From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Tue Dec 09 2003 - 00:30:12 GMT
Hi Mark, Charles,
Mark said:
> What is the MOQ perspective on homosexuality?
...
> The MoQ deals with values and we may begin by stating that homosexuality is
a
> response to value or Quality. At that point in human evolution when
> reproduction was essential for the survival of biological patterning,
> homosexuality may have been in conflict with that basic imperative. Which
begs
> the question, what is in conflict?
...
> In Lila, Pirsig suggests that the female is the one who chooses which DNA
> moves on.
Mark, do you think this female choice is a social pattern or a biological
one? I think it is social, since biologically, a man can take whatever he
wants from a woman (most men are stronger than most women anyway).
Mark 8-12-03: Hi Steve, DNA is a prerequisite of any social or intellectual
patterning that emerges from it. If a male stimulates a female's social or
intellectual perception of quality, then that is the DNA which will be advanced.
> I have a sneaking suspicion that there is no such thing as homosexuality!
> That term is a social imposition; the imposition of a male dominated
culture
> over the values of women! Men do not feel at all comfortable that females
like
> homosexuals! It is a threat to them.
This is the sort of thing that SOMers do.
Mark 8-12-03: I feel you may be confusing Male/Female values with SoM here?
Male/Female values are not SoM in a Quality centred metaphysics - obviously!
Steve (for it is but himself)
I think what you are suggesting
is that homosexuality may be a social pattern rather than a biological one
and from the SOM perspective then doesn't exist since social patterns are
"just subjective." I'm sure you don't really think that social patterns
don't really exist, but you seem to be making the typical SOM error here.
Mark 8-12-03: I suggested homosexuality may be a social description of
biological value. That is not SoM.
> So, when you ask, 'Would you say a same-sex preference lies in the
biological
> level, or the social level? Or perhaps some other level? i might be
tempted
> to suggest that comment on biological preference is a social comment.
> Biologically, it's OK, ask a woman?!
Again, I disagree that female ownership of choice is a biological pattern.
Mark 8-12-03: Any homophobic would of course.
Steve:
I think that human sexuality is so complex that it is impossible to say to
what degree homosexuality is biologically based and to what degree it is a
social phenomenon. It's both.
Mark 8-12-03: But not before exhibiting your culturally derived innate
homophobia i see.
Charles, in my opinion, since homosexuality can be practiced in such a way
that it does not threaten social control over dangerous biological patterns
it is therefore moral according to the MOQ. It would be immoral to enact
laws against homosexuality since doing so would limit freedom without
strengthening society, and the MOQ says, all things being equal, choose
freedom.
Thanks,
Steve
Mark 8-11-03: Basically, what Steve appears to be saying here is that a woman
cannot find a homosexual sexually attractive, which is a bit fascistic
against woman as far as i can see.
Typical male garbage!
Mark
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 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 00:31:12 GMT