I think this was what I was trying to get at, pretty much on the dot. And I certainly didn’t mean to jump in and accuse people of homophobia - I just wanted some clarifications.

There’s something else that gets perpetuated throughout human history that doesn’t seem to be reproductively viable - self-sacrifice. Not that it happens every day, but people do die for one another (as though people at a Gnosticism blog need to be reminded). This isn’t a very good idea, from the perspective of straight-up passing down your genes, yet it hasn’t been ‘bred out’ of us through self-sacrificers not reproducing as much (if at all). Because it is functional, and adaptive, to society as a whole. In a less obvious way, I think that homosexuality works the same way. Otherwise it wouldn’t be as common as it is, throughout human history, across time and culture.

There are a certain number of individuals in the group that could reproduce but don’t. I suspect that in the aftermath of a sharp population drop - a famine or massacre, for example - some percentage of the surviving gay members of the group find themselves temporarily feeling reproductive.

My guess is that a tribe with some gay members is better able to maintain the reproductive capacity to recover from a disaster with less overpopulation than one where all the reproductive capacity is active.

If I were to try to verify this, I would graph the percentage of homosexuals in populations against the used percentage of the carrying capacity of the environment. I would be willing to bet that when there are as many people present as the environment can handle, more of them are gay than when there is plenty of wide open space.

Empire tends to happen under similar circumstances, when the capitol is maxed out - lebensraum.

I don’t think homosexuality is a symptom of Empire, I think both homosexuality and imperialism are responses to overpopulation. With the caveats that there is always some level of homosexuality in a population, and always some number of imperialists.

“Biological Exuberance”, a book by the science writer Bruce Bagemihl, documents homosexuality in no fewer than 470 animal species. He shows how groups of manatees carouse in gay orgies; how male giraffes start “necking” and end up fornicating, how female Japanese macaques will pair off for weeks at a time, fondling each other and having sex.

It wasn’t just the occasional tribal culture that accepted homosexuality, it was all over the place. The gods of Asgard were constantly engaging in gender-bending and gay sex - in fact there’s a whole debate as to whether seidr magic is just for ergi (gay) men or if straight men can do it too. (Jenny Blain, Nine Worlds of Seid-Magic).

Anyway, what I reckon is that gay sex is natural and serves some as yet unidentified biological function - probably to do with pair bonding. It can also be shown that gay people have different hypothalami. But gay identity is a cultural construct (the same as gender roles are cultural constructs).

My point was that non governmentally Judeo-xian sex for procreation is counterproductive to the empire and has covertly and overtly repressed and persecuted since the 1600’s in the US.

>And honestly, what the blazes is so bad about gay people portrayed in non-stereotypical manners in movies? That seemed to come out of left field for me. Your last comment, about a ‘certain abundance,’ is more in line with how I see this sort of thing. As opposed to homosexuality being a symptom of empire. Being exclusively homosexual means that society can afford to pick up the slack of one less reproducing couple. Which doesn’t necessarily involve being an empire.

I did get a bit muddled, but basically I see the MSM push for acceptance as a possible legitimate tangent based on slomo’s argument in my context of yeah, we have civil liberties and therefore there is the ability to group, communicate and promote a particular agenda, and this has only been really possible in the last 40 years or so.

So it is as dualistic as possible in that the regime that has really been reluctant to legitimize is recently being forced to deal with the issue.

The issue that now that this all is indeed in the open, how am I personally to reconcile my thoughts and wishes with regards to my children’s socialization in this vortex.

-tc

“science fiction writers should probably smoke pot but they probably shouldn’t drink or do blow”

maybe we are seeing a signal that our empire is winding down.

I wish, but I think it’s gonna wind up a little bit more before there’s a big, sudden crash.

I believe there is in fact such a thing as a gay “soul” (or at least a gay state-of-being for a soul) in as much as I believe in such a thing as a soul. And I am grateful that I live in a culture that gives me room to acknowledge it. But I also think it’s important to undertand what responsibilities to the larger community I have, what gifts I bring forward. Gay people right now don’t really do that enough. There’s a lot of focus on “rights”, to the exclusion of responsibilities (of course, this is a more general American phenomenon; we’re at a very selfish stage in our history).

The Greek (and later, Roman) creation myths revolved around the idea that a goddess, or Mother Earth, figure created the “gods” on Mt. Olympus, created the Titans, and then created three races of humans. These humans were very powerful, and were essentially two human beings attached at the back. On the moon there was a race of women (lesbians), on the sun there was a race of men (homosexuals), and on the Earth, there was a race of man-woman (heterosexuals). The gods on Mt. Olympus became so afraid of humanity in its dual forms, that it split them into two. The Romans later moved the lesbian race to Venus, and the homosexual race to Mars.

It’s quite interesting to analyze this myth, because it essentially provides for all 3 types of human interaction within the creation myth. It’s also interesting because of the three sides were equal, then heterosexuality would only make up 1/3 of the relationships.

