Well.
I don't think that ancient cultures tended to think of some people as intrinsically "homosexual" as such, so they weren't identified as a minority group. Some men liked young boys, but then, some people like mushrooms. It seems to me to be part of the post-enlightenment obsession with classifying things. Even the concept of race was pretty fuzzy before then, as well.
What seems more common is a concern with men being cowardly, or "soft", or enjoying luxurious lifestyles a bit too much. Here's an interesting thing I found lately:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergi
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 23 Jan 2013, 20:29,
Share,
Reply)
Michel Foucault's books on sexuality are quite good in this debate.
He shows how ancient Rome and Greece were against homosexual acts but only as a guideline, an idea of best practice.
Abrahamic religions are against homosexual acts and feminine behaviour in men. But are also against what many would call 'masculine' behaviour - aggressiveness, sexual conquest, roughness.
The idea of homosexuality as an identity and even a 'race'/type of person does occur in pre-modern times, but this concept gains ground in modernity, along with racial theories and the idea of social classes.
This concept of homosexuals as fully and innately homosexual has the unintended consequence of giving political power to gay people, to provide a platform for political change.
I don't think we can ever point to the start of homophobia. Just to the origins of modern homophobia and how it has developed.
(, Wed 23 Jan 2013, 21:34, Share, Reply)
I see
I guess I was thinking about attitudes towards homosexual activity, not whether there's a class of 'gay' people in the culture. I see what you're saying. I think that wikipedia article has some support for both our points. Now I'm going to be reading about medieval Scandinavian duels all night :)
(
the prick of misery pierced my foot on a spiiiike on, Wed 23 Jan 2013, 21:52,
Share,
Reply)