Legion said:
Just as skin color is genetic, but you see myriad expressions of it in the human species. Just as musculature is genetic, but you see myriad expressions of it in the human species. Etc etc etc.
Actually homosexuals have often been quoted comparing such diversity to hair color.
This not a good analogy. The expression of their musculature is often an affect of enviromental stimuli causing musculuture developement. "use it or lose it" applies very well here. Clearly, muscle tissue and its developement has a genetic link. However sexuality does not. The two aren't similiar even in concept. IE how does one account for gene's ability to interprit objects without the ability to sense
?
I have the same build as my father, i.e. I am 6ft tall, roughly 195lbs - 200lbs, and have long arms. If I never worked out a day in my life, I'd still have the same capacity for musculature that my father does, and roughly the same dimensions. Not to mention the fact that anyone who has ever seen me stand next to my father swears we are identical twins, save for the age difference, from our physicality to the way we walk, talk, our inflections, the way we carry ourselves, etc. And just so you know, I never grew up with my biological father. I met him twice in my life. So if I have the same traits as he does in almost every respect, but I never grew up with him to learn these things from him, they must have been passed genetically.
It is my environmental attitude wrt working out that has improved my musculature, but the capacity still has to be there genetically. For instance, my boyfriend has a small frame. He's 135lbs. No matter how much he works out, he will never have the muscular capacity that I do. Why? His mother and his father are both slim individuals, as are most of the people in his family.
Sexuality is a genetically passed trait. We all are inborn with sexual tendencies. All beings are, be they lowly amoeba or human beings. Studies have been shown that even as babies, we have a sexually explorative nature. We obviously don't learn that coming out of the womb, so there has to be some other component, i.e. our DNA.
I hope this has answered your question.
Legion said:
Why do I prefer turtle neck sweaters?
-because of your genetic predisposition to prefer turtle neck sweaters.
How do i know i have this genetic disposition?
-Because you prefer turtle necks.
acknwoledging the fact this is circuitous logic is enough to refute it
Ah but when you're born there is no such thing as a turtle neck sweater to you. But you are definitely a sexual being. Put a baby in the wild and leave it there. It will most certainly express its sexuality, but it won't have a clue as to what a turtle neck sweater is. That is an instance of environment affecting our likes and dislikes.
Legion said:
Higher reasoning isn't unnatural. You see it in many species in the wild such as Dolphins, Primates, Parrots, Geese, etc.
No i disagree. These animals do not have the capacities we do. For us "higher reasoning" isn't on the same level as it is for them. Such a level is unnatural.
No. Higher reasoning is natural. Capacity changes just because of different species.
For instance, a Cheetah has far more lung capacity than we do. Does that mean that its lung capacity is unnatural? No. It simply means that it evolved that lung capacity in order to better survive in its environment. We evolved a higher capacity for intelligence to better survive in our environment. It is merely a different branch of evolution.
Legion said:
That is why I stated before that arguing the naturalness of a behavior does not equate it to its "rightness" or "wrongness". Those behaviors listed are certainly natural, but as a higher species, we have evolved to the point where we accept that taking advantage of others for our own gain (rape, incest) is not a good thing in our society.
why not? its "natural...."
As I said before, natural does not necessarily equate to "right" and "wrong." And I never stated that homosexuality is "right" simply because it's natural. I stated that sexuality is a genetically passed trait, of which homosexuality is an expression. Because most people express their homosexuality with consenting adults (which is what we as a society have deemed ok for sexual interaction. sexual expression between consenting adults), there is no reason to outlaw it. But we do have laws that prohibit sexual expression between "of age" beings and "underage" beings, be it heterosexual or homosexual expression.
There is no biological need to supress homosexuality in those who are born with it frankly because we are in no danger of dying out as a species. But I'll tell you this. If tomorrow almost every human being died and only homosexuals were left to repopulate the earth, they would be physically capable of doing so. But physical capability does not equate to emotional and mental happiness. And that is why people come out. Homosexuals are capable of marrying the opposite sex and having family and whatnot. But that doesn't mean we are happy doing that, and don't wish to be with members of the same sex.
Rape occurs in the animal kingdom. But our intelligence has evolved to the point whereby we do not believe it is right to sexually take advantage of other beings. Why? Because we believe that sex is more than a physical thing, but an emotional and mental expression. Thus if emotionally and mentally you do not wish to have sex with someone, and they force you to, that is a violation of your personal being.
Incest also occurs in the animal kingdom. And it occurs in human beings as well. But societies throughout history banned it because of the deleterious effects it has on offspring, and for no other reason. In the animal kingdom, species that practice incest, such as mole rats, have evolved a genetic defense mechanism against it so that the offspring do not exhibit the effects common in human beings and other species that would put an end to the species. For their species, incest is merely another way of procreating.
Legion said:
We have also evolved to the point where we accept that taking the life of another sentient being is not a good thing in our society (murder, cannibalism, genocide).
I would rather say we evolved to the point of higher reasoning that has given up the capability to reject such behavior in the manner that we do.
I can't say I understand exactly what you're saying. Can you restate that please?
Legion said:
Empathy and Sympathy are not behaviors known solely to mankind.
But aren't see widely throughout the animal kingdom. Certainly no such animal establishment compares to human welfare programs
.
That is merely an extension of empathy and sympathy. It is not a separate entity in and of itself.
Legion said:
There are myriad instances in the wild whereby lionnesses will take on the cubs of another, even when that cub is not genetically their own.
SUch can be said for dolphins as well but i wouldn't call this a usual occurance.
I never said it was usual. I just said that it occurs. There is precedence of its occurrence in nature.
Legion said:
There are myriad instances in the wild whereby primates will allow sick and wounded primates from other clans to join them and live in their society. 100% Darwinism would not allow for such behavior, and yet it exists in nature.
Natoma the fact remains such behavior is not widely supported throughout the animal kingdom. It is comparitively rare.
Yes, it is rare in each individual species, but many species have indeed exhibited this behavior. It is all over the animal kingdom.