I also find it interesting because if you combine it with Plato’s allegory of the cave, the numbers get very interesting. If you use 1 and 2 to represent the cave (the first two stages), and 3 & 4 to represent the outside world, then look at the Greek creation myth this way:

Before the “split”, there were three races, which could be viewed as a triangle (the men on one half, and the women on the other half, split right down the center). Thus when the races were split, all that was left was the line of separation. A line separates two objects, and thus the number two relates to the “fall” or descent into the cave, a forceful fall by the “gods” or shall we say, “Archons”.

You can take this anyway you may, but I think there is a correlation here between “splits”, “falls”, and the concept of godesses (Sophia).

I also find it highly relevant to the discussion of homosexuality in a cultural context.

I guess what I’m really trying to articulate isn’t about homosexuality per se. I’m trying to call attention to how our discussions about “ethics”, “morality”, and “rights” are framed by a privileged cultural context where we have an excess of resources and assume that survival is a given. What happens to our “rights” when the resources disappear, when life becomes more dear?

I want to be very clear that I support gay rights within the context of our current culture. I want to be very clear that I am not making a statement about gay people. I am simply making an observation about the conditions necessary for a particular phenomenon to occur. And since I myself am part of that phenomenon, I of course want to understand how I fit in the larger cosmos.

Bloody words.

Also, Thomas, I was a little confused by this - “Therefore, in a brutally Darwinian vein, I must corollate that masturbation and making homonculi and all that other fun shit is generally spurious and will not result in the propagation of your “power upon the land”. Lost genetic code replication processing time. End of story.”

I guess it’s just that my reaction was - and? So? What? Masturbation = ‘Lost genetic code replication processing time? Um, I’m 23, and I’ve been masturbating a lot in the last ten years or so, in part because I am categorically not ready for ‘genetic code replication processing time.’ Babies, right? Yeah, not ready. I just don’t see where you’re going with this line of reasoning. And honestly, what the blazes is so bad about gay people portrayed in non-stereotypical manners in movies? That seemed to come out of left field for me. Your last comment, about a ‘certain abundance,’ is more in line with how I see this sort of thing. As opposed to homosexuality being a symptom of empire. Being exclusively homosexual means that society can afford to pick up the slack of one less reproducing couple. Which doesn’t necessarily involve being an empire.

What about Dan’s comments, about homosexuality occuring among animals who sure as hell do not have empires? Does that matter to this discussion? I take it this is more about the ’sexuality as a defined lifestyle’ as opposed to the actual act of homosexuality, right? But these animals aren’t exactly terrified that they’re loosing precious, making children moments, right?

I worked in the union library at SoCalEd wherein I read a grievance filed by a gay union member who was fired ca. 1972 because management identified him as potentially ‘deviant’ and a management employee was directed to solicit a date, pick him up, take him to a bar, buy him drinks, and otherwise flirt with him. I believe to recall that the field agent’s report recommending termination due to moral turpitude was concluded at such a time as when the union member put his hand on the agent’s leg at the bar, and left him there with no ride home.

Really, I feel the AIDS virus is a targeted reaction to what the American empire has perceived as actually two threats, IV drug users, and homosexuals. I mean really, what did we get, monkey virus goes to a human, and now we’ve been watching HN51 for like 2 months now and it’s still no go, they’re talking about 1918 and we should ‘be ready’ for it like Padilla’s dirty bomb.

How is it that an moniker, iconified, uhhhh… “defining” “cultural” activity that rationally speaking detracts from making new taxpayers in the furtherance of the fasciae can only exist therein?

I mean the leaves blowing is the wind and all.

I guess I see how there is a certain abundance or additional overhead in the general system to allow the non-productive in a successful economic model, and the sort of leeway we have as americans to generally fuck with anything except the government…

I don’t know, no disrespect, bro.

-tc

Well, as far as I’ve often heard, a lot of traditional European cultures work more or less the same way, except you just have a mistress/etc for the “fun” stuff rather than procreation.

Yeah, that’s basically what I’m talking about. Sucks for the woman involved. (Pun acknowledged but not intended). I refuse to do that to a woman, although I could and kind of get away with it. But because I live in a culture where I have moral choices that allow me not to inflict a dishonest sexuality on another person, I believe the right thing to do is to accept the gay identity. But in a different culture, with different social pressures, the right thing to do might be the exact opposite. It’s all about context.

Does this question come from a sort of post-apocalyptic small community thing? Like what happens to gay people when the Empire falls and in order to survive as a race or community, we’re all gonna have to churn out babies?

Well, that’s one aspect of it, yes. The best long-term outcome of the current historical trajectory is one where we all downscale. Exactly how to do that and what gets sacrificed is obviously very controversial. I would like to understand how a person like myself fits into such a future.

it was a capital offence to be a homosexual in victorian england.

I think you’re trying to argue that imperial Britain didn’t condone homosexuality, therefore homosexuality cannot be a symptom of empire?

I’m saying that a gay identity cannot exist without empire. I’m not saying that said empire necessarily condones or supports such an identity. Oscar Wilde was definitely part of an underground gay subculture, even though it was clandestine and had to be because of the consequences.

