So the church simply reflected the changed role of women. This would also have required the trumpeting of manliness, where sissiness was a threat, not just ot general order, but to impoverishment of the immediate family.
Although interestingly, the Roman Empire, that most militaristic and "manly" society had no problem with homosexuality whatsoever...
That's not entirely true. Roman social sexuality seems to have been very complicated, with equal parts austere and ranting fundie patriarchy, and wild swinging.
Man-love seems to have been accepted, but not integrated. It wasn't persecuted, but it was seen as slightly disreputable and decadent, especially when compared to the Roman ideal of dutiful marriage.
The 'manly' part wasn't so much manly as driven by frenetic ancestor worship. The worst possible humiliation wasn't gay sex, it was letting down the family name.
The opposite of that was claiming glory for the family. Which is why the Romans eventually bred a generation of lunatics who conquered most of the known world more or less on their own, by force of will.
But I think there is a relationship between gay hating and nationalistic imperialism, at least in the Anglo countries. Anglo culture seems extremely rigid, controlling and obsessive, and the perceived passivity of gay sex might threaten that mindset.
I don't even think it's about sex, necessarily. The core Anglo myth is belief in one own's hermetically sealed individuality and personal destiny, and the personal power to influence people, places and things.
The prospect of getting buggered by someone doesn't sit well with that.
How about the prospect of buggering? Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
Late night listening.
Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
