Stealing an idea from ES347 in the Gay Marriage thread:

If geneticists in the future found a way to eliminate homosexuality or racism in unborn children, should they do it? Or what if they could give everyone genius genes?

I'd say that they shouldn't mess with mother nature. But then again if they were getting rid of something like mental retardation I'd be totally in favor of it, which I realize is inconsistent on my part.

If the parents want the kid to be straight, or non-racist, or genius, etc., then I say that's they're business (assuming they can afford the procedure :)).

Which brings up another point: why do we keep telling ourselves to embrace those that are different from ourselves, to be diverse, yet we find ourselves vouching for genetic science that could get rid of deviant behaviors and appearances, making all of us more like a certain prototype?

Why can't we admit to ourselves that being deviant is simply another form of diversity? Or why can't we just admit that we absolutely abhor diversity and want to be more like a universally loved prototype?

Originally posted by Karankawa
Why can't we admit to ourselves that being deviant is simply another form of diversity? Or why can't we just admit that we absolutely abhor diversity and want to be more like a universally loved prototype?
Right, which is why I would not choose anything, I'd just leave it up to chance as it should be. But again, that's just me, not the rest of the parents.

This is a much-needed topic. There are many things we do that are akin to "playing God". At this point, our technology is so rampant that there is virtually no legal way for a westerner to escape the activity. Sedentarily, we alter the atmosphere. Righteously, we strengthen viruses with antibiotics in our attempts to contain them. And eugenically, we will begin choosing our favorites while that very act reduces the quality of favoriteness.

I can sort of imagine how the eugenic struggle will play out. We will be slow to forecast the problems with second-guessing billions of years of natural direction. By the time we suffer a problem and identify the cause, there will be reasons for real fear, and people will feel no longer able to afford doveish responses. They will make war instead, and thereby strengthen the resolve of eugenicist parties angainst compromise. There will be new twists on racism, and new forms of compassion.

Did anyone see the movie, AI? Very interesting, even if seemingly the bong-child of another aging genius (Spielberg) ala the similar symptoms of the recent Star Wars movies by Lucas.

As for myself, when we were expecting a child, we didn't even find out ahead of time whether it was to be a boy or girl.


I just had a microepiphany. War is the turbulence (chaos) that lengthens the straight line (increases fractal dimension) from political problem to political solution.

Because chaos is beauitiful and necesary (in balance), should we be thankful for war, or is it time for other forms of struggle to supplant war on all social journeys?

Eugenics is a very dangerous idea if left up to governments to play with. Who decides what is undesirable? Gross birth defects everyone can agree should be done away with if possible, but is being gay undesirable? It's not a disease but a preference. The science is coming some day, but the potential problems it will create in society may outweigh its benefits.

Homosexuality is not singularly a choice. No way. How could one, for example, possibly explain the commonality of attitudes and behaviors found in young male homosexuals who have had absolutely no contact with one another without attributing a genetic factor?

Originally posted by es347fan
Homosexuality is not singularly a choice. No way. How could one, for example, possibly explain the commonality of attitudes and behaviors found in young male homosexuals who have had absolutely no contact with one another without attributing a genetic factor?

I do believe there is a genetic factor to homosexuality, when I said it was a preference I didn't mean it was a choice but rather that the only difference "genetically" is the homosexuals preference for the same sex. How strong of a genetic factor is still a matter of conjecture.

What commonality of attitudes and behaviors are you alluding to?

Diversified genetics is natures' way of keeping things interesting.

Natural selection.................let mother nature sort it out.......

I think it would be a good thing to remove the gene that makes some people obsessed about having perfect kids.

Yep gene stuff is something that we are all going to have to deal with. It is a good topic. The next thing they are going to do is genetically engineer a breed of pigs that can be used to supply organs for human organ transplants. Pigs are already very close to us. They say people even taste like pork. I am not sure how I feel about this. You could get an organ and chops at the same time. Last time mankind dinked with genes they created part animal and part people that were used for entertainment. I have the genetics of a "Pan". Give me some hollow reeds to make a set of pipes out of and I will melt your socks. I think when science really starts to study mans genetics they are going find some interesting things that have already happened. acaveyogi

" ... What commonality of attitudes and behaviors are you alluding to? ... "

A good number of male homosexuals speak of knowing they were "different" at a very young age. They prefered playing with girls their own age as opposed to boys. Typically they wouild not participate in sports. They display an affinity for arts and fashion.
I am talking about stereotypical behaviors / attitudes attributed to these individuals. They come from all over the world, yet are almost instantly recognizable. These traits are not learned, they are inherent.

Originally posted by acaveyogi
The next thing they are going to do is genetically engineer a breed of pigs that can be used to supply organs for human organ transplants.

I would think that might cause quite a problem for Jews and Muslims.

I would think that might cause quite a problem for Jews and Muslims


:D L M A O!

:) Lionel I never thought about that! LMAO :) acaveyogi

Esfan Hi! It seems that you would like to talk about this subject and I will talk about anything. :) whether I know anything about the subject or not. Humm. I agree with you up to a point. There is some genitics to homos*xual stuff. But also there is programming. Homos*xual males have a tendency to run in families that have strong mothers and weak fathers. Homos*xual females just the opposite. How do I get attention from Daddy or how do I get attention from Mommy. And most homos*xuals want to escape from responsibilty and be a child for the rest of their lifes. Homos*xual s*x is the only safe s*x, no babies. And a man woman relationship is frought with unknows, if you know you then you know those that are your s*x. And I say most not all (some male homos*xuals have an early s*xual experience with another male that ruins them for normal s*x with women. Relative to males (and females) *nal s*x can create an ecstacy that nomal s*x can't. If done right. This and family stuff (the need to be wanted) has nothing to do with genetics. And this is just the first half, there is another half and that is if a woman can feel emotional things that are fun then why can't I and If a man can feel power because he is a man then why can't I. The issue is abit complicated in reality. And everybody is a person and everbody needs to be needed, it is just how you personally figure out how to do it. And sometime genetics.

MANAGEMENT please dump this post if I have broke some rules and I will approach it somehow different. I am newbe and I do not want to break your rules. I don't know how much this is an adult board talking about adult stuff. acaveyogi

First, you can spell out any words you choose, so lose the " * " !

Secondly, the idea of homosexuals coming from "weak" father / "strong" mother families is, at best, only a tiny portion of that equation. A great number of adolescents have some same sex experience, it's simply part of normal childhood experimentation and seeking to identify who they are.
I maintain that predominately, sexual preference is something one is born with.
Genetic researchers are making remarkable steps in identifying the "why's" of various diseases, and birth conditions. We don't have any trouble acknowledging that a child born with a developmental disorder has a genetic problem, so why all the controversy over homosexuality?

A good number of male homosexuals speak of knowing they were "different" at a very young age. They prefered playing with girls their own age as opposed to boys. Typically they wouild not participate in sports. They display an affinity for arts and fashion.


I knew boys that liked to play with girls and dolls and disliked sports, and they are heterosexual.

Your stereotypes sicken me. There is nothing homosexual about playing with dolls or girls, or disliking sports. Thought these are unusual behaviors, I sincerely doubt that there is any link to these preferences and homosexuality.

Go puke in a bucket then.

