At 10:28 1999/12/03 +0100, you wrote:
>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?
MMB
"We never used to speak of it. Nowadays you speak of nothing else." -- Quentin Crisp
(this quote may be slightly off)