[lbo-talk] Instinct

[Charles Brown]

Carrol Cox 
Miles Jackson wrote:
> 
> Again, this whole "biological root" language is misleading.  It is
> clear that biology does not have "primacy" in the development of
> sexual orientation; if it did, identical twins--again, genetic
> clones!--would have very high concordance rates for sexual
> orientation.  They don't.  The evidence clearly supports the
> claim I've been making ad nauseam: it is just as wrong to claim
> that the primary influence on behavior is biology as it is to
> claim that the primary influence on behavior is the environment.
> The quicker we get past this goofy nature/nurture debate, the
> better.

Indeed. And the falsity of a "biolgoical root" (or any other single
"root") is so obvious that it seems to me the more interesting question
is to give a social/historical analysis of the _reasons_ so many
intelligent people cannot see the goofiness.

This inability is ultimately itself rooted in the abstract individualism
basic to capitalist culture, but is it possible to give a more concrete
(and less tautological) account?

Carrol

 
^^^^^
CB: I'd say it is y'all's side that has the goofiness in this debate. Miles
discusses this like he's dealing three card monte

Here's your goofy argument:

There is no . one root cause of heterosexual behavior.
There are only a complexity of co-equal causes.

Therefore 

There is no biological cause of heterosexual behavior

How could so many alleged materialists try to palm off biology ?