The behaviors mentioned have been reported by the individuals themselves. What I'm trying to get across - and perhaps not doing it clearly enough - is that at young ages many present with very similar attitudes & behaviors when they've had absolutely no contact with one another. This in part leads me to believe that homosexuality is not completely a choice but a condition existing at birth.

And most homos*xuals want to escape from responsibilty and be a child for the rest of their lifes.

this statement could also apply to many straight people I know

How do you come to the conclusion that this statement applies to
most homosexuals?


QUOTE]There is some genitics to homos*xual stuff. But also there is programming. Homos*xual males have a tendency to run in families that have strong mothers and weak fathers. Homos*xual females just the opposite. [/QUOTE]

As for the strong mother/weak father thing?
Do you actually believe that to be an accurate formula to neatly wrap things up?
Gay peoples family influences and life circumstances vary as much as anyones...........how would you account for all their straight siblings?
Having more than one gay child is extremely improbable.

One more comment~~~


They prefered playing with girls their own age as opposed to boys. Typically they wouild not participate in sports. They display an affinity for arts and fashion.

There are many shades of gay

This stereotype only applies to a single type of homosexual male.
There are many walking the street, working with you, healing you, arresting you, delivering and teaching your kids, and maybe even having lunch with you, whose sexual preference you are unaware of, and if they told you, you would be shocked because you have been molded to veiw the above stereotypes as truth~~~~

Just an observation~~~~Creetwins~~~~

Originally posted by acaveyogi
MANAGEMENT please dump this post if I have broke some rules and I will approach it somehow different. I am newbe and I do not want to break your rules. I don't know how much this is an adult board talking about adult stuff. acaveyogi
I have half a mind to yell at you for all the stupid asterisks. "Homosexual", "sex", and "anal" are not curse words.

As for the topic at hand, it's somewhat a combination of genetics and upbringing, in my mind, heavily tilted towards genetics. Identical twins have had opposite sexual orientations before, so it can't be all genetics. Yet sexual orientation cannot be completely upbringing because of some research (I can't find it at the moment) giving some evidence that at least part of it is genetic. I wonder what the folks at the Human Genome Project have to say about this...

I can tell you already that there are arguments supporting both sides. There is no proof that homosexuality is strictly genetic or strictly learned. It's just another fun debate to have.

This thread can be proven as much as the God threads, Genetic???

Lets say we get rid of the gay Gene, but we still have gays and Harry teaches Bob what being gay is. Then Bob finds being gay more interesting then being straight, but Bob allready had children. Would this mean Bob's kids would have the gay gene? Then lets not forget bi's they just have sex for fun. So are they going to pass a gay gene?

What if Bob was really gay all along, and only married and had children because of peoples stifling views on the acceptability af homos*xuality (couldn't help myself hehe).

And, ( I'm only exploring ideas here I don't claim to know the answers), what if there is no gay gene, but homosexuality is caused by something happeneing to an existing gene we all already posess, and it can't be "passed" because it's occurance is incidental?

If we had as many studies on homos~xuality as we do on twins there may not be so many questions.......

Sorry for poking fun at you yogi, I can't help myself~~~:cool:
@#$%^&*

To Borghunter:

You're hitting the nail on the head there with the mention of "combination". What that represents is continuous thinking, a rare and much-needed rebalancing in a western century of discrete thinking.

An important point that will seem obvious in retrospect about the genetics: If there is a genetic cause involved in becoming gay, it absolutely cannot be a direct cause. Because being gay doesn't involve procreation in a nuclear family. So if a gene is simple or direct, there is no possibility for it to be transferred down to subsequent generations.

That leaves less direct genes, or genes that leave a predisposition rather than a foregone conclusion. We have to, as difficult and inconclusive as it is at first, look at genetics as an entire system of populations, not merely of individuals.

There may be general collective benefits to having gay genes in the pool. Look at many species that suffer from hierarchies, patriarchies. A pride has a single fertile male. But if he fails or dies, the pride need not fail if there are other males idling for maturity or opportunity. What do they do meanwhile with that excess sexual energy? Sometimes, form units with other males, an alignment not prohibited by the pride owner. In other words, the most het male needs the gays to be gay to ensure his position as most het.

An important point that will seem obvious in retrospect about the genetics: If there is a genetic cause involved in becoming gay, it absolutely cannot be a direct cause. Because being gay doesn't involve procreation in a nuclear family. So if a gene is simple or direct, there is no possibility for it to be transferred down to subsequent generations

I think that is an excellent point..........

Bringing up animals is also an interesting avenue to explore, because homosexual behavior is not ony limited to humans.

I just find it difficult to belileve that people can turn gay. Like I also find it difficult to imagine that a homo can turn straight. I saw a documantary about a mormon who was gay and their teachings suggest that it can be reversed, using torturous methods, like showing gay porn and using shock therapy etc. This guy endured this practice for months and was covered in burn scars, and the result~~~~still gay, and no longer a mormon, lucky for him...........

Originally posted by creetwins
What if Bob was really gay all along, and only married and had children because of peoples stifling views on the acceptability af homos*xuality (couldn't help myself hehe).

What if Bob was not gay, but a woman trapped inside a mans body :D

And, ( I'm only exploring ideas here I don't claim to know the answers), what if there is no gay gene, but homosexuality is caused by something happeneing to an existing gene we all already posess, and it can't be "passed" because it's occurance is incidental?

I would believe that more then other stuff I've heard.

If we had as many studies on homos~xuality as we do on twins there may not be so many questions.......

The only problem with this is finding true gays and not abused people. I'm not saying that all gays are abusers or were abused themselfs, but some were/are.
Sorry for poking fun at you yogi, I can't help myself~~~:cool:
@#$%^&*

I don't mind

Originally posted by creetwins

Bringing up animals is also an interesting avenue to explore, because homosexual behavior is not ony limited to humans.

There is no scientific proof that animals are gay. They do the act as a form of communication ex; I'm in charge, you are on this level and I am up here etc...

There is a fish that the group is all one sex{female I think} they have 1 male kicking around that takes care of business{lucky dog :D } When he dies one of the females goes through a change and becomes the male and life goes on. Just thought this was interesting.

I just find it difficult to belileve that people can turn gay. Like I also find it difficult to imagine that a homo can turn straight.

Maybe they don't turn anything but learn that they want something different?

I saw a documantary about a mormon who was gay and their teachings suggest that it can be reversed, using torturous methods, like showing gay porn and using shock therapy etc. This guy endured this practice for months and was covered in burn scars, and the result~~~~still gay, and no longer a mormon, lucky for him...........

Sometimes being forced into something can actually make a person rebel that much more.

That's the funny thing though....he was such a devout mormon, and was so distraught over his orientation, he sought out these treatments from his "elders" and the choice was entirely his to try it out!!!

The show I saw on animal homos documented a species of primate, where some of the females took same sex partners for life, and their relationship, it appeared was more than just sexual gratification........who knows........

The Mormon sounds like he might have a screw lose, maybe he was into the torture thing :eek:

What ever an adult person does with their body is their bus. 10 to 1 may see it as being sick, nasty, etc... but as long as the person{adult} isn't hurting others then...............too each his/her own.

