Remember with gayness, the real question is, Is there anything to apologize for, excuse, or justify? The answer is No. This is love and lust we're discussing, magnificant when it is returned and gratified, devastating when denied or frustrated, and no one asked you whether you approved, thank you very fucking much. (I don't mean you, Luke. One. Someone. Pat Robertson. Dubya.) If you don't like it, if it doesn't turn you on, for God's sake don't do it. Why anyone should have thought that this required a biological justification beats me.
jks
--- Luke Weiger <lweiger at umich.edu> wrote:
>
> Justin wrote:
>
> > Anyway, the point is this. Any trait of any
> organism
> > is a manifestation of genetic characteristics in
> an
> > environment. You can't do without either. Sexual
> > behaviors are the resuly of the fact that wea re
> > organism that reproduce sexually, but of course we
> do
> > so only in an environmental -- and for humans that
> > almost always meansa social --context. Therefore,
> > sexual behaviors are the results of genes that
> create
> > sexes and drives manifesting themselves in
> > environments where the drivesa re shaped and
> directed
> > in certain ways -- differently depending on the
> > circumstances.
> >
> > You cannot say, it makes no sense to ask, Is a
> > behavior 75% (or something) genetic? If that
> means,
> > not environmental. Genes only manifest themselves
> in
> > environments,a nd they manifest themselves
> differently
> > in different environments. They impose rough
> limits on
> > variation -- I could not grow to be 9 feet tall
> > whatever I ate, but I could have been a lot sorter
> > than I am if I had lacked proper nutrition. But
> that
> > does not mean that there are many interesting
> traits,
> > if any, that rigidly manifest themselves the same
> way
> > in all circumstances. They are codes that allow
> ranges
> > of behavior thatr vary with the circumstances.
>
> I think anyone who has addressed this question
> seriously (from Richard
> Lewontin to Richard Dawkins) explicitly acknowledges
> that degree of
> heritibility is evironmentally contingent, and thus
> allows that there's some
> conceptual incoherence at play in nature/nurture
> debates. The difference is
> that the Lewontins think this renders the entire
> discourse nonsensical,
> while the Dawkinses believe that there are still at
> least partially coherent
> questions about heritibality to be asked and
> answered. Surely, when I claim
> that most of the variation in heights among persons
> in the US is the result
> of different genetic endowments, I'm saying
> something that deserves to be
> called an approximate truth.
>
> -- Luke
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com