Re: "natural"

KPJ (kpj@sics.se)
Fri, 03 Dec 1999 10:28:07 +0100

It appears as if Harvey Newstrom <newstrom@newstaffinc.com> wrote:
|
|Homosexuality occurs in a certain percentage of rats, dogs, pigs, monkeys,
|dolphins, goats, sheep, and lots of other species. Some monkeys who have
|been taught sign language have engaged in homosexuality, prostitution
|(negotiating food for sex), and lying about sexual behavior and eating
|behavior.

What definition do you use for ``homosexuality''?

(a)	A unit engaging in sexual acts _only_ with the same sex,
(b)	A unit engaging in sexual acts _also_ with the same sex, or
(c)	Something else?

I have the feeling that some on this list use the funny definition method, also use to define Negro, namely that the define X (e.g. Negro, or gayness) as _inclusive_.

E.g. they define the offspring of a Negro and Caucasian as a Negro, a person who engage in both homosexual and heterosexual acts as a homosexual, and so on.

It indicates that their concept world defines a ``normal'' state and an ``abnormal'' state, and any ``abnormal'' contents define the object as member of the ``abnormal'' set.

Such a concept world seems rather non-transhuman, wouldn't you say?