Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 31 Jul 2006 14:06 Post subject: Re: Where...the native american berdache
Salsassin wrote:
...
The Mapuche had homosexuality in their male machi.
In many warrior tribes they had the idea of three, four, or even five genders. The Crow, the Hopi, the Zuni, the Cherokee (Tsalagi), the Navajo, the Aztec, the Maya, the Mochica, the Inca, etc
Just look up two spirits, berdache, etc.
"We don’t waste people the way white society does. Every person has their gift." -Joe Medicine Crow
Hi Jaime. Welcome back once again.
Good point. Shameful as it might seem, it is true that ancient Machis of the Mapuche people were homosexuals. Today though, perhaps by external influences, most Machis are female.
It is an insult to me as a FGM (biracial) to say that my parents union is the same as 2 men together. 'Minorites' are selling 'Civil Rights' down the drain for PC BS and political leverage!
Biology supports any male and any female coupling - a child can be produced (with few exceptions) wheras with same gender couplings, a child is NEVER produced. Call it God or call it Nature - there are laws governing life on this planet! And it is very arrogant and detremental for humans to try to change or circumvent these laws. When you go against natural law you get chaos.....
Race is a arbitrary classification that can change (location, time, etc), wheras gender is not, and is biologically determined (DNA). Again, there is no gay gene, but there are genes for gender (xx, xy) as well as for skin color (4 allelles) and blood groupings (O, AB) from isolated reproductive populations (J, Eb3, etc).
At the end of the day, all sexual behavior involves a choice, to have sex or to abstain - no matter if its gay or str8.
I am saying that I believe that love is involuntary and "race" and sexual orientation are not traits that one can change at will.
I disagree. You cannot compare "race" with sexual orientation. Unless of course you think that "race" constitutes a behaviour, which sexual orientation is...a behaviour. For every reference you can produce that says sexual behaviour is genetically determined, I can provide documentation from scientists that says it is not. I truthfully think the jury is still out on this. I think in some it may be pre-determined, but in others it is not.
One could certainly argue that race (read, racial categorization) is a behaviour just like the behavioral aspect of sexual orientation. As evidence I offer the various and disparate racial categorizations that humans continue to come up with - they are a socially constructed as a lot of behavior is. But that's not the issue here.
Have you ever actually talked to a gay person about this, or thought critically about your own heterosexuality? Could you suddenly stop liking women and become attracted to men (I think you are a male, apologies you aren't!). It's like Gemini said in response to this as well - why would most reasonable people choose to be non-heterosexual and go through all of the angst and homophobia if being gay is like choosing to wear jeans instead of slacks? If it is as controllable as the urge to simply have sex and not fall in love and share your life with a person of the same sex, then I can see your point. But I doubt sincerely that one's sexual orientation is like selecting a wardrobe - it's who one is, part of one's personal identity. The TYPE of man that I am sexually attracted to may vary, but the fundamental fact is that I am uninterested in being with women, or men and women, and that has ALWAYS been true...as long as I can remember. The problem with focusing on sexual behaviors rather than identity (how one feels as X or a part of X group) is that the total experience of being a GBLT is lost in the fixation on what they do in bed. Imagine if you defined yourself only by what you do in bed.
sagascend wrote:
THe abolition of slavery was once a radical view, so I don't see mainstream opinions as more right or moral than "fringe" opinions. How a group chooses to achieve whatever rights it believes society should grant them, as long as it is non-violent, is okay in my book. At the end of the day societal opinions have to change, not judges'.
I see what you mean. But it is easier to convince someone that holding a person in bondage is not right. Whereas it is not so easy to convince someone that a persons private behaviour should be acknowledged publically. Quite frankly, I have no problem whatsoever what one does in private. The problem I have is when they try to force it on me and try to make me feel like I am wrong for thinking what they are doing is wrong. If they would just let it be, there would be less problems. I can tell you the more they push, the more they alienate.
