Damn this Time difference!
Pity I missed the discussion between Benevolent Heretic and CogitoErgoSum1. Civilized, both good points, and many points I don't agree with. I'll
try my best not to start the whole thing again, but I need to make a few points on some things said.
Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
Geez people if we were living 17,000 years ago when humans lived in small clans this wouldn’t even be an issue, you would have been exiled, as you
would have been a danger to the survival of the clan.
Ok, this argument has been taken out of the game by a few other posters, but I just want to add my two cents.
(American) Indian Tribes had lots of homosexual people in the tribes. And it was quite normal. No one was exiled and in some cases the "homosexuals"
In 1528-36- Spanish explorer Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca writes about finding effeminate Indians in what is now Florida.
1804-10- Nicholas Biddle of the Lewis & Clark expedition notes that among the Minitaree Indians the effeminate boys are raised as females. Upon
reaching puberty, the boys are then married to older men. The French call them Birdashes.
The role of the homosexual in so-called primitive societies reinforces some of these concepts. In traditional Navajo culture (untarnished by Christian
attitudes) there is the 'Nadle', a word meaning 'one who is transformed'. These were androgynous males of that society that is they had male and
female qualities. Navajo families who had a child who behaved androgynously (have some female attributes) were considered to be very fortunate and
felt that their success and fortune was assured. Most if not all of these androgynous children were homosexual. As adults, they became 'Nadle', were
regarded as being sacred and holy and were given great respect. In other primitive societies, androgynous men were referred to as Berdache by early
explorers. They were often regarded as shamans or sacred people. The Winktes (meaning half woman half man in the Dakota language), of an Indian tribe
in South Dakota were healers, spending their time helping others, visiting and comforting the ill and the elderly. The Cheyenne berdache were regarded
as noted and valued matchmakers. In Hawaii and Tahiti, androgynous males were and still are called Mahu, and in Samoa, they are called fa' afafine.
In these cultures, such individuals take care of the elderly and the sick. The Nadle of the Navajo tribe were also regarded as being great with
children, being very adept at parenting and nurturing. The berdache of most primitive societies often became parents through adoption of orphans, or
aided other parents in the care of their children. Berdache were highly productive at both women's and men's work and became renowned at being
cooks, producing handicrafts as well as having a good business or management sense. The berdache (read homosexual males) were also well known for
being hard workers, productive, intelligent and sensitive. Likewise, the mythical Amazons (read female homosexuals) of Greek legend were admired for
their skills in hunting and fighting as well as being leaders. Most of these societies recognized that the berdache and the Amazons (a term applied to
very masculine females that were seen in these societies) were homosexual. However, this was not an issue. Sexuality was seen as a gift from the
spirit world, whereas the social behaviours of the berdache were regarded as an asset. This is in sharp contrast to the Western 'civilized' world
where homosexuality is condemned by the Church and by society in general! The Navajo's joy of having an androgynous child (homosexual) is in sharp
contrast to the pain, anguish and rejection of most Western families when they learn that one of their offspring is homosexual!
It's all in the cultural programming...
Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
You need a man and a woman to produce offspring. Neither two men nor two women can achieve this. This point is important because it holds for the
propagation of the human species.
Why are you so eager to propagate? Show me one human being that walks around thinking to himself (doubtfully herself) "Geez, I must create offspring!
It's my natural purpose! I need to create offspring to ensure the survival of the human race!"
Humans are beyond that. Sure everyone would like a child to keep the family going. But that's a personal (selfish) desire; it has nothing to do with
the better of the race. Humans seek happiness, the meaning of life, fun, love, companionship, fulfillment, and so much more. Their own mortality is a
problem to them. Not the survival of the human race.
Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
Animals lack reason; their means of expressing feelings, pleasure, pain, and desire are limited. Its purely sensorial and they do not have the same
perception of humans...You guys bringing up the animal vs. human argument really need to do your research.
Really? It's a known fact that dolphins have sex for fun. Pigs have an orgasm that lasts for 30 minutes. (Now what would the point of that "gift"
be if sex was only for propagation?)
Animals show and have feelings. Just take a look at your dog, and how he expresses his feelings. He may not understand his feelings, but he does feel
But that's beyond the point.
IMHO humans can no longer be compared to nature. There's nothing natural about humans.
