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.

[charles_hamm]

[Replying to post 252 by charles_hamm]

And what type of hormone therapy is that? Does it make those genetically male persons with Swyer syndrome start menstruating and ovulating?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis

Estrogen and progesterone therapy. Menstruating yes, ovulating I am unsure about.

So what's the difference between the hormone treatment of those with Swyer syndrome (ie genetically male) and a trans-sexual who's genitals are surgically changed to match their gender identity. And I can assure you that the unformed testes of someone with Swyer syndrome will not start ovulating, and if they did what would be the fate of the 25% of all embryos with a YY sex-chromosome configuration. And it doesn't matter if someone with Swyer syndrome is referred to as a girl, they are still genetically male.

A trans-sexual self identifies his/her gender so that is strictly a matter of choice. There is nothing in his/her anatomy to necessitate the surgery. A person with Swyer syndrome has a condition that can be treated with the therapies I listed. That condition necessitates the treatment.

If a person tells you they have Swyer syndrome and tells you they are female, are you going to dispute them? If so then doesn't that wipe out the whole notion of self identifying gender?

No treatment of Swyer syndrome can alter the fact that they are genetically male. Can you change your gender identity at will, and do you dream that you are a male person in some of your dreams and a female person in other dreams, or do you think your gender identity is set at birth?

If a person tells you they are a genetically-male trans-sexual who has had a sex-change operation to match their gender identity and tells you that they are female, are you going to dispute that and tell that person to use the male lavatories instead of the female lavatories?

I'll address your questions once you have answered mine. It's a simple question. Will you dispute them or agree with them?

I reject your suggestion that gender identity is not set at birth. Your turn!!! Should a genetically-male person with a surgically-made vagina and no penis use the male lavatory or a female lavatory?

So then you agree that only females have Swyer syndrome! BTW, gender identity is usually self reported so it has nothing to do with genetics.

My turn. He should use the male lavatory. He mutilated his body how he wanted to, but he did not magically become a female.

[charles_hamm]

[Replying to post 275 by charles_hamm] Despite your protests, the bible indicates that Jesus probably wasn't a heterosexual and that he had a drinking problem.

Actually the only thing that indicates this is your interpretation of the bible. You look at it and apply your bias against it to see what you want to see, in my opinion. You have yet to provide any proof for what you claim.

And you don't interpret the bible to support your bias and predjuces? Hmmmm!!! Alas, no one has been able to provide any evidence that Jesus was a heterosexual and didn't have a drinking problem as indicated by the bible.

I try not to. I try to read and understand it based on its own merits, not any preconceived notions I may have. To paraphrase an atheist, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without it as well.". That is all that has been done to your assertions about Jesus.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 277 by charles_hamm] Fair enough. So if a genetically-male person with a constructed vagina and no penis has a relationship with a normal man then that is a homosexual relationship, whereas if she has a relationship with a normal woman then that is therefore a heterosexual relationship according to your reasoning. And this contrasts to a similar genetically-male person with Swyer syndrome whose relationship with a normal man is a heterosexual one and with a normal woman is a homosexual one. Hmmm!!! I wonder if this bloke, created in the image of the biblical writers, is also so confused? http://Sofadasala.com/english/jahova.htm

Once again you have overlooked the fact that the trans-sexual had to change his/her sex to become what he/she wanted to be. It has nothing to do with genetics. It contrast because a female who has Swyer syndrome already has the anatomy of a female, vagina, clitoris, etc. with the exception of the ovaries. The fact that she is genetically male is part of a disease, not a choice she made. There really is no confusion anywhere here. The trans-sexual was born with a gender defined by the sexual appendage he/she had. Doctors don't ask a baby what sex they are. They look. The argument you are making simply doesn't add up. What it implies is that a perfectly healthy individual would purposely give themselves a medical condition (Swyer syndrome). Think about that for a little.

And neither would anyone who also inherits other medical conditions such as haemophilia. Same same with a trans-sexual who was born with a personal gender identity which didn't match their genitalia. Do you make the same nonsense comment about an hermaphrodite who has a functional vagina as well as a penis but identifies themselves as male or as a female. Think about that for a little. I suggest you ask David Reimer's family if gender identity can be changed by therapy or praying to a god.

[charles_hamm]

[Replying to post 279 by Goat]

This is one study that was flawed from the beginning. No control group. Why even do the study.

There is many more studies, and guess what.. the ones that say the sexual identity is fluid all have flaws.

It seems all the people who have studies saying that conversion therapy work are selling conversion therapy

I'll ask again why conversion therapy has been brought up? I asked if you would dismiss the ones who say they have gone from homosexual to heterosexual. It does not matter how they did it.

[bluethread]

Alas, no one has been able to provide any evidence that Jesus was a heterosexual and didn't have a drinking problem

Only history, grammar and context, but I guess conjecture trumps that. If I were to say you have a drinking problem and you were to repeat that I said that, would that be proof that you did indeed have a drinking problem? Also, so far, I see no record that you do not eat poop. Does that mean you do?

[mitty]

Alas, no one has been able to provide any evidence that Jesus was a heterosexual and didn't have a drinking problem

Only history, grammar and context, but I guess conjecture trumps that. If I were to say you have a drinking problem and you were to repeat that I said that, would that be proof that you did indeed have a drinking problem? Also, so far, I see no record that you do not eat poop. Does that mean you do?

So what, none of that proves that Jesus was a heterosexual or didn't have a drinking problem as indicated by eyewitnesses.

[charles_hamm]

[Replying to post 277 by charles_hamm] Fair enough. So if a genetically-male person with a constructed vagina and no penis has a relationship with a normal man then that is a homosexual relationship, whereas if she has a relationship with a normal woman then that is therefore a heterosexual relationship according to your reasoning. And this contrasts to a similar genetically-male person with Swyer syndrome whose relationship with a normal man is a heterosexual one and with a normal woman is a homosexual one. Hmmm!!! I wonder if this bloke, created in the image of the biblical writers, is also so confused? http://Sofadasala.com/english/jahova.htm

Once again you have overlooked the fact that the trans-sexual had to change his/her sex to become what he/she wanted to be. It has nothing to do with genetics. It contrast because a female who has Swyer syndrome already has the anatomy of a female, vagina, clitoris, etc. with the exception of the ovaries. The fact that she is genetically male is part of a disease, not a choice she made. There really is no confusion anywhere here. The trans-sexual was born with a gender defined by the sexual appendage he/she had. Doctors don't ask a baby what sex they are. They look. The argument you are making simply doesn't add up. What it implies is that a perfectly healthy individual would purposely give themselves a medical condition (Swyer syndrome). Think about that for a little.

And neither would anyone who also inherits other medical conditions such as haemophilia. Same same with a trans-sexual who was born with a personal gender identity which didn't match their genitalia. Do you make the same nonsense comment about an hermaphrodite who has a functional vagina as well as a penis but identifies themselves as male or as a female. Think about that for a little.

Since personal gender identity is a choice why not change that instead? I have already stated that I don't know enough about hermaphrodites to make any comment on them with regards to their sexuality. I don't know how many more times I can say that.

[charles_hamm]

Alas, no one has been able to provide any evidence that Jesus was a heterosexual and didn't have a drinking problem

Only history, grammar and context, but I guess conjecture trumps that. If I were to say you have a drinking problem and you were to repeat that I said that, would that be proof that you did indeed have a drinking problem? Also, so far, I see no record that you do not eat poop. Does that mean you do?

So what, none of that proves that Jesus was a heterosexual or didn't have a drinking problem as indicated by eyewitnesses.

So are you saying you will accept eyewitnesses as proof of an event? If so then you should accept the resurrection, the accounts of the miracles Jesus performed, and Johns vision of Heaven as well since we have eyewitness accounts of them.

[mitty]

Alas, no one has been able to provide any evidence that Jesus was a heterosexual and didn't have a drinking problem

Only history, grammar and context, but I guess conjecture trumps that. If I were to say you have a drinking problem and you were to repeat that I said that, would that be proof that you did indeed have a drinking problem? Also, so far, I see no record that you do not eat poop. Does that mean you do?

So what, none of that proves that Jesus was a heterosexual or didn't have a drinking problem as indicated by eyewitnesses.

So are you saying you will accept eyewitnesses as proof of an event? If so then you should accept the resurrection, the accounts of the miracles Jesus performed, and Johns vision of Heaven as well since we have eyewitness accounts of them.

What miracles? Miracles happen every day in our large hospitals. And don't you mean resuscitation using 30 kg of a healing concoction including Aloe vera etc (John 19:39). Plenty of people have visions and substances such as LSD and magic mushrooms make them more vivid. And where else in the bible are there reports of rotting corpses walking around downtown Jerusalem (Matt 27:52-3)? Personally I prefer to rely on eyewitness reports about his drinking habits and on his own family who didn't recognize or acknowledge anything extraordinary about him, and instead rejected him (Matt 13:55-8 John 7:5) as he did them (Matt 12:46-7).

[mitty]

[Replying to post 277 by charles_hamm] Fair enough. So if a genetically-male person with a constructed vagina and no penis has a relationship with a normal man then that is a homosexual relationship, whereas if she has a relationship with a normal woman then that is therefore a heterosexual relationship according to your reasoning. And this contrasts to a similar genetically-male person with Swyer syndrome whose relationship with a normal man is a heterosexual one and with a normal woman is a homosexual one. Hmmm!!! I wonder if this bloke, created in the image of the biblical writers, is also so confused? http://Sofadasala.com/english/jahova.htm

Once again you have overlooked the fact that the trans-sexual had to change his/her sex to become what he/she wanted to be. It has nothing to do with genetics. It contrast because a female who has Swyer syndrome already has the anatomy of a female, vagina, clitoris, etc. with the exception of the ovaries. The fact that she is genetically male is part of a disease, not a choice she made. There really is no confusion anywhere here. The trans-sexual was born with a gender defined by the sexual appendage he/she had. Doctors don't ask a baby what sex they are. They look. The argument you are making simply doesn't add up. What it implies is that a perfectly healthy individual would purposely give themselves a medical condition (Swyer syndrome). Think about that for a little.

And neither would anyone who also inherits other medical conditions such as haemophilia. Same same with a trans-sexual who was born with a personal gender identity which didn't match their genitalia. Do you make the same nonsense comment about an hermaphrodite who has a functional vagina as well as a penis but identifies themselves as male or as a female. Think about that for a little.

Since personal gender identity is a choice why not change that instead? I have already stated that I don't know enough about hermaphrodites to make any comment on them with regards to their sexuality. I don't know how many more times I can say that.

I suggest you ask David Reimer's family if personal gender identity is a choice which can be changed by therapy or prayer to a god. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer What is your evidence that personal gender identity can be changed willy nilly by choice or even with therapy? If you lost your genitalia through an accident, could you change your personal gender identity from male to female?