[Peace-discuss] Biological imperatives

[unionyes]

I agree 100 % Marti,

I am as guilty as anyone else on getting sidetracked and stating my opinions.

The abortion issue is very divisive, and no one is going to change anyone elses opinion.

We should stay focused on issues of war and peace, and what we should and can do locally to end the current wars of empire and aggression and militarism in particular.

David Johnson

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Marti Wilkinson 
  To: E. Wayne Johnson 
  Cc: Ron Szoke ; loriserb at loriserb.info ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:32 AM
  Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Biological imperatives


  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.  






--------------------------------------------------------------------------





    _______________________________________________
    Peace-discuss mailing list
    Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
    http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss






------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Peace-discuss mailing list
  Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
  http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.14/1918 - Release Date: 1/27/2009 7:26 AM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090127/2310370a/attachment.htm