From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 02 2003 - 23:47:26 BST
HI Platt, all
>Was the Court's decision correct according to the MOQ? Here we see a
>biological value, sodomy, in conflict with a social value (social mores)
>with a bit of intellectual values (individual rights) thrown in.
What is the biological value of sodomy? While there may be a few other
species that do it, it is remarkably uniformly absent from other biological
patterns. If it had such biological quality, you would expect more of it in
species that had no social level, not less. I think sodomy is an
intellectual pattern, a confused "thinking-about" sex rather than the
unthinking actions we associate with social and biological patterns. It's
no coincidence that most gays are intellectuals, their sexuality has been
burdened by excess thought and worry, so that the natural biological and
social quality is thwarted.
>For myself, I don't see social restrictions against sodomy to be a threat
>to higher intellectual values.
I do: by disavowing biological and social morality, a person has really
nothing better to do than opine gaily all day long, and nothing else to
appreciate except the advancement of technology and the eventual overthrow
of mean mankind by intellect. Sodomy and higher intellectual values go hand
in hand.
Sam, isn't Eudaimonia another word for "gay", in the literal sense? Rick,
isn't this why you insist that your "4th level" love is so compatible with
homosexuality?
>And I think the public through its
>democratically elected representatives should be able to establish laws
>that reflect the morals of the majority rather than have a six or seven
>individuals decide such matters, provided intellectual values are not
>obliterated by any state in the process. Finally, keeping lower biological
>forces in check by law is legitimate moral function of society.
As is keeping bogus thoughts that threaten the fabric of society in check.
My state has a whole section on "CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY
AND GOOD ORDER. " that has the obvious things like adultery and fornication
and "the abominable and detestable crime against nature", and also things
like "exhibiting deformities", "disturbing a library", blasphemy (even in
private), and shouting profanities at baseball games. And of course
prostitution, "keeping a house of ill fame", lewd and lascivious behavior...
>But, I could be wrong, and would be most interested to see how you would
>apply MOQ principles to this controversial matter.
I wonder why you feel a social pattern needs to coddle intellectual
patterns. The state, and society, is a social pattern, it has no interest
in preserving patterns that are in opposition to it. Intellectual patterns
are not all better than social patterns, any more than cats are better than
water. Humans are biological, but Humanity is a social pattern, and
intellectual patterns have no qualms about bending humanity to their needs
any more than a cat has a qualm about drinking water. Intellectuals (those
who are dominated by and support intellectual patterns) want to control
society, to take over the responsibility of creating and raising humans, so
that humans are raised "better" - ie, fit in better and are more socialized
(in an intellectual way, not in a natural socially created way).
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 02 2003 - 23:47:57 BST