Science Explains Lots Of Things.....

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-48534079
So why is Widdy in the tish here?

[spathiphyllum]

"you know neither what it is or what it is not."

I'm sure he knows it's not a yellow submarine.

What ya on abeet Naomi?

[spathiphyllum]

"I see no condemnation.... and it isn't a large percentage of the population."

It is a large % actually.

You may be surprised to how many people are open to LGBTQP what not.

[spathiphyllum]

And to me it feels like some kind of condemnation.

[jim360]

That doesn't follow at all. I don't know where homosexuality comes from. But I'm 100% confident that it is neither a sin, nor a choice, but an innate quality, whatever its precise origins.

It's simply a nonsense to insist that to not know the full nature of a thing is to be unable to know even a part of it.

[spathiphyllum]

we don't even know the full nature of ourselfs as a species.

[naomi24]

Read the posts, spath. Jim said // I don't have to understand something entirely in order to know what it is not.//

[spathiphyllum]

Yes, and Jim doesn't have to understand homosexuality, or where it came from entirely, to know that it didn't come from, or isn't, a yellow submarine.

[naomi24]

//I'm 100% confident that it is neither a sin, nor a choice//

I don't think she suggested either. You've introduced those thoughts.

[spathiphyllum]

In act of commenting on homosexuality from a christian point of view, she is indirectly saying those exact things.

[jim360]

People who talk of and promote gay conversion therapy are portraying homosexuality as a sin from which to seek redemption, or as a choice to be reversed, or as a disease to be cured -- or all three at once. There's no controversy about this, either.

[naomi24]

Jim, //as a disease to be cured //

As I read it that^ is what she's saying.

[jno]

it's not an "explanation" she's talking about but a cure. Strangely, not all gays seem to want to be cured.

[New Judge]

//why is someone in politics letting their religious beliefs condemn a large % of the population?//

I don't think she was condemning them. She simply takes the view that their situation is not ideal and that science may come up with a way to make it so. It's just one of many different points of view (which are, I am led to believe, still allowed for the moment). You don't have to agree with her viewpoint but there's no need to get in a tizz about it. She's not saying they need to be strangled at birth or anything and one or two religions (one particularly I can think of) take a far more intolerant view of homosexuality.

And I don't think the percentage is as large as you think. In 2016 the Office of National Statistics said that just 2% of the adult population had identified themselves as Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual.

[spathiphyllum]

No she is simply implying their is something "wrong" with them.

In my opinion that's condemning them.

[spathiphyllum]

and if their's nothing wrong, why the cure? Catch ma vibe.. She thinks it's something to be cured but it's not. That's how she's condemning people.

[jno]

indeed, nobody speaks of an "answer" to heterosexuality.

[naomi24]

//nobody speaks of an "answer" to heterosexuality. //

:o/

[New Judge]

//No she is simply implying their is something "wrong" with them.//

If that's her view, then that's her view. Why must we all (even politicians) think "on message" about everything?

[pixie374]

I suspect homosexuality is innate, although I don't actually know. There is nothing wrong with more research anyway- it doesn't imply there is anything negative about it.

[jim360]

Oh, clearly no harm in more research, as long as it's well-motivated.