From: FishOnAStick.com (fishonastick@cox.net)
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 02:31:56 BST
I think that most people are missing the point.
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: sod·omy
Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma
Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen
19:1-11
Date: 13th century
1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the
opposite sex
- sod·om·it·ic /"sä-d&-'mi-tik/ or sod·om·it·i·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective
Sodomy is pretty much used to say anal sex, right? In the Supreme Court's
decision, it abolished all laws pertaining to any regulation against sodomy,
including multiple states that outlawed anal sex between heterosexual
couples. Sodomy may have come to be associated with only homosexuals, but
the laws that were repealed also included heterosexuals, so this was not a
"victory for gay rights" as it was claimed in the newspapers of the U.S.,
but a victory of sexual freedom.
As to whether sodomy is a biological, social, or intellectual value, I think
that it is a intellectual value.
Biologically speaking, sodomy is inferior as it does not produce offspring.
Socially speaking, sodomy has been viewed as inferior due to the other, and
unfortunate, views of sex as a taboo.
Intellectually speaking, sodomy has value as it is no longer necessary for
EVERYONE to "produce offspring," and it pertains to a desire, a preference,
or a "taste," if you will.
I'd write more if I had the time, but I must run. Hope this helps and is
the kind of feedback you were looking for.
Spencer
----- Original Message -----
From: "johnny moral" <johnnymoral@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: MD Should sodomy be a right?
> 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
>
>
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 : Thu Jul 03 2003 - 00:31:23 BST