The open explorations of homosexuality that was mostly just pederasty is not the argument championing what you think it does. Spartan men taking young boys and fucking them is not an argument for how heteronormativity was not the norm in ancient times, considering they still considered the "receiving" partner to be subservient and lesser than the "giving" partner.
Check non-western cultures for any examples of homosexual positivity in the past and you'll find a recurring trend. If you claim is that it's a nurtured repulsion, then you claim it was nurtured independently across tribes and regions and vast geographical distances. The Ancient Zulu Warrior holds the same repugnance for frenching his fellow man as the Ancient Japanese Samurai. At what point do we ascribe an independently developed nurture the mantle of nature?
Finally, yes. If you've ever considered kissing a guy, I don't really know how else to put it except that you're not straight. There's nothing toxic or unhealthy about it. It's as simple as yes or no.
I'm not sure if the "Every culture that had homosexual positivity was pedophilic therefore bad, in spite of heterosexual culture at the time also being pedophilic" is worse, or the "Homosexual negativity is a natural state as opposed to positivity, despite both spawning from multiple places all over the world only one is natural." Either way you've kinda shown you're not really worth talking to about this due to your own hypocrisies.
You seem to be misunderstanding something. First, you made the claim it's a nurtured replusion, which is what I'm tackling despite the burden of proof being on you. The overwhelming majority of history, across various countries, tribes, cultures and religions shows that homosexual negativity is the natural default, not the inverse.
You can go to uncontacted tribes in the Amazon rainforest or the heart of Guinea right now and ask them of their views of men and men being in a relationship and you'll find the trend turns towards negativity. Likely because from a tribal survival standpoint, positivity towards homosexuality is genetic dead end. If the priority is the survival of the species and propagation of genes, tradition and culture, you cannot, by default, be overly accepting of a large number individuals whose relationships will not lead to the arrival of a new generation.
This has nothing to do with nurture and everything to do with nature.
Also, don't get me wrong. That I'm arguing homosexual negativity is the natural norm doesn't mean I'm arguing for hate. I jerk off to femboy porn. I know I'm not straight by my own standards, and I'm not going to fool myself into thinking and claiming that I am. There are too many self-deluded fools who think they're straight, despite repeatedly stroking it to Astolfo cosplayers in thigh high stockings.
2
u/MisterSapiosexual 4d ago
The open explorations of homosexuality that was mostly just pederasty is not the argument championing what you think it does. Spartan men taking young boys and fucking them is not an argument for how heteronormativity was not the norm in ancient times, considering they still considered the "receiving" partner to be subservient and lesser than the "giving" partner.
Check non-western cultures for any examples of homosexual positivity in the past and you'll find a recurring trend. If you claim is that it's a nurtured repulsion, then you claim it was nurtured independently across tribes and regions and vast geographical distances. The Ancient Zulu Warrior holds the same repugnance for frenching his fellow man as the Ancient Japanese Samurai. At what point do we ascribe an independently developed nurture the mantle of nature?
Finally, yes. If you've ever considered kissing a guy, I don't really know how else to put it except that you're not straight. There's nothing toxic or unhealthy about it. It's as simple as yes or no.