I'm mostly interested in the views of religious folks here (those belonging to what I might call established religions, rather than New Age, SPNR etc.) I'm also not really looking for debate but felt this would be best placed here at any rate.
It's been well noted that almost before the early 20th century, the word and concept of 'homosexual/ity' didn't exist and sex was thought of as what one did with whom rather than to whom one was attracted. This led to a greater freedom in areas of sexuality, as far as this article is concerned, rather than labelling folks,
Sex and Gender in the Victorian Era - The Atlantic
For the Victorians, the situation was much more fluid. A woman’s romantic interest in another woman could be seen as excellent preparation for marriage. Though sex between men was a criminal offense (in Britain, lesbianism was invisible before the law), there was, as yet, hardly a homosexual identity defined by same-sex desire. Until the early 1950s, a man could have sex with another man without thinking himself in any respect “abnormal”—as long as he steered clear of the feminine dress or behaviour that marked a so-called pouf or queen. To pry off the Benson roof is to ask the question: What was it like to live before and during the invention of modern sexuality?
[...]
Absolute as Victorian moral certainties appeared to be, they nonetheless permitted a great deal of ambiguity in matters romantic and sexual, even in the most respectable of families. The marriage of Minnie and Edward—“intricate, sensitive, caring, and deeply committed,” as Goldhill describes it—ran alongside her love for women. True, the complications of the Benson marriage caused some anguish on both sides and undeniably left their children confused as to the state of their parents’ feelings for each other. But to his credit, Goldhill doesn’t attempt to tidy up the Bensons’ complexities.
One man who we would now label homosexual had this to contribute,
Was it possible, Arthur wondered, that he had “the soul of a woman in the body of a man”? Even though the term homosexual was coming into currency, he did not use it until 1924, the year before he died. And when he did use it, after a theoretical conversation on the subject with Fred, he wrote the word out—“the homo sexual question”—in a way that suggested unfamiliarity.
Even as late as 1924, apparently, people we'd now call gay or lesbian didn't see themselves as having any innate identity. And finally, this,
The same year, Virginia Woolf (who had both a husband and a female lover) lamented the erosion of sexual ambiguity. Unlike Fred Benson, she was unsentimental about her Victorian upbringing, yet as the dichotomy between homosexual and heterosexual solidified, she could see what had been lost: “Where people mistake, as I think, is in perpetually narrowing and naming these immensely composite and wide flung passions—driving stakes through them, herding them between screens.”
[...]
The irony of all this is something that no gay liberationist would have thought possible when the campaign for homosexual rights was regarded as a grave threat to the social order. Sandwiched between the fluidity of the Victorian years and the proliferating sexual and gender identities of the new millennium, the late 20th century’s straight-gay paradigm looks decidedly old-fashioned—maybe even a little stodgy.
Now my main question here is a simple one, but I had to preface it with the above as a way of really getting into what I mean.
Are there any religious folks here who subscribe to the notion that human sexuality is fluid (as the pre-20th century people saw it) or are you on board with the new view? I tend to agree with the former view, but would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.
Sir Edward Coke said in his "institutions" way back in 1628 that homosexuality was imported to England brought by
Lombard merchants and was earlier spoken of in England dating back to the 14th century. They used the word sodomy so if the term homo-sexual is what you were speaking about, they used other words for it. If I am not mistaken, approaching the 16th century the word "buggery" was used for adultery or simply "sexual activity without the intent of making babies", but the buggery act of 1533 turned it into a different aspect speaking of sexual activity mankind of beast and homosexuality was plugged into it. Killing homosexuals was carried out until the 19th century or the early 19th century. Later they turned it into "gross indecency" between two males and were jailed. The last killing of homosexuals was of these two men in the 18 hundreds. So I think, though you seem to allude it was accepted, it was not. As late as the 20th century, Joseph Stalin being an atheist was jailing homosexuals up to five years. When the Portuguese were ruling around the world, they implemented death penalty for homosexuality in Brazil. Even Lesbians were executed. That was in the early 16 hundreds. It is true that in England, the so called Puritans used the Old Testament for these laws probably out of convenience, but it becomes normalised the bible did not need invoking anymore in the United States which also changed the term from Sodomy to Buggery. The legal prohibition of homosexuality in Navy Ships which were for a long time an offence ending up with capital punishment took place only in the 1960's.
If the term homosexual is the issue, homosexual as a word is almost a mirror image of the word Arsenokoitus in the New Testament. Homo+sexual almost is equal to Men+sexual or Arsen+Koitus (like coitus), men being man to man but the NT does not address female to female explicitly like in the OT. I said all of this just to respond to your assumption that pre 20th century it was all fine, but after that it is a "new view" about homosexuality which in my opinion is absolutely wrong, unless I have misunderstood you.
I am not positing any of my personal opinions about homosexuality here. I am only stating that homosexuality was shunned before the 20th century, where ever you turned so the notion you had depicted is wrong. Prior to the 20th century there were some countries that did come up with direct laws accepting homosexuality and giving homosexuals their full rights. It happened in the so called "Islamic Khalifate" in the 19th century. 1853? Somewhere there. Somewhere between 1850 and 1860, the Ottoman Empire gave full homosexual rights to its citizens and of course this is hush hush because no one wants to talk about these kind of things for some reason. But yeah, this happened. But well-hell, Dais is killing homosexuals we hear so this is what religion does we assume.
In Islam there have been various traditions but the most famous one is that homosexuals are killed in some countries at least, in the 20th century. Saudi Arabia will kill you, but not with a homosexual law because nothing like that exists in the Islamic law, but the act of sodomy is deemed "adultery" and they use the adultery law to kill homosexuals.
Nevertheless, the point is, your "new view" is actually the old view but with different terms. The Tanakh describes the act without using one word. the NT creates a word. Or at least Saul creates a word that was probably never used before to refer to homosexuals shunning them along with murderers, drunkards and thieves. Also "soft men" or Malakoi. All in the same boat. Around the world, from France, Japan, to England, homosexuals were shunned, the act was slammed, and the so called perpetrators were punished, sometimes with death.
Cheers.
