>>17931309
>modern Jewish slander
Nope, they’ve been pushing this shit for centuries brother

>>17897804
I don’t know what the study is but if you’re talking about homosexuality in antiquity, there’s simply too much evidence to ignore. There’s also a lot more than “a few pieces of pottery”. There’s at least 1,000 surviving pieces of pottery depicting homosexual acts, and way more pieces of pottery with kalos inscriptions dedicated to males. So many prominent poets from the Archaic to the Hellenistic era wrote homoerotic poetry (Ibycus, Anacreon, Simonides, Sappho, Callimachus, Theognis, Theocritus, Virgil, Martial, Horace, Catullus). So many major playwrights included homosexuality in their works (Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Plautus) or themselves were said to have engaged in homosexuality (Sophocles, Euripides). So many major historical personalities had homosexual affairs and desires attributed to them (Socrates, Plato, Solon, Aristides, Alcibiades, Epaminondas, Lysander, Parmenides, Zeno of Citium, Sulla, Trajan, Hadrian). So many gods and heroes were described as having homosexual affairs too (Zeus, Apollo, Orpheus, Heracles, Achilles).

Everyone who has ever had a classical education knows that homosexuality was a public and significant part of life in Ancient Greek and Rome. Pic related. It is only now that classical learning and the teaching of Greek and Latin have disappeared that this revisionist nonsense can gain traction

>>717298494
Yeah it’s crazy, the Jews have been pushing it for thousands of years

>>938022442
Yeah it’s crazy, the Jews have been pushing it for thousands of years

>>510662370
>So that in such a state riches will necessarily be in general esteem, particularly if the men are governed by their wives, which has been the case with many a brave and warlike people except the Celts, and those other nations, if there are any such, who openly practise pederasty. And the first mythologists seem not improperly to have joined Ares and Aphrodite together; for all nations of this character are greatly addicted either to the love of women or of boys,
-Aristotle, Politics

>Although their wives are comely, they have very little to do with them, but rage with lust, in outlandish fashion, for the embraces of males. It is their practice to sleep upon the ground on the skins of wild beasts and to tumble with a catamite on each side. And the most astonishing thing of all is that they feel no concern for their proper dignity, but prostitute to others without a qualm the flower of their bodies; nor do they consider this a disgraceful thing to do, but rather when anyone of them is thus approached and refuses the favour offered him, this they consider an act of dishonour.
-Diodoros of Sicily, Library of History

>>510663627
Cope.

>>17830789
Don't bother anon. They've been totally brainwashed. It's really impossible to get people not to believe the Greeks were raging faggots. The Jews have been brainwashing goyim with this lie for thousands of years (pic related). It's fucked up. I don't know why they push this narrative so hard. It might have nefarious purposes, as you said...

>>509703415
>can't name a single person

>>509703437
Knowledge of Greek pederasty is not solely based on archeological evidence, though.

>>509168730
You gonna cope?

>>17799026
>because the root of this academic branch has been essentially poisoned by a few books/papers written in the 70s as an attempt to normalize homosexuality
Then why has homosexuality in antiquity been known about for millennia?

>Alexander and Hephaestion which are supposed to be gay because Alexander was sad about his bud dying
Yes, but a multitude of sources converge on the fact that Alexander had a sexual relationship with the eunuch boy, Bagoas, and other sources describe him as having other boy beloveds. Just because a handful of propagandists try to portray historical figures as having had love affairs with adult men, doesn't mean that the evidence which tells us they had sexual relations with boys is invalid.

>when we have actual verifiable openness to homosexuality and a decline of the influence of Abrahamic religions, is the number still hovering around 2%?
Because the modern form of homosexuality which is accepted is homosexuality between two adult men, a form of homosexuality which has been regarded with disgust since the beginning of recorded history. Far less men have any sexual interest in other adult men than they do towards boys.

Using Romans as an example, Hadrian, Nero, Elagabalus, Trajan, Tiberius, Caligula, and Titus are known to have had homosexual relations, and they comprise close to 10% of Roman emperors. This is far more than the 2% figure which you presented.

If you refuse to differentiate different forms of homosexuality, then you will make incorrect conclusions regarding homosexuality in ancient history.

>>508665839
Insane cope.

>>17772280
>The idea that child-rape has ever been pervasive in any sufficiently advanced society
The fact that you are unwilling to use neutral language, or even properly represent my arguments, is an indication of your dishonesty.

Pederasty was mostly between men and adolescent boys. The majority of girls in pre-industrial societies got married as teenagers, usually to older men. Roman girls in particular are known to have married very young, usually to older men. Roman demography can only be reconstructed provided you assume Roman girls began having children shortly after puberty. The type of age-gap relationship that I'm describing is the norm in the majority of societies to have ever existed. So yes, what you define as "child rape" is indeed, pervasive. Pederasty, a sexual relationship between a man and a boy, was also pervasive.

>outlawed it to some extent as every single piece of material evidence posted has shown
You haven't posted a single law which prohibits pederasty.

Both Augustus and Tiberius had boy sex servants in their palaces, which is known from funeral inscriptions, which is archeological evidence that backs up historical claims about them. Contemporary accounts of Hadrian's life, which you haven't read, make it clear he was in a sexual relationship with Antinous.

>>17772310
>We have Tacitus and Caesar, we have two sources, each separated by about a century, with almost single sentence descriptions of the sexual habits of an entire people group whose lineage spanned multiple millennia and ranged well outside of contact with Rome
>the two sources which mention them do not evidence pervasive pederasty
I never cited those as sources for Celtic pederasty. Neither Tacitus nor Caesar talk about sexual practices to a significant degree, you have no clue what you're talking about. This statement is bizarre.

>>17772329
You are grasping for straws. Using two different words to a different effect is not an alteration of my argument.