> No, that's a refutation of the idea that "sex is the primary method of
> procreation" which is not what I said. Crawling may not be the primary
> method of locomotion for most people other than babies or drunks, but
> locomotion is still the primary purpose of crawling. I'd not argue with
> the second half of your paragraph, though I'd add that self-replication
> would, I suppose, be procreation without variety, but with sexual
> reproduction you won't get variety _without_ procreation.
Procreation is guaranteed by self-replication. Therefore, the only evolutionary
reason for sex-based reproduction to have estabilished in most species is
variation. Self-replication would be a much simpler and economical process for
creating offsprings, except for the fact that they would all look like their
parent. Therefore, the primary 'purpose' of sex in reproduction is variation,
not procreation. If you want to 'think biologically' you have to consider what
biology has to say about it.
> Yes, variation is desirable and necessary. However, nature throws up
> "sports" from time to time. Take the albino giraffe. What advantage does
> that have? Other giraffes ostracise it because it will draw attention to
> the herd (what do you call a group of giraffes?) because of its lack of
> camouflage. Surely that must threaten its own survival.
As well as people who are not naturally resistant to the HIV, as mainstream
scientists explain those who have lived with it in the body for years without
developing Aids. Do you think you belong to that anti-HIV elite group or do you
threaten our survival?? hehe
You know, sociobiologists ( scientists who explain every single behavior in
terms of genetics ) say that the reason why evolution has 'allowed' gays to
exist is that they can help take care of their sisters' offsprings, in case
their males die while hunting or are attracted to a different female.
If you look back at our history, you'll find out that albino babies were
considered heaven-sent by many cultures in the past. Noah, for instance, was an
albino ( Oh... and according to our religious tradition, he SAVED THE HUMANKIND
FROM EXTINCTION ).
> It's easy to see why in some societies homosexuality was proscribed,
> when population growth was a precarious thing. Population growth doesn't
> seem to have been seen as a problem among the ancient Greeks!
Greek philosopher were against same-sex intercourse at large. They believed it
was a way for the master to introduce ( whatever that means! hehe ) the
disciple into manhood. Masters were 'top' and disciples were 'bottom'. People
who engaged in that behavior out of that situation were morally scolded by them.
> surely a gay gene woud be a sort of genetic suicide, wouldn't it? What I
> was saying was that there's no point, biologically, to sexual
> attraction, unless it's to encourage you to have sex. Because if the purpose
of sex
> is for variety, the act still isn't going to give variety amongst the
> creatures performing it, but among the creatures they produce.
But then any birth-control measure, and any resistance to rape during the
woman's fertile period is also against the primary purpose of sex. That's why I
said that trying to derive ethics from biology is nonsensical. Ethics is a
higher achievement of human thought, and considers religion, feelings, etc. If
you consider biological advantages, why to help a sick parent? Why to spend
money trying to save a sick child of yours if you can make another one ( and
many more! )?
> > you must excuse a rapist who causes a nun to become pregnant.
>
> I can't see why. And I can't see what her being a nun has to do with it.
Because the purpose of the reproductory system would be procreation, according
to you. Therefore, gays are against nature, and so are nuns. And I chose nuns
also for another reason: to show that religion OFTEN GOES AGAINST what nature
is supposed to have in mind.
>I was attempting - ok, obviously somewhat
> clumsily, since you misunderstood me - to show some understanding of why
> the opposite values may have arisen and been perpetuated, and to offer a
> different way of looking at things for those who do hold such values.
>
> Is that any clearer, or have I muddied it even further?
Ok, I got it now. But, anyway, I don't think that's a good explanation for what
society has determined to be right or wrong. As I said, religion ( a group of
institutions that have built and ruled civilizations for millenia ) does not
necessarily derive its ethics from nature. Much the opposite: as most religions
differ nature/human nature from what is divine, and pray that salvation or
anything similar to that comes from the individual living according to that
which is divine, not what's natural, traditional values are very unlikely based
upon nature itself. Only after Enlightenment have ethical philosophers
reflected upon values based upon nature only, but if the West still has any
sense of right or wrong that is due much more to our Christian origins than to
positivism, social-darwinism, marxism, etc ( the Enlightenment offsprings ).
I'm an atheist, but I think the Catholic Church is coherent when it stands
against sex without reproductive purposes, and therefore bans homosexual
practices ( but not homosexuals ) along with 'opposite-genre fun sex' ( hehe ),
even if you're married. If the Church were to reflect upon that by considering
what's natural, it could not say much, since physical pleasure is part of
nature. Values, on the other hand, is categorizing nature according to a scale
that supposedly stands above it. That's why I said, when I commented on the
reactions to Lisa's post, that liberals discussing values with practicing
christians was pure nonsense. We have different scales.
Bye,
Caio Rossi
|
|  |
