[grey_whiskers]

I do not doubt that some sociology nut tried to make the construction you are attempting; but it is simply not backed up by logical thinking.

*PRECISELY* my point; and precisely why I objected.

But it gave the "imprimatur" of science to an attempt to undermine traditional morality; so those of the cognoscenti who get their news from Nova, The History Channel, The BBC, and The Discovery Channel (thereby proving themselves more, well, erudite and civilized, than those who listen to Limbaugh, would feel justified in attacking morality.

Cheers!

[allmendream]

Again I am unsure of the logical connection (not that things people believe need to be based upon logic).

The discovery of the behaviors of either a more sexually active or a less sexually active primate does nothing to tell a human being how they should live their life.

One could easily attempt to emulate the behavior of the gibbon rather than the bonobo.

Gibbons pair up, keep all other Gibbons away, and have 100% sexual fidelity to the other. Why would they be less of an example to emulate than a bonobo? And how stupid would one have to be to think these biologically determined behavior patterns are based upon “social constructs” or “culture”?