Friday, April 8, 2011

Gay Cavemen?

The left will stop at nothing to sell their agenda.

Stone Age Gender Bender: Was 5,000-Year-Old Skeleton Gay?

Read the article

But wait, we haven't gotten to the absurd part yet. According to the article some people are offended because there is too little evidence to conclude the caveman was gay, he could be transexual. Evidently anthropologists can be really insensitive to transgendered individuals.

Of course you are laughing about all of this now. Stop for a minute though and think about who paid for this research, or if not this one, others just as ridiculous.

12 comments:

Mustang said...

So, Ducky's problem IS genetic ... amazing.

Euripides said...

And thus it was that I left my first chosen field - archeology - running and screaming in terror because of "modern" theory.

Chuck said...

Mustang, it is tough call - genetic v what is obviously a poor upbringing

Euripides, I did the same with education

Alligator said...

"Rosemary Joyce, a professor in the social science department with the University of California, Berkeley"

That just about says it all, and explains the "outrage" over archaeologists puzzling about an anomaly in the field. Joyce is an "in your face radical activist" like so many Bezerekely professors. She wants a 5,000 year old burial to become a tool for forcing contemporary society to accept this behavior.

I've had a little experience in the fields of archaeology and ethnology. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the individual was "gay" or "transgendered." However, I could think of other possible explanations for the manner of this burial. One would be cowardice in battle.

For the archaeologists and especially "professor" Joyce to make hard pronouncements about this burial is absurd. I've seen so many enshrined positions of academics overturned as a result of continued research. Its taught me to be careful when postulating about the past and trying to interpret it in the context of contemporary society.

Always On Watch said...

LOL to Mustang's comment!

Always On Watch said...

I fail to understand why people are even concerned about the sexual proclivities of a caveman who lived thousands of years ago.

Alligator said...

AOW - like I said, its a way of getting contemporary society to accept it. In effect, they are trying to say, "See, it is natural. It's been around 5,000 years. It's just our prudish Judeo-Christian society that has problems with it." That is the implicit message in all this stuff.

By the way, did you know that homosexual behavior does appear in some animal species? It is one way a male humiliates a rival in a territorial squabble. For example, hippos, elephant seals or chimps will try to mount the loser, just to make sure the loser knows whose dominant.

In lower orders, like reptiles, sometimes its hard to know whose male or female. If a male lizard gets confused and tries to mount a male, it results in a fight until male # 1 realizes he screwed up.

But homosexual or even heterosexual activity for "recreational" purposes is almost the exclusive domain of humans.

Chuck said...

Alligator, with all due respect to archeology, it's largely comprised of educated guesses. As far as the agenda, I believe they are using this to try to "prove" homosexuality is genetic

AOW, I fail to understand why people are even concerned about the sexual proclivities of a caveman who lived thousands of years ago.

Agreed

Z said...

This gives new meaning to 'turn the other cheek', huh?

Are we INSANE? and yes, how much did this study cost? Meanwhile, children die of starvation, but we're studying gay skeletons? yikes

Alligator said...

"Alligator, with all due respect to archeology, it's largely comprised of educated guesses. As far as the agenda, I believe they are using this to try to "prove" homosexuality is genetic."

Chuck, I think in a long winded way, that is what I was trying to say. My point is there certainly was/are homosexuals in other eras and cultures, but, so what. Hardly any ever treated it as "normal" or something to be actively encouraged.

Here's another odd thing - this particular archaeological study garners national news, but many other studies that perhaps have more bearing on understanding human history - get no mention at all.

So, we've seen a bias in the press, the archaeologists and academics of a major university to try and prove homosexuality is genetic.

Alligator said...

Archaeology is often "fill in the blanks." I've looked at features with several individuals, and everyone will have a completely different interpretation of what we are looking at. So yes, guess work.

Brooke said...

Many cultures have ritual tests to pass before one becomes a man.

Perhaps the 'caveman' was buried as a woman because he was unable to achieve manhood?

Really, it's as good a guess as, "Ooooooh, look! We've found a gay caveman!"