Hassun

For how long?

__________________

Arrianna

Thanks I needed the laugh. I am afraid I can't give you a time frame though. the obvious answer would be one generation, but I am afraid it isn't that simple.

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l

tsurara

Uh... yeah... show me evidence of these exclusively homosexual societies... because apparently the gheys have not been told.

In order for a "gay civilization" to arise, you'd need the gays to reproduce long enough to develop culture, government, and defense systems. In reproducing at all, you've deemed them "bisexual" and therefore exempt from the example. Did they reproduce via budding? O_o; Or did six or seven queers just run off into the desert together, build a few hut, compose some poetry, poke the heteros with sticks and that's our "society"?

And the term "homosexual" (literally "same" "sex"), depending on its use, implies no exclusivity of homosexual behaviors. You're using it in it's modern tv/pulpit sense (ie. the sexual orientation "homosexual").

homosexuality - Definitions from Dictionary.com

I have used it correctly. My Japanese history book includes 58 references to "homosexuality" in it's appendix...

__________________

Hassun

It is interesting though, in these modern times an exclusively lesbian society could theoretically exist right? Using in vitro fertilisation.
I wonder if it would work out... Many feminist organisations collapsed pretty fast. The power of nature and instincts is probably hard to repress.

__________________

tsurara

Searched for awhile for defunct gay civilizations... this is about all I could find:

Very Bad News - The New York Review of Books

Oddly enough, none of the defunct civilizations mentioned were homosexual in nature...

"The dangers of catastrophe are growing. One reason is the rise of apocalyptic terrorism. Another... is the breakneck pace of scientific and technological advance.... The cost of dangerous technologies, such as those of nuclear and biological warfare, and the level of skill required to employ them are falling, which is placing more of the technologies within reach of small nations, terrorist gangs, and even individual psychopaths. Yet, great as it is, the challenge of managing the catastrophic risks is receiving less attention than is lavished on social issues of far less intrinsic significance, such as race relations, whether homosexual marriage should be permitted, the size of the federal deficit, drug addiction, and child pornography. Not that these are trivial issues. But they do not involve events of potential extinction or the modestly less cataclysmic variants of those events."

hmm...

that would seem to imply that our danger of killing ourselves off due to social/moral issues is pretty minimal in comparison to us simply breeding/eating/consuming/bombing ourselves out of house and home.

Seeing as most of the defunt civilizations in that article died off from deforestation, land use, starvation, natural disaster and over-population: maybe exclusive homosexuals are doing us a favor in not reproducing?

__________________

Arrianna

... and you are being deliberately dense. I have already explained the difference in the historical setting and that is has to do with societal acceptance of one over the other. It not the act of reproducing that gets it defined as a bisexual society but the whether the society requires them to marry and have families anyway. Societies that accept bisexual behavior but not exclusive homosexual relationships don't follow the historical progression because of their attitudes toward whole family units. Societies that no long care about the family unit AND promotes exclusive homosexual relationships do.

( bisexuality - Definitions from Dictionary.com One of the accepted definitions of bisexuality IS having sexual relations with both and not just whether you are attracted to them. Historically it always has been.)

The historical standard is that this reflection of a weak family unit in return shows a weak society that is then ripe for disaster. It is not the relationships themselves that causes the society to fall it is the weak society which it reflects that will fall easily from any disruption be it internal, external, or natural. So any society that has a weak family unit but accepts exclusive homosexual or any other type of relation then the traditional family as desirable and normal is ripe for a fall.

It is one of several signs of which I mentioned earlier. Considering that another one of the signs is excessive societal consumption of addictive substances I would say your article is utterly worthless on the subject and nothing more then a "zero population" promotion piece.

Now, I am getting tired of repeating myself and am done doing so. Go ask a world historian.


If I could tell you the number of fiction books written on just that premise.

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l

tsurara

For all your extensive knowledge of world history, you've failed to give a single example of a primarily exclusive homosexual society at all... much less the established fact that all homosexual societies decline.

Who's being dense?

All you've done is insist that the word homosexuality does not refer to homosexual behavior (which it does) and have therefore created a situation in which there is unlikely to have been a documented homosexual society (only documented bisexual ones which we've already pointed out have actually succeeded and continue to exist).

As for the "historical" terms "bisexuality" and "homosexuality". The word "bisexuality" doesn't even exist in Japanese. While the only native word for homosexuality is "doseiai" (love with the same gender) is precisely what was used to define relationships between men reguardless of their involvement with women on the side. Something tells me, Japanese isn't the only case in which this occurs. Any linguistic distinctions made in Japan between those who are bi and gay have been made in the last 30 years thanks to slang terms absorbed from English.