Well, just to give some context, kissing has already been defined as something a man and woman do. I again, with previous threads in mind, would like at this time to reiterate that I would generally like to gently steer my children down the path that heterosexual relations are generally good and nothing to be ashamed or afraid of in the proper set, setting, and circumstance. They are young and I guess, yeah the nasty annoyed Jersey motherfucker in me sees “My 2 Dads” on at the same time as “That’s So Raven” as some type of “fuckin’ with my program” on some level.

My personal opinion is that orgasm and the endorphin release associated therewith is an electrochemical system designed to reward people for fucking as a primordial directive to procreate and is generally no different from an alleycat’s heat. Therefore, in a brutally Darwinian vein, I must corollate that masturbation and making homonculi and all that other fun shit is generally spurious and will not result in the propagation of your “power upon the land”. Lost genetic code replication processing time. End of story.

Marriage is an artificial institution, I mean, it could be posited the ‘nuclear family’ with 1.5 kids and the white picket fence is only possible with the ‘monopolization of the means of force’ and the full force, faith, and effect of the empire reinforcing the so-called ‘marriage certificate’ and all the _de jure_ privileges accorded therewith.

Otherwise you’d be steppin’ over bodies on the front porch trying to keep people off of your wife.

Why isn’t there gay marriage in the US? How much revenue for the IRS would be lost by all those other people claiming Married, head of household, 2 deductions? Estate taxes?

It’s a lot of fuckin’ issues here, and hey I love sex too, but I “feel like” I refuse to be defined by who I’m doin’. I ain’t hung up on anything. I feel it is unfair to ask my kids who shit in a diaper to gate through that portal yet, but somehow I’m sure it’s on a billboard somewhere. What the reality is, I don’t know, I mean really.

93/93.

“You can deliver me oh Lord
I just wanted to have some fun

All my tears they”

I wonder whether somebody like myself would just simply get married to a woman and we’d both make the best of a less-than-completely-satisfying sex life.

Well, as far as I’ve often heard, a lot of traditional European cultures work more or less the same way, except you just have a mistress/etc for the “fun” stuff rather than procreation. Wait, isn’t that almost exactly the plotline of that Brokeback Mountain movie? Has anybody seen it who can corroborate?

But I’m very worried about how a self-identified “gay” person fits into a smaller-scale culture that is living harmoniously with “nature”

Does this question come from a sort of post-apocalyptic small community thing? Like what happens to gay people when the Empire falls and in order to survive as a race or community, we’re all gonna have to churn out babies? Is that what you’re asking?

However, I should probably clarify what I meant by “homosexuality”. I agree that we are all hard-wired for bisexuality, with cultural factors influencing where we end up on the Kinsey scale. Clearly some people begin much more towards the homosexual side than the heterosexual side, so there is less “choice” involved for such individuals. So, I’m not talking about the sexual behavior, which most likely exists in every human culture. I am instead talking about a complex subculture that reifies homosexuality into a complex “gay” identity.

And again, I’m not finding fault with the gay subculture or the identity itself. (Well, maybe some aspects of it I am.) But I’m very worried about how a self-identified “gay” person fits into a smaller-scale culture that is living harmoniously with “nature” (which btw is another reified concept that has problems when you look at it carefully).

There are other related issues here. Westerners (Americans in particular) are so obsessed with sex that it makes sense for a person who was wired more for homosexual behavior would identify himself or herself as such. In other cultures, where sex is more tied into procreation and not so much social status, I wonder whether somebody like myself would just simply get married to a woman and we’d both make the best of a less-than-completely-satisfying sex life.

And jesus, no offense guys but now it is movies about gay cowboys and shit? What the fuck am I supposed to tell my kids …

Uh, try telling them that some people are gay, for starters!

The fact is that widescale acceptance of homosexuality cannot exist except in imperial civilizations.

This “fact” can be refuted with just two words: Oscar Wilde.

You work, you pay taxes, support, I don’t get the thrust of this. It’s a biological dead-end unless you get an egg implanted in you and apparently they don’t need a man anymore for that, fit in with the culture to a general degree and as long as there is no pogrom — I don’t know — I don’t see the logic.

Personally, I think the gay groups have really been organizing and lobbying a lot of stuff, this kinda goes back to the sex ed thread from a few months ago… And jesus, no offense guys but now it is movies about gay cowboys and shit? What the fuck am I supposed to tell my kids … I think empire is giving some leverage to the whole ‘movement’ to demand acceptance with media bandwidth.

-tc

“had some cake and then ice cream, fell asleep and watched tv
grandma take me home”
-Nirvana

http://idata.over-blog.com/0/05/17/99/...-a-queue-blanche-amerique-du-nord.jpg

As long as you’re reproducing, nature doesn’t care what your preference is. As for intra-tribal relations, I’m pretty sure that anyone who pulls their weight and doesn’t cause trouble is accepted (but good luck finding a partner).