Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Posts: 2216
Location: loves land of plenty
i personally think the repulsion comes from the threat homosexuality presents to conservative heteronormative ideology. I think of threatened, not on the emotional feeling level, but the threat homosexuality is supposed to pose to the structure (fabric!) of society, the power heterosexuality weilds, the role it plays, underpinning the majority world view. Until heterosexuality is deconstructed... (ok i sound like my undergraduate essay!)
so what comes first, chicken or the egg... does the threat of homosexuality induce the repulsion, or is the repulsion the source of the threat
macro v micro, individual v society, structure v agency, them v us
great discussion
kx _________________ -----------------------------------------------------
'don't hate your enemies, it clouds your judgement'
I cannot honestly say the majority of western civilization feel threatened by us because we are no threat to them. I believe they feel their moral values are threatened by us and especially their morals in relation to sex. I personally think they cannot see the forest because of all the trees. I agree with Mdm on the point she made that many (if not the majority) of heterosexuals who are against gays do not feel threatened…they are disgusted with our sexuality. They cannot see that we are not a threat to them because all they see is their own disgust for us. I do not threaten them…unless they piss me off but that is another story…we as individuals do not threaten them nor do we threaten them as a group. The only threat is in their own minds. How could homosexuals who want to marry threaten heterosexuals who do marry? We cannot. How could homosexual couples wanting the same benefits as heterosexual couples be a threat? It cannot. So…what threat are we to them? We are no threat at all except in their own minds. The only real difference is who we sleep with at night. For the most part we have the same values except when it comes to sexuality.
Who knows…maybe that redneck a-hole thinks I am going to steal his girl
Eiregirl _________________ All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are
Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine
These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.
Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:37 am
Mairi bheag
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 5094
Location: Scotland
A side issue
The constitutional position in the USA is summed up in the words "Congress shall make no establishment of religion" (I believe).
Some states have a law which says that if human remains are found which pre-date European settlement, they are to be handed over the the Native nation from that area for re-burial according to their rites.
Recently some human remains were found which initial archeological evidence suggested pre-dated the usually accepted-date for European settlement, but which did not appear to be Native American. Possibly the remains even pre-dated the usually-accepted date for Native settlment too, I don't recall precisely. There was no time to investigate this further before the law was enforced and the remains were handed over. The archaeology was lost.
I suggest that the law is therefore unconstitutional, because it establishes a religious precedent and a religious rite.
Mb
xx
*enjoys finding little places where ms phrute has been*
_________________ all posted material (c) Marie Marshall, unless otherwise stated.
quote:Originally posted by Mairi bheag:
The constitutional position in the USA is summed up in the words "Congress shall make no establishment of religion" (I believe).
Some states have a law which says that if human remains are found which pre-date European settlement, they are to be handed over the the Native nation from that area for re-burial according to their rites.
Recently some human remains were found which initial archeological evidence suggested pre-dated the usually accepted-date for European settlement, but which did not appear to be Native American. Possibly the remains even pre-dated the usually-accepted date for Native settlment too, I don't recall precisely. There was no time to investigate this further before the law was enforced and the remains were handed over. The archaeology was lost.
I suggest that the law is therefore unconstitutional, because it establishes a religious precedent and a religious rite.
Mb
xx
*enjoys finding little places where ms phrute has been*
Mairi,
I recently read and article about some remains that were analyzed and it was determined that the remains pre-dated Indian (Native American) tribes in the United States. The data collected from that will be used by researchers to try and gain access to other remains for further testing.
Obviously when remains are tested and show that they are of Indian “Native American” decent or are found on their land then most likely those remains will be turned over to the tribe of that local for burial or whatever. Also when ancient remains are found on their land then should they not have the right to those remains? Some tribes want to rebury the remains immediately others contract out for further study and some have their own historical and archeology departments that study the remains because they want to further the knowledge of their history and the history of North America.
When remains are found on public lands then NAGPRA "Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act" regulations have to be followed. Subpart D Section 10 will determine if a tribe will gain rights to any remains found. I admit this section is not as good as it could be
A good example is Kennewick Man. The 9th Circuit Court has allowed scientific study of the 9,000 year old remains due to there being no clear link that they are Native American.
Therefore the law is not unconstitutional…but I do agree that it needs some tweaking and should allow for further and more in depth testing to determine cultural affiliation to determine if any tribe has rights to the remains when those remains are not found on lands they currently hold.
Eiregirl _________________ All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are
Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine
These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.
Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:13 am
Mairi bheag
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 5094
Location: Scotland
The unconstitutional nature of that particular law is atill an arguable point, I feel - yes it was the Kennewick man I was thinking of, and I am glad there has been a ruling in that direction. BUT they must have had to retrieve the remains from Native possesion, which has severely compromised the pathology.
Mb
xx
_________________ all posted material (c) Marie Marshall, unless otherwise stated.
quote:Originally posted by Mairi bheag:
The unconstitutional nature of that particular law is atill an arguable point, I feel - yes it was the Kennewick man I was thinking of, and I am glad there has been a ruling in that direction. BUT they must have had to retrieve the remains from Native possesion, which has severely compromised the pathology.
Mb
xx
The remains were stored at the Burke Museum by agreement of all involved in the lawsuit.
You can look at this website and also follow the link under "what will the Burke Museum do with the remains?" for some further information.
Eiregirl _________________ All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are
Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine
These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.
Tue Jan 02, 2007 6:32 am
Mairi bheag
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 5094
Location: Scotland
Thanks _________________ all posted material (c) Marie Marshall, unless otherwise stated.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Gallery
FAQ
Profile PM's 
