Printable View
Very eloquently put SnnY. People usually look at me like I've just landed from Mars when I express this view but to me it is blindingly obvious that that is the way it is, in fact I'd even go so far as to say that all of our preferences cultural and I'd argue nurture over nature every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
I would agree also.Quote:
Originally Posted by brendaVery eloquently put SnnY. People usually look at me like I've just landed from Mars when I express this view but to me it is blindingly obvious that that is the way it is, in fact I'd even go so far as to say that all of our preferences cultural and I'd argue nurture over nature every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
Nevertheless, I'm sure the scientific community will not be impressed.
err... which bit would they object to, sounds more like the kind of stuff that religious people are not impressed by (e.g. kinsey type stuff)
Well the science community would object cos it goes against popular theories.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilw
I remember being alone in the assumption that it is neither genetic nor or a choice before. Now folks are coming around.:whistling
It seems to me the scientific types are sold on the idea of genetic predisposition, which the above-stated view is most assuredly not.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilw
Hmm I interpreted it slightly differently, but i can see your point
Snny if you read this, any chance you could say if you believe there is an element of predisposition for sexual preference? (just out of interest)
J2 just to clarify, do you believe that no part of your sexual preference is determined by instincts hard wired into your genes? I mean at the most extreme level, i.e. even a preference for your own species...
Does this belief extend to other creatures, i.e. in non-social creatures there are still clear sexual signs (peacocks fanning their feathers) is none of the arousal or courtship there influenced by genes?
First, while I do not deign to lump humans in with the rest of the animal kingdom, it must be said that there is much more in common between the two than many would believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilw
While I have heard and seen many incidences of "homosexual" behavior in the wild (and in the "tame" :P ), I have no recollection of ever hearing of any animal-that is to say, apart from humans-exhibiting exclusively "homosexual" tendencies.
Now comes the the gay community saying that they are "hard-wired" as homosexuals, and, sure enough, scientific "evidence" to that effect emerges shortly thereafter.
Can I dispute this theory?
No...I am not a scientist.
While my personal inclination is to denounce such conclusions as bullshit, I have made my peace with the fact of homosexuality, and while I am disposed to judge anyone over anything if the urge strikes me, I'll leave that particular issue to the hereafter.
I consider myself tolerant and I do not proselytize.
In any case, I'll have all the fun I can with the goofy "logic" employed by those who make the claim in one case, but not in the other.
A few innocently asked questions is all if takes, you see. :)
Really tired so I'm rambling a little (trying to explain how I see things), but here goes...Quote:
Originally Posted by ilw
I think I originally picked up the notion of fluid sexuality in something Asimov, or maybe Arthur C. Clarke wrote. And it seem to make more and more sense to me the older I get, going by how I actually see people behave :dabs:
In that "spectrum of preferences" I referred to, I assume that such features as are gender-specific would have a place.
But it seems that such features are getting less and less distinct from other, non-gender specific qualities in prospective partners, the more elaborate the organism, as sex becomes less and less about just carrying on ones lineage. If that makes sense.
In insects, procreation is everything, in birds, like your peacocks, I believe it's about the same :unsure: So they would go for those features as are specific to the other gender. But looking at even "higher" life forms, sex is more and more becoming something other than just a means to further ones genes.
In primates it can be a method of establishing rank or tribal solidarity, or just a means for recreation, looking at chimpanzees.
And us humans, well, sex seems to be recreation more than anything, these days.
And while there probably are gender-specific factors we consider, again consciously or subconsciously, they are just part of what we look for. People most certainly prioritize differently when it comes to what they like in a partner.
What determines the "choices" we make, I can't say for certain. Something in our genes may certainly be calling, urging us to seek someone we can create the best possible offspring with. But who is to say that someone cannot possess a whole lot of the qualities wanted, except for that wee problem with them having the wrong set of genitalia?
It seems unlikely, I think, that there would be someone who only seeks qualities that are specific to one gender. And, in my thinking the nature of a creature's sexuality is determined by the function that entity's sexuality fulfills.
I do consider myself heterosexual, btw, but I honestly think that is much more nurture than nature.
Indeed we humans are the only species that is having sex all year long and not thinking about anything else most of the time than to have some pleasure. Most of humans in specific cultures are looking for a partner that has some qualities that tv makes us belive that are needed. When you listening to everything some may say that is sexy you might end up loving clothes; the birth of fetish. I like the way how japanese people think, the type of blood decides most of things there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tracydani3Ahh.. I understand what you are saying now.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamer4eva
I don't believe the idea is to clone a bunch of body parts and put them together into one person. If that was the case, I would tend to agree with you.
As far as I understand it, there are 2 possibilities.
1- Clone an entire person all in one shot from the cells of one person.
2- Clone parts of a person to graft back on to them or another person or to grow materials in a person to fix parts that are wrecked.
I suppose another idea is to clone a whole persons body and put the original persons brain into it, but I think that will be a ways away:D
What they doing isn't really cloning, they are just injecting dna into core of cell. Not even twins are the same, but they are in the same matrix and that makes them similar when they get born, later on they go their way. While if you wanted to make a fotocopy of a human, that human wouldn't be the same person. It is only possible if he gets born again but than he dies and his dna is used to make a copy of him and that clone doesn't know he exsisted before, it is without meaning. Nobody can clone a grown human adult with his knowledge in his brain, cause if they wanted to do that they need to know first how cells split themself and than they would need to know how brain works. And later on you could ask yourself how to clone your memory and if you would be the same with no memories of anything you did before. Cause cloning isn't like transfering data to another disk. Your brain gets old and memories of your brain will never be possible to clone, you can have all replaced, but you will die because of your brain gets old. Cloning doesn't exsist and will never fully exsist, the only thing that exsist is injecting skin into cells and that what we call cloning these days. Nobody cloned anything that has a shape of grown human.