I am going to ramble on about some ideas I have about the bible, religious ideas and homosexuality as it relates to science and anthropology.
I think of religion like a soup. Life stirs up the pot of belief and disbelief into a culinary representation of human primordial desires and aspirations.
Yet even with a soup, taste, flavor and freshness are points of interest. When I was young my dad used to make a soup and he had a name for it, sounded French, the name was supposed to mean, "everything left over in the refrigerator"
Well when we create a soup together as a society... The ingredients and spices we bring to the soup of life are along the lines of love, companionship, marriage, family, support and or art to perpetuate our existence. We are all connected by our common ties to the past.
If you are born gay then you are not "changing" your nature by being gay you are "changing" your nature by not fulfilling your gay life.
So same sex attractions are a natural part of life.
The bible and other religions would have us believe that humans were created male and female in some magical instantaneous act of God.
We inherited our sexuality from animals and plants. Reproduction and fertilization are mechanisms that are not unique to humans and are things we acquired over billions of years of physical evolution.
We observe homosexuality in many animals species of which we are commonly evolved from and the presence of this homosexuality in animals, neither did it prevent humanity's emerging from prehistory nor did it impede procreation. Had it impeded and been a problem with heterosexual marriage there would not be billions of people on earth today humans would be extinct. It is also surmised that homosexuality plays a key role in human survival and evolution. Homosexual fulfill roles in tribal and social context that facilitate necessary and vital parts of culture. Only civilized societies have culture.
Marriage and families can become much like a soup. The daughter brings home a new husband of which the parents have to approve. Perhaps daughters get some reprieve when their brothers are getting all the attention for bringing home their boyfriends.
At the heart of the issue is this bible telling us that women are evil by nature. The bible uses a woman's seemingly physical weakness to man and turns it upon her to imply she is also morally corrupt. Yet it seems Adam is equally weak following Eve blindly and both are cursed with death and the blame placed upon humanity for it seems primarily the woman's sin.
Yet it is the woman who would be prophesied to bear a sinless seed. A second Adam. (it gets even more convoluted into divinity and more un-provable flat earth dogma) All while the god of this book stays far from the spotlight. No more burning bushes and talking from clouds. This God talks from inside and makes you seem doubtful of your own shadow. This god creates fear and condemnation based upon outlandish philosophies and untested speculations, narrow precepts and preposterous assumptions given the weight of God's own infallible authority.
Could we be making three pots of soup here? Rewriting history to make history fit with religion?
One pot of soup is science and the other is religion. When we take an ingredient like a pinch of "millions of years" and toss it into the other pot that consists of only 6000 years then we have problems with taste envelopes and flavor texture contours. When we take analytic skill from the science pot of stew and toss in a bit of faith we end up with something so sour and bitter that clashes with the broth. (perhaps better served with shellfish.)
When the basic ingredients of science tell us that once there was only the X chromosome (Y being a mutation of X) this is an ingredient that conflicts with an ingredients in our other bowl of soup. The ingredient on our other bible bowl that states that Eve came from Adam and not Adam coming from Eve.
Science stating that Eve is X (bisexual) and Adam is both X and Y meaning that the Y chromosome is the mutant (both gay and/or straight). Being totally straight is the anomaly, not bisexuality... Bisexuality is the natural state of life. Bisexuality allowed female mothers to not show preferential love to her male and or female offspring but a generalized impartiality. Thus in the natural state creating social harmony. Male hierarchies are more likely to desire a certain sex in procreation. Originally there was no male species but for theoretically a millennia the X chromosome existed without men and had its own way of procreating. The X chromosome has existed for millions of years with relatively minor mutations while the Y chromosome is not as old, complete or as stable. Both our X and Y male chromosome are originally derived from the female X chromosome. Also in the womb, all fetus start out as female embryos, they start out as female and a series of male hormones at the last minute make males masculine. Masculinity in itself is a mutation... a sex change from nature...
It is surmised that the way women had long ago in their evolutionary past when they were perhaps single celled creatures X could self replicate but this ability was compromised when the symbiotic relationship with her XY counterpart began. The fact that woman are also capable of bisexuality shows that bisexuality was the original state of marriage on earth. We know there was a time when X existed before Y came on the scene. X and Y must have had their own way to independently procreate. That procreation would have probably involved a mating ritual. A homosexual mating ritual.
To take the fact that females preexisted males in some very early evolutionary form and replace it with some blind faith and then take it on faith that the male are first and that females come from male DNA (rib) is simply not true.
Romans 1: 26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Comment: It seems the problem here is that woman and men "changed" their natural affections.
Yet the science soup says that we are born this way it is part of our natural past and to try and change our gayness would be tantamount to sinning against our own nature.
It seems one soup is in denial of who we are so it is like throwing arbitrary imaginations into a pot, heating them up with fear and ghost stories and hoping it tastes good later after it has stewed a few hours and that it does not taste like too many un-harmonious flavors. Like mixing icecream with lemon juice, tartar and vinegar, mustard and adding other ingredients that are inedible and too hard to chew and too large to swallow. Ingredients that make you feel ill afterwards because they are erroneous absurd religion with no basis in the truth of who we really are.
Perhaps there are a few kernels of truth in our religious bowl of soup? Maybe even those ingredients have been spoiled and the work it takes to try and save them would only contaminate our science soup. Is there anything from religion worth saving? Not even one single righteous man?
One other observation. It is the Y chromosome that has brought sin into the world. The X chromosome could very well have outlasted both XX and XY's synergy. But once X and Y became locked into that synergy X and Y lost their own reproduction ability and became dependent upon XY to reproduce. Since Y is rapidly mutation X now is limited by Y's short lifespan because X is now dependent upon Y for procreation. So it was man and our Y mutation that brought death into this world. Not woman. X by it self could have outlasted Y perhaps millions of years before it mutated to the point of total breakdown. Did did X voluntarily procreate with Y and did the offspring of XX and XY doom their parents races?
One wonders if it is the change the bible talks about as being evil that is actually the change that may one day rescue humanity from barbarity and erroneous religious fanaticism.
One might say the whole crux of the argument is "change"... Does one change and always become corrupt or does one change and sometimes evolve? Change can be enlightenment and shared function change can either mutate for the better or worse.. For instance X changing and adding Y to life's equation changed life. One might argue that when X met Y they were very different creatures and the first time they did procreate this in itself could be considered an "unnatural act". But this unnatural act led to the state we have evolved to as a dual species that interbreeds to survive. It seems the bible and religion has erroneously pegged "change and evolution" and how that when things evolve the change but still retain the past appendages and this is also natural... No matter how we try to force our minds to believe otherwise, we are who we are.
Perhaps homosexuality is a much older sexual rite that lost is reproductive abilities once humanity's sexes evolved together. Yet the old rite was part of nature and its course. Most all creatures share this male and female past that was once separate.
When the sexes procreated, the new creatures that were produced no longer could procreate in the previous ways. Yet this evolution does not negate the appendages of the past, residuals of a once natural love that was not based upon separate sexes but two separate species. Homosexuals identify sexually with an earlier race. So, homophobia is a form of racism...
Normally I would delete a long post of me rambling like this but oh well. Sry probably lots of typos too. I usually devote less time to proof reading the longer the post. Some of it is speculation on my part, just as religion is also speculation so what makes their speculation any better than mine?...
