public of this forum? To simply state that this site is homophobic? To discuss the possibility of this site being homophobic? To discuss of homophobia in the general Hellenic religion?

I'm only asking because after that original post, the entire thread seems to have lost its point, if it had one at all.

[David19]

May I ask what the point of this thread is David, you accuse a Hellenic Recon site of being homophobic, and state why in your original post.

What I fail to see is why bring your opinion of what the site is to the general public of this forum? To simply state that this site is homophobic? To discuss the possibility of this site being homophobic? To discuss of homophobia in the general Hellenic religion?

I'm only asking because after that original post, the entire thread seems to have lost its point, if it had one at all.

The reason why I brought up the topic at all was 'cause I wanted to get other opinions on the organisation, I hadn't seen many other Hellenic groups that had such homophobic comments. I wasn't accusing Hellenismos of being homophobic, I just wanted to get peoples opinions of it, or even see if anyone agreed with the stance of the original organisation.

Since I am gay, I tend to react quite strongly to homophobic comments.

[green aventurine]

The reason why I brought up the topic at all was 'cause I wanted to get other opinions on the organisation, I hadn't seen many other Hellenic groups that had such homophobic comments. I wasn't accusing Hellenismos of being homophobic, I just wanted to get peoples opinions of it, or even see if anyone agreed with the stance of the original organisation.

Since I am gay, I tend to react quite strongly to homophobic comments.

David, I'm afraid I still can't open the link to the original article you quoted (only my link) - I'm probably the only one on this site that can't lol

Can you e-mail to me on here the entire article where you got the quote from please?

[Twinkle]

Ah. So you still feel the website is homophobic?

[Tim]

Since I am gay, I tend to react quite strongly to homophobic comments.
...or what you perceive to be homophobic comments. Let me tell you, I support gay rights, same-sex marriage, same-sex families, but when I came out publicly and stated I disagreed with the way California's SSM issue was being handled, I had people labeling me as a homophobic because I wasn't frothing at the mouth like they were, and thought using the courts was a bad road to take. Just because a person or group perceives these issues differently does not make them homophobic.

[_Banbha_]

If you think there is an anti-homosexual message to Hellenismos, there isn't one.

You are jumping the gun here and making an assumption on a point (anti-homsexual message in Hellenismos) that has never entered my mind.


Having said that, the religion is family centered, and some people do feel disenfranchised because of that. It's just the way it is. One religion cannot be all things to all people.

It still isn't clear given previous statements what general views are in contemporary Hellenic Reconstructionism on this issue. If it's a family issue, I don't see why a family person in a long-term partnership with kids are any different from each other no matter the genders involved.


The issue is yours. I was talking about a lifestyle, and a choice. While being homosexual is not a lifestyle choice, the way a person chooses to live is.

And lots of people of all genders have families or are in committed relationships,partnerships and marriages. ETA: An beside that point I'm not sure what the answer is.

[_Banbha_]

I'll have to agree with this.




Eh... I'm going to nip-pick and tangent just a little bit.

Having homosexual, bi-, or TS/TG inclinations, predilictions, etc..., is not a lifestyle (implying choice), but a hardwired state of being. On the other hand, step into and gay or lesbian-patroned pub, bar, or nightclub, and you'll see an associated lifestyle -- I mean, nobody can help being same-gender oriented, for example, and I guess some guys can help liking synthpop and some women can't help liking folk music -- but not call homosexual men enjoy or even tolerate disco music, and not all lesbians have those kinds of feelings about folk music. There is a lifestyle associated with being same-gender oriented, but it's not a prerequisite for being so, and many same-gender oriented people actively eschew the associated lifestyle, preferring to just be whatever else "...who happens to also be gay / lesbian / bisexuial". I'll say, though, that the TS/TG/GQ/I folks seem different in that there isn't really an associated lifestyle (like there seems to be with homo- and bi- non-Trans* men and women), but then again, hardwired gender identity isn't the same thing as hardwired sexual orientation.

Sorry, but... as a queerboy, myself, i had to.

That's okay, I totally agree. :)

When I said "it's not a lifestyle choice but a life" I meant to convey being LGBTI is completely natural, hardwired, inborn, etc. and in not a choice.

[ninurta2008]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Niankh.jpg

Or you can always be a married gay egyptian. They were alot more tolerant to homosexuals in ancient egypt, but I think it went alot further than just simply toleration if you ask me. I think it was a norm like being straight.

