If you think it is an integral part then you are a revisionist.
Let's hear from some of those revisionists, shall we? Revisionists like Aristotle, Plutarch, Xenophon ...
Xenophon mentions the varying attitudes to homosexuality in the various Greek nations:
It seems to me that something must also be said about the love of boys; for this too has a bearing on education. The other Greeks either do as the Boeotians do, where man and boy are joined as couples and live together, or like the Eleans, who get to enjoy the charms of boys by making them grateful; there are also those who wholly prevent boy-lovers from conversing with boys. [...] In most of the Greek cities, the laws do not oppose mens' desire for boys. (Xenophon, Constitution of the Lacedaemonians)
Plutarch attributes Theban homosexuality to "deliberate policies" by the lawgivers:
The Thebans’ practice of intimacy with lovers, to speak more generally, did not have its origin, as the poets say, in the passion of Laius. Rather the practice grew out of deliberate policies which the lawgivers adopted in order to temper and soften the Thebans’ fiery and violent nature right from childhood. (Plutarch, Life of Pelopidas)
Aristotle attributes homosexuality in Crete to the founder of their constitution:
The lawgiver gave much thought to the benefits of moderation in eating and also to the isolation of women, so that they not have many children. To this end he devised intercourse with males. (Aristotle, The Politics 2.10)
Ephorus of Cyme discusses the unique Cretan practice of ritual mock-abduction:
They have a unique custom with regard to love affairs. For they do not win their boy-friends through persuasion, but through abduction. The lover warns the boy's friends and family three or more days in advance that he is going to carry out the abduction. It is most shameful for them to hide the boy or not allow him to travel the appointed road, as this is viewed as a confession that the boy is unworthy of such a lover. When they meet him, if the abductor is a man equal to or surpassing the social standing, and all else, of the boy, they only fight and pursue him a bit, enough to fulfill what is customary, and after that they turn the boy over and enjoy the occasion. [...] For those who are good-looking and from illustrious families it is a disgrace not to get a lover, since it is assumed that they suffer this because of their manner of living. (Ephorus of Cyme, quoted in Strabo's Geography)
Athaneus discusses why homosexuality was "fashionable" in the "cities with the best laws":
And many men, overall, prefer love with boys to love with females. In the very cities of Greece that have the best laws by comparison with others, this is the mode of behavior that is fashionable. [...] Hieronymus the Aristotelian says that love with boys was fashionable because several tyrannies had been overturned by young men in their prime, joined together as comrades in mutual sympathy. In his boy-friend’s presence, a lover would go through any suffering rather than have the boy think him a coward. This was demonstrated in practice by the Sacred Band, formed by Epaminondas at Thebes; by the Peisistratid assassination, the work of Harmodius and Aristogeiton; and at Acragas in Sicily by the story of Chariton and Melanippus. (Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists)
Plutarch on Spartan customs (note the rare reference to lesbianism):
Lovers shared in the reputation of their boyfriends, whether good or bad. And it is said that once, when a boy uttered a dishonorable sound in battle, his lover was fined by the magistrates. Love was so esteemed among them that girls also became the erotic objects of noble women. But rivalries were not permitted: rather men who had fallen in love with the same boys made it an opportunity to forge a friendship amongst themselves, and they continued to work together to make their beloved the best he could be. (Plutarch, Lycurgus)
More Plutarch:
And among you Thebans, Pemptides, is it not usual for the lover to give his boy-love a complete suit of armor when he is enrolled among the men? [...] And not only are the most warlike nations most amorous, as the Boeotians the Lacedaemonians and the Cretans, but also of the old heroes, who were more amorous than Meleager, Achilles, Aristomenes, Cimon, and Epaminondas. Why, Epaminondas had as his boy-loves Asopichus and Cephisodorus, the latter of whom fell with him at Mantinea, and is buried near him. (Plutarch, On Love)
Plato in his
Republic famously argued for an all-gay military:
And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their beloved, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonor, and emulating one another in honor; and when fighting at each other's side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world. For what lover would not choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved, either when abandoning his post or throwing away his arms? He would be ready to die a thousand deaths rather than endure this. Or who would desert his beloved or fail him in the hour of danger? (Plato, The Republic)
Plato's writing is said to be the inspiration for the Sacred Band of Thebes, which, by defeating the Spartans at Leuctra, laid the basis for Theban military dominance. Here's Plutarch on the Sacred Band:
A pleasant saying of Pammenes is current, that Homer's Nestor was not well skilled in ordering an army, when he advised the Greeks to rank tribe and tribe, and family and family together, that: "So tribe might tribe, and kinsmen kinsmen aid," but that he should have joined lovers and their beloved. For men of the same tribe or family little value one another when dangers press; but a band cemented by friendship grounded upon love is never to be broken, and invincible; since the lovers, ashamed to be base in sight of their beloved, and the beloved before their lovers, willingly rush into danger for the relief of one another. Nor can that be wondered at since they have more regard for their absent lovers than for others present; as in the instance of the man who, when his enemy was going to kill him, earnestly requested him to run him through the breast, that his lover might not blush to see him wounded in the back. It is a tradition likewise that Iolaus, who assisted Hercules in his labors and fought at his side, was beloved of him; and Aristotle observes that, even in his time, lovers plighted their faith at Iolaus's tomb. It is likely, therefore, that this band was called sacred on this account; as Plato calls a lover a divine friend. It is stated that it was never beaten till the battle at Chaeronea: and when Philip, after the fight, took a view of the slain, and came to the place where the three hundred that fought his phalanx lay dead together, he wondered, and understanding that it was the band of lovers, he shed tears and said, "Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything that was base." (Plutarch, Pelopidas)
With all these revisionist
primary sources for Greek history misrepresenting the issue, it's lucky we have an expert like you to tell us what was really going on two millennia ago. Otherwise we might get all confused.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)