From: Walter Schilling (walters@cyberbeam.net)
Date: Tue Dec 09 2003 - 13:51:58 GMT
It APPEARS that a choice related to "homosexual" partner vs. "heterosexual"
partner would be social rather than biological since the same choice
dynamics operate within the same sex/gender choices.
Modern science has changed the capabilities of the biological human to
reproduce without heterosexual intercourse.
Further, heterosexual intercourse is moving to the status of uncool (low
social value) low-tech (your father's Oldsmobile). Sexual relations might
be more appropriately called genital recreation and something closer to
mutual masturbation and gender is not relevant from a biological
perspective.
What might be the motivation behind procreation? What will drive DNA
selection in the near future, biological or social issues?
What will be the evolution/devolution of couple committed relationships?
Obsolescence? How about monogamy vs. polygamy? Maybe a new institution i.e.
Domestic LLC that would support security, "group gropes" and property rights
passing after death. Would that be different than a cult or a tribe or is
it all semantics?
Pax et bene,
Walt
_\/\/ _/-\ |_ -|-_
~~~_/)~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On
Behalf Of Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 6:59 PM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD The MOQ Perspective on Homosexuality
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.
Mark 8a-12-03: A woman chooses. She chooses Quality. I wish there were more
woman here to contribute, but as there are not, i will not say anymore.
>
>> 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.
Mark 8a-12-03: If Homosexuality is a male dominated value centred social
description then, the i, as a man, do not wish to pollute the issue with my
male
dominated views.
>
> Steve (for it is but himself)
What does "for it is but himself" mean (besides nothing)?
Mark 8a-12-03: Lighten up for pity's sake.
> 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.
Mark 8a-12-03: Sometimes the in your head are those others would have you
value?
>> 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????
Mark 8-12-03: Your lack of humility.
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.
Mark 8-12-03: Let woman speak for themselves.
> 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
Mark 8-12-03: I am not going to speak on behalf of women. Full stop. If you
know better and feel able to speak on behalf of women, then fine, but it
seems
to all you are doing is dictating to women.
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
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 - 13:59:48 GMT