Re: MD "biological" crime

Hi Alicia,

I've belonged to this list for a good while although I do not post very often at all, but your message I will reply to. The reason is because it reminded me of a post I made some months ago regarding the ramifications of homosexuality on the MoQ. This probably will not shed much light on your question, but it might add another interesting dimension to the idea of what "biological crime" is.

I've read some of the replies to your question thus far and I agree, "crime" is an awkward word to use. Everything in the MoQ is in terms of value so using such a concrete word as "crime" is too objective sounding.

Some months ago I raised a question to this forum that I do not believe was ever fully answered. Many people replied to it but no one really seemed to answer the essential question. I'd love to see someone take a crack at it, so I'll go ahead and retell it all here. Also, Alicia, because it has something to do with what could roughly be called "biological crime".

It was titled "The MoQ Perspective on Homosexuality", and my motive for posting it was a deep curiousity and perplexment about the fact that homosexuality, which I guess I have to define as a sexual preference for one's own gender instead of the opposite, seemed to be a biological drive opposed to the entire level of biology; that is, if you broadly define the biological level of existence as that mechanism which creates and sustains life.

One man posted and broke it all down to this question: "What does it mean for a drive to occur (sexual attraction to one's own gender) at the biological level that is morally opposed to the biological level? (if you agree with my stated purpose of the bio-level)"

There were answers to the effect that since sexual preference does not necessarily harm society, it is "moral" according to the MoQ, which makes sense, but the question runs deeper than that.

There were some answers that in the animal kingdom, homosexuality among males provided a type of social security, which may be true, but the question runs deeper than that.

I originally asked if homosexuality was "normal" according to the MoQ, but a person pointed out that in terms of value, "normal" doesn't make much sense. "Moral" does. But then it ran even deeper than homosexuality! It delved into the nature of the biological level itself. So the question was reframed then and is being re-asked now,

If the biological level in a human being is producing drives to be sexually attracted to and active with another of one's own gender, thus invalidating the essential purpose of the biological level, what is happening?

Cheers

C.V.