Does "Greek love" disprove the gay gene?

Does the concept of “greek love” (or a similar idea) disprove the genetic origin of homosexual behavior?

Maybe define Greek Love for those of us here who are unfamiiar with it?


No you just made a strawman arguement

1 Like

Yeah, homosexuality isn’t genetic. No “sexuality” is - gender is a social construct, so it doesn’t make sense to speak of attraction based on gender as something innate.

From wikipedia:
"Greek love is a term originally used by classicists to describe the sexual, primarily homoerotic, customs, practices and attitudes of the ancient Greeks. It was frequently used as a euphemism for homosexuality and pederasty. The phrase is a product of the enormous impact of the reception of classical Greek culture on historical attitudes toward sexuality, and its influence on art and various intellectual movements.[1]:xi, 91–92

‘Greece’ as the historical memory of a treasured past was romanticised and idealised as a time and a culture when love between males was not only tolerated but actually encouraged, and expressed as the high ideal of same-sex camaraderie. … If tolerance and approval of male homosexuality had happened once—and in a culture so much admired and imitated by the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries—might it not be possible to replicate in modernity the antique homeland of the non-heteronormative?[2]:624

Following the work of sexuality theorist Michel Foucault, the validity of an ancient Greek model for modern gay culture has been questioned.[3]:xxxiv In his essay “Greek Love”, Alastair Blanshard sees “Greek love” as “one of the defining and divisive issues in the homosexual rights movement.[3]:161”

I don’t buy into gender theory.

I think sex and gender are synonymous, and every human on earth with very rare exception is either a male or female.


Your attractions are one thing but if or how you act on those attractions is something totally different. Having SSA in not a sin but if and how we act on those attractions, can be sinful. Honestly homosexuality, JUST in my own personal opinion, is NOT genetic.

If a culture decides that this type of behavior is ok that is definitely not genetic it’s social, cultural. Society can say all kinds of things that are not right.

Gender is not a social construct.


"Although a number of biological factors have been considered by scientists, such as prenatal hormones, chromosomes, polygenetic effects, brain structure and viral influences, no scientific consensus exists as to how biology influences sexual orientation.

“Most scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single “gay gene” that determines something as complex as sexual orientation, and that it is more likely to be the result of an interaction of genetic, biological and environmental/cultural factors.”

  • Science Daily

Correct, hence why it’s a strawman arguement. There’s a genetic component to SSA, not some magical gene that predestines people to SSA. The genetic component is also small.

No the concept doesn’t disprove anything genetic. How could it? The origins of SSA in many ways don’t matter. What matters is how a person deals with it. It is the same as any other genetic disposition. For instance, I may be genetically or epigenetically disposed to gluttony, but that doesn’t mean I should be a glutton.

1 Like

"For decades, “born this way” has been the rallying cry of the mainstream gay rights movement, a simple slogan cited as the basis for both political change and cultural acceptance.

Gay rights advocates used it to make the case for legal equality. Allies declared it when standing in solidarity. Lady Gaga in 2011 released her triumphant gay anthem “Born This Way” and that same year co-founded the Born This Way Foundation, which this very week is the beneficiary of a set of Starbucks drinks.
Getting America to believe that people are born gay — that it’s not something that can be chosen or ever changed — has been central to the fight for gay rights. If someone can’t help being gay any more than they can help the color of their skin, the logic goes, denying them rights is wrong. But many members of the LGBTQ community reject this narrative, saying it only benefits people who feel their sexuality and gender are fixed rather than fluid, and questioning why the dignity of gay people should rest on the notion that they were gay from their very first breath.

You mentioned that you are not in favor of gay marriage. Just curious - - do your friends / family know that? Because you seem to be LGBTQQ- friendly in other ways, and I wonder if people disapprove of your stance on gay marriage.

It’s not as though those things are irreconcilable. being against gay marriage doesent mean you also want to put every SSA person in America through ‘conversion therapy’ or what have you.

Well, the liberals I know are quite doctrinaire. I actually can’t imagine a mainstream American liberal being accepting of someone who disagrees with gay marriage.


