Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Nemesis, simple reality, "gay" exists in all species over a certain
> level of complexity, including deer, dogs, cats, and penguins, etc.
> Every time someone mentions "denying nature" I know they have a weak
> grasp of the science of sexual selection, and are just "assuming" that
> there is some magic part of human (or other animals) natures that are
> somehow devoid of errors, flaws, deviation, or genetic influence.

Obstacles to overcome.  Don't take that literally.  Not all diseases or flaws
can be overcome in a physical sense.  I take that to mean to not let such
obstacles come in your way to happiness (God).  To get around them if not
possible to overcome them.

> Point is, nature doesn't produce "all male" or "all female" in anything
> much more complex than a moth, and I am not even sure those wouldn't
> exhibit some of the same sort of unstable trait drift (to maintain
> different behavior models for males and females) and population
> controls, which generates homosexual behavior in mammals. You simply
> can't use the same blueprint for 99% of the entire animal, which
> included 99% of what makes it "act" like such an animal, in the most
> general sense, they expect the other 1%, which has to define body form,
> differences in physical function, etc., to also "perfectly" designate
> psychological differences between sexes (despite its total inability to
> get the first part right and "always" get the shape right either).

All these percentages and statistics are pretty amusing.  Unfortunately, you're
not referring to just an animal or a simple pile of molecules, but a man, given
a spirit and free will.

> And, with all due respect, Hermaphrodites have *tended* to have people
> choose "for them"

I know.  It doesn't change that they were given choice.

Post a reply to this message