And if I decide to sleep with a woman: I am having a homosexual relationship. Not a "bisexual" one.

search terms: "historical + homosexuality" (747 results)

"historical + bisexuality" (43 results)

Seems to me "most historians" (even modern ones) are considering homosexuality to be a bit wider than just "gay lifepartners"

And~

Homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(an article that mentions Greece quite a lot and includes all of those "bisexual" societies under the "Homosexual" heading)

__________________

Arrianna

You are.

I have given you the full explanation as defined by HISTORIANS. You seem to think it requires an exclusively homosexual society to meet the standard when that IS NOT WHAT I SAID! I said (over and over again) it requires a society with a weak traditional family unit, that does not value families with a father, mother, and child that lasts, but does find societal behavior such as exclusive homosexual relationships (individual not society on a whole) as desirable. It is not that hard to find and it has been well documented. It is one of several signs of a weak society that will be unable to defend itself from internal or external stress or a natural disaster. It is the difference between a society handling what comes or falling apart.

No I said that a society that requires them to marry and have children is defined as a BISEXUAL SOCIETY by HISTORIANS and always has been. We are discussing a historical setting so we use historical definitions not psychoanalytical ones.


Now if you want to find out if your society fits the mold just go around and ask the teenagers how many of them want to be married and have children then compare it to the number that think having a child out of wedlock, divorce, or homosexuality is perfectly normal and should be treated as such. Then ask them how many love watching people get killed in shows or love watching people be eliminated in reality shows. Then ask them if doing drugs or binge drinking is alright or not. That will give you the answer right there whether or not where ever you live is historically considered rip to fall.

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l

tsurara

WHO ARE THESE HISTORIANS?!~

You haven't named a single historian, book, theory, anything at all...

For the love of God woman! Give me some actual references!

I'm getting frustrated... so far this debate is entirely speculative! >_<

The entire thread is based on something that someone of some murky origin/profession may or may not have said on an unnamed tv program... and now I'm debating semantics about accepted fact acknowledged by all sorts of historians without names, origins or affiliations who may or may not have written all sorts of books on bisexual societies that apparently are all out of print. Not to mention all those failed gay societies that have crumbled so spectacularly that the only records of their existance no longer exist (but are still universally accepted).

__________________

aceman67

While I can understand where your coming from Arrianna, its just I have hard time getting bent out of shape over the whole subject. What someone does in their personal lives is just that: Personal. Meaning none of our business. Your personal opinions and beliefs aside, it is not our place to judge, or condemn others based on what they chose to do with the free agency God gave them.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it, as long as it doesn't directly intrude on my personal life, which is very much my business.

Now, I have to side with Tsu on this, Who are these historians you're talking about? Otherwise your case has about as much weight as a grain of sand.

__________________

Arrianna

You think you are getting frustrated? You seem determined to take everything I say out of context No matter how many times I correct you. I have given you the context from the very beginning and all you do is counter me with something out of context by insisting that because it is homosexuality, societies like Japan and Greece are homosexual when from the very beginning I gave the parameters that historians use that excluded them. If I have already excluded them from the example given how can you then use it as a claim of disproof? It just boggles the mind.


As I told you, I am related to two historians. I have also heard it on other news reports etc. many times but I don't know of any books written on the subject just papers which are not given to the public. There is a reason I said to go ask a world historian, there are no net materials I know of I can link you to but there are professional ones and it will take talking to a professional to get them. If you want to know go ask one. Unless FallenSpiral can give a link to the news cast in question or you are willing to do that there is really nothing more to be said.



Let me make this perfectly clear for you one last time so you will know what to ask if you do. The question is what are the signs that a society has become weak enough that it will not be able to withstand internal or external pressure or survive a large scale natural disaster?

In this case you are looking for signs having to do with a weak or strong family unit. Does the society have a strong family unit where you have a mother and father who are married and support and raise their children. If not does the society consider other relationships and unit's acceptable and standard such as exclusive homosexual relationships (not marrying someone of the opposite gender and raising a family anyway), having children without getting married or intending to, and casual divorce. If your family unit (mother, father, and child living together) is not strong neither will the society be strong.

There are others, many others but that is another subject. It is actually a fascinating one if you ever do want to learn about it. Be prepared to ask a professional to recommend something written on paper though and not a url.


Just to be clear to anyone unfortunate enough to read this thread so far. The reason I am frustrated is not because tsurara does not believe me, I could care less about that, but because I hate it when people misquote, misrepresent, or ignore what I have said especially when they are talking directly to me.

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l