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.

[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?

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

So, you do have a drinking problem and eat poop?

[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?

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

So, you do have a drinking problem and eat poop?

Ridiculous Is that the best you can do to attempt to prove Jesus was a heterosexual and didn't have an observed drinking problem?

[bluethread]

So, you do have a drinking problem and eat poop?

Ridiculous Is that the best you can do to attempt to prove Jesus was a heterosexual and didn't have an observed drinking problem?[/quote]

What's good for the goose. You