What ever an adult person does with their body is their bus. 10 to 1 may see it as being sick, nasty, etc... but as long as the person{adult} isn't hurting others then...............too each his/her own.

I have to agrre entirely with that.......

That's part of the reason I don't get why everyone here (where I am) gets so riled up and aggressive over the fact that it is perfectly legal to come here and get married! They wanna get married and suffer like the rest of us (heheh) fine let em. Ultimately, no-one is getting hurt, and it goes to show they can have loving monogomaous relationships too.........

People should get another cause other than worrying what gays may or may not be up too..... :D

BorgHunter if you yell at me then I will feel like I am family :)

Creetwins, poking fun at me is very good for my social up bringing :) "If you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen" You know what I like about this message board? You guys are all a bunch of "rowdies". I feel right at home! :) Most message boards are full of "thin skined anal retentive intelectual snobs" that you have to pussyfoot around. Not you guys, you are rough and tumble! I love it!

Now how do I know so much about homosexual stuff? It is because I am a lesbian in a mans body and I don't like men. They are stupid and I don't know how women put up with them. :) acaveyogi

You folks are making some good points. I wanted to add about discrete / continuous:

Another area where science is finding there is more of a continuum than a duality is in people's sexual orientations. People could be, say, 85% straight and 15% gay. Or someone else, 75% gay and 25% straight.

But...

What happens when you mix in social and familial pressures is that people often round to the nearest product of powerful calling and possible tolerating. It's the "electoral college" of personal self-fulfillment. And it creates a discrete result out of a continuous origin. Just like we get whatever president whether the percentage was 51 / 49 or if it was 90 / 10. The degree of preference doesn't matter to the eventual statistic, unless one makes an effort later to look back and allow it to matter.

So, if someone in this society is mostly het, they may find no problem avoiding any urges to fall in love with a member of the same gender. And even if someone is only, say, 25% het, given the pressures and threats of ostracization and even violence, they still may painfully suppress their real feelings and outwardly "be" heterosexual.

As for myself, I could be a lesbian woman in a man's body. I've always felt attracted to women if anyone, but I can't say that in a different society I wouldn't look differently on men. Further bending the gender rules, I am the at-home primary caregiver to my now 3 month old son. I've seen some families struggle harder just to keep the male in a job, even though day-care costs and travel make them lose money because of it! My wife is the driven career spouse in this relationship. But getting back to traditional gender roles, she is also more right-brain, and I am more left-brain. But she is more "hawkish" than me in some ways.

Starling I think you have the problem understood! I think your children are going to grow up pretty dang ballanced. "Hugs and Love!", acaveyogi

"Remember, you are responible for my social upbringing. It takes a message board to socialize a cave yogi." -- acaveyogi

Creetwins, poking fun at me is very good for my social up bringing

I'm not sure if I am ready for this kind of responsibility;)
Sounds like it might be a daunting task :D

Further bending the gender rules, I am the at-home primary caregiver to my now 3 month old son

Kudos..........I'ts a hard job, and guys like you deserve a standing ovation!!! 3 months old and mom's back at work??? She must be a die-hard!!!

Hey, folks, thanks for the hugs and kudos! 8)

I promise to do my best. My little son is a treasure of the world's, not a piece of my property, so I will be the best steward of his heart and mind that I can be.

About gays / lesbians... sometimes I talk to them about childrearing and hear a sort of resigned admiration, or some sort of internalized reverence for the fact of my wife's and my shared biology with our child. But I feel like we are simply really lucky to have that connection. I still feel humble rather than entitled despite being a biologic father. Love makes a family. And those gay couples who adopt have just as true a love without part or all of the biology. (Lesbian couples have a greater chance of one spouse sharing genes with the kid.) It's one of the things I can do for the Love in the world, to break down the eroding entitlement and build up the merit.

On the wife going back to work: Actually, she started back to work at about 3 weeks, with a sort of half-week, and then back full time the fourth week. But what we do is, I bring him for lunch every day. Sometimes I can work in errands, or be just out letting him look around, so that extra driving doesn't go to waste. It makes me wish we had gotten a Honda Insight.

The little guy is just on the brink of discovering, like, arm and leg control. He was seen watching his arms sort of stretch by his face today. And he's been focusing and tracking cats, people's faces, bright lights etcetera for a while now. Some days he has a fractious spell, and tires me out. But for every hour of fractiousity, he recharges me about 17-fold with a single laugh. So he's well ahead by now. He's giving me more joyous energy than I lose. We already have all these games of noise and goofiness. I am one lucky pupper.

Because I heard on NPR today about a family who had a baby with some degree of disability. They really early on had no question that they were keeping her. But they had to wait 6 months for the first smile / laugh. Yup, reality is, I've got it easy.

It is amazing how one laugh can make you forget
the sleepless nights, fussing, and pooping!!!

I too feel lucky to be entrusted with the care and upbringing
of my girls........

Because I heard on NPR today about a family who had a baby with some degree of disability. They really early on had no question that they were keeping her. But they had to wait 6 months for the first smile / laugh.

I can relate to this family on a personal level.....
I have a child with special needs
And no way in hell have I ever considered sending her back......
Her struggles have made me realize how much we take for granted, and that a really little thing to some,
is huge milestone for another...........

Enjoy the journey Dad, you really are blessed:)

Originally posted by creetwins
I have to agrre entirely with that.......

That's part of the reason I don't get why everyone here (where I am) gets so riled up and aggressive over the fact that it is perfectly legal to come here and get married! They wanna get married and suffer like the rest of us (heheh) fine let em. Ultimately, no-one is getting hurt, and it goes to show they can have loving monogomaous relationships too.........

People should get another cause other than worrying what gays may or may not be up too..... :D

I don't care if they have some sort of legal agreement I just don't thing they should use the word marriage. When I think of marriage I think of man+ woman. Many couples take great pride in there "marriage" and would like to think it means something, not just a hook up between whomever or whatever. It would be like me owning a motorcycle and saying "I'm a Hells Angel" when I've never ridden with them {if that makes sense}.

Creetwins I spend so much time in meditation that if it wasn't for message boards I wouldn't ever get to interact with people at all. And it has been a learning process. I have been run out of a lot of message boards and for the most part the rest just wished that I would go away. Slowly but surely I am growing up. :) If you guys would like to see my picture (it is not a very good one) it is in my yahoo profile under acaveyogi. And my step daughter is going to check out Allforums so that she can see what kind of trouble I am in now :) Her name is Leah and she is a sweetheart . acaveyogi

Originally posted by acaveyogi
Creetwins I spend so much time in meditation that if it wasn't for message boards I wouldn't ever get to interact with people at all.

Do you have a job?

Originally posted by mad dog
I don't care if they have some sort of legal agreement I just don't thing they should use the word marriage. When I think of marriage I think of man+ woman. Many couples take great pride in there "marriage" and would like to think it means something, not just a hook up between whomever or whatever. It would be like me owning a motorcycle and saying "I'm a Hells Angel" when I've never ridden with them {if that makes sense}.

I see your point, but there are some deeper aspects. I would agree that the element of society that defines marriage as between man and woman deserves sensitivity about what the change would mean. But it's not like there isn't good reason. Activists mean to change the definition from a gender based one (man and woman) to a merit or principle based one (2 people who share love and care).

