Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcsstat.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsstat!laura From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.flame Subject: Re: Laura Creighton's bull... Message-ID: <1487@utcsstat.UUCP> Date: Fri, 25-Nov-83 12:57:20 EST Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1487 Posted: Fri Nov 25 12:57:20 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 25-Nov-83 13:58:00 EST References: <4027@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada Lines: 181 It was my great-grandfather's farm, but that is not the point. Your whole argument does not wash. There are human societies that have yet to connect sex with babies. (I heard a lecture on one group of them last week -- they are in New Guinea.) What argument? Did you READ the article? At any time did I say that humans do it exclusivly for making babies? In fact I stated the just the opposite. yes, that was what I got out of your argument. This, however, was only the first part of mine, which you chose to split so clumsily. But, (for the readers of net.flame who didn't see the original) lets see what you did say: Let's be very carefull when we make comparisons between humans and animals that exhibit homosexual behavior. Humans do it for fun. The animals may very well think that they are procreating and just have their wires crossed. One expects odd behavior from rats if they are placed in an overcrowded environment... an 'unatural' environement if you will. On the other hand, many animals (rats too) can learn to modify their behavior if the reward is some sort of pleasure. Laura's story about the bull on her uncle's (?) farm is an example that could be interpreted wither way. -- My argument is that if human beings have not caught on to "sex is for procreation" it is unreasonable to assume that the rats do. Thus the whole idea of: The animals may very well think that they are procreating (your words) is the sort of romantic nonsense that you get out of certain biology teachers who do not know genetics from a hole in the ground. Rats have itty-bitty tiny brains. I do not think that it is possible for them to know that they areprocreating. Which is what I said. When I said that humans do it for fun, WHY DID YOU THINK I WAS REFERRING TO A HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP????? I was in fact referring to a HOMOSEXUAL relationship. Your lack of objectivity is showing. What lack of objectivity? I'm the one that doesn't think that it matters from the point of view of the rat *what* he has sex with. You are the one that has to substantiate that the statement "has got their wires crossed" has any meaning for a rat. My claim is that neither homosexual nor heterosexual relationships are founded on this programmed "desire to procreate" for either rats or human beings. I am attacking the idea of "sex is designed for procreation". Do you really expect that the rats do? I said they "MAY" think they are procreating. Stop trying to force words down my throat. They may also be having a little fun. Can you honestly tell the difference between a homosexual rat and a rat that thinks it's procreating? Yes. the rat that thinks it's procreating is a figment of your imagination. Or it is a figment of some teacher of yours' imagination. This great myth has long standing in classrooms, but that does not make it any less a myth. And then you drone on and ON and ON about the idea of what is natural being derived from Genesis, etc, etc. You DIDN'T read my article DID you? Why must you always lower every conversation to Laura Creighton's personal crusade against the bible? I don't give a fuck about your repressed hatred. What I was proposing was a theory as to why this myth that you spouted could be so wide-spread. I expressed it as such. While you are at it you might want to look up the word "repressed" since you do not seem to understand its meaning. It is interesting that I have never said that I hate the Bible -- just that people use it to do all of their science for them. You state... "And consider that what you are actually arguing about is not the NATURALNESS of homosexuality, but the MORALITY of homosexuality." I have made NO arguments against anyone. yes, but this is long after I have proposed that "natural" expressed as a "programmed to procreate" is a remnant of Genesis teaching. If it is not, then you are left explaining where it came from, but if it is, then the whole word "natural" should be replaced by "moral" since that is the real topic of discsussion. Why so sensitive? I'll bet that you read the whole article i wrote once, didn't see the break in the argument from the illogic of what you said to why it is interesting, and decided to roast me. Not that you will let me collect on that bet, though... I have said NOTHING of morality. Aha, but I think you have. You may not have used such words, but if you defend the "rats think that they are procreating" position then you are expressing a view on "why animal sex is moral" -- even if you do not recognise this argument. I have NOT envoked the bible. No, I did, as an explanation of where that funny belief you have could have come from. I did not say that you went out and looked up the Bible to get your beliefs. it is a widerspread belief which is taught in school with no evidence whatsoever to support it. This means that it has to come from some very well respected source which is shared by a lot of people. it also has to be in harmony with the beliefs of a lot of people. There are very few documents which can satisfy both of these requirements. There are other documents which support your myth (for instance, you can read it in Darwin's *Origin of Species*) but they do not have the same universal appeal. The American Declaration of Independance has had the same exposure in North America, but does not speak of procreation. These are all YOUR words... YOU eat them. I'd rather stand by them. Here they are again for those of you who missed them the first time: It was my great-grandfather's farm, but that is not the point. Your whole argument does not wash. There are human societies that have yet to connect sex with babies. (I heard a lecture on one group of them last week -- they are in New Guinea.) Do you really expect that the rats do? However, it really outlines what it is that some people mean by "natural". They mean that if you aren't going "rah rah procreate!" all the time, then your sex is unnatural. By that definition, I don't know a single heterosexual couple that counts as natural. Now where could this idea, not that the humans *ought* to be thinking of sex-as-for-procreation-only (an idea which isn't even in favour with the middle-of-the road Catholics in Toronto!), but that the animals *already are* have come from? Let me think. I may be wrong, but my hunch is that it comes from Genesis 1:22 -- the old "be fruitful and multiply bit". If this is so, then you have just defined "natural" to mean "in accordance with my interpretation of the Christian Bible". This sure isn't my definiton of the word natural, and I am sure that it is not the one that most people use. I have a smaller definiton of "natural" than Tim Maroney's (for instance, if there were no wild colonies of rats that exhibited that lab behaviour, I would be willing to concede that that was not natural behaviour for rats) but not so small as to consist of somebody else' interpretation of his Holy Book. (By the way, lemmings exhibit homosexual behaviour every 7 (I think) years, under overcrowded situations. Of course they are the same animals that every seven years "swarm" to form new colonies due to overpopulation. In lemming swarms, there is a lot of dinners provided for the Arctic foxes and wolves, and a lot of lemmings simply dive into the ocean and start swimming for the other side. They drown, leading people to beliefs of lemming mass suicides.) Now. If you want to argue about "correspondance to my interpretaion of Holy Book X", that is fine. BUT -- not in net.motss, which is read by a lot of people who don't care about "Holy Book X". And consider that what you are actually arguing about is not the NATURALNESS of homosexuality, but the MORALITY of homosexuality. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura