[Peace-discuss] Biological imperatives

[E. Wayne Johnson]

I dont feel like I am being targeted unfairly, and I enjoyed the discussion.

There is polarization on some issues and people are willing to share 
their views on them.

On the abortion issue it still seems that some do not believe that fetus 
is a living human, while the other view does think it is a living human 
being.
This issue is actually resolvable but it will take some time but not 
necessarily more words.

On the homosexuality issue, one side believes that homosexuality is not 
a choice for homosexuals, while others disagree that homosexuals are 
born homosexual with no choice in the matter.  Some suggest that some 
intervening event or circumstances may have tipped the balance somehow 
toward homosexuality in some individuals.

Everyone seems to agree that honestly caring about one another is an 
important thing.

Affiant further saith not.  (for now).



Marti Wilkinson wrote:
> In a way I really am reluctant to participate in this thread because I 
> don't see how it really helps a peace movement to focus on the 
> perspective of one person. While I may not agree with Wayne I can't 
> help but feel that he is being targeted for his perspective and we run 
> the risk of having this discussion generate into a dialogue where 
> people end up being more concerned about scoring points  than finding 
> a common ground.
>
> In spite of our differences I do see some parallels in our conversations.
>
> 1. Regardless of how people see abortion there does appear to be an 
> understanding of the health care needs of pregnant women and children, 
> the need for affordable and accessible childcare, and public policies 
> that support families.
>
> 2. We can go back and forth on the biology of being gay or lesbian, 
> however I do argue that being a gay person is not a choice. Back when 
> I was in college I had a dear friend who came out and told me he was 
> gay. One of the things I learned is he struggled with his orientation 
> to the point where he attempted suicide. If he truly had a choice in 
> the matter he would have been heterosexual. Because he and I were able 
> to discuss things very openly I asked him about his sexual experience 
> with this one woman he talked about. His response was that he had to 
> think of a man in order to become physically aroused.
>
> 3. Being supportive of GLBT rights is important to the peace movement 
> because of the violence that is committed against members of the 
> community. Once again I really can't understand how someone may 
> 'choose' a sexual orientation that can result in being harassed, 
> raped, and even murdered.  Matthew Shepard and Brandon Teena are just 
> a couple of cases that come to mind.
>
> That being said I don't see this as being a venue where we can 
> persuade individuals to come around to our own perspectives. For many 
> of us we feel very strongly and passionately about our views and it 
> may be best, in some instances, to agree to disagree.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:24 PM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag 
> <mailto:ewj at pigs.ag>> wrote:
>
>     Ron Szoke wrote:
>>     More off-topic questions for Wayne:
>>
>>     3.  Since you have cited your authority & expertise as a biologist as support for 
>>     your  opinions on the moral status of homosexuality, do you hold that the great 
>>     majority of biologists hold the same opinion on the same basis?  It seems to me 
>>     that, if there is not a strong consensus among the great majority of qualified 
>>     biologists on the moral question, then your supposed credentials as a biologist 
>>     are of no avail whatever in supporting your moral views.  (Looks like you quote 
>>     the Bible instead.)
>>
>>     Indeed, some biologists take very different views.  For example, Edward O. 
>>     Wilson in _On Human Nature_ (Harvard U.P., 1978), chapter 6, esp. pages 141-
>>     -7 on the prevalence of homosexuality in many species and human cultures.  
>>     Do you consider your biological authority & expertise greater than Wilson's?  
>>       
>     I suppose that my experience and motivation is somewhat different
>     from Wilson's.
>     I notice that animals engage in aberrant behaviours when under
>     deprivations.
>     A question that homosexuality raises for me, is "what is wrong
>     with the
>     society or the system that is inducing this choice of behaviour"? 
>     I see it rather of a symptom of some underlying problem.
>
>     The recruitment phase of homosexuality seems more like a follow-on
>     phenomenon.
>
>>     4.  This raises the question of your judgment on the validity of  the 
>>     supernatural creationist account in Genesis 1 & 2.  Do you consider more 
>>     worthy of belief than the Darwinian-Mendelian account of evolution in modern 
>>     biology?  If so, please explain.
>>
>>     -- Ron
>>       
>     I don't find  Genesis 1 & 2 and Darwin-Mendel to be mutually
>     exclusive.
>     Darwin and Mendel can't help you much with questions about the
>     origin of life,
>     but are pretty good at some principles of genetics and at showing
>     how natural
>     and artificial selection operate under selection pressure. 
>
>
>
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Peace-discuss mailing list
>     Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>     <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>     http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090127/e1b5ad59/attachment.html