

Well, I've provided examples to show that the trend was general, and you
(or others) have provided some counterexamples, mostly ones surrounding
mating practices, etc.  I don't think that these few cases are enough to
disprove the general trend of natural morality.  And, again, the mating
practices need to be reexamined...


No, but mating practices are a special case.  I'll have to think about it
some more.


Indeed.  But, while the natural system is objective, all objective systems
are not the natural one.  So, the terms can not be equated.  The natural
system is a subset of the objective ones.


I don't claim that homosexuality is immoral.  It isn't harmful, although
it isn't helpful either (to the mating process).  And, when you say that
homosexuality is observed in the animal kingdom, don't you mean "bisexuality?"


This is standard jargon.  Read any textbook.  The "we" forms are used
throughout.


That's right.  The goals themselves aren't inherent.


You could, but such would contradict observations.


But a postulate is something that is generally (or always) found to be
true.  I don't think your postulate would be valid.


Yes, and I think the goals of survival and happiness *do* work.  You think
they don't?  Or are they not good goals?