Reviews for The Controversy of Homosexuality
WildAndFreeHearts chapter 1 . 10/19/2011
This is a very informative essay. It seems that all of your facts are in correct succession of time, though there seem to be some gaps. You might try adding information of other periods, but seeing as the article is a base comparison of the ancient Greeks and Romans and modern day America, I would have to say that I would definitely give you essay an A.
Natasha5 chapter 1 . 2/18/2007
A very well-put essay, I would give it a B. If you could put more proof in it from the modern age (though your sources from earlier ages are as I see, fine) you could bump that up to an A.

Also, I would suggest looking into the Medieval era, and also into the Native Americans - America before it was slaughtered by the white man, per se.

A good read. Well done.
renru-no-ren chapter 1 . 8/7/2006
I didn't get to finish readin git, but I do think you are going in the right direction.
hpwebbie chapter 1 . 6/11/2005
I find it strange that you did not mention how the mideival (sp?) church had gay marriage or adelphopoiesis. It did...they just weren't allowed to have sex.

Here's a wikipedia article/definition on it: wiki/Adelphopoiesis
Guin chapter 2 . 6/11/2005
Thank you for your clarifiction! Sorry if in my first review I came over as a bit picky, I did find your essay very interesting.
deleted01 chapter 2 . 6/5/2005
Let me get this straight, you believe a secondary source over one of the most primary sources you'll ever get on the subject? You need to re-evaluate your thinking there. Sure it's all great that you did so much research, but research only goes so far. You need to also look at the point of view and perspective, if you're only getting information from historians that stare at books all day, well good luck writing anything worthwhile on the subject.
Typewriter King chapter 2 . 6/5/2005
This is surprisingly scholarly and well-researched for the essay section here, but it has some problems. “Nigger” is a derogatory word originating from Portuguese slave merchants in the era of exploration. See a Portuguese dictionary for confirmation. It isn’t American in origin. Andrew Sullivan dropped the ball on that one.

You rely too much on your sourcing, even crediting them for your editorializing (just a whimsy), and you seem to think all Americans originated from a small band of Pilgrims (Max Krugman). Yes, I’ve read your responses to the other reviewers, and I advocate ignoring the nonsensical synthesis rules of universities. Their regulations only propagate vapid manuscripts within the intellectual elite. I personally loathe the current crop of intellectuals and their breeding of dull windbags.

You ignore Alexander’s romance with Roxanne (Guin), and then you parrot that fad among intellectuals that everything you disagree with is terror. A moral code, even one that excludes homosexuals, isn’t terrorism.

Additionally, why did you credit Aurigna Ojeda with some text from the Bill of Rights? First off, the using as a headlining quote doesn’t contribute to the essay. I for one don’t recognize intercourse as a form of speech, so employing that line doesn’t validate anything in the essay.

Asking more questions: who is “everyone,” and why or how is everyone making homosexuality a scapegoat? Usually even unabashed bias has a point, but I don’t see one here. To a point, you had some respectability in this essay, but then there’s this ad hominem stuff about Americans “being the only terrorists.” What kind of Ted Rall wing nut logic is that? A sizable minority of the citizens of the Saudi Kingdom will gladly strap a bomb belt on to detonate against any facet of liberal western democracy. There are almost no Mcveighs left in the United States. Adding such gravy for the Chomskyites doesn’t win you points here. Can the meaningless stuff!

You cite Sullivan about the contents of the American’s vocabulary. I don’t know this Sullivan, I only read the actually popular historians like the late great Ambrose, but he doesn’t know the ground truth. I live in the second most “red” of the red states, I’m multiracial, I get out occasionally, and hate-mongers aren’t a problem.

You also miss when analyzing the Greeks. You neglect to point out courtly love, as we know it today, wasn’t practiced in the Hellenistic world. Your analysis fails in the Middle Ages. No popular movement against homosexuality was responsible for the Dark Ages. Those times were divided up by oligarchs belonging to the aristocracy, Frankish royalty, and Papal authority. The surfs were irrelevant to everything. The Church hoarded knowledge for the purpose of assimilating power, and no other reason.

Mechanically, you did well, far better than nearly all of the “I think” opinion essays infesting this place, but you are still faulty in the analysis. Most of the fault lies in a poor understanding of just how pragmatic rather than philosophical the Historical and Contemporary world, especially America, actually is.

You will fit well into scholarly circles one day, but you can be more than that. You have to know the people. They can’t be the dirty rabble pompous historians imagine in their gilded towers. Read Ambrose, read Fleming, read Tom Wolfe’s nonfiction. These giants actually understand people. We all should.
Kaiwaf chapter 2 . 6/5/2005
. . . . . . . .

Even a research paper needs original thought. Do not assume me an idiot; the second you started off with the paraphrasing I checked for the works cited.

Why am I even encouraging you? . . .ugh.
Formerly chapter 1 . 6/5/2005
Do you actually know any European history? When the settlers came over to America from England, England was extremely anti-Catholic already, and actually more or less liberal, religiously.
La Velvetine chapter 1 . 6/5/2005
I like this. I wrote a poem conveying some of the Hellenic philosophy whic you wrote in this essay. I am glad we agree. Nice.
deleted01 chapter 1 . 6/5/2005
Okay, for the most part I don't if you misunderstood those books that you read or not, but I can say this: I am Greek, and I also know about Greek history and culture. And homosexuality wasn't a question to them, nor was it viewed differently regardless of anything. Men simply had sex with each other because they were friends and they loved each other. Not a romantic love, but a friendly love. Sex was viewed as the kindest thing you could do for a friend.
Kaiwaf chapter 1 . 6/4/2005
Is any of this original thought, or is it all paraphrased?
Guin chapter 1 . 6/4/2005
A few notes I came up with as reading.1. There are many many greek legends extolling hetrosexual love, The battle of Troy, Hero and her lover, Echo and Narcissus. You seem slightly biased against hetro love in greek and Roman culture.2. I'd always heard that the pilgrmas who went to america had a far narrower view of things, being extremly strict puritans. However, this might have only been true in Protestant Britian. 3. You failed to mention that AIDs can be caught in perfectly ordinary hetrosexual relationships.

Apart form these little notes, I have to say a very interesting and informative essay. You seem to have done plenty of research. I wouldn't say that the Greek and Roman views of homosexuality were peculair to them however. I think that discreetly their ideas carried on throughout much of Europe, albeit behind closed doors. Victorian England was pratically famous for it ;p Perhaps you could have done a bit more on American views of homosexuality? Perhaps look at 'Arete' in Western culture, and see if there are any remnants in literature for example. I enjoyed your essay. Well done. You've definetly got me thinking.