Bishop Robinson explains: "It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionately-oriented to people of the same sex."
Just finished reading Plato’s “Symposium,” which assumes throughout that male homosexual affection is, if not the norm, the noblest manifestation of love. Where does this leave Robinson’s claims?
Smouldering in a pile of ignorance, perhaps?
I’m also doing a close reading of the Symposium with some friends, and, although the Greeks had a very different construction of “homosexuality” than we do (Gore Vidal is closer, with respect to his view of sex, to the Greek view than most in the LGBTQ community), they did think some people were naturally disposed towards men (so says Aristophanes, in his speech, for example).
Of course, it would be a mistake to think that for them sexual intercourse was crucial, or even necessary, for the homosexual relation; many would deny that, even in the Symposium, which is another big difference between the, at least Platonic, view of eros and homosexuality and the present one.
I’m also doing a close reading of the Symposium with some friends, and, although the Greeks had a very different construction of “homosexuality” than we do (Gore Vidal is closer, with respect to his view of sex, to the Greek view than most in the LGBTQ community), they did think some people were naturally disposed towards men (so says Aristophanes, in his speech, for example).
Of course, it would be a mistake to think that for them sexual intercourse was crucial, or even necessary, for the homosexual relation; many would deny that, even in the Symposium, which is another big difference between the, at least Platonic, view of eros and homosexuality and the present one.
Discussion