Too many Sexual Orientations?

[Kanzler]

That is true, but you cannot deny the fact that there was still hatred towards gays by this minority even though the Roman lexicon has no word for homosexual.

There's always going to be people with dissenting views no matter how homogenous the population is. My point is that, historically, there were societies that did not condemn homosexuality and at the same time did not have a label for it. This goes to show that labels do matter in that they affect the way people perceive and behave. I'm not going to argue over technicalities about how you couldn't consider those societies to be tolerant of homosexuality because you could find a guy or two who stigmatized it.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

There's always going to be people with dissenting views no matter how homogenous the population is. My point is that, historically, there were societies that did not condemn homosexuality and at the same time did not have a label for it. This goes to show that labels do matter in that they affect the way people perceive and behave. I'm not going to argue over technicalities about how you couldn't consider those societies to be tolerant of homosexuality because you could find a guy or two who stigmatized it.

That was my entire point though. People are going to be against stuff even if there is no label and is because of either cultural reasons or what have you. There's also the fact that many Pagan religions at the time had no written commandment or written morals that said anything regarding homosexuality, therefore they have no cultural reason to be against gays.

 

[Universe]

I didn't see anywhere that he stated he intended to apply his reasoning exclusively to people who aren't heterosexual. The fact that we even make such a distinction between heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals is silly, imo. People are just people.

Not gonna respond the other part because I think it's fine to disagree and have no comment. I'm sorry if I came on too strong, I may have let my irritation get to my head a bit.

His reasoning applies exclusively to people who aren't heterosexual because he's talking about anyone outside the norm, who could be killed or otherwise harmed for their identity, for not being "normal" as society views it. It's true that people are people and we shouldn't have labels, but in our actual world we do have labels and not everyone is equal. The desire for a label-free world is wonderful to have, but we also can't just forget about years of murder, hate, and oppression towards people who didn't fit the category of a heterosexual.

I wish the terms didn't exist sometimes too, but they do and it's offensive to not regard them with respect because of their history and ongoing oppression.

 

[Kanzler]

That was my entire point though. People are going to be against stuff even if there is no label and is because of either cultural reasons or what have you.

That's a pretty weak point. People can always be against stuff. So what? More significant than any one person holding an opinion is the fact that an entire society can be both without labels and stigmatization. If you're going to suggest the fact that ancient societies did not marginalize homosexuality is not important because there existed a minority of people who believed otherwise, then you're just choosing to miss the big picture and we have no further business discussing this.

There's also the fact that many Pagan religions at the time had no written commandment or written morals that said anything regarding homosexuality, therefore they have no cultural reason to be against gays.

That's kind of my point isn't it? Isn't it nice not to have a cultural impetus for persecution?

 

[Thepowaofhax]

That's a pretty weak point. People can always be against stuff. So what? More significant than any one person holding an opinion is the fact that an entire society can be both without labels and stigmatization. If you're going to suggest the fact that ancient societies did not marginalize homosexuality is not important because there existed a minority of people who believed otherwise, then you're just choosing to miss the big picture and we have no further business discussing this.



That's kind of my point isn't it? Isn't it nice not to have a cultural impetus for persecution?

Since you're still missing my point, here is my original post.

I'd hate to agree with you for once, but I have to say this;

Just because you remove labels doesn't meant humans will still not be indifferent. We are a species that will never fundamentally change; we will always have people who are against this and will attempt to strike it down at any moment's notice. Just because we don't have a descriptor for the word "gay" or "lesbian" doesn't mean you won't be executed in a theocracy and be disenfranchised because of "traditional" values.

The point here is that people will always be against stuff and it wouldn't matter if there wasn't a descriptor because of that. The last bit also mentions the fact that it wouldn't also matter in theocracies or nations of "traditional" values, which both were intentionally hinting towards Islamic theocracies and the "traditional" values of many Christian countries. Both of these religions had became the norm in their respective countries or regions, and according to their written religion, people who have sex with the same sex are abominations. My point here is that it wouldn't matter if there is no label.

Your arbitrary point that the mass in the Roman empire wasn't against doesn't really stand well because my original point was the fact that there will always be a group against it with or without labels, and once they come to make their own country, their cultural values will show though. It happened with Islam, for example. The rise of Islam happened around 600 CE, and later they made a caliphate and sodomy was banned under Islamic law. They didn't have a word for homosexuality until Abu Nuwas and another write in the 800-900s.

 

[Kanzler]

The point here is that people will always be against stuff and it wouldn't matter if there wasn't a descriptor because of that. The last bit also mentions the fact that it wouldn't also matter in theocracies or nations of "traditional" values, which both were intentionally hinting towards Islamic theocracies and the "traditional" values of many Christian countries. Both of these religions had became the norm in their respective countries or regions, and according to their written religion, people who have sex with the same sex are abominations. My point here is that it wouldn't matter if there is no label.

Yes, people can always be against stuff, but we can create societies that either celebrates or marginalizes those views. In each of those societies I listed, anti-homosexual views were marginal. They were not the mainstream. You can't discount an entire social current just because of the existence of people who disagree. It does matter that there were no labels in those times, because there were no labels that people used to marginalize that minority.

Your arbitrary point that the mass in the Roman empire wasn't against doesn't really stand well because my original point was the fact that there will always be a group against it with or without labels, and once they come to make their own country, their cultural values will show though. It happened with Islam, for example. The rise of Islam happened around 600 CE, and later they made a caliphate and sodomy was banned under Islamic law. They didn't have a word for homosexuality until Abu Nuwas and another write in the 800-900s.

I should clarify then - it's not as if the lack of labels will eradicate or eliminate the possibility of persecution. As you've demonstrated with the example of Islam persecuting homosexuality yet not having a word for it, far from it. But labels can become vehicles of persecution. They can take latent stigma within a society and create a target for it.

The bottom line is, yes, labels do make a difference. They are a conduit for human behaviour. It is harder to target and to persecute a label if it doesn't exist or if it's not so cohesive or salient. The fact that people can persecute others in spite of not having a label does not somehow discount the effect that labels have. If I could run a marathon as an active smoker, does my athletic ability somehow discount the effect the smoke has on my body?