Did heterosexuality exist in the Americas before 1492?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Heterosexuality and homosexuality have obviously existed since time immemorial in the sense that there have always been people who are only interested in sleeping with members of one sex, but people in most societies would have understood those preferences as behavior patterns rather than personal identities prior to roughly the High Victorian era.

Worth noting that two-spirit identity as young Native Americans talk about it today is a "pan-Native" concept that wasn't present in every individual pre-contact society.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I was clearly referring to the natives of the United States with that remark. I have been to the pyramids in Mexico and climbed them myself.

Are you unfamiliar with the Mississippian mounds? Cahokia was an entire city built upon high, man made mounds, the largest of which was as big as a pyramid. It was fairly close to Saint Louis, and at its height, was slightly larger in population than the contemporary city of London.

Unless I am incorrect, the extent to which we can call those "permanent structures" is debatable. Most of those structures are now gone, and those that remain have become increasingly overgrown to the point that they resemble grassy hills. Not exactly Giza.

You seem to be using a very narrow definition of "permanent structures" that would exclude most of the architectural products of civilizations that built with wood rather than stone. If Japan was suddenly depopulated much of Kyoto and Nara would soon cease to be "permanent structures" by this standard too.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I was clearly referring to the natives of the United States with that remark. I have been to the pyramids in Mexico and climbed them myself.

Are you unfamiliar with the Mississippian mounds? Cahokia was an entire city built upon high, man made mounds, the largest of which was as big as a pyramid. It was fairly close to Saint Louis, and at its height, was slightly larger in population than the contemporary city of London.

Unless I am incorrect, the extent to which we can call those "permanent structures" is debatable. Most of those structures are now gone, and those that remain have become increasingly overgrown to the point that they resemble grassy hills. Not exactly Giza.

You seem to be using a very narrow definition of "permanent structures" that would exclude most of the architectural products of civilizations that built with wood rather than stone. If Japan was suddenly depopulated much of Kyoto and Nara would soon cease to be "permanent structures" by this standard too.

Hmm, I suppose "permanent structure" can refer to just any building with a roof that stays in one place. Nevertheless, I was thinking more about structures that can stand the test of time.

I guess I'm just not sure what whether a civilization builds structures that last indefinitely without upkeep has to do with the soundness of its beliefs about sexuality. It's easy enough to imagine, at least in theory, an extremely "eco-friendly" future Western society where everything is biodegradable and most or all buildings are designed to rot or disintegrate within a few years of ceasing to be actively used. Would the values of that society lack historical resonance or relevance for that reason? I don't see that they would.