> Robert J. Bradbury <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote on Wednesday, December
> 01, 1999 2:45 pm,
>> I would maintain, that engaging in sexual activities for non-procreation
>> purposes is *unnatural* (i.e. it is not in the direct interest of your
>> genes), unless you are getting paid for it in some way (this may
>> include social contacts, indirect economic benefits, general well being
>> from the "rewards" of physical pleasure, etc.)
> Any biologist will tell you that homosexuality is found in all species of
> mammal higher than a cat. Maybe all these species are acting "unnaturally"
> according to your definition, but I would suggest you find a different term.
well, speaking from personal experience, my girlfriend's mother had a cat (fixed, by the way) that used to regularly engage in sexual activity with one of the neighborhood skunks. the skunk never seemed to object. absolutely true, swear to [god].
i don't really see [natural] as a particularly useful description, except in poetry. all that exists is [natural], because it exists in [nature]. [nature] includes all that is. as i see it, behavior can be described as survival-oriented, non-survival-oriented and irrelevant-to-survival. these descriptions are, of course, situational at best.
for example: wearing a bulletproof vest in compton at night is survival-oriented behavior. wearing a "white power" t-shirt in compton is non-survival-oriented behavior. wearing a grey t-shirt in compton is irrelevant-to-survival behavior.
in closing, i must say that i think the assumption that all behavior can be directly correlated with a specific genetic sequence is, to say the least, premature. we are more than our genes.
"I am a scientist, I seek to understand me." -- Guided By Voices