Even one of their main gods, Horus, had a bisexual relationship, though he was married to Hathor, He fell in love with his dad's enemy Set.

[Twinkle]

I think it would be unfair to say that the Ancient Greeks were not tolerant to homosexuals.

Honestly, it was not frowned upon, and both men and women both engaged in same sex relationships.

It was more than tolerated, it was accepted as the social norm. It just didn't trump Traditional marriage.

[Tim]

It still isn't clear given previous statements what general views are in contemporary Hellenic Reconstructionism on this issue. If it's a family issue, I don't see why a family person in a long-term partnership with kids are any different from each other no matter the genders involved.
There is no unified opinion except for a general statement that Hellenismos makes no more or less a moral condemnation of homosexuality than it does heterosexual.


And lots of people of all genders have families or are in committed relationships,partnerships and marriages. ETA: An beside that point I'm not sure what the answer is.
We are talking about a traditional religion that identifies marriage and family based on specific worldview. That worldview defines marriage as between a man and a women, with the focus on creating and maintaining a family.

[ninurta2008]

I think it would be unfair to say that the Ancient Greeks were not tolerant to homosexuals.

Honestly, it was not frowned upon, and both men and women both engaged in same sex relationships.

It was more than tolerated, it was accepted as the social norm. It just didn't trump Traditional marriage.
Even their greatest king ever was a gay, Alexander the Great. I'd go gay for him. just joking, but he's stilll an awesome historical figure.

[Tim]

Even their greatest king ever was a gay, Alexander the Great.
Was he really?

[_Banbha_]

There is no unified opinion except for a general statement that Hellenismos makes no more or less a moral condemnation of homosexuality than it does heterosexual.

It's understandable there is not unified or exact position. :)



We are talking about a traditional religion that identifies marriage and family based on specific worldview. That worldview defines marriage as between a man and a women, with the focus on creating and maintaining a family.

Thank you.

The unfortunate thing about this is while in ancient times homosexuality was at the least tolerated and usually more so a part of the culture and society, in contemporary Christian societies there is prejudice and discrimination, even assaults and murders based on or motivated by a persons sexual orientation. Therefore the attitudes within modern organizations that seem to come out as strongly as this on the issue could have something more modern and less ancient in play. I think this should to be considered as a possibility.

It takes more than the label of -Reconstructionist- to make an organization actually committed to a Pagan world view. We are dealing with modern humans here after all. And I say this as a Reconstructionist myself who has seen the writings from a small group and heard of others calling themselves CR who sound more like they worship at Stormfront than anything else.

[Twinkle]

I don't disagree. I just don't think we should all be pointing the finger and screaming "homophobe!" either.

A balanced approach to this website would be best - and that is what was provided here.

The OP admittedly thinks this site is homophobic and has stated so many times.

We merely provided the other side of the argument - which has equal merit.

[Tim]

The unfortunate thing about this is while in ancient times homosexuality was at the least tolerated and usually more so a part of the culture and society, in contemporary Christian societies there is prejudice and discrimination, even assaults and murders based on or motivated by a persons sexual orientation. Therefore the attitudes within modern organizations that seem to come out as strongly as this on the issue could have something more modern and less ancient in play. I think this should to be considered as a possibility.
I think it is dangerous to assume that a person or group's underlying motivation is different than their stated objective is when there is no evidence to support such an idea except that their worldview handles the issue of homosexuality differently than yours.


It takes more than the label of -Reconstructionist- to make an organization actually committed to a Pagan world view.
...and that is the one reason many Reconstructionists do not identify as Pagan. The popular Pagan cultural perspective rarely is inline with the worldviews of these traditional cultural religions.

[_Banbha_]

I think it is dangerous to assume that a person or group's underlying motivation is different than their stated objective is when there is no evidence to support such an idea except that their worldview handles the issue of homosexuality differently than yours.

I think it's dangerous, or at least not the correct way of doing things, to make assumptions either way! I don't know enough about their actual group to know what there world view is in reality, only what it says on the website (and well, the Internets...) :

"Naturally these people ought not to marry just to avoid suspicion while their living together with a same sex partner ought to be discreet."

Why ought they? What about their kids? Ought they be discrete too. I don't think this is very well thought out.

"The demand of many homosexuals to establish same sex marriages with all the legal consequences this ensues does not sit right with our religion because:
Firstly, the concession by the state of various privileges to married couples is justified, as we see it, by the fact that it represents the only legal form of reproduction. Otherwise, there opens a Pandora’s box of irrational demands. For example, why should one transfer his pension to his partner and not to anyone whatsoever. People could perform marriages just for the economic benefits, one could pass on his pension to his porter if he wanted to! The social status of marriage becomes a farce."

