Throughout history, there have been many great men who have been rumored to be homosexual. This would not be controversial if the traditionalWestern conception of homosexuality were not so negative. Analysts love to write and criticize the works of Plato, but never about the man himself and his preferences. Many theorists on Classical society "choose to evade the problem" of the seemingly disagreeing values of love and homosexuality ("Socrates," 1228). Keep in mind that while not unheard of, especially in the armies and the upper classes of Sparta and Athens, homosexuality was not the social norm. It is known that Plato never married, and in his works he has described the perfection of homoerotic relationships. In one writing especially, Plato celebrates the relationship between older men and pubescent boys. Even so, Plato's arguments are "ambiguous and ambivalent" since the practice was not upheld in the open and "never entirely lost its stigma" (Nicholson 111). It has been described by Cassell's Encyclopedia of Queer Myth, Symbol, and Spirit that "The Symposium might be described as a manual for those embarking on the homoerotic-spiritual path" (“Plato” 268).Homoeroticism was, if not a common practice, at least a socially acceptable one performed by the men of the elitist groups in Greece. The Symposium is a glorification of male homoeroticism and pederasty rather than a collection of speeches exalting love.

Phaedrus, the first speaker in the Symposium, is explicit in his description of the relationship between men and their boyfriends. First, however, he gives a description of the god Love as a "venerated and primordial god" (10). He praises the god for giving the human race shame and the will to sacrifice for love of another, helping men to become good and happy. This is a very idealistic view of love, except that it seems to only apply to men. Phaedrus states, "the greatest benefit, to my mind, that a young man can come by in his youth is a virtuous lover, and a virtuous boyfriend is just as good for a lover too" (11). Every mention Phaedrus makes of love and lovers is referring to men and their boyfriends, with the exception of the myth of Alcestis and her husband. She sacrificed herself for the good of her husband, and was rewarded by the gods by having her soul released from Hades. However, it is only an example of a woman loving a man, and in Phaedrus' speech, there are no examples of men feeling affectionately towards women, and this is typical of Platonic writings.

The next speech, given by Pausanias, builds on Phaedrus' speech, saying that Love is not as consistent as Phaedrus has claimed. Pausanias continues by explaining that there are two different types of love; actually two separate variations of the goddess Aphrodite: Common Love, which is the offspring of Zeus and Dione and is therefore part male and female, is the low, lustful love that anyone can experience. It is decided by Pausanias that this common love is less than desirable because "ordinary people . . . love women as well as boys; secondly, when they do fall in love, they're attracted to the bodies rather than the minds of the people they love" (14). Celestial Love is wholly male since it has no mother and whose father is Uranus. Since this type of love has no feminine qualities, "this Love's inspiration makes people feel affection for what is inherently stronger and more intelligent—which is to say that it makes people incline towards the male" (14). This speech definitely depicts women as lustful and incapable of higher love, while men and boys are preternaturally inclined to ascend to Celestial Love. Pausanias also explains that there is a moral code to having relationships with young men and boys. According to him, there is such a thing as too young, and that defines the difference between pedophilia and pederasty. "The erastes or beloved was a youth between twelve and seventeen . . . . Pedophilia, in the sense of erotic interest in young children, was unknown to the Greeks and the practice never approved by them" ("Greece, Ancient," 491). In actuality, the young man did not have to be in love with his partner; "the boy might at most reciprocate with . . . loyal affection or friendship, which would be due for the lover's patronage . . . rather than for his sexual attentions (Waterfield xvi). According to Pausanias, it is acceptable that the youth does not love the older man, and that "there is absolutely nothing wrong with gratifying a lover for the sake of virtue" (Plato 16). It is appropriate as long as the boy is not engaging in these activities for the sake of sexual pleasure, which would put the boy on the level of Common Love.