How do we encourage the science of homosexuality?

by sabastious 44 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  yknot

  Just my 2 cents....

  Homosexuality can't be placed squarely into 'nature'.....(and btw cannibalism is 'natural' too in some species)

  Humans are more complex, nurture can and has been a vital role in some professed homosexuals.

  In addition not all who might qualify in a biological only homosexuality peg might want to live as homosexuals, rather I can think of at least one in my community who would gladly swallow a pill, receive therapy or endure whatever need be to remove said inclinations in favor of the life he chose to pursue with his wife. He loves her deeply and wishes his desires would match his heart.

  I suppose the utopia here is fullying discerning every aspect of human sexuality and still maintaining the acceptance of individual choice.

  (Intersexed and transexual communities are probably better areas of initial research..... IMHO)
• 

  NomadSoul

  Yeah, I guess it wouldn't be unethical to provide such alternative. It would raise some controversies though. But one would think by the time such alternative is possible that our knowledge on the subject would be much more thatn we do know.
• 

  kurtbethel

  This topic requires a lot of research to fully understand it. And I do not mean craigslist ads or random hookups at the bar.

  Saying it is unnatural presumes that sexual activity is only a reproductive function. That is an unfounded premise.
• 

  PublishingCult

  Saying it is unnatural presumes that sexual activity is only a reproductive function. That is an unfounded premise.

  Agreed. Even from a Scriptural standpoint, the biological necessity for procreation does not negate the primary purpose "God" provided a partner for Adam; mutual support and companionship. (Genesis 2:18) Procreation was a secondary purpose that even today many couples do not feel obligated to fulfill. Whenever two men or two women come together for the purpose of mutual companionship and support, they are in fact fulfilling "God's" stated purpose. And so, if God did really exist, such a homosexual couple would indeed have God's approval and blessing.
• 

  Abaddon

  simon17

  No, but I never insinuated that it was wrong anyway.

  Didn't say you did old chap; in fact I said "... and the remainder of this isn’t specifically at you simon17, it’s about the “if it is genetic it is OK’ argument". But you seem to have got a ittle over excited at being disagreed with, and neglected to read my post properly, as you further demonstrate...

  I would hardly the incident rate of homosexuality in nature to be "high". Extremely few animals compared to the total number of species engage in this.

  You do realise most of the recorded instances have been the result of more recent research? It was there before, but researchers ignored it because of bias or fear of negative concequences regarding future research grants due to bias in those funding this. Basically it seems like in most mammals it is part of the spectrum of behaviour. I should have perhaps been more specific, but I did not anticpate someone basically saying "yes, but bacteria and beetles are not gay, so you can't say the incidence in nature is high".

  Lets do the apples to apples thing eh? Homosexual behaviour is common in mammals.

  Well thats nice but if you're not human, an animal would have to be bisexual to cash in on their desire for children (if one exists), otherwise it just wouldn't work. If you're a gay bonobo, the in vitro fertilization option is just not happening

  I covered this fact in my post, but you seem to have responded peicemeal without reading it as a whole, and thus jump on what you think are weak point I address later in the same post. Not classy.

  You can twist isolated examples and gene theory as much as you like,

  Twist? Interesting use of words.'Twist' implies dishonesty, which I do not display and resent. Please state explictly where I twist facts; as far as I can see I don't. If use IF when if applies, and state the historic differentiation between homosexuality and child bearing.

  My statement regarding the fact that, if (male, just to be clear) homosexuality is a genetic factor carried on the X chromosome, it would be evolutionarily neutral, is cast iron scientificaly speaking. It would mean women would pass this gene on to their daughters forever, even if no son of that genetic line had children. Which would mean your statement that I originally reponded to is wrong.

  If through history homosexual humans have had children, again, your statement is wrong.

  You want to ignore the above two points to cling to statement that homosexuality is evolutionary negative, please prove this statement. If it were (as it has been expressed on an evolutionary timescale), it would not exist.

  And your appeal to argumentum ad populum is just weak; yeah, lots of people say this so... Give me a break.