Early in the priest-written book of Genesis 1:28 it is stated, “And God blessed them (a male and female couple not yet named), and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over…every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” By this instruction, sex is established as the means of re-creation (and recreation). Few persons pause to ponder over the word “replenish,” which implies that there must have been previous similar circumstances.
In our world today, however, it is abundantly clear that man has more than adequately fulfilled that particular “replenish” guideline which the Lord allegedly demanded. The human species has brutally subdued everything around him, and has been especially industrious in replenishing the Earth. In fact, the world population today on this little planet has nearly reached the seven billion mark! In less than a century, from 1942 when the world population was a mere two billion, breeding has apparently become an obsession. Despite the unprecedented population explosion, the looming disaster it invites is treated as a taboo subject for the news media. That head-in-the-sand approach to rampant human “fruitfulness” could lead to ecological catastrophe for the entire world.
Once upon a time as the human species evolved, having multiple children was valued as a resource for the parents in their declining years. As man proceeded to assert his “dominion” over “…every living thing that moveth upon the earth,” some of the wiser ones formulated sciences and technologies that contributed toward healthier offspring and protection from diseases: this made heavy breeding unnecessary, even impractical, as a means of self-insurance.
However, leaders of most faith systems have always promoted the priest-composed instruction of subduing the Earth and stressing the replenishing of our species for the simple reason that it assured an increase in their followers. But the alleged godly suggestion to “replenish” the Earth should never have been considered a license to indulge in extensive production of more than could be properly cared for. The idea of “replenishing” the Earth for god was advantageous for priestly authority, and this is still utilized by faith merchants as “revealed” religious instruction. Unfortunately dedication to this sense of limitless “replenishing” also led mankind to indulge in the assumption that to “subdue” meant that exploiting the planet was a divine right of man, not the counsel to safeguard it.
The present world population is ecologically unsustainable for an extended period of time. History has repeatedly shown that in periods when human population increased up to sevenfold there followed (god-sent?) disasters of unprecedented food shortages, escalating prices for essentials, etc., which were always followed by civil revolts and deadly riots—even cannibalism. But still there are those today who willfully ignore history and loudly trumpet that god abhors the use of contraceptives, or that providing sexual information for the avoidance of disease and careless human reproduction is somehow against god’s will! This irrationality is so pronounced even today that various national leaders have actually advocated childbirth bounties! (Hitler, for example.) Apparently the religiously obsessed do not think that god gave man a brain in the expectation that man would use it to assume responsibility for himself and for the world he was advised to “subdue.”
Ironically, even “lower” animals are far smarter than that. In the wild, when territorial areas become threatened by diminishing supplies, the animals will intuitively limit their breeding. That is god-installed rationality, which has apparently atrophied in man. Nonetheless, Nature remains active and vigilant in providing animate life with subtle safeguards, and often Nature’s adjustments, which are indifferently provided, tend to horrify the ego-centered religionists. Rather than allow human life to self-destruct through brainless over breeding, Nature seems on occasion to amend human DNA to avoid over breeding. One such adjustment, it could be argued, may be the modification to same-sex attraction. Indeed, same-sex attraction can be seen throughout all animate nature and has always been present in Nature. To the horror of those egocentric religionists this indicates that such attraction could be a natural organic safeguard against runaway reproduction which would prove disastrous for all life on the planet. The chromosome assembly in any species is the means to insure diversity of species characteristics, which also insures ecological balance and benefit.
The idea that same-sex attraction could possibly be a natural built-in precautionary measure taken within DNA sequence may seem farfetched at first thought, but there are some known factors to consider. Research has shown that changes in a parent’s lifestyle or in the environment, even when only minor or temporary, which occur before or during the reproductive period can cause subtle, even visible changes in the next generation. The increased emotional tension throughout the modern world certainly contributes to people’s lifestyles in ways that could feasibly alter human sexual magnetism. That safeguard seems always to be present as a precautionary ingredient in the electromagnetic nature that shapes an animate life form.
Nature, the bearing principle of Creation, retains it own special safeguards. The genes initiating a new entity are usually hidden from the enzymes by RNA interference, so that the information which the genes ordinarily contain is kept hidden from enzymes. Subtle changes in DNA structure will occur when the RNA briefly ceases to maintain interference however, and this results in the disappearance of little chemical markers that lock the coil of DNA around protein complexes of the gene. The lost marker function opens access to the genes which are then made available to enzymes that can read the gene’s code and use them for protein production. Only a minor alteration in the code therefore affect the development of the lifeforms which can allow for a rather rapid response to biological and/or environmental conditions when necessary. If there is any “sin” in variations of sexual magnetism, it is in failing to honor Creation’s laws of diversity.
It has been noted in a previous post (Homosexuality and the Bible, December 2010) that there are only about six or seven brief inferences on same-sex attraction that can be cherry picked out of the entire collection of priest-written “holy word” as implying “sinfulness.” In comparison there are well over three hundred disapproving verses on heterosexual indulgences to be found. This suggests that to evaluate a degree of sin quality to someone’s inborn sexual nature is not a particularly rational motive to indulge in prejudice as a devotional practice to honor the Creator.
Time Frames and Taboo Data Blog 