Yes you do. You buy into a gender theory where gender and sex are coextensive. That is a theory of gender.

And I’d like to know why you think that way, and why you think competing theories of gender are not correct. Perhaps that’s a conversation best kept to another thread though.

Are you American? The reason i ask is that our debates in Britain are not so polorised, thankfully we haven’t been as infected with identity politics, yet. I want all people to know God, if you want to call that LGBT friendly then ok. When people ask why i disapprove of gay marriage (i am in the minority) then i tell them that I’ve never heard a good arguement in favour of it. That usually stuns them because they’ve been told over and over that it’s about equal rights. So i ask “ok, what rights do i deny you through your civil partnerships?” There’s no answer to that. I recognise that gay people deserve equal rights from a secular state, but as a religious person then I’d better get mine too and therein lies the problem. As i see it, gay marriage wasn’t pushed by gay people for the reasons i stated. It was pushed by militant athiests who use LGBT issues as a smoke screen for their arguements. Their next step will be to throw discrimination law suits at Churches that don’t allow for gay marriage. Gender pronouns are also part of that debate. Understand that identity politics is neo-Marxism plain and simply. So let’s not be divided so easily, a gay person is not my enemy. Gay people want rights within society, marxists ideology is about burning that society down and starting again. Unfortunately a lot of people don’t really understand the full implications of the ideology they support, which is an inevitable part of single-issue thinking.


But, was ‘greek love’ a sexual love? Maybe it was platonic. Hence the ‘platonic’ name, I suppose.

1 Like

Yes, I am an American. Thanks for your long explanation. I think there is a big difference in the attitudes of the British, I suppose, if people can accept your reasoned arguments against gay marriage. I very much agree with everything you said. Thanks again for your long explanation. I think that part of the difference has a lot to do with the availability of healthcare that is available to all in the UK, where here it is often dependent on family relationships, thus the push for acceptance of gay marriage, so “spouses” can get health care, and certain other legal rights.

As a phrase in Modern English[4]:72 and other modern European languages, “Greek love” refers to various (mostly homoerotic) practices as part of the Hellenic heritage reinterpreted by adherents such as Lytton Strachey;[5]:20–23 quotation marks are often placed on either or both words (“Greek” love, Greek “love”, or “Greek love”) to indicate that usage of the phrase is determined by context. It often serves as a “coded phrase” for pederasty,[6] or to “sanitize” homosexual desire in historical contexts where it was considered unacceptable.[7]

The German term griechische Liebe (“Greek love”) appears in German literature between 1750 and 1850, along with socratische Liebe (“Socratic love”) and platonische Liebe (“Platonic love”) in reference to male-male attractions.[8] Ancient Greece became a positive reference point by which homosexual men of a certain class and education could engage in discourse that might otherwise be taboo.[2]:623 In the early Modern period, a disjuncture was carefully maintained between idealized male eros in the classical tradition, which was treated with reverence, and sodomy, which was a term of contempt.[9]

Ancient Greek background[edit]
Main articles: Homosexuality in ancient Greece and Pederasty in ancient Greece

Zeus carrying away Ganymede (Late Archaic terracotta)
In his classic study Greek Homosexuality, Kenneth Dover points out that the English nouns “a homosexual” and “a heterosexual” have no equivalent in the ancient Greek language. There was no concept in ancient Greece equivalent to the modern conception of “sexual preference”; it was assumed that a person would have both hetero- and homosexual responses at different times.[10]:1, et passim Evidence for same-sex attractions and behaviors is more abundant for men than for women. Both romantic love and sexual passion between men were often considered normal, and under some circumstances healthy or admirable. The most common male-male relationship was paiderasteia, a socially-acknowledged institution in which a mature male (erastēs, the active lover) bonded with or mentored a teen-aged youth[11]:115 (eromenos, the passive lover, or pais, “boy” understood as an endearment and not necessarily a category of age [10]:16[12]). Martin Litchfield West views Greek pederasty as “a substitute for heterosexual love, free contacts between the sexes being restricted by society.”[13]

1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit