Sexuality & Orientation: A question.

[marketandchurch]

This is a question I am very curious about, vis-a-vis the Christian/Muslim/Jew crowd. But atheists are welcome to chime in as well. Do you think sexuality is fixed?

If you think sexuality is fixed, what is your own personal explanation for the existence of other sexualities? Are there several possibilities vis-a-vis orientation, for the human creature? And by fixed nature, what do you believe is the strength of that rigidity?

Do you think it is somewhat of a spectrum wherein there are most of us, who have a fixed heterosexual orientation, a small group who have a fixed homosexual orientation, and an even tinier portion who are "confused," have multiple sexual identities, or no sexual identity at all?

In other words, please explain your view of the matter in full, and I would love to just get a cross-section of where Christians/Muslim/Jew are on the matter. It is incredibly helpful, because the premise we hold will frame the way we approach the issue of same-sex marriage.

Feel free to expand this to the greater Gay-Marriage debate if you wish, so long as it relates to gender, sexual orientation, and its affects on the society at large.

[East of Eden]

[Replying to post 386 by bluethread]

There is not the slightest comparison between you saying that I am a necrophiliac without a skerrick of evidence, and the published observed behavior of Jesus (Matt 13:55-8) which he didn't refute and his obvious condoning of drunkenness (John 2). And that consistency in his permissive attitude towards alcohol consumption is shown at his last meal and how important boozing was in his life (Matt 26:29 Mark 14:25 Luke 22:18).

And perhaps I should again remind you of this forum's rule about making unfounded negative personal comments about other contributors.

And maybe you should stop making up crazy stories about Jesus being drunk. Apparently you have copied that from Jesus' NT enemies, who also repeated that mistruth.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 386 by bluethread]

There is not the slightest comparison between you saying that I am a necrophiliac without a skerrick of evidence, and the published observed behavior of Jesus (Matt 13:55-8) which he didn't refute and his obvious condoning of drunkenness (John 2). And that consistency in his permissive attitude towards alcohol consumption is shown at his last meal and how important boozing was in his life (Matt 26:29 Mark 14:25 Luke 22:18).

And perhaps I should again remind you of this forum's rule about making unfounded negative personal comments about other contributors.

And maybe you should stop making up crazy stories about Jesus being drunk. Apparently you have copied that from Jesus' NT enemies, who also repeated that mistruth.

Alas that's what the bible says about him (Matt 11:19 Luke 7:34) which he didn't deny or refute. And even at the end he was still craving for booze and not water (Matt 27:47 Mark 15:36 John 19:29-30) but unfortunately he was unable to "transmute" it into quality wine as before (John 2) since there were no water barrels available in which to hide it, and he even unsuccessfully asked his imagined god for help (Mark 15:34-5). If you think those stories are crazy then why did the gospel writers write them, since I didn't.

[East of Eden]

[Replying to post 386 by bluethread]

There is not the slightest comparison between you saying that I am a necrophiliac without a skerrick of evidence, and the published observed behavior of Jesus (Matt 13:55-8) which he didn't refute and his obvious condoning of drunkenness (John 2). And that consistency in his permissive attitude towards alcohol consumption is shown at his last meal and how important boozing was in his life (Matt 26:29 Mark 14:25 Luke 22:18).

And perhaps I should again remind you of this forum's rule about making unfounded negative personal comments about other contributors.

And maybe you should stop making up crazy stories about Jesus being drunk. Apparently you have copied that from Jesus' NT enemies, who also repeated that mistruth.

Alas that's what the bible says about him (Matt 11:19 Luke 7:34) which he didn't deny or refute.

Like silly charges on this forum, it wasn't worth responding to. Get back to us when you find a passage portraying Jesus as drunk. Do you get drunk everytime you have a drink?

And even at the end he was still craving for booze and not water (Matt 27:47 Mark 15:36 John 19:29-30) but unfortunately he was unable to "transmute" it into quality wine as before (John 2) since there were no water barrels available in which to hide it, and he even unsuccessfully asked his imagined god for help (Mark 15:34-5). If you think those stories are crazy then why did the gospel writers write them, since I didn't.