Erm, this is modern conservative political thought. There are already thousands of LGBTI families raising kids who want and -need- the financial tax breaks, benefits, and security enjoyed by everyone else (obviously the opposing view). And hetero's don't make marriage a farce and finical gains at times? Pla-lease. Have been for centuries... etc. etc.

Of course, it's their group to run and my questioning above is rhetorical and observational. I do not expect anyone to defend or explain them or even feel their statements need defending.

I really don't know what to say about what I've read beyond thinking in context these views and concerns are not really Reconstructionist based; but modern with the gloss of an ancient justification from a culture that was quite different and more accepting than todays culture in Greece and America.


...and that is the one reason many Reconstructionists do not identify as Pagan. The popular Pagan cultural perspective rarely is inline with the worldviews of these traditional cultural religions.

I wasn't referring to neo-Pagans, but a specifically a Pre-Christain world view. I don't identify as Pagan because I'm not in line with popular thought of neo-Pagans. The meaning and origin of the word Pagan does have its share of questions but that's another topic. Please to consider I meant pre-Christian.

I don't think you're saying Hellenic Reconstructionism also has a traditionalist bent as far as post-Christian Greek culture goes. Because when speaking of traditional cultural religions, there is no unbroken line and Christianity caused a cultural shift.

My point is along the lines that todays conservative culture and politics are not closer to a pre-Christian culture and standard by default. That assumption could be self-serving, more than serving the ancient traditions, by groups that would unquestioningly embrace it.

I've come to no conclusions about this group specifically while I find elements that I think are misplaced it's only my opinion. It's been an interesting case to ponder.


I don't disagree. I just don't think we should all be pointing the finger and screaming "homophobe!" either.

A balanced approach to this website would be best - and that is what was provided here.

The OP admittedly thinks this site is homophobic and has stated so many times.

We merely provided the other side of the argument - which has equal merit.

Well said!

And I think a more balanced approach is ultimately a more productive one.

And I appreciate that you both have done so on your part despite the heated moments you were confronted with.

[Tim]

I think it's dangerous, or at least not the correct way of doing things, to make assumptions either way! I don't know enough about their actual group to know what there world view is in reality, only what it says on the website (and well, the Internets...) :

"Naturally these people ought not to marry just to avoid suspicion while their living together with a same sex partner ought to be discreet."

Why ought they? What about their kids? Ought they be discrete too. I don't think this is very well thought out.

"The demand of many homosexuals to establish same sex marriages with all the legal consequences this ensues does not sit right with our religion because:
Firstly, the concession by the state of various privileges to married couples is justified, as we see it, by the fact that it represents the only legal form of reproduction. Otherwise, there opens a Pandora’s box of irrational demands. For example, why should one transfer his pension to his partner and not to anyone whatsoever. People could perform marriages just for the economic benefits, one could pass on his pension to his porter if he wanted to! The social status of marriage becomes a farce."

Erm, this is modern conservative political thought. There are already thousands of LGBTI families raising kids who want and -need- the financial tax breaks, benefits, and security enjoyed by everyone else (obviously the opposing view). And hetero's don't make marriage a farce and finical gains at times? Pla-lease. Have been for centuries... etc. etc.

Of course, it's their group to run and my questioning above is rhetorical and observational. I do not expect anyone to defend or explain them or even feel their statements need defending.

I really don't know what to say about what I've read beyond thinking in context these views and concerns are not really Reconstructionist based; but modern with the gloss of an ancient justification from a culture that was quite different and more accepting than todays culture in Greece and America.
This organization may not be politically correct, and may sound off (I'm presuming written in English by some who's native language is not), but the ultimate stand does fit the historic way of doing things. A person became married for the purpose of family, and if he wanted to engage in homosexual activity, he did.

[_Banbha_]

On the contemporary level, political correctness means very little because each 'side' ultimately has there own version of what they think is correct; and all forms of media abound to support and besmirch each.

I just think it sounds like contemporary people using modern conservative reasoning and attaching it to something that's far out of it's Pre-Christian cultural context.

Trying to make it fit because, hey on the surface, it sounds the same written out in black and white...but then that paper is more filled with modern justifications on the site that also veer from the historical. There is also no unbroken line from then to now to back it up from the parts they are trying to match up.

