If we look at how diversity of family units has changed over the years there used to be more diverse 'families' that could have consisted of many people living under the same roof who may or may not have been biologically related or perhaps consisted of extended families, cousins and so on. Maybe for practical reasons of poverty. Also there would be servants, tutors, nannies and so on living in wealthier households, all loosely constituting a family of some sort.
Perhaps these loose relationships made gay relationships easier to conduct, I don't know. My knowledge of history is appalling.
But come forward to more recent times, a distinct family unit emerged consisting of mother, father, children. Heterosexual, prescribed norm, where marriage was the right thing to do and having children was expected. So being gay, is 'not natural' and would not generally have resulted in children. So perhaps that it where it lies, that as society advanced, moral norms prescribed what the family unit should look like and anything outside of that was vilified - hence why divorce was largely unacceptable too. And religion is always a good form of control in order to enforce such prescriptions of how people should conduct themselves. Ad astra per aspera
After the 3rd century there weere up and down regarding homosexuality perception in society, in the Roman elites and in the plebe.... sometimes one hierarchy or group of people support it or like it.. sometimes not... it changed quite a lot.
It was for sure that way until the 6th-7th century where some kind hole of social knowledge appears regarding a lot of social perceptions, but I took for granted that it probably was more or less like during the roman times... it changed with the wind, and teh area...
But during the cathar push and other heretic movements, homosexuality was fixed as something permanently bad (if maybe not prosecuted, I do not know enough). And I think the first clear documents appear then (or that's what I guessed from what I read)
then it was certainly prosceuted by the spansih inquisition.. together with red-haired powerful woman.
So it was strange to read that it was otherwise. But I think anotehr diary commented that good perception of homosexuality was confused with good perception of male bonding in some eastern areas durign the 18th century.
In other words, a comment to say ,that we probably have similar sources.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
what's wrong with not having children
maybe that was reducing the future viability of the tribe.
i find it ironic the church always has had so much to dictate about homosexuality, when for centuries it has been the socially acceptable institution in which to park sons who quite obviously were not um, eager to play the mating game.
being different from the 'norm' has always been a risky road to travel, whether for reasons of sexual identity or not.
safety in numbers comes before principle for most sheeple. totally irrational, like many or most herd decisions!
it is reassuring that we have at least lived some cycles of history where we had better things to do than poke moralistic noses into others' bedroom pastimes- ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
