From: Alicia Dvorak (advorak@risd.edu)
Date: Tue May 18 2004 - 05:46:20 BST
On May 17, 2004, at 3:31 AM, Charles Vanderford wrote:
>
> 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.
AD:
If we accept that homosexuality is biological in nature (which I'm
assuming everyone does) then i don't see any way that it could be
immoral since it doesn't seem that biology would commit a crime against
itself. And it's not doing anything against society. Therefore the
problem is what really is the biological level. If as you, Charles,
suggest it is the mechanism which creates and sustains life, then
homosexuality seems to be a, dare i say, platypus, since it does
neither of those things and in fact runs counter to the reproductive
cycle. This leads me to believe that this definition of the biological
levels needs to be redefined or expanded in some way.
On May 17, 2004, at 9:47 PM, Mark Steven Heyman wrote:
> I'm not sure the essential purpose of the biological level is to
> blindly create new life so much as to enhance and evolve extant life
> forms.
> Perhaps homosexuality is a mechanism of population control, a way of
> redirecting and dissipating sexual energy into a non-reproductive
> channel.
>
AD:
Mark's initial solution to this problem is to try to figure out what
homosexuality does and for all i know that is the answer, but as is it
seems rather arbitrary: a shot in the dark. Expanding the biological
level to encompass the enhancement and evolution of extant life may
help and be a step in the right direction, but i can't yet see the
progression from that idea to the idea of homosexuality as a natural
population control. Could you expand a little more on your thought
process here Mark, and let the rest of us in on what you're thinking
about?
now i'm done thinking for the night.
Alicia
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 May 18 2004 - 05:49:55 BST