I mean, think of the comparison of the 2 definitions - which one is statistical, restrictive, and not really about the people involved, but about their outward characteristics. Versus the latter definition, which is about their actual relationship, 2 personalities reaching a spiritual and constructive goal. The latter does not at all shut out het relationships, it actually embraces most of them all the more! But it would make bad marriages containing domestic violence or such to be less deserving of the title of marriage, where before it could skate by with shallow legitimacy. That's part of why there is broader support for this than just the gay community.

There is also the fear of the unknown. Calling 2 people married if they are known to be same gender implies some additional pressure to extend them respect and permission to be out of the closet, and some would say, into our faces. Which also means the previously comfortable hets deserve sensitivity. It's another of those Oprah situations where we can never understand fully another's POV because we haven't lived their life, but it is still a high duty to try and approach understanding or empathy.

One thing is surer though. It's definitely not about just anything goes. We're not talking about the marrying of siblings, or of people to their pets or a tree or something. After getting to know a couple, a gay relationship looks really quite similar to a het one. Sure there can be a tendency toward the 2 involved relating differently than hets because of being from the same gender. But this is statistical tendency, and delving too far into that begins again to deny the individual valuable experience. I'm sure many of us have seen het relationships where it looked almost as if they were two men or two women, or even as though the gender roles were reversed. And many gay relationships can look as if one of them is sort of in a role of the alternate gender instead of the same as their partner.

My experience just tells me that yes it will be some painful fence dismantling, but it will be worth it, and calling gay unions marriages will be quite legitimate indeed.

Work!!!!!! :) Sort of Lionel, I caretake a small family farm. It is sort of like everybody left home but me. I raise pasture and we have a customer with a few cows. My yard is a wildlife refuge and we live in a small house that was built in 1906 and we have a plastic tarp over part of the roof, so that my wife's side of the bed doesn't get wet when it rains. I have lived here for most of thirty years. I am botanist with a black thumb. I love stuff that takes care of itself :) Family mine, thinks I am lazy. They consider my wife a gift from God and she is! Meditation is most of my life and has been forever. The snow is melting and there is bare ground outside and I am starting to panic. Some idiot turned loose european rabbits in the yard and then created a haven for them and when my wife started to feed the quail and birds the rabbits really prospered and now are quite a nusance. Tucker our puppy three years now,a mastiff/lab cross (they call it a working mastiff) has been a help with the rabbits but the truth is they do enjoy teasing him, is constantly trying to to get me to go outside and do things with him, argg! The rabbits had a prosperous summer so everything that is in the yard that is not screened and some of the stuff that was, is eaten again. My wife is very upset about her roses, Tucker knocked down their fences chasing rabbits who climbed snow banks to eat her roses. Argg again! It is hard to be a yogi! It just is! So anyway welcome to my life and I haven't even mentioned my 34 year oldstep son that lives with us. :) acaveyogi

I have a question.....is this really true????

My yard is a wildlife refuge and we live in a small house that was built in 1906 and we have a plastic tarp over part of the roof, so that my wife's side of the bed doesn't get wet when it rains.

How come you don't go up there and fix it?

Or at least switch sides with her~~~~:rolleyes:

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Stealing an idea from ES347 in the Gay Marriage thread:

If geneticists in the future found a way to eliminate homosexuality or racism in unborn children, should they do it? Or what if they could give everyone genius genes?

I'd say that they shouldn't mess with mother nature. But then again if they were getting rid of something like mental retardation I'd be totally in favor of it, which I realize is inconsistent on my part.

I respectfully disagree. We should manipulate our genes to encourage desireable traits as soon as possible. The "not mess with mother nature" is simply a modern version of the public's fear of science, and how they don't trust it. This attitude is reminiscent of that adopted by Gallileo's opponents.

Just think how much our world would improve if people were smarter? Or without cancer and various other diseases?

Of course, the respectable counterargument is for preservation of biodiversity. But I think it's moot; If we can control evolution, there's no need for biodiversity.

If that isn't your counterargument, but you're STILL scared of genetic manipulation, then you're just another individual in the long history of people who are unjustifiably afraid of progress.

Yes Creetwins it is all true. About the roof we have no money. I don't get paid to caretake, I just have a place to camp out because everybody left but me. And my wife doesn't like my side of the bed she likes her side. Or I would have just thrown the plasic tarp over my side of the bed when it rained instead of the roof. :) Now the next question that everybody is going to ask is, "Why don't I get a job?" Ah man! I haven't really worked for fifteen years and before that most of it was part time and you know what is funny? The minimum wage in Washington State is now up to $7.16 per hour and is more money per hour than I have ever made in my life. :) I have always wanted to be a yoga master and now that I am I don't want to go back into life. It are a problem. acaveyogi

Hey guys I just looked at the title of this thread, do you suppose I have a bad gene? Oh no! Not that! :) But that must be it! It is not my fault :) acaveyogi

Originally posted by Leper
I respectfully disagree. We should manipulate our genes to encourage desireable traits as soon as possible. The "not mess with mother nature" is simply a modern version of the public's fear of science, and how they don't trust it. This attitude is reminiscent of that adopted by Gallileo's opponents.

Just think how much our world would improve if people were smarter? Or without cancer and various other diseases?

Of course, the respectable counterargument is for preservation of biodiversity. But I think it's moot; If we can control evolution, there's no need for biodiversity.

If that isn't your counterargument, but you're STILL scared of genetic manipulation, then you're just another individual in the long history of people who are unjustifiably afraid of progress.

I don't think you adequately value biodiversity, or have taken time to imagine life in an undiverse environment.

There are 2 major points about this. 1 is, we should embrace science, yes, and a big piece of what it is telling us now when we look at application, is that complex systems deserve respect.

We hear in the media that scientists have discovered the gene for such-or-such, and it is distilled to a single paragraph maximum. We don't hear about how all the genes interact, how the "junk DNA" is this mystery majority of our genotype, how genes can do more than 1 thing, or how many times it's not so clear where the boundaries between genes are.

In short, we lack the time to form a complete understanding of what is known so far, or how it's known. Now, that's fine. There is a process to these things. But the problem sets in somewhere between pure research on one end and commercially applied knowledge on the other. "Wise men say, 'Only foools rush in...'"


The other major point is on values. It's become quite popular, and understandably so, to use medical scientific knowledge to save lives. But it is a form of playing God. By not letting people with genetic diseases or those just born clumsy to just Darwinianly die out of the field, we accumulate more infirmity in the field. Now, that may well be okay. It's the price of lifesaving. But lifesaving is at one end - there is a broad continuum of reasons to (or not to) play God. Plastic surgery is another application of medical knowledge, and it just benefits the rich who can afford it. Society at large suffers from an increased pressure to be attractive, a reduced appreciation for the everyday pallette of faces around us in stores, at work, with their snowflake-like individual homelinesses. That may still be okay. Freedom: If you got it, use it. But when we start altering the gene pool, we begin to act selfishly against our children and our children's children. It better be for good reasons: it better have a net benefit, or there better be a back door against the risk of too much negative result. And loss of biodiversity, ecological or specifically human, is a negative inserted into the equation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't care if they have some sort of legal agreement I just don't thing they should use the word marriage. When I think of marriage I think of man+ woman. Many couples take great pride in there "marriage" and would like to think it means something, not just a hook up between whomever or whatever.
~~as qouted by maddog
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Kay this raises more questions for me since you are breaking down the terminology.
You feel as though these people using the same term as you would defile it for You?
"When YOU think of marriage You think of man+woman"?
Are there other words that group you and gays in the same category that bother you as well? Say for instance one of them were to consider themself a homosapien, a human? Now has that word lost it's meaning? What about the words brother or son or even uncle?
Do you even consider yourself a homosapien or does it sound too much like homo?

