From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Dec 13 2003 - 19:20:18 GMT
Charles and all:
Charles asked:
What is the MOQ perspective on homosexuality? Would you say a same-sex
preference lies in the biological level, or the social level? Or perhaps
some other level? ...To me, it seems that if homosexuality was of the
biological level, then it's backwards. Because the levels of the MOQ at all
times strive to preserve themselves, at least to my understanding; therefore
any human sexual preference, being strictly biologically-driven, would
result (unless measures are taken) in the production of more human life.
This seems to me to be the primary function of the biological level, to
sustain and create new life. Obviously there has to be a measure of biology
involved in same-sex preference. But can social issues offset the
biological course? Or, to put it plainly, from the MOQ biological viewpoint
is homosexuality considered normal?
dmb replies:
I'd agree that the primary goal of the biological level is to "sustain and
create new life", but I'd also point out that this includes more than just
making babies. But I'll get to that in a minute. Personally, it seems pretty
clear that sexual preference is mostly biological and not really a matter of
choice. I mean, the attraction I feel seems rooted in my body. The sight of
a beautiful woman just shoots right through me like an arrow. Its kind of
fun and amazing to "watch" it happen and seems to have nothing to do with
what I think. Its immediate and I feel it in the pit of my stomach, and in
my...
I find it totally unimaginable that I could someday decide to contradict all
these feelings and simply "decide" to be attracted to men. Don't get me
wrong. Some of my best friends are men, but they just don't give me any
wood. Quite the opposite. Socially, I like gay men and feel a certain
kinship with them. I feel like we share a certain "outsider" status, even if
we share that status for completely different reasons. I fully support their
quest for equal rights and find nothing "extreme" about such a goal, but the
idea of sleeping with someone of my own gender is about as attractive as
eating glass. It just doesn't seem yummy. (Except for Walter. Walter makes
me really, really hot. Hey, Walt. Call me! Just kidding.)
This is probably something any straight guy can easily understand. But now
try to imagine a world where all these feelings are taboo, where its
considered sick and wrong and sinful to feel attracted to women. Imagine a
world where you are forced to pretend that you desire men and the thought of
sex with a woman is supposed to disgust you. What a nightmare! I believe
this is what gay people have been going through in our culture. And imagine
that if the truth were to come out about how you really feel, you were
likely to get a nasty beating or be stoned to death. (Don't be confused by
the existence of bi-sexual and transgendered people. Sexuality exists on a
continuum.) The point is simply that we don't "decide" what turns us on.
Either it does or it doesn't. I think we all know this from personal
experience. On a less personal note...
There is an interesting book that gets at my first point; that when it comes
to sustaining life there's more to it than making babies. Its called
"Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce
Bagemihl (1999) According to the author homosexual behavior of a very wide
variety can be seen in many species throughout the animal world, especially
among birds and mammals. He points out that such behavior has all kinds of
survival value. As Erin mentioned, bonobos are apparently quite the little
sluts. They live and graze in pretty large groups and homosexual behavior
seems to minimize the disruptive effects of competition. Male manatees have
orgies together. And Lesbian gulls have been observed raising chicks
together. That's right. You heard it here first. Its not just Heather.
Jonathan Livingston Seagull has two mommy's as well. :-} His 750-page book
is widely considered to be a brilliant breakthrough, except by social
conservatives. The only part of it that is considered controversial by the
scientific community is the chapter where he speculates on how such
behaviours could have emerged.
There are reasons why most people don't know about homosexuality in the
animal world. It contradicts both social level Prejudice and intellectual
level Darwinism, so we tend not to notice it. As Pirsig puts it, "Our
scientific description of nature is always culturally derived. Nature tells
us only what our culture predisposes us to hear. The selection of which
inorganic patterns to observe and which to ignore is made on the basis of
social patterns of value, or when it is not, on the basis of biological
patterns of value."
Thanks,
dmb
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 : Sat Dec 13 2003 - 19:31:57 GMT