Animals kill each other. That's natural. If one human kill another human, then it's frowned upon... (Unless it's war, then killing another human
being is a good thing - but that's a whole other debate.)
Many animals have more than one spouse. In most countries this is illegal, if you're human.
Many animals have one-night stands during mating season. (And female spiders eat their spouses after mating - what's natural about that!?)
Impregnating a woman, and disappearing after that is frowned upon in our cultures.
We can go on like this. Point is humans are no longer animals. Different rules apply. I do agree with you that people should stop riding the animals
vs. humans argument. (Did I just contradict myself?
Originally posted by Crossbone
I think whats being said, to which I'd agree, is that people choose to be gay, like they would choose to purchase a pair of Nikes over
No, it's not what's being said. Homosexuality is not a choice! Yes, some people "choose" to be gay for attention, to shock or to experiment. These
are the people who will most likely "turn straight" when they find out it's not working out for them.
I'll quote myself as to why homosexuality is not a choice, to save you the time of actually reading the whole thread.
Originally posted by Gemwolf
BUT I do know it's not a choice. Why in his right mind would someone "choose" to be frowned upon by society? Why would anyone choose NOT to live a
normal life, marry a beautiful girl, and have a family of his own? (And vice versa for lesbians.) When a person realizes he (or she) is gay, the
difficult part is accepting it. That's the only choice you can make. Accepting who you are and make the best of what was handed to you, or NOT
accepting it, and going against "your nature". I can just imagine how frustrated, sad and miserable a homosexual person must be, trying to force a
heterosexual life upon himself. That's the choice. Making yourself happy and accepting yourself. Or making society happy by being acceptable for
Let's quickly take a walk down memory lane...
1629- The first record of gender ambiguity by Thomas/Thomasine Hall in Virginia.
- On the Talbot, Reverend Francis Higginson records "5 beastly Sodomiticall boys" who confess to their alleged misdoings. Massachusetts supposedly
hanged them, as any male over the age of 14 years could be hanged if caught or even suspected of committing sodomy.
1641- Massachusetts makes sodomy a capital crime, but excuses lesbianism as a crime. They cite Lev. 20:13, which condemns "man lying with mankind as
he lies with a woman."
1647- Rhode Island makes sodomy amongst men a capital offense, but excuses lesbianism.
1660- New Netherland: Jan Quisthout vander Linde is drowned on suspicion of sodomy. Hendrick Harmensen, the boy supposedly sodomized, is whipped.
1896- For the first time on an American stage, two women kiss in a scene in A Florida Enchantment. At the intermission, ushers were sent up and down
the aisles to offer ice water to people who felt faint.
Hanging young boys? Making a law against homosexuality but excludes women from the law? Does anyone agree with all these events from history? (And I
just picked a random few. There's hundreds more...) No, society is a bit more educated than back them. (And anyone who likes the idea of hanging 14
y.o. gay boys is nothing more than primitive!)
See, with enough time, everyone will eventually get over the whole gay issue. If they would just allow the program the church and their parents
programmed them with, to be erased.
In my opinion most gays (or a great percentage) are born homosexual. Either the homosexuality is there from the start or it lies dormant until your
sexuality kicks in, round about the ages 10 to 13. I'm not saying homosexuality is a gene or not. I know it's not a conscious choice.
Everyone who is a parent should visit Govteen.com's
GBLT forum (Warning: The site
contains no graphic pictures but do contain sexual reference!). Look at how many of your teenage kids are homosexual or have homosexual tendencies...
And you'll be shocked to read what your kids get up to! Sir Homophobe. Madam Homophobe. I will not be surprised if one of your kids is gay. You are
just not allowing them to be themselves.
My problem with this discussion is that people are speaking up for or against homosexuals when they have no actual facts.
They only argue
based on what they've read, what other people have said or what they "make up in their minds". How can you say "homosexuality" is a choice, when
you have no idea what goes on in the mind of a homosexual person? It's an opinion based on your own perception. Only a homosexual person will ever
know if he/she ever made that conscious choice!
Homosexuality is an extremely complex subject. It's not just about sticking your whatsisname up another guy’s whatsitcalled. I can write pages and
pages on the complexity. Take a look at the amount of books written on the subject of heterosexual relationships. Or even the quantity of books
written on heterosexual intercourse.
Most people are basing their posts on the stereotypical ideas of gays and homosexuality. That's nothing more than ignorance. What happened to denying