The gay caveman: 5,000-year-old is 'outed' by the way he was buried.

[queerart]

I think someone mentioned they were sick of the recent outings of people....


Here is yet another "outing" for them to have a fit about..... :rofl:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1374060/Gay-caveman-5-000-year-old-male-skeleton-outed-way-buried.html#ixzz1Im3mUjAz

[brewens]

1. The pottery is certainly fabulous. No reason to doubt it. n/t

[WatsonT]

2. That's a lot of speculation

[Creideiki]

16. True. Maybe it was cloudy when they buried him.

Then they wouldn't be able to tell which way is west and which way is east.

Besides, how dare anyone suggest that gay people are a natural variation in humanity like they are in swans, wolves, dolphins, penguins, etc.?

And didn't the people who buried him know how much this would upset so many Good Democrats (TM)? Definitely a sign of an insensitive tribe that deserved to be wiped out.

[WatsonT]

18. Noting a lot of sarcasm in your post

that is unwarranted.

I never said anything about homosexuals being unnatural or anything like that (really go back and check).

All I said was that there was a lot of speculation here. When the iceman was first discovered I remember people trying to claim he was gay based on a variety of trivial things.

I guess it gets headlines for a discovery that would otherwise not be that interesting.

But trying to guess someones sexual preference from their bones is pretty sketchy. I realize that's all the have to go on, but still it's not accurate to make such definitive conclusions on such a scarcity of knowledge.

All they can say is that this guy was buried in a way that they've mostly seen women buried among this population.

[closeupready]

20. You really are reaching, you know that?

Since cavemen - in the form referenced in the story - do not exist anymore, EVERYTHING anthropologists and archeologists surmise from relics and artifacts is going to be, ultimately, speculation.

The fact that you felt compelled to deny the validity of this particular bit of speculation by reminding everyone that "this is a lot of speculation" tells me that you are biased against seeing homosexuality where evidence demonstrates not only that it exists, but is culturally valued, as here.

SSDD.

[WatsonT]

21. Simply because you don't have much to go on

doesn't mean you can make definitive statements with a paucity of data.

Granted it was probably the reporters who did most of that.


"The fact that you felt compelled to deny the validity of this particular bit of speculation by reminding everyone that "this is a lot of speculation" tells me that you are biased against seeing homosexuality where evidence demonstrates not only that it exists, but is culturally valued, as here."

And now you are working entirely on speculation.

Question: does saying that one individual is not gay prove you hate all gays and want them rounded up in to death camps?

For instance: do you believe Obama is gay? No? So you hate homosexuals?

Saying I am against homosexuals only proves your own ignorance. I am against sensationalism in place of real journalism and the continued denigration of true science.

Which I assume you are for.

[Initech]

3. Heh, ya learn something new every day!

[aquart]

4. You realize this means he was completely accepted in his society.

This was a loving and complete ritual.

[ZombieHorde]

5. Maybe the "caveman" was a transgendered "cavewoman."

Maybe they were frat cavemen, and buried their buddy as a woman for a joke.

[David__77]

9. I thought the same thing.

Maybe this was a transgendered person. Nothing to do with sexual orientation necessarily.

[jsamuel]

6. as an archaeologist I would say that they are making a very large assumption

all this may mean is that the individual took on traditionally female roles, but not necessarily any having to do with dress or sex. For example, they may have been a master potter and not a warrior. Of course, I have only seen what was in that article, so I can't speak to the totality of the evidence, but I would be careful about jumping to the conclusion that the individual was homosexual or a transvestite.

[ZombieHorde]

10. There was a caveman note saying,

"This guy was definitely gay, and not some potter or other non-warrior guy."

[mitchtv]

15. I think one of those jars contained a feather boa

anyway, they're sure

[Ian David]

19. They also found this...

[queerart]

7. Queers Are Simply A Recent Invention.... Everyone Knows That!

They never existed before the Stonewall Riots......


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots




But I just couldn't help adding this post to show some Queer art from the time when humans started to think about depictions of 2 men together... it will make the nonbelievers heads explode (that's that popping noise you hear)


http://www.homoerotimuseum.net/eur/eur05/001.html

[DCKit]

8. Regardless of how any of us may read this, he was valued and loved by his people.

Someone worth knowing, for sure.

[closeupready]

11. It's sad that people find the idea of homosexuality being a cultural creation, rather

than a natural phenomenon, that indeed occurs in the animal realm, such a "normal" one, when in fact, homosexuality is as natural, for me and most gay people, as breathing or sleeping.

The implication being that those who, therefore, urge readers to be 'cautious' not to accept the findings of credentialed anthropologists and archeologists, who believe - for a number of reasons - that this finding is clearly suggested - such people who make these cautions are seemingly biased, but they don't see it that way.

[hlthe2b]

12. I don't think homosexuality is a cultural creation..

I absolutely believe it to be a natural phenomenon. However, I do think we are still learning (and have a lot to learn) about how homosexuality was integrated into many cultures.

That said, the archeologist himself has proposed this as a probable explanation for the finding and not as a "conclusion." It will be debated by others in the field and anthropologists as more data is collected. That is how science works. A similar debate goes on about the role of women in various cultures. I don't take offense at those who hold a hypothesis on historical findings with which I disagree. I simply argue based on the strength of the evidence and consistency of findings (and expert opinions) that would counter that alternate hypothesis. :shrug:

[closeupready]

13. Good points.

:hi:

Oops, and I see my original post was garbled, I'll try to fix it.

[William769]

14. I don't know about a Gay caveman

But I sure do know a hell of a lot of present day cavemen.

[Creideiki]

17. How many people who question this also question the Hobbits?

[Teaser]

22. I never bought the hobbits

at least not yet.

[hyacinthlandry]

23. Another possibility is that the person was Transgendered

Other, more ancient cultures such as Native Americans and Hindus accepted and recognized people who assumed gender roles opposite to their birth gender. "Two Spirit", "Eunichs", etc.

The concept of "Gay" as a separate identity is really a modern, western thing. Men have always had sex with other men, and it is only relatively recent that it was considered abnormal, or a "sin".

[stevenleser]

24. And I think yours is the best and most accurate comment on this yet. n/t

[DeadEyeDyck]

25. I am pretty sure it was because he had a "boner"

I "crack" myself up

I am just out of control!!!!!