I see what you mean but I think it's easier to make that argument now. I'd imagine an anti-slavery advocate living before Western societies emanicipated slave labor in the 1800s would find people as resistant to slavery as people are resistant to same-sex civil rights. Didn't some societies believe that enslaving people was the natural order of things, that some people were born to or deserved to be slaves?
No one can make you believe that something is wrong if you don't believe it is. I am a so-called minority, the result of generations of interracial relationships, and straight and I have no qualms about making the comparison. I believe it is the right comparison to make. So it goes to show you that there is not one right way to look at an issue.
I could copy and paste your statement above as a reflection on the opposition to interracial relationships and no context would be lost. People don't like change and advocates who want change are not willing to wait for what could be centuries for people to come around. The most successful social movements persevered despite popular opposition until they changed hearts and minds. The same will happen with same-sex civil rights because younger people in the U.S. are not as opposed as older generations are. Time marches on I guess.
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 {Posts: 223 } Location: Southern California
Posted: Mon 31 Jul 2006 18:28 Post subject:
Melani23 wrote:
.....And it is very arrogant and detremental for humans to try to change or circumvent these laws. When you go against natural law you get chaos.....
Well then...I guess that I'm guilty as charged. Although my husband of 17 years and myself could probably "procreate" or "adopt", we chose not to to go that route (and did/are doing our damndest that we never end up on that route) and we're more than happy with our childfree lifestyle. So we too, are going against the laws of nature as well..since there's as much chance of seeing child produced from us as there would be from a gay couple
Anyways, who really gives a flying rat's fanny if a child is produced from a union or not...we already have 6 billion to begin with on this planet anyways
.....And it is very arrogant and detremental for humans to try to change or circumvent these laws. When you go against natural law you get chaos.....
Well then...I guess that I'm guilty as charged. Although my husband of 17 years and myself could probably "procreate" or "adopt", we chose not to to go that route (and did/are doing our damndest that we never end up on that route) and we're more than happy with our childfree lifestyle. So we too, are going against the laws of nature as well..since there's as much chance of seeing child produced from us as there would be from a gay couple
Anyways, who really gives a flying rat's fanny if a child is produced from a union or not...we already have 6 billion to begin with on this planet anyways
Having spent 4 hours in LA traffic after a concert this weekend, I have to say I have a new appreciation for people who aren't adding to the population.
The logic was circular.
Sin is sin: This is a social assumption.
She bases it on a supposedly natural claim:
Gay couples cannot procreate and it's unnatural.
But that is a social assumption based on what is sin. (The beleif that god told us to procreate)
It is sin because it is unnatural, and it is unnatural because it is sin.
The logic was circular.
Sin is sin: This is a social assumption.
She bases it on a supposedly natural claim:
Gay couples cannot procreate and it's unnatural.
But that is a social assumption based on what is sin. (The beleif that god told us to procreate)
It is sin because it is unnatural, and it is unnatural because it is sin.
Thank you. That was well expressed and more interesting than how amused you were.
Last edited by fwsweet on Thu 03 Aug 2006 13:52; edited 1 time in total
Sin is sin: This is a social assumption. No, its a religious and practical one shared across most cultures and all religions.
She bases it on a supposedly natural claim:
Gay couples cannot procreate and it's unnatural. Yes, they cannot and yes it is unnatural. Okay, then prove that homosexuality is natural. Even among animals it is abberant behavior.
(and yes, I know all about those monkeys...)
p.s. Arguing that a certain human behavior is 'normal' or 'natural' because animals do it too.......Well, if we humans are just animals then why have a legal system? Allow people to steal, kill, murder, etc since such is Nature........
But that is a social assumption based on what is sin. (The beleif that god told us to procreate). Wrong again, not a social assumption. Sin can be defined as anything that goes against God's Law/Nature's Law and applies to all cultures. Another definition, it is written 'for him that knows (they know its wrong that why its closeted) to do right and does it not, for him/her it is sin'.