Originally posted by creetwins
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't care if they have some sort of legal agreement I just don't thing they should use the word marriage. When I think of marriage I think of man+ woman. Many couples take great pride in there "marriage" and would like to think it means something, not just a hook up between whomever or whatever.
~~as qouted by maddog
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Kay this raises more questions for me since you are breaking down the terminology.
You feel as though these people using the same term as you would defile it for You?
"When YOU think of marriage You think of man+woman"?
Are there other words that group you and gays in the same category that bother you as well? Say for instance one of them were to consider themself a homosapien, a human? Now has that word lost it's meaning? What about the words brother or son or even uncle?
Do you even consider yourself a homosapien or does it sound too much like homo?

Creetwins;

I never expected you to stoop this low, but lets take what you said and try to get out of the mud.

{1}marriage, atleast in this country has ment man + woman

{2}can we call a gay, heterosexual?

{3}I would hope they do consider themselfs homosapien or human.

{4}Yes I am a homosapien, why are you attacking me like this? Read my other threads, if they are gay fine just find another word. Like I said, just because I drive a motorcycle doesn't give me the right to call myself a "hells angel". For all of my life, my father, and his father{mothers included}, marriage has ment man and woman, now all of a sudden things are suppose to change meaning? Why can't gays use a different term and let us have our word? example; When I think of Joe getting married I figure he will be marring Sue, or Barb, not Bob or Bill. I am also Not Christian so before someone desides to attack religion on this think twice. The one way this should be settled is by a vote, have every American vote then atleast the majority would rule. If the vote came back "gays can use marriage", then fine.

The one way this should be settled is by a vote, have every American vote then atleast the majority would rule. If the vote came back "gays can use marriage", then fine.

Kay, I guess you weren't detecting the humor in my tone, that's my fault.

Maybe the gays should decide for themselves since ultimately they are the ones directly affected by this.

Homosexuality doesn't affect the majority, so why should they even be concerned?

{4}Yes I am a homosapien, why are you attacking me like this?

Look it wasn't meant as a personal attack, I was just addressing you theoretically

the reason I used that word as an example was because I wanted to know if it had lesser meaning because of the prefix homo......I was only trying to illustrate the flexibility of words and how they are one thing to one guy and one thing to another guy. Words have the power to do that, and no word is going to be the same thing to everyone. Weak humor on my part, so please no hard feelings.


The only thing you can really depend on in life is change....

There have been a few things said here about homosexuality that I would like to address.

A good number of male homosexuals speak of knowing they were "different" at a very young age. They prefered playing with girls their own age as opposed to boys. Typically they wouild not participate in sports. They display an affinity for arts and fashion.
I am talking about stereotypical behaviors / attitudes attributed to these individuals. They come from all over the world, yet are almost instantly recognizable. These traits are not learned, they are inherent.

I think that what these young men were alluding to was that they recognized that their attraction to other males was "different" without realizing that there was a name for it. As far as the stereotypical image of an effeminate, fashion conscious, artistic gay man is concerned I think it's only natural that people who have creative talents would find themselves in a creative occupation later in life. I don't think gay people are naturally more artistic or creative than heterosexuals, it's just that homosexuality has been accepted in artistic circles for much longer than in other occupations, and it is easier for a gay man to be open about his orientation in those occupations. If we see more gay hairdressers or interior decorators it's because these people hide it less than the gay construction workers do. Creetwins said it best:

There are many walking the street, working with you, healing you, arresting you, delivering and teaching your kids, and maybe even having lunch with you, whose sexual preference you are unaware of, and if they told you, you would be shocked because you have been molded to veiw the above stereotypes as truth

Caveyogi your post with all the asterisks was very difficult to read, but after wading through it I have to say that I think your conclusions are completely incorrect. I can only speak about my own experience, but my being gay has nothing to do with a weak father and a strong mother, or being abused as a child, or having a positive sexual experience with males at an early age that "ruined' me on having sex with females. I'm gay because that's the way I am. I have had sex with women but that's not what my sex drive leads me to pursue. I had to laugh at your statement about anal sex, and I have to say that you know more about the joys of such sex than I do. It might surprise a lot of people to know just how many gay males do not indulge in anal sex. The idea that gay males are cornholing each other at every opportunity is a heterosexual stereotype.

I don't think that it would be a good idea to find the "gay gene" with the idea of eliminating it as an undesirable trait. First of all I don't think it is undesirable, and secondly, if in fact there is a gene that makes a person gay, which I doubt, it may confer some benefit we are unaware of. As an example look at sickle-cell anemia. If a childs parents both have the gene that gives you SCA the child inherits that disease. But if a child inherits only one gene for SCA that child is also immune to malaria. Scientists researching the scourge of bubonic plague that swept through europe in the fourteenth century have discovered that there were some families that seemed to be immune to the plague. Research done on their decendents has led to the isolation of a genetic factor that may have been responsible for their immunity. Further research indicates that this same genetic factor may confer immunity to HIV. Genetic research is still in its infancy and it would be extremely dangerous to eliminate what we perceive to be a "bad" gene only to discover later that this gene was vital to some other function.

I wanted to mention that Oprah made clear a great point about individuality and misunderstood groups. I think the show was is some way about black people, or as broad a segment of America as that anyway. She summed up some of what had been said with, "so, we don't just want to be tolerated, we want to be appreciated...".

Once barriers can be broken down more readily, we can make that cascading sea-change from tolerance to appreciation. And then it will follow that hets will not see gays as tolerable, but needing a "cure", but as valuable, indeed equally precious, pixels in the human image.

nd then it will follow that hets will not see gays as tolerable, but needing a "cure", but as valuable, indeed equally precious, pixels in the human image.

Indeed!:)

One ancient example of a society embracing people of all differences.....In Native culture, people born homosexual are known as berdache or "2 spirits" among other names.
They were perceived as having a great spiritual advantage because they posess both the male and female spirit. This gave them an ability to display compassion and understanding to people, and they were revered in the community. To have your child named by the berdache was a great honor. People turned to them for matters of the heart, sickness, political councel, and bestowed gifts on them for their wisdom. They were well provided for and rarely had to partake in menial daily tasks. Everyone in the community served a useful purpose, and those with differences held high esteem and were considered lucky.

This attitude did not only apply to gay people but to anyone born with rare and unique qualities. For example, to give birth to an albino was a sign of great power and luck. Same goes for little people. They were not shunned and outcast or forced to conform, but rather they were celebrated for their unique qualities and abilities. Something todays backward society could learn from..............;)

I kind of liked the old days when gay just ment happy.