I don't think they're crazy, and the Gospel writers wrote them through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

[Goat]

Getting back ON TOPIC.. you know.. is sexual orientation fluid.. on major ex-gay ministry is disbanding, and has issued an apology to gays for harming many.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/2 ... us-closes/


This indicates to me they accepted that for many , sexual orientation is NOT fluid.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 386 by bluethread]

There is not the slightest comparison between you saying that I am a necrophiliac without a skerrick of evidence, and the published observed behavior of Jesus (Matt 13:55-8) which he didn't refute and his obvious condoning of drunkenness (John 2). And that consistency in his permissive attitude towards alcohol consumption is shown at his last meal and how important boozing was in his life (Matt 26:29 Mark 14:25 Luke 22:18).

Ah, so the lack of a recorded refutation is not evidence. That is what I thought.

Please, point to where the passage speaks of drunkenness or homosexuality.

(Matt 13:55-58) "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. 58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."

How does providing wine for a wedding equate into condoning drunkenness. Was the feeding of the 5000 condoning gluttony? Also, how does condoning drunkenness make one a drunkard? Are designated drivers drunkard based on the fact that they agree to be a designated driver?

Again, how does drinking wine with a meal equate to "boozing". I hear the medical community encourages the drinking of wine with meals to improve ones health.

And perhaps I should again remind you of this forum's rule about making unfounded negative personal comments about other contributors.

I do not recall you reminding me of this before. However, if you consider calling someone a necrophiliac a negative personal comment and an accusation unfounded if it is based entirely on speculation and the lack of direct refutation, I would be happy to cease my enquiries in that regard. However, as long as you see silence as promotion, and view speculation and the lack of direct refutation as justification, according to your standards, how is what I am doing "unfounded negative personal comments"?

[charles_hamm]

[Replying to post 377 by charles_hamm] The default situation is that gods don't exist. The onus is on the evangelist or the salvation salesman to demonstrate otherwise if they want to sell their product.

Sigh

The default situation is that a person does not know if God exist.

Then it's no sale. I want to see the goods before I buy. The world is full of people trying to sell snake-oil and wrinkle-cream and after-death salvation. And similarly the default situation therefore is that you don't know if Zeus or Wodin or Thor or Frig or Saturn exist, given they are acknowledged each week.

Sigh

Maybe you acknowledge them, but I don't go into a temple and worship them. I use a word that was created by man to measure time, Monday Tuesday, whatever it may be. If you see the 'goods' as you say, then faith is no longer required so that is useless.

[charles_hamm]

Getting back ON TOPIC.. you know.. is sexual orientation fluid.. on major ex-gay ministry is disbanding, and has issued an apology to gays for harming many.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/2 ... us-closes/


This indicates to me they accepted that for many , sexual orientation is NOT fluid.

If you read the article Chambers is shuting down Exodus but none of the smaller groups which operated under Exodus are closing. They are moving to another larger group and continuing on.

[keithprosser3]

Actually what it said is that 'affiliated ministries' will not automatically close. That is understandable as they are affiliates, not subsidiaries so Exodus has no direct control over them. And it said 'splinter group', not 'larger group'.

[Goat]

Getting back ON TOPIC.. you know.. is sexual orientation fluid.. on major ex-gay ministry is disbanding, and has issued an apology to gays for harming many.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/2 ... us-closes/


This indicates to me they accepted that for many , sexual orientation is NOT fluid.

If you read the article Chambers is shuting down Exodus but none of the smaller groups which operated under Exodus are closing. They are moving to another larger group and continuing on.

Yes, there will still be those who refuse to acknowledge the harm they cause... and feel they have the 'duty' to regulate other people's morals.

[East of Eden]

Getting back ON TOPIC.. you know.. is sexual orientation fluid.. on major ex-gay ministry is disbanding, and has issued an apology to gays for harming many.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/2 ... us-closes/


This indicates to me they accepted that for many , sexual orientation is NOT fluid.

If you read the article Chambers is shuting down Exodus but none of the smaller groups which operated under Exodus are closing. They are moving to another larger group and continuing on.

Yes, there will still be those who refuse to acknowledge the harm they cause... and feel they have the 'duty' to regulate other people's morals.

If someone tries to change or moderate their sexual orientation, what do you care? You're the one doing the regulating here.