I, as an intelligent, consciousnes-having species, am proposed, by science have you, to possess something that deferentiates me from the animal species - the ability to reason. Whether or not these basic natural adaptive sexual or social practices take place in the animal kingdom, does not preclude my natural capacity to reason and refrain from such as a higher level being - sanctified from those that crawl on their bellies, toss their feces and chew their cud.
I then must be of a the super-natural status.
Again, though, that is neither here nor there in respects to this argument; though I believe you are implying that, in humans, homosexuality is an
exclusively higher cognitive choice. To that end, higher executive function only serves to initiate final decisions re: biological imperatives, and subsequently place them within a social context; animal or human, this homosexual tendency exists for a specific biological purpose - reason notwithstanding.
At any rate B, I feel this is nothing more than a Red Herring, relative to the true point at hand: homosexuality and homoeroticism are ubiquitous natural tendencies; and so, the biological argument is removed as a crux-point for the homosexual discourse as a whole. The group(s) opposed to homosexuality often use "A man and a woman is natural, that's how anatomy works" as a talking point. They use it, of course, because biology is a far more legitimate and rational explanation than, say, moral reasoning. What we have left, then, is a much more honest discourse between those who find homosexuality to be morally acceptable, and those that do not, with nothing more than morality as the reasoning.
Higher human function and so forth have little-to-nothing to do with the point at hand! Back to the eating example: you can choose
what type of food to put in your mouth, but not the desire and necessity to eat it - and so, to imply sexuality is any different is logically inconsistent. Certain imperatives are inherently beyond the control of rational choice, with homosexuality being one of them - i.e., the drive always exists, and one can decide in which ways to act on it, but not to cease from acting on it. You really cannot decide "not" to eat it, lest you do harm to yourself - relatively, the same applies here.
Be that as it may, savagery still exists, that doesn't negate the question. So are we right to practice it? Should I be even tried against a panel of my peers if say I ripped some guys eyes out because he was checking out my wife?
I feel you are drawing conclusions from premises never presented to you, D. The argument is not, "Animals do it, and so
should we", but rather: "It is a
natural phenomenon, so the point that it is
unnatural must logically be removed from the discourse". Nobody is drawing the conclusion you are, insofar as equating this biological phenomenon with morality. When speaking about biology, I feel it is amiss to begin adding in words such as "right" and "should", because you are projecting a human construct onto an evolutionary phenomenon. In the context of animal-kingdom-wide homosexuality, there is only "it does happen", and not "this means it always should". Again, the point here is that this and other mounting [no punt intended] evidence seem to suggest that, contrary to the suggestions of those that are opposed to it, homosexuality is an inherently natural phenomenon. As I said to B, the only argument then remaining is morality, which is necessarily less attractive to an individual opposed to something, as it is less justifiable.
In simple terms, AE14's evidence removes the ability to say, "Homosexuality is not natural, and therefore should not happen". All the opposition is left with is, "Homosexuality is against my beliefs, and therefore should not happen".