Now to the original topic.
People of different back grounds give a variety of suggestions for the answer to a problem because of a diversified previous environment.
Various people with medical handicaps have endured life in a manner unknown to a (healthy) person. Therefore the man in a wheelchair will have views somewhat different. Life is a diversification for a reason. It takes people that have endured life in different ways to make a complete society.
It is possible that learning experiences would be altered if genes are altered one day to eliminate medical problems.
This could have a detrimental effect on the long term advancement of mankind.

Originally posted by creetwins
]Kay, I guess you weren't detecting the humor in my tone, that's my fault.

sorry I quess I was a little confused :cool:

Maybe the gays should decide for themselves since ultimately they are the ones directly affected by this.

I agree the gays are effect by equal rights, but when they bring the word marriage into it then all American's are effected.

Homosexuality doesn't affect the majority, so why should they even be concerned?

Because marriage effects the majority. A vote is not allways fair to everyone, but it is fair to the majority. An old saying comes to mind, the need for the many outway the need for the few. I understand there fight to see a loved one while in the hospital, etc... So I say fight that, but I do not see why they have to screw with a word that ment/means something for so many. Like my comparison with motorcycles, I can ride my bike and enjoy the highway just the same as a "Hells Angel" but I don't need to steal her/his title to do that.

Originally posted by creetwins
Look it wasn't meant as a personal attack, I was just addressing you theoretically

No problem, It just seems as soon as someone doesn't agree with gays they are instantly label a homo themselfs or are scared.

the reason I used that word as an example was because I wanted to know if it had lesser meaning because of the prefix homo......I was only trying to illustrate the flexibility of words and how they are one thing to one guy and one thing to another guy. Words have the power to do that, and no word is going to be the same thing to everyone. Weak humor on my part, so please no hard feelings.

In this case the word marriage has ment man & woman for along time. If we were at a lake and I asked if you were going swimming, would that mean, run and get me a hotdog? No hard feelings, I understand this is a touchy subject, but in order to understand where I am comming from just seperate gay issue's from the word. I am a simple person and like things that way, I am not trying to take anything away from another, I am just trying to keep what is allready in place.

Originally posted by creetwins
[B]Indeed!:)

One ancient example of a society embracing people of all differences.....In Native culture, people born homosexual are known as berdache or "2 spirits" among other names.
They were perceived as having a great spiritual advantage because they posess both the male and female spirit. This gave them an ability to display compassion and understanding to people, and they were revered in the community. To have your child named by the berdache was a great honor. People turned to them for matters of the heart, sickness, political councel, and bestowed gifts on them for their wisdom. They were well provided for and rarely had to partake in menial daily tasks. Everyone in the community served a useful purpose, and those with differences held high esteem and were considered lucky.

I find this interesting, but are you forgetting something? They ment people with both sexes, hermaphrodite. In those days it was the physical appearance that made a person different. I may be wrong, but from what I have read and understood the people had some sort of physical difference and that is what gave them "the power"

This attitude did not only apply to gay people but to anyone born with rare and unique qualities. For example, to give birth to an albino was a sign of great power and luck. Same goes for little people. They were not shunned and outcast or forced to conform, but rather they were celebrated for their unique qualities and abilities. Something todays backward society could learn from..............;)

I see here you go on to explain about the physical, and I would agree 100%. {ex}As far as John going to Fred and saying "damn I like your arse" I would think Fred would probably of snaped John's neck. :) Of course I am not saying there were no gays in history because there allways have been. I just believe the tribel people looked at more of the physical evidense then they did someones mind????

To MadDog:

I don't know if you saw my post quite a ways up, defending the inclusion of gays in the word marriage.

I right now just wanted to critique your Hell's Angels analogy.

It would be understandable that a true Hell's Angel was offended if someone went around claiming to be a Hell's Angel. The title is very specific and doesn't impact the language of non-Hell's-Angels.

But I think the proper analogy to that for gays would be if they wanted to be able to legally claim that one of a pair of men was the "wife", or one of a pair of lesbians was the "husband". Then, they would be really reaching out away from their own needs and into a language that is logically more deserved of heterosexuals.

Further, an analogy for what gays are currently demanding, is more along the lines of: Say that in part of Canada, there were rough roads and frequent bad or snowy conditions. Say for the purposes of liability, funding and lawmaking, Canada had declared that car drivers, truck drivers, ATV drivers, and even motorcyclists were all "motorists". If snowmobiles began to gain utility due to a needed place for them in transportation and convenience, and due to their increased popularity, there were now parts suppliers and track maintenance, it could be expected that snowmobilers would want to be classified legally as "motorists" just as ATV riders are. At first people would balk at it, naturally. They're ensconsed in the system they had before. Why extend this "motorist" regard to snowmobilers? It's obviously a different type of vehicle, anyway, with the tread, and being designed for snow mainly. But gradually people would come to see their transportative commonalities more, and see the separateness of form less. After all, they would realize, we've been doing business with snowmobilers all along, but they've been suffering from only being considered a recreational vehicle.

Starling;

Sorry I missed your earlier post {must have been asleep at the wheel :) } I understand what you are saying. Allright lets say gays get to use the "marriage" word. Then can heterosexuals have a new word or will the gays get pissed about this? Everyone gets married now how do we know if Joe is married to Bob, or Sue? I don't see why they can't just use union? This is just my opinion, and how I feel. I am married and it means alot to me I have worked hard with my man--woman marriage the same as my wife. Now along comes Bob, and Bill, it makes me feel that something for so long that ment one thing is loosing its meaning.

http://www.nu-woman.com/berdache.htm

I find this interesting, but are you forgetting something? They ment people with both sexes, hermaphrodite. In those days it was the physical appearance that made a person different. I may be wrong, but from what I have read and understood the people had some sort of physical difference and that is what gave them "the power

No I am not forgetting something, Native culture and Studies is my specialty, and this term did not only apply to physically different trangender people it also applied effeminate male ho,mosexuals, and were considered a third gender because they were men in dresses........I can dig up more info if the above link doesn't clarify........:)

Here is one more link explaining about the "4th" gender or female berdache just to be fair to the women..............:cool:

http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood/stonewall/3044/berdache.html

http://hermaphrodite.arriba.net/twospirit.htm

This is another that touches on hermaphrodite-ism (is that a word?) and explains in traditional cultures that there are varying elements of gender, not just only man/woman. THere are 4th and even 5th genders. Hope this helps.:cool:

Some excerptes from this articleAnthropologist, Evelyn Blackwood felt "The berdache gender is not a deviant role.Nor a mixture of the two genders, nor less a jumping from one gender to its opposite.nor is it an alternative role behavior for nontraditional individuals who are still considered men and women. Rather it comprises a separate gender within a multiple gender system (Roscoe, Changing 123)."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are many definitions of being berdache. Some of the many found are listed below.

1) "Berdache has been employed to refer to special gender roles in Native American cultures that anthropologists have interpreted as ceremonial transvestitism, institutionalized homosexuality and gender variance/multiple genders." (Jacobs, Thomas and Lang 4).

2) "…..a berdache can be defined as a morphological male who does not fill a standard society’s man’s role, who has a nonmasculine character (Williams 2)."