For example: This group instructs people who are homosexual should not marry and in the same token ought to live discretely. Which is different from the historical; but in a way that is acceptable to their modern sensibilities. The claims of authenticity are not really all that impressive to me when read their modern rationales along with some big tweeks.

We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on this. It's just I don't think anyone, no matter their politics or area of Reconstruction, can unequivocally claim what they are doing is a -perfect fit or the same- as within an ancient culture's world view.

[Tim]

Your opinion that it is far out of it's Pre-Christian cultural context is based of what? What do you think was going on in Ancient Greece? We know that in antiquity (in Greece anyway) it was not seen so much as an sexual orientation but something that someone just did or did not do. Ultimately, it was unbecoming for a man to act feminine, and Traditional Marriage was between a man and a woman for the purposes of creating and maintaining family. You just can't think of homosexuality in Ancient Greece in the same way it is thought of today.

[_Banbha_]

Your opinion that it is far out of it's Pre-Christian cultural context is based of what? What do you think was going on in Ancient Greece? We know that in antiquity (in Greece anyway) it was not seen so much as an sexual orientation but something that someone just did or did not do. Ultimately, it was unbecoming for a man to act feminine, and Traditional Marriage was between a man and a woman for the purposes of creating and maintaining family. You just can't think of homosexuality in Ancient Greece in the same way it is thought of today.

I don't. But it stands that this group says that all men and women should not marry; and they claim to be carrying on the marriage trad as it was done by the ancients. I'm merely pointing out, not so. And have illustrated where their modern sensibilities have come into play. I'm going by the standard you yourself set about the ancient Greeks.

Since the ideas of life partnerships have changed one just shouldn't think of marriage in Ancient Greece in the same way it is thought of today. Yes, I dubbed your last line there.......because we will go in a circle now and I'm not about to become redundant. I offered and tried to illustrate an opinion from my perspective as a Recon. I'm not trying to change yours. :)

[Tim]

I don't. But it stands that this group says that all men and women should not marry; and they claim to be carrying on the marriage trad as it was done by the ancients. I'm merely pointing out, not so. And have illustrated where their modern sensibilities have come into play. I'm going by the standard you yourself set about the ancient Greeks.

Since the ideas of life partnerships have changed one just shouldn't think of marriage in Ancient Greece in the same way it is thought of today. Yes, I dubbed your last line there.......because we will go in a circle now and I'm not about to become redundant. I offered and tried to illustrate an opinion from my perspective as a Recon. I'm not trying to change yours. :)
You did not say anything about modern sensibilities. You said their opinion was "something far out of it's Pre-Christian cultural context" and "different from the historical". If you are here to debate "life partnerships have changed," and "one just shouldn't think of marriage in Ancient Greece in the same way it is thought of today," and therefore these people are wrong for holding to their beliefs and practices, then I will refer you to the "Welcome to Paths" post that has been referenced a number of times over the last few days. It states, "These threads are not for debate. ... These threads are to provide information and share information." I have no idea what the "Irish Reconstructionist" traditional worldview is on this subject, but I suspect it is probably not all that different. It was one thing when you were looking like you are arguing the historic validity to the point of view, but now you are just saying they are wrong just because they don't conform to your worldview.

[BryonMorrigan]

Was he really?


Re: Alexander

Of course, the concept of "gay" wasn't really an issue back then. But it is pretty uniformly accepted by modern historians that he appeared to prefer the company of men. When it comes to Alexander: "Peter Green said it. I believe it. That settles it."

[zombi]

"Irish Reconstructionist"
Why are you putting Irish Reconstructionist in quotes as if to illustrate that you feel it is not a valid path?

--

All she was saying is that it appears that these people want to support a traditional Ancient Greek view of marriage, but in the same breath they want to support a non-traditional practice of being discreet about one's homosexual relationships. And if homosexuality was just something one did or did not do, did they really have to discreet about it? Do you have some support to show that they DID have to be discreet about it?

And if not, why should this organization's website or whatever imply that this kind of discretion is inherent in a traditional Ancient Greek view of relationships -- and why should it ask its members to exhibit such discretion?

[Twinkle]

Why are you putting Irish Reconstructionist in quotes as if to illustrate that you feel it is not a valid path?

--

All she was saying is that it appears that these people want to support a traditional Ancient Greek view of marriage, but in the same breath they want to support a non-traditional practice of being discreet about one's homosexual relationships. And if homosexuality was just something one did or did not do, did they really have to discreet about it? Do you have some support to show that they DID have to be discreet about it?

