OK, to prove that, one must look to nature for the evidence.
Nature ain't dang behavior. No dang behavior is nature. Nature is your friggin' physical body. And it is there that the evidence is clearly and easily found.
It is a matter of self-evident fact that your dad and only your dad, plus your mom and only your mom = Buddy McKee, and that configuration will never change. ANY OTHER pairing involving your parents will not define B. McKee and this scheme is self-evidently true for any and all humans. All changes in the configuration are self-evidently foreign to you. You did not emerge of them, they have no part of your fundamental biological structure.
(You can't simply assume things are a certain way... just because you want them to be).
There is no assumption. I point directly to the natural order that exists even within each of your cells. You are simply unable to think philosophically enough to see the truth right before and within you. This is commonly true of animals and ought not be true of humans.
You continually rely upon the lack of integrity that commonly exists around you to claim that lack of integrity is natural. It is the height of blindness. Your idea of "natural" is childish. You actually think that simply because a behavior exists, it is natural. It is such an obviously bogus definition. No dang behavior is natural because it is not physically extant in nature. Behaviors can only have integrity with or run contrary to nature, but they themselves are not natural. What is natural is the basic structure of your body, that structure that physically puts your body in nature. That is natural and all else either conforms to or runs contrary to it.
And the natural sciences are full of thousands of examples of different sexual practices being common among species... including among the species closest to humans.
Simply because animals act in ignorance of themselves within nature is no reason to claim we all should act as the animals do. Truly, should we neglect the principle I have here repeatedly pointed out to you, such contrary behaviors as bestiality, polygamy and homosexuality are not wrong at all. If we ignore our identities in nature, there is no reason in the universe to forbid bestiality. None. Indeed there is no reason to forbid murder or ANY behavior at all. It is because of fundamental biological identity that these behaviors are "wrong." They are all foreign to the scheme that is responsible for inserting humanity within nature. They are foreign to human identity. That and ONLY that is why we have no obligation to support them.
And when we turn to the history of humans specifically and look at the common practices... we see there too that variance is common.
Human ignorance varies. Big friggin' deal. Some humans in some cultures have long supported the offering of other humans in sacrifice to heathen gods while other humans more accurately forbid it. One cultural behavior is more contrary to human identity than the other. This has always been true because humans have always been puke ignorant, vast numbers of them intentionally.
So, make any claim you want to about what is 'best' for human society, or 'most moral', and I won't argue with you.
You can't argue with me. At least not yet, because you can't even think beyond your blindness and your puny ideas of "nature" to get where I am. This will sound strange to you, no doubt; but here is the real friggin' deal. I don't argue what is 'best' for society. I only argue from the principle of self-preservation.
But don't claim that 'nature' proves monogamy is the natural sexual state... because nature most assuredly does NOT!
Please....'Proving monogamy' ain't got a dang thang to do with nuthin'. I'm telling you what simply is in nature. Heterosexual monogamy is the sexual behavior that is human. It is directly rooted to our most fundamental biological structure. All other behaviors are foreign to us.
If I wanted 'integrity with nature'... then perhaps the most approved of goal to be divined from nature would be to spread my genes as far and wide as I possibly can,
No. If you wanted to act like an ignorant friggin' dog then this is what you would do. Intelligent man would seek to pair himself with one woman for life because that is the unchanging scheme that exists even in his own body. That and only that scheme conforms to his identity in nature. He would act in accordance to what he is.
because that does seem to be the one 'biological imperative' of species.
It only "seems" that way because you are self-deceived into thinking you must act like a friggin' unthinking animal and not a damned man.
(Please read Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" for a fuller popular explanation.)
Chile please... Dis crap is filled with twittery, half-cocked reasoning and pure friggin' ignorance. Dawkins is just as friggin' blind as you are. But at least he TRIES to find his way. |
