On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Arash wrote:
>>> Why assume "near exclusive homosexual behavior"? What we see in most
>>> primates and mammals are opportunistic homosexual encounters, not a stable
>>> homosexual "orientation" in a small percentage of the species.
>
> I didn't assume it, it's been observed. I can get back to you with a
> research paper that cites this, but for right now it's noted in this Boston
> Globe article about biological research and homosexuality, "gay men are
> estimated to produce 80 percent fewer offspring than straight men"
> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_peo
> ple_gay?mode=PF
>
I don't understand how this supports your point. To me, it just illustrates that people are socially compelled to enact a stable sexual identity (and it is social compulsion: ask any bisexual who catches shit for "not being able to make up his mind"); it doesn't do anything to support the claim that our modern sexual categories are natural types.
Here's the problem: as I understand it, you want to claim that the stable sexual categories that exist in our society are grounded in biology/nature. However, many, many societies throughout human history have nothing like these sexual categories. Rather than assuming that all these other societies are ignorant of the "true" sexual categories that we believe in, consider the possibility that our conception of sexuality is one of many ways in which people have organized sexual practices. Our modern sexual categories are neither necessary nor inevitable.
Miles