From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Tue Dec 09 2003 - 02:23:47 GMT
Mark,
> Mark said:
>> 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.
Steve:
Fine with me. I was only suggesting that the pattern of women having the
choice of what DNA gets passed is not biologically latched but socially.
Here you seem to be saying the same thing.
>
>> 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:
I'm not. I was talking about your claim that there is no such thing as
homosexuality. I think you missed my point.
>
> Steve (for it is but himself)
What does "for it is but himself" mean (besides nothing)?
> 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.
Steve:
Oh, I thought when you said "there is no such thing as homosexuality!" that
it meant you thought that there was no such thing as homosexuality. I
misread you, and my attempt at correcting you is then irrelevant. Your
statement "I suggested homosexuality may be a social description of
biological value" is much more clear.
>> 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:
That was uncalled for. What leads you to think that I am homophobic????
All I'm saying is that it not a woman's biology that gives her the choice of
sexual partners. It is society that gives her that choice by protecting her
from rapists. How is that a homophobic thing to say???? I am baffled by
your responses.
> 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.
Steve:
Please explain.
> Steve said: 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.
Steve:
See? I just said that homosexuality is moral, yet your calling me a
homophobe. Did you misread? Try it again, please.
> 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.
Steve:
I never even touched on that point you made. Yet, you're summing me up as
disagreeing with it. Did you even read what I wrote?
> Typical male garbage!
If you are going to discount a person's views because they come from a male
then your in the wrong discussion group.
I must have touched a nerve somewhere, but I really have no idea where. Are
you objecting to my suggestion that homosexuality (and all human sexuality)
is socially as well as biologically based?
Mark, I was glad to see you start using your name and that you've been
relatively civil lately. I can't understand why you would take this
antagonistic position with me. I thought you were turning over a new leaf.
I'm disappointed.
The strangest part for me is that I don't think we have any strong points of
disagreement on homosexuality. I can only hope that you merely misread me.
In either case, I won't abide your personal attacks. I'd love to be able to
converse with you, but if you can't do it without the personal attacks I
won't even read your posts anymore. Please let me know what you decide.
Steve
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 - 02:23:39 GMT