3) In 1975, in their book, The Female of the Species, Martin and Voorhies wrote, "sex differences need not necessarily be perceived as bipolar. It seems possible that reproductive bisexuality establishes a minimal number of socially recognized physicalsexes, but these need not be limited to two (Roscoe, Changing 123)."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No problem, It just seems as soon as someone doesn't agree with gays they are instantly label a homo themselfs or are scared

that wasn't what I was implying....here I'll clarify

It seems that those who are opposed to gays lifestyles are afraid if they are in the same category they themselves may be labled homo.........so they fear being labled gay...........so I wasn't lableing you gay i was suggesting that you may fear being labled gay

Originally posted by mad dog
Starling;

Sorry I missed your earlier post {must have been asleep at the wheel :) } I understand what you are saying. Allright lets say gays get to use the "marriage" word. Then can heterosexuals have a new word or will the gays get pissed about this? Everyone gets married now how do we know if Joe is married to Bob, or Sue? I don't see why they can't just use union? This is just my opinion, and how I feel. I am married and it means alot to me I have worked hard with my man--woman marriage the same as my wife. Now along comes Bob, and Bill, it makes me feel that something for so long that ment one thing is loosing its meaning.

Yeah, I do totally see your point. Part of this whole issue actually is this:

It sounds outwardly like somehow gays would get to mandate that the actual dictionary definition would be changed, and quickly. But actually, it's really 95% about the legal definition. What the government and only the government is calling marriage. Like when you download software and the license agreement defines words in the preamble... "'SOFTWARE' shall heretobyfore mean thus... 'WORKSTATION' is henceforth proclaimified as..." and so on. When they draft law or judicial decisions they have to be very careful how words are used in that particular context - the stock market of power.

But vernacularly, I'm sure plenty of gays will continue to use the word partner to describe each other to others, and further are sensitive to the impacts that things could have on hets.

Maybe part of it too is, that will it mean that we're to eventually be culturally expected to use differently the terms "husband" and "wife" and "married"? Kind of like the post-race-struggle discomfort around the separate expectations for blacks versus whites to use certain words or joke about race. Of course, no use of words can alter or even describe the edifice of your married relationship. But there is comfort in an expected perception from others, and a change in language could change that comfort. I imagine that in the future if gays are considered married, I could be applying for a say, home improvement loan over the phone, and when I say I'm married, the person taking down my info won't know I'm not gay.

In a free society, the government is expected not to try to like, own the language and restrict peoples use of it. But it still has to step in and weigh in on those legal definitions. In this case, that ends up having a much broader effect. This all reminds me a little of the existence of internet domain names. It's basically first come first serve, and if someone buys a domain and kind of abuses it, the word is arguably damaged for everyone else. When I first got a website (now defunct), I wanted badly the domain, "infohazard". But everytime I've ever checked, it's always been parked at the host - bought, reserved, and kept in limbo, unavailable to anyone else. I settled for "Joiningedge". Now that I'm off the web, that word is also just parked in limbo. It doesn't matter that much yet, but it might more later if domains are easier to visit by just speaking into the air at your wearable speech-recognizing computer. If some commercial bottled water company had the domain, "water.com", it would prevent an educational nonprofit company, that teaches about the condition of the global water supply, from having it. One solution might be the other top-level-domains. That's whether you use .com, .org, or.net, etcetera. But all 3 had been bought up for infohazard, so I would have had to settle for .biz or .tv or something.

Relatedly: One word can imply a thousand pictures. I like to sometimes take a single word, especially if I can photograph it in some gnarly form, and put my artistic spin on it, turning it from text to a graphic. The chinese language is already partly like that. Speaking of "water", once I photographed that word on the beaten and corroded cap of a sidewalk water valve. I filtered it in Paint Shop Pro until it was this mottled radioactive plea of thirst. I'll try to find what CD it's on and drop it here in a later post.

Originally posted by creetwins
http://www.nu-woman.com/berdache.htm



No I am not forgetting something, Native culture and Studies is my specialty, and this term did not only apply to physically different trangender people it also applied effeminate male ho,mosexuals, and were considered a third gender because they were men in dresses........I can dig up more info if the above link doesn't clarify........:)

Thank you for the link, not to be rud, but I will look into this more. Some of this stuff doesn't hold any water when it comes to truth. Like I have said I may be wrong, and I don't doubt there were a few cases of gay Indians. Indians also lived by a strict code where men were men and if they were forced to do womens stuff and wear dresses it was because they had shamed the tribe. It was a sort of punishment. Like I said I am not being rud, but this has alot of holes in it. Sounds more like a gay rights story to make gays more acceptable, sorry if I am wrong

Originally posted by creetwins
Here is one more link explaining about the "4th" gender or female berdache just to be fair to the women..............:cool:

http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood/stonewall/3044/berdache.html

Thank you again. I see the terms "gay" being used alot but they are not showing proof of there being gays{hope that made sense} I also like to study history, and know that women often were warriors, hunters, and did the mans work. This does not mean they were lesbians, just that they were not thought of as being soft. The tribes did what they needed to survive just because a woman took up a bow, spear, etc.. does not mean they were gay.

Originally posted by creetwins
http://hermaphrodite.arriba.net/twospirit.htm


I started reading this, but have not finished yet. Something part way down caught my eye "Lee Staples: founder of the American gays & lesbian". This is were one has to start wondering the truth, it also goes even further to say that MOST Indians don't believe in the term or in Gay relations. Like I said I have only read part I will finish before I come to a conclusion.

Originally posted by creetwins
that wasn't what I was implying....here I'll clarify

It seems that those who are opposed to gays lifestyles are afraid if they are in the same category they themselves may be labled homo.........so they fear being labled gay...........so I wasn't lableing you gay i was suggesting that you may fear being labled gay

I am not worried about it, but I would not like being labeled something I'm not either. I wouldn't want to be labeled alot of things. My thought is as simple as I have made it, nothing more, nothing less. Even marriages that involve different races are labeled interacial marriage. Are the gays going to be labeled gay marriage? I know it doesn't seem like that big of a deal, but to me and many others it is.

Starling;

Good post, I think the problem lies, when A straight person says something about a gay person the gay person instantly gets ready for attack. This is understandable because the whole gay thing comming out of the closet is still quit new to or country. Like I have said I quess I will have to live with it, but when I see Bob and Bill being married I will say no that is a gay marriage. atleast in my own mind I still know there is a difference. Like you said I understand they want qual rights and I see no problem with that, but I am not the whole country, I am only me.

No doubt when gays are allowed to marry there will be a number of different terms used to describe the union, and the participants in that union.

As to the prevalence or acceptance of gays in Native American culture, I see no reason to suspect that there were fewer gays in that culture than there are in ours...sometimes it seems that some people think that being gay is someting new...there have been gay people as long as there have been people. I'm sure that the attitudes towards them in Native American culture probably differed widely from tribe to tribe, just as it has varied from society to society throughout human history.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
As to the prevalence or acceptance of gays in Native American culture, I see no reason to suspect that there were fewer gays in that culture than there are in ours...sometimes it seems that some people think that being gay is someting new...there have been gay people as long as there have been people. I'm sure that the attitudes towards them in Native American culture probably differed widely from tribe to tribe, just as it has varied from society to society throughout human history.

