[Peace-discuss] Biological imperatives

[John W.]

Very well said, Marti.  Bravo!


On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Marti Wilkinson <martiwilki at gmail.com>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> 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.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090127/6f5606b1/attachment.htm