Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dragonlordofpoondari" data-source="post: 3672441" data-attributes="member: 42088">Totally. Two clones will occupy distinct environmental niches both in and out of the uterus. Even with identical genotypes (issuing ostensibly identical sets of genetic instructions), the slightest disparities in environmental input will give rise to different responses since it is impossible for two individuals to occupy the same time and space, the same environmental niche. That's why identical twins aren't perfectly identical.Ahh ... so you were referring to biological responses to environment that are not influenced by the body's regulatory pathways ... I see. "Biological hardware," as it were, responding independently of genetic influence. It is good to know your full meaning. Thank you for clearing that up, Shemeska. I do hope that we can all agree about one thing. A biological component to homosexual behavior, if it can ever be successfully and completely characterized, must be a remarkably complex one. A reasonable guess would be that genetics and environment (including niche) both hold some purchase over sexual preference ... but it is a really, really complicated mess to sort out.There very likely is some kind of biological influence or component. I'm sure a lot of people have strong feelings or hunches about this, but we must rely on science (and his dashing older brother, the scientific technique) until something better comes along. Of course, we may never know the complete picture ... or even arrive at a reasonable model.No one expects THE HOMOSEXUAL EXTREME!!! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!Tee-hee-hee. Sorry, but I couldn't help myself.Anyway, um ... I wouldn't dream of trying to contradict or invalidate your subjective experience. Since you asked, I'll tell you what I think. Just so you know beforehand, please understand that I respect you personally and your lifestyle in the utmost possible sense and do not wish to offend. I myself have done more than my fair share of experimenting. Yay for gay! Gay is okay.So here's what I think. Even if it feels like wiring, and you are convinced that it is instinct and instinct alone driving your gay sex, we cannot be certain of anything at this time. The hypothesis you offer cannot logically lead to any certain conclusion about your actual genetic makeup.Unfortunately, there is substantial evidence that you should have some heterosexual impulse encoded in your genes--although these could be recessive genes that weren't expressed in you ... half of our genes never are. The evidence is that you actually were born of woman in the first place, and that you exist. This means that all of your ancestors (each of whom contributed to your genetic code), every link in the genetic chain that extends back through time to the first mammal, engaged in heterosexual fornication at least once. Maybe they were all curious and just very, very potent. This is my suspicion. Fortunately, you don't need to convince me or anyone else. Only yourself. Until science proves otherwise, yours is a perfectly valid opinion.At first blush, it is actually kind of challenging to rationalize homosex from an evolutionary perspective. That is, this behavior doesn't seem adaptively advantageous. Other than providing emotional fulfillment and a sense of well being, it does not strictly enhance survivability since this behavior doesn't give rise to the siring of more offspring. In fact, with regard to the "extreme gay" example, such as yourself, it is evolutionarily counter-productive since these souls will never pass on their genetic code. Of course all this can change given the advent of in vitro fertilization ... but I'm referring the eons of evolution that has shaped the landscape of our genes up to this decade.The very fact that you exist, as an "extreme gay," may actually argue against a powerful genetic basis ... for extreme gaiety anyway. Since exclusively gay folks have always been around and most likely always will be, this presents a conundrum of sorts.How do they come to be in the first place, if they weren't passing on their genes? Each individual's genes eventually reached a dead end, as it were, since they weren't breeding. In spite of this, every new generation gives rise to a new crop of "extremely gay" gays. Vexing, no?Since the majority of "extreme gays" aren't born of sea foam and don't come riding down from the heavens on clam shells, I surmise that we humans all must have at least a little gay in us. Heck, I've got a little gay in me right now. <Franz, get out of here! I can't concentrate when you're doing that!!!> Hee-hee. j/kAny-way, I believe the gay impulse to be persistently present in all of our genomes, to some extent, spread out over the human population. I can't demonstrate this scientifically, but it does make a kind of sense. Let's just call it "a hunch," for good or ill.If it ever is irrefutably demonstrated through the mighty, soul-crushing power of science, I'm not sure what kind of effect that would have politically. Eventually, this would probably be a good thing. Greater knowledge is usually a good thing. In the short term, though, with the cloning of humans uncomfortably closer than the horizon, ideas like made-to-order babies with hand-picked genetic traits kind of scare me. It exudes the potent whiff of eugenics. It's more of a stench, really ... and as a relative to many a German Jew who died in concentration camps ... me no likey the smell. Especially when one considers how susceptible the average plebe is to trends, marketing, and repetition. Scary stuff, indeed. But now we're really getting into the realm of "What Ifs" though, and as fun a land as it is, it is really difficult to be certain of much around here.My 2 cents.</blockquote>

Verification