From: Robert J. Bradbury <bradbury@www.aeiveos.com> wrote on Thursday, December 02, 1999 4:20 am,
> I will agree that "unnatural" is a poor term due to its lack of
specificity.
> While homosexuality may be a natural behavior (from an observed reality
> standpoint), it is decidedly "unnatural" from the perspective of the
> agenda of the genes involved.
I don't mind its lack of specificity. It's just the wrong word. Unnatural means that it does not occur in nature unless artificially induced by humans. Cars are not natural. I think the word you should be using is "counterproductive". You are saying that homosexuality is "counterproductive" to the agenda of trying to produce offspring.
> These are probably just the tip of the iceberg for "weird" gene
> combinations in nature. When I speak of "natural", I mean combinations
> of genes that will "promote" the reproduction of those genes. Anything
> else is self-defeating (from the gene's perspective).
Then say the gene is "self-promoting" or "self-defeating." Don't call it "unnatural", because now you are getting into the awkward position of explaining that both "natural" and "unnatural" genes evolved in nature.
To quote Buckaroo Bonzai, "There's that word again! I don't think it means what you think it does!"
-- Harvey Newstrom <mailto://newstrom@newstaffinc.com> <http://harveynewstrom.com> Author, Consultant, Engineer, Legal Hacker, Researcher, Scientist.