Back in those days homosexuality was an aesthetic practice and it evolved from the indignation of women as mentally and physically inferior to men. They are, mind you, but this indignation was of a psychological import rather than its appropriate physical import. Men flattered themselves by devoting their sexual activities to one another, keeping women for reproduction only. Sex, for them, was divided into the aesthetic, as an artistic and hedonistic expression, and as a means to reproduce. The women did not deserve the pleasure of sex for its own sake, and sex as a pleasure was exercised between men. This, I believe, is a decent explaination for the few cases of homosexuality.
Today, a new kind of homosexuality has emerged, being the result of role displacement. “Gender” is no longer a physical designation, it has become a psychological ‘mentality’ resulting from consumerism and a lack of physical stature due to increased technological advancements.
A ‘man’ is no longer determined by his rivalry to the ‘woman’ because a woman can do, today, what a man can do. A larger percentage of masculinity was maintained not only by the evident physcial gender differences, but also by the tasks which only the man could perform. Another percentage of masculinity was lost by the disintegration of physical prowess and cunning. Men, today, are on average weak, over-weight, cowardly, and gullible. This is in part a result of consumerism; life has become easier and role distinctions are no longer identifiable or even necessary.
The difference between the homosexuality of the Greeks, for example, and the homosexuality of the modern world, is that the role of the female, through her power of sexual domination, has turned the tables. Today, rather than the woman being reduced to an ‘object for reproduction only,’ the man has been reduced to an object of subordination for the female. The female, by aquiring the new inferior male, allows sex to happen rather than submitting to the males original dictation and ruling of sexual activities. This has happened simply because men are degenerating into weaklings while women are becoming more capable of performing tasks which, at one time, only the man could do.
The woman sets up a competative element between man and man. The men who do not succeed in impressing the women become gay, normally partners to other inferior men. The men who win the female become the slave to the womans dominance. As Zappa once put it: “men will do anything to get some pussy…and that’s why the woman always had control over the man.”
The other side of this coin is here. There is also a competative field between women. Those ugly women who cannot attract a male victim become homosexual as well. The game plays in both directions.
Observe the mannerisms of the gay man and woman. Generally speaking, each of them mimics the opposite sex; the lesbians ‘act’ masculine, the gay men ‘act’ feminine. This is the displacement of the original roles, lost in the mix of consumerism and technology, and sexes become “played” rather than exhibited.
As Satyr mentioned, it is inevitable. I would say it is bad. Eventually the human race will self-destruct because of over-population, disease, Capitalism and its exhausting the resources of the planet. Meanwhile, genders will become obsolete as reproduction will be orchestrated by technology and biological reproduction will no longer be necessary. I can even imagine that the human genome will become ‘sexless’ and males and females will unify into one impotent gender. Sex might once again become an entertainment and not a necessity. That is, if we still have our sexual organs.
Evolution occurs through mutations, but mutations are, ironically, advancements in growth. Only if homosexuality is genetic, which I don’t think it is, could it be considered a ‘bad’ mutation because it would threaten the imperative dynamic of reproduction for the species.
There is no need to make the evaluation “evil” here. In fact, “evil” has its origins in religion and is not a moral value in itself. There is no such thing as ‘evil,’ better yet, its etymological origins are irrelevent to the appropriate ethical evaluations necessary to identify ‘good’ and ‘bad’ conditions.
Explain further, Colinsign. I’m not sure what you are intending here.