And if not, why should this organization's website or whatever imply that this kind of discretion is inherent in a traditional Ancient Greek view of relationships -- and why should it ask its members to exhibit such discretion?


Now, now. Please don't start getting defensive over the use of quotation marks. No one is saying any path is invalid on this thread. And no one will. Please don't do that.

I *think* that what this website is saying - but you'd have to ask the people that wrote it to know for sure, is that the homosexual relationship cannot trump the Traditional marriage, so any same sex relations should be discreet. I don't see that contradicting the worldview of the ancients - although to our modern sensibilities and sense of political correctness I can see where it would be offensive.

BTW - this is not something I agree with, but I do believe that a fair and objective view of this website should be presented.

[Tim]

Re: Alexander

Of course, the concept of "gay" wasn't really an issue back then. But it is pretty uniformly accepted by modern historians that he appeared to prefer the company of men. When it comes to Alexander: "Peter Green said it. I believe it. That settles it."
Alexander had three wives, and at least two mistresses. Since the concept of homosexuality as understood today did not exist, and homoerotic relationships were the cultural norm, one cannot assume that Alexander was "gay." Additionally, there is really no hard evidence that proves that as fact.

[Twinkle]

Alexander had three wives, and at least two mistresses. Since the concept of homosexuality as understood today did not exist, and homoerotic relationships were the cultural norm, one cannot assume that Alexander was "gay." Additionally, there is really no hard evidence that proves that as fact.

I have no idea what Alexander's sexual orientation has to do with this thread, anyway.:hairred:

[Tim]

Now, now. Please don't start getting defensive over the use of quotation marks. No one is saying any path is invalid on this thread. And no one will. Please don't do that.

I *think* that what this website is saying - but you'd have to ask the people that wrote it to know for sure, is that the homosexual relationship cannot trump the Traditional marriage, so any same sex relations should be discreet. I don't see that contradicting the worldview of the ancients - although to our modern sensibilities and sense of political correctness I can see where it would be offensive.

BTW - this is not something I agree with, but I do believe that a fair and objective view of this website should be presented.
Absolutely, and what is clear is that this thread has always been about, and continues to be, an attack of this religious organization for not have the "correct" approach or point of view. We get it. How long are they going to beat a dead horse?

[Twinkle]

I would agree that is has become a circular argument that has no clear ending.

It just seems to be about getting the last word in, now.

[BryonMorrigan]

Alexander had three wives, and at least two mistresses. Since the concept of homosexuality as understood today did not exist, and homoerotic relationships were the cultural norm, one cannot assume that Alexander was "gay." Additionally, there is really no hard evidence that proves that as fact.

Oh, you silly Tarn-lover!

As I said, the concept of "gay" or homosexuality in general, was not really and issue in the era, so it would be anachronistic to refer to anyone from that period as "gay" or "bisexual." However, as Green points out in Alexander of Macedon, his female relationships were almost always solely for political reasons, whereas his relationship with Hephaestion was singularly different.

[BryonMorrigan]

I have no idea what Alexander's sexual orientation has to do with this thread, anyway.:hairred:

It's a far more interesting conversation that everything else in this thread...IMNSHO.

[Twinkle]

That's nice to know, but how is it relevant?

[Twinkle]

It's a far more interesting conversation that everything else in this thread...IMNSHO.

Oh! On that we agree. :bigredgri

[BryonMorrigan]

http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/derailed.jpg

YES!!!

[zombi]

I do feel compelled to add -- if someone is going to other a group in their writing by placing quotes around it, they should be prepared to have someone else call them out on it. To avoid that, don't other a path by placing it in quotes. It's a pretty easy thing to avoid.


I *think* that what this website is saying - but you'd have to ask the people that wrote it to know for sure, is that the homosexual relationship cannot trump the Traditional marriage, so any same sex relations should be discreet.

Put in this way, this makes sense to me.

[Caitlin.ann]

Put in this way, this makes sense to me.

Yep whether its the first or millionth time its been stated in this thread it just keeps making sense.

[Twinkle]

Put in this way, this makes sense to me.


I'm glad we were able to communicate effectively. Honestly, I appreciate your willingness to talk.

[Tim]

However, as Green points out in Alexander of Macedon, his female relationships were almost always solely for political reasons, whereas his relationship with Hephaestion was singularly different.
And as stated by Agnes Savill in Alexander the Great and His Time‎ (page 210) he was offended when offered boys, calling the act evil. His marriages may have been political, but that does not explain away his mistresses. I know its popular to think he was gay, but so was the idea of an ancient Goddess monotheism at one time. Actual evidence just is not there.

[Tim]

I just got this reply from YSEE:
YSEE respects all kind of diversity, is also member of the EU Committee for Greece against discrimination, and for this reason has repeatedly become the target of insults and slander by close minded, racist and far right people.

Us, seeing like our ancestors the marriage as chiefly a CIVIC matter, we do not object any kind of civic contract between two individuals of any sex, aiming to provide them the legal rights concerning pension, heritage, social security and so on.

On the ritualistic level though, since the marriage symbolizes the sacred union of two opposite elements (male-female, Zeus-Hera) for further “demeourgia” (creation, “birth”), we perform marriage rituals only between people of the opposite sex. (link (http://forum.ysee.gr/viewtopic.php?f=42&p=60775#p60775))

[Twinkle]

I just got this reply from YSEE:


And there you are. Look at that - we actually articulated a view that is supported by the Ethnic Greeks practicing Hellenismos.

Who'd have thought?

*headdesk*

[BryonMorrigan]

And as stated by Agnes Savill in Alexander the Great and His Time‎ (page 210) he was offended when offered boys, calling the act evil. His marriages may have been political, but that does not explain away his mistresses. I know its popular to think he was gay, but so was the idea of an ancient Goddess monotheism at one time. Actual evidence just is not there.

...and there is a reason that Green's rather painstakingly neutral treatment of Alexander is often used in academic circles, whereas Savill's "love letter" is not.

Have you read Green's Alexander of Macedon? It's one of my all-time favorite books on history. Wonderfully well-written.

IIRC, (and no, I'm not dragging the book out to do citations right now...) one of Alexander's interesting character issues was his preference for men, rather than boys. This caused confusion amongst his soldiers, who could understand wanting sexual relationships with young boys, but who could not fathom wanting such a relationship with one who has grown old enough to have a beard. I remember reading that and thinking, "Wow."

[Twinkle]

...and there is a reason that Green's rather painstakingly neutral treatment of Alexander is often used in academic circles, whereas Savill's "love letter" is not.

Have you read Green's Alexander of Macedon? It's one of my all-time favorite books on history. Wonderfully well-written.

IIRC, (and no, I'm not dragging the book out to do citations right now...) one of Alexander's interesting character issues was his preference for men, rather than boys. This caused confusion amongst his soldiers, who could understand wanting sexual relationships with young boys, but who could not fathom wanting such a relationship with one who has grown old enough to have a beard. I remember reading that and thinking, "Wow."


You're distracting me from my happy dance.

[Tim]

And there you are. Look at that - we actually articulated a view that is supported by the Ethnic Greeks practicing Hellenismos.

Who'd have thought?

*headdesk*
Absolutely!! Not only that, the two organizations combined represent the majority of the practitioners worldwide. It's as close to a unified opinion as you could get.

[_Banbha_]

You did not say anything about modern sensibilities.

Not until you did:

"You just can't think of homosexuality in Ancient Greece in the same way it is thought of today."

the above quote from the post I was replying to. ;)


and I replied to that post You said their opinion was "something far out of it's Pre-Christian cultural context" and "different from the historical". If you are here to debate "life partnerships have changed," and "one just shouldn't think of marriage in Ancient Greece in the same way it is thought of today," and therefore these people are wrong for holding to their beliefs and practices, then I will refer you to the "Welcome to Paths" post that has been referenced a number of times over the last few days. It states, "These threads are not for debate. ... These threads are to provide information and share information."

Just report me if you think I was trying to debate rather than explain my opinions and perspectives. I never expected we'd agree in any case.


I have no idea what the "Irish Reconstructionist" traditional worldview is on this subject, but I suspect it is probably not all that different. It was one thing when you were looking like you are arguing the historic validity to the point of view, but now you are just saying they are wrong just because they don't conform to your worldview.

Nope, not at all. You can try to paint it that way but it doesn't wash. And you don't have to put Irish Reconstructionist in quotes. :p

[Tim]

@_Banbha_

All that being said, your comment was their opinion was "something far out of it's Pre-Christian cultural context" and "different from the historical"... statements you have yet to backup, and if those statements are not an attempt to invalidate their beliefs and practices, then I don't know what is. I'll take your advice though.

[_Banbha_]

@_Banbha_

All that being said, your comment was their opinion was "something far out of it's Pre-Christian cultural context" and "different from the historical"... statements you have yet to backup, and if those statements are not an attempt to invalidate their beliefs and practices, then I don't know what is. I'll take your advice though.

That's good.

Tim, I've already explained it using content -directly from the site itself-. You took that quote out of a longer post. You know, I was accused in the end of attacking an entire path rather than having my points engaged. As far as debating, I made a point to bow out by agreeing to disagree when the discussion was becoming redundant and more of an argument.

I don't feel the need to end this badly or try to twist anyone else's position because I have a different perspective on the materials. *shrug*

Difference of opinion =/= Disrespect.

[Intonsus]

Comming from a country which is almost identical to greece culturually I can attest to at least this. The definition of homosexuality changes drastically between the US and the mediterrean countries. As an example, men, not only boys, but men, embrace each other, first by shaking hands, followed by a hug and a kiss on the cheeks if they run into a relative or friend whether in public or in the privacy of their homes. Depending on the person greetings with strangers might only be a handshake, or a handshake and hug, or the same way of greeting as if family or friends. Men also spend most of their time in the company of other men, family or friends.

Not only that but its prefectably acceptable for straight men to share a bed if the needs are so demanding. All of that goes for women as well.

These are the views that are held today, even after 2000 years of abrahamic religion's influence in the area. In the US all of those conditions would be viewed as homosexual. In those countries homosexuality is when two members of the same sex engage in intercourse and only that.

EDIT:
Meaning
#1. Alexander's sexuality was hetero, or at best unknown, there is no evidence to support his homosexuality and there is evidence to support his heterosexuality.

#2. The views on what homosexuality is differ from the US and the current views of Greece and its surrounding countries. Let alone the views of Ancient Greece, before the influence of abrahamic religions 2000 years ago.

[Intonsus]

It is my understanding that the Hellenic Recon accepts homosexuality and has nothing against it. As far as marrige this to is a very different defenition between the current world and that which was 2000 years ago. The purpose of marrige at that time, was to continue a family tree, not the unification of love and romantic interest. In Greece and the surrounding countries arranged marriges were fairly common until the early 90s, and arranged marriges will still be found in rural areas or deeply traditional areas. The purpose of these arranged marriges? To maintain a family tree in higher social levels.

Marriage in Ancient Greece rarely had anything to do with love, it had to do with creating and maintaining a family. Which is vastly different from the contemporary view of marriage in the US.

Let us not forget that adoption was rarely possible back in those days.


So it would seem that if a homosexual marriage results in the creation of a family and a family lineage, that that union would be accepted by Hellenic Reconstructionism.

As for the role of priest/ess a homosexual could serve if he or she met every specific condition.


This is my personal understanding of where Hellenismos stands on this issue.

[David19]

Even their greatest king ever was a gay, Alexander the Great. I'd go gay for him. just joking, but he's stilll an awesome historical figure.


Was he really?

From what I've read, he bi, liking both men and women, I'm not sure if he swung to one way more than the other, but, he was bi, not gay (and not straight).

[Intonsus]

From what I've read, he bi, liking both men and women, I'm not sure if he swung to one way more than the other, but, he was bi, not gay (and not straight).

Alexander is not the actor from the gladiator =P (the not gay, not straight bit)

Anyway like I said before, you cant be sure of his sexual orientation, at best its up for grabs. Everyone has a different opinion on it, so the only person that ever knew was Alexander himself.

[David19]

This thread will probably get closed soon, but, I just wanted to reply to some of the comments, so, it didn't seem like I was ignoring them.


David, I'm afraid I still can't open the link to the original article you quoted (only my link) - I'm probably the only one on this site that can't lol

Can you e-mail to me on here the entire article where you got the quote from please?

Sure, I'll try and get it to you :).


Ah. So you still feel the website is homophobic?

Not in the Fred Phelps/GodHatesFags (http://www.godhatesfags.com) way, but, IMO, bigoted, or uniformed, is one way to describe the person/people that wrote that, maybe they'd feel differently if they knew the pain LGBT people go through. Luckily, I know that's not how most Hellenes in Hellas/Greece see things, Lesley and Mano have designed same-sex marriage and commitment ceremonies, and, from this YSEE forum thread (http://forum.ysee.gr/viewtopic.php?lang=en&f=40&t=5163), it's clear they have a favourable view of homosexuality and LGBT people, so, clearly, YSEE holds very different views to Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum, I liked what Vlasis Rassias (I believe he founded, or was one of the founders of, YSEE, right?) said:


Homosexuality. TO MY OPINION, in the sexual sphere everything (including homosexuality, fetishism, and other “kinky” practices) is permitted and furthermore must be considered as 100% normal, with only one strict exception: as all sides involved MUST PARTICIPATE WITH THEIR FREE WILL, it is obvious that no forced participation, no rape and no sex with minors can be
tolerated.

