Klarinet Archive - Posting 000565.txt from 2004/03

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausmann1@------.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Re: Biologically/Politically Correct
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 22:58:54 -0500

At 10:04 PM 3/9/2004 -0500, Wayne T. wrote:
>This one will NOT be settled easily, of course. Your problem is that you
>all are defining the expression differently. A scientist and biologist
>does not talk about 'correctness', period. He or she just watches and
>tries to describe what occurs, and hypothesizes a purpose. Judgements as
>to correctness come from humans acting human, full of feelings and
>opinions and cultural history. Important stuff, but it is not Biology.

Can't we just be honest about it, though? Is it not abundantly clear, from
lower animals on up, what the genitalia are PRIMARILY for? You cannot
possibly realistically argue anything else (Do you suppose that is WHY they
call them GENITALIA and/or REPRODUCTIVE organs?). How else is genetic
material to be passed? As to watching what OTHER behavior occurs and
hypothesizing the purpose of it, sure, scientists are free to explore that,
and should. But it still must be looked upon as deviating from the primary
purpose.

We are not even arguing about the relative degree of deviation, nor the
relative benefit/harm (if any) that may derive from it. I just want to see
someone have the honesty to acknowledge that homosexuality IS a deviation
from the norm, even if that is NOT politically correct.

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!