It is not 'wrong' for heterosexuals to not procreate, but the ability is there, so exclude this line of reasoning. p.s. Humans will procreate wheither or not they believe God told them to...... It is unnatural behavior and all of you KNOW it to be true. .
It is sin because it is unnatural, and it is unnatural because it is sin.
It is sin, period.
Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 {Posts: 235 } Location: Atlanta
Posted: Fri 04 Aug 2006 21:51 Post subject:
Melani23 wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
The logic was circular. Nope!
Sin is sin: This is a social assumption. No, its a religious and practical one shared across most cultures and all religions.
She bases it on a supposedly natural claim:
Gay couples cannot procreate and it's unnatural. Yes, they cannot and yes it is unnatural. Okay, then prove that homosexuality is natural. Even among animals it is abberant behavior.
(and yes, I know all about those monkeys...)
p.s. Arguing that a certain human behavior is 'normal' or 'natural' because animals do it too.......Well, if we humans are just animals then why have a legal system? Allow people to steal, kill, murder, etc since such is Nature........
But that is a social assumption based on what is sin. (The beleif that god told us to procreate). Wrong again, not a social assumption. Sin can be defined as anything that goes against God's Law/Nature's Law and applies to all cultures. Another definition, it is written 'for him that knows (they know its wrong that why its closeted) to do right and does it not, for him/her it is sin'.
It is not 'wrong' for heterosexuals to not procreate, but the ability is there, so exclude this line of reasoning. p.s. Humans will procreate wheither or not they believe God told them to...... It is unnatural behavior and all of you KNOW it to be true. .
It is sin because it is unnatural, and it is unnatural because it is sin.
It is sin, period.
Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
So, your religious text tells you it is wrong. I believe your religious text is hooey and the concept of 'sin' has no meaning for me.
BTW, if the purpose of marriage is procreation and my wife and I will not have children, should our marriage be dissolved?
Your argument makes no sense. Yes we are animals. Yes we have laws, governments, and other such institutions. That's the kind of animal we are.
If you want to believe in the literal truth of an ancient text, be my guest. But do not insist that I accept your view of the universe. I use my own eyes.
If you want to believe in the literal truth of an ancient text, be my guest. But do not insist that I accept your view of the universe. I use my own eyes.
Hear, hear! I don't know who "all of you" is but it ain't me.
Also, generally speaking: Aberrant behaviors are deemed wrong or deviant by a society. If there is evidence that animals have deemed homosexual behavior aberrant then these animals would be shunned/killed/cast out of their animal societies.
Even if every conceivable animal and human society cast homosexual behavior as aberrant (which not not the case), there is nothing unnatural about homosexual behavior, as it occurs in nature.
No, its a religious and practical one shared across most cultures and all religions
Religion is social.
Quote:
Yes, they cannot and yes it is unnatural. Okay, then prove that homosexuality is natural. Even among animals it is abberant behavior.
(and yes, I know all about those monkeys...)
Then why do so many species practice it, or bisexuality at different points in their life? And bonobos are not monkeys, they are apes
Quote:
p.s. Arguing that a certain human behavior is 'normal' or 'natural' because animals do it too.......Well, if we humans are just animals then why have a legal system? Allow people to steal, kill, murder, etc since such is Nature........
Cause those behaviors cause detriment to the pack. and social animals also have unspoken rules.
Quote:
Wrong again, not a social assumption. Sin can be defined as anything that goes against God's Law/Nature's Law and applies to all cultures. Another definition, it is written 'for him that knows (they know its wrong that why its closeted) to do right and does it not, for him/her it is sin'.
It is not 'wrong' for heterosexuals to not procreate, but the ability is there, so exclude this line of reasoning. p.s. Humans will procreate wheither or not they believe God told them to...... It is unnatural behavior and all of you KNOW it to be true.
.[/b]
And then the claim it is not social but defined by religion which is social, hence circular reasoning.
Quote:
It is sin, period
Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
We will all agree to disagree. You guys keep singing the same ole tired song and dance routine..... Would you welcome a child or yourself being gay. I doubt it.
However, regardless of the arguement and humanistic reasonings, you all know, deep in your heart, that it is wrong.
Homosexuality, Abortion, The Death Penalty, The legalization of drugs/prostitution, etc... are all controversial (and anxiety producing) topics that people will never fully come to agreement on. Never.
Therefore I don't believe there can be any true "winners" or "losers" in debates concerning these issues. Just differences - STRONG differences - of opinion. Everyone is convinced that their point of view is the correct one. No amount of "proof", whether it be scientific, anthropological, or religious is EVER going to sway someone who is dead set against accepting as normal/"right" certain practices/behaviors/mindsets.
Regardless, we've all got to (or should strive to) get along in spite of our clear differences.
I would hope any family faced with a gay/lesbian family member - yes even ones child - would love and accept them (and not reject or disown them) regardless if they personally agreed/were happy with with their proclivity/lifestyle or not. Love should come first and foremost in a family and I believe it should be unconditional just as long as people are not engaging in illegal activity or behavior harmful to children.
My two cents...
Last edited by zsana on Mon 07 Aug 2006 15:19; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 07 Aug 2006 14:12 Post subject: sicks
zsana wrote:
..I would hope any family faced with a gay/lesbian family member - yes even ones child - would love and accept them (and not reject or disown them) regardless if they personally agreed/were happy with with their proclivity/lifestyle or not. Love should come first and foremost in a family and I believe it should be unconditional just as long as people are not engaging in illegal activity or behavior harmful to children.
My two cents...
Well,
At least in Latin America, many people don't consider homesexuality to be a sin, but an illness. So people will consider gays to be sick people. A joke of mother nature, so to speak. And the families usually also consider them to be just sick childrens, like alcoholics, drug adicts or mentally retarded people.
Nothing to complain, but nothing to be proud of, either.
At least in Latin America, many people don't consider homesexuality to be a sin, but an illness. So people will consider gays to be sick people. A joke of mother nature, so to speak. And the families usually also consider them to be just sick childrens, like alcoholics, drug adicts or mentally retarded people.
Nothing to complain, but nothing to be proud of, either.
We will all agree to disagree. You guys keep singing the same ole tired song and dance routine..... Would you welcome a child or yourself being gay. I doubt it.
However, regardless of the arguement and humanistic reasonings, you all know, deep in your heart, that it is wrong.
Peace!
I totally agree with zsana, but I need to add that there is no need in a disagreement to project personal beliefs onto others. Speaking only for myself, I would appreciate it greatly if Melani23 would refrain from projecting her personal opinions/beliefs onto people here on the topic we're discussing. I am quite able to state my own opinion and beliefs, as is any person here.
I don't have any secret qualms about or discomfort with homosexuality. I would be as proud of a lesbian daughter as I would be of a hetero daughter. In fact, I do not know or care what my daughter's sexual orientation is - I'd like to focus on developing her character, intellect and self-respect. Who she has sex with is only my business until she is 18, and quite frankly if she is gay at least I won't have to worry about teen pregnancy!! I'd be especially proud if my daughter became a political advocate for herself or others who have experienced injustice.
If I was gay of course I would incorporate my sexual orientation into who I am as a person. Disagreement makes sense, but it's really not reasonable to doubt what you know nothing about.
We will all agree to disagree. You guys keep singing the same ole tired song and dance routine..... Would you welcome a child or yourself being gay. I doubt it.
You mean like your same ole shaker dance? I would have no major problem with a gay child. I just know i would have to protect it more like an albino child or any other child that is not like the majority.
Quote:
However, regardless of the arguement and humanistic reasonings, you all know, deep in your heart, that it is wrong.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
as it might seem, it is true that ancient Machis of the Mapuche people were homosexuals. Today though, perhaps by external influences, most Machis are female.
'Minorites' are selling 'Civil Rights' down the drain for PC BS and political leverage! 
And it is very arrogant and detremental for humans to try to change or circumvent these laws. When you go against natural law you get chaos.....