To me, that is 100% correct, and is the reason why I really respect YSEE and its members (it's a shame more of their stuff wasn't available in English, although I know Lesley and Mano are working hard to translate various items, which is very kind and very cool of them). I also pretty much agree with all of Vlasis's ethical views, I really share his view of abortion, capital punishment and suicide (the latter of which is still a taboo in our society, with suicidal people being condemned as "cowards", "weak", which, for those that don't manage to take their lives, just make them feel far worse, but, that's for another issue).

Anyway, I really got my answer to my original question, Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum is clearly just either bigoted or just need to get to know some LGBT people and see the pain words can cause.


...or what you perceive to be homophobic comments. Let me tell you, I support gay rights, same-sex marriage, same-sex families, but when I came out publicly and stated I disagreed with the way California's SSM issue was being handled, I had people labeling me as a homophobic because I wasn't frothing at the mouth like they were, and thought using the courts was a bad road to take. Just because a person or group perceives these issues differently does not make them homophobic.

I actually haven't read too much up on the California thing, but, I don't think the courts are a bad route to take, sometimes, laws should be overturned, if a State voted to bring back segregation of blacks, I'd support the courts overturning their narrow and bigoted minds, but, that's really more a thread for Political Pagan, not for the Hellenic recon forum.


It is my understanding that the Hellenic Recon accepts homosexuality and has nothing against it. As far as marrige this to is a very different defenition between the current world and that which was 2000 years ago. The purpose of marrige at that time, was to continue a family tree, not the unification of love and romantic interest. In Greece and the surrounding countries arranged marriges were fairly common until the early 90s, and arranged marriges will still be found in rural areas or deeply traditional areas. The purpose of these arranged marriges? To maintain a family tree in higher social levels.

Marriage in Ancient Greece rarely had anything to do with love, it had to do with creating and maintaining a family. Which is vastly different from the contemporary view of marriage in the US.

Let us not forget that adoption was rarely possible back in those days.


So it would seem that if a homosexual marriage results in the creation of a family and a family lineage, that that union would be accepted by Hellenic Reconstructionism.

As for the role of priest/ess a homosexual could serve if he or she met every specific condition.

This is my personal understanding of where Hellenismos stands on this issue.

The parts I bolded I really strongly agree with, and that's what I was trying to say, that, if it's done in the Hellenic spirit, why wouldn't same-sex marriages be valid or same-sex families, if 2 people of the same-sex want to spend their lives together, maybe have kids (either through surrogacy, IVF, adoption, etc), then, that is a very real family, even if it's not hetrosexual with a husband, wife, etc.

[David19]

Alexander is not the actor from the gladiator =P (the not gay, not straight bit)

Anyway like I said before, you cant be sure of his sexual orientation, at best its up for grabs. Everyone has a different opinion on it, so the only person that ever knew was Alexander himself.

I guess that's true, but, it's fun to speculate about a hot, sweaty warrior, with more hot warrior's! :boing:.

[Caitlin.ann]

if 2 people of the same-sex want to spend their lives together, maybe have kids (either through surrogacy, IVF, adoption, etc), then, that is a very real family, even if it's not hetrosexual with a husband, wife, etc.

To be fair these two bolded options have only become available as technology has advanced to the level it is now and I'm not sure what adoption was back then. Just saying. What has been said over and over again is simply the view of the ancients, not modern neopagans or necessarily reconstructionists. As we've seen here not all self-labeled reconstructionists agree on everything just like not all Wiccans agree on everything.

Anyways I think its important to listen to both sides without bias which is why I'm posting this now.

[David19]

To be fair these two bolded options have only become available as technology has advanced to the level it is now and I'm not sure what adoption was back then. Just saying. What has been said over and over again is simply the view of the ancients, not modern neopagans or necessarily reconstructionists. As we've seen here not all self-labeled reconstructionists agree on everything just like not all Wiccans agree on everything.

Anyways I think its important to listen to both sides without bias which is why I'm posting this now.

True, I was just saying with the advance of those options, it's possible for same-sex couples to raise a family, which would be in the Hellenic spirit. I was basically just agreeing with what Intonsus said in the original post. Hope that's clear :).

[~Elise~]

thread closed with consent of original poster.

DO NOT restart this topic.