I'm not so sure about that, even in todays few tribes that are left being gay is not that accepted. I'm not saying that in the bigger societys{romans, greeks, etc....} through history, gay wasn't the norm, but in tribes it is different. Maybe it is because they needed to stay towards hetro life style to keep there numbers up??? I also understand that the bigger {population}a society gets then more things are accepted. So maybe a tribe with a hundred thousand might accept gays, were a tribe with a few hundred may banish gays.

Maddog....thank you for reading I know it got pretty lengthy.
As for your questions regarding the female berdache, you are right she doesn't have to be gay, she just doesn't fit into a traditional womans role, so one was created for her. An ancient form of gender-bending if you will. As for your questions regarding these sources........These are not the original source of my studies I didn't just pull them up and learn about this stuff the day I posted, they were only pulled up to back my statements. I learned about berdach culture long ago, and as you know, a lot of Native history, traditions, and culture is passed on orally. Having said that they also now have Phd programs in Native studies (my aunt is a professor of indiginous studies). So I am pretty sure of this aspect of native culture and like VP said it did vary from tribe to tribe, as the traditions still do today. (For example cultures in the eastern great lakes are more matrilineal, and western plains cultures forbid women to orchestrate religious ceremonies or smoke a pipe for that matter).............so take it for what you will...........

My point still remains.....they had a way to weave everyone into the cloth and the result is still a beautiful tapestry;)

Creetwins:

Sorry do have sounded like an a** but you know how some web sites like to play with the truth? I quess from what you just wrote that we agree atleast 95+% I also Like studying tribes, sometime info over the net is good, and then other times it is just a waste of time. Thanks for your post and yes I do agree, thanks for the interesting sites also. :)

I'm not so sure about that, even in todays few tribes that are left being gay is not that accepted.

Having spent the last 5 years on a very remote northern plains reserve with about 800 band members living on reserve I can dispute that assumption. I became friends with an effeminate gay male, and while there were a small handful of haters, this guy was well loved and respected by the community for his contributions, his character and his amazing charisma.

Maybe it is because they needed to stay towards hetro life style to keep there numbers up???

This is not a problem either. Native populations have the highest birth rate in Canada, which I well know because my DH is the 3rd youngest of 15 kids!!! My babies have more cousins that I could ever have in my house!! I think the average is 4 or 5 kids, though i will double check.

So maybe a tribe with a hundred thousand might accept gays, were a tribe with a few hundred may banish gays

I know that they are generally accepted, which is the impression I have gotten when visiting people of other bands..... The Cree, The Bloods, the Crow, The Blackfoot, Saulteaux, Dene, Lakota Sioux etc....

Bear in mind this is not Info that I have gleaned from books but from living with the people:D

Maddog.....you didn't seem like an ass.....so don't worry and if you get tough with me that is ok cause I have a tough hide, and a bit of a chip on my shoulder and deserve it sometimes...:D

Thanks for having an open mind, and for being willing to look into this stuff too!!!;)

Can we have that group hug now?:)

Originally posted by creetwins
Having spent the last 5 years on a very remote northern plains reserve with about 800 band members living on reserve I can dispute that assumption. I became friends with an effeminate gay male, and while there were a small handful of haters, this guy was well loved and respected by the community for his contributions, his character and his amazing charisma.

I understand that, I was thinking more of tribes like in africa or some out of the way place. We influence the tribes in our area, There are alot of Native American Indians left, but they are still influenced by the American population. Of course as the planets population keeps growing things will keep changing. Imagine what life must have been like when the total world population was only in the miilions... now we are 6.5billion.


This is not a problem either. Native populations have the highest birth rate in Canada, which I well know because my DH is the 3rd youngest of 15 kids!!! My babies have more cousins that I could ever have in my house!! I think the average is 4 or 5 kids, though i will double check.

I won't argue with you on this, but lets again go back in time when the population was MUCH smaller. It is hard to compare yesteryears{BC or early AD}feelings with how things are today.



I know that they are generally accepted, which is the impression I have gotten when visiting people of other bands..... The Cree, The Bloods, the Crow, The Blackfoot, Saulteaux, Dene, Lakota Sioux etc....

Today they probably are, but back in the begining what would it have been like???? A warrior had a son and he wanted his son to be just like him, there are many stories of "boys being put on the spot"{so to speak} because they just didn't make the cut.

Bear in mind this is not Info that I have gleaned from books but from living with the people:D

I don't doubt you, like I said I do think history had alot more on its mind then who was gay. It would be kool to have a time machine, of course if I went back I don't know if I would want to come back to todays life style. But then again I like simple things and I hate cities.

Originally posted by mad dog
Starling;

Good post, I think the problem lies, when A straight person says something about a gay person the gay person instantly gets ready for attack. This is understandable because the whole gay thing comming out of the closet is still quit new to or country. Yes: I saw just such a confrontation at a poetry night a few months ago. The gay people heard a couple of clues that to them indicated a threat, and went on strong inappropriate defensive, even though the het poet meant quite the opposite. There was actually physical threat through body language. I tried to be mediator, but was more successful later as commiserator. A week later one of the group came back with a freedom-of-speech-except poem. I'm always sad to hear that, because it's always a couple of steps back when some try to prohibit others from co-owning our common language. Kind of like the bannings of Mark Twain's books for the realistic use of the word, "nigger". I try to be really sensitive to all involved. After all, preservation of life often trumps all, and when there has been violence against gays, there is expected trauma. I liken it to the Israel situation. Jews were fed through the horrifying crucible of the holocaust, and many survivors came through with unspeakable epiphanies of empathy and faith, but some would be unable to grieve and heal to another place than supporting collectively the hawkishness that Israel now shows the Palestinians. (I don't know where you stand politically on that, it's just my take on it.)
Like I have said I quess I will have to live with it, but when I see Bob and Bill being married I will say no that is a gay marriage. atleast in my own mind I still know there is a difference. And, hey, it's totally true there is a difference. With the onset of equality among the genders, there could sometimes be found an overshoot where boys and girls might be treated as if they were identical. This is not true, but it was was a new finer simplification instead of the old simplification, and complexity is too hard to agree on. I think in our cultural language, it's fine to recognize the difference.
Like you said I understand they want qual rights and I see no problem with that, but I am not the whole country, I am only me. I think it should be said here: You rock.

Originally posted by acaveyogi
:) Lionel I never thought about that! LMAO :) acaveyogi

Esfan Hi! It seems that you would like to talk about this subject and I will talk about anything. :) whether I know anything about the subject or not. Humm. I agree with you up to a point. There is some genitics to homos*xual stuff. But also there is programming. Homos*xual males have a tendency to run in families that have strong mothers and weak fathers. Homos*xual females just the opposite. How do I get attention from Daddy or how do I get attention from Mommy. And most homos*xuals want to escape from responsibilty and be a child for the rest of their lifes. Homos*xual s*x is the only safe s*x, no babies. And a man woman relationship is frought with unknows, if you know you then you know those that are your s*x. And I say most not all (some male homos*xuals have an early s*xual experience with another male that ruins them for normal s*x with women.



The class Bell, Hammersmith and Weinberg study effectively disposed of all of your assertions regarding homosexuals. There is no one family situation correlated with any sexual orientation. No correlations have been supported between sexual orientation and any one particular mother and father. The idea that behavior induces labeling has also been dismissed as unsupported. You should research a tad more before making such claims. I know your original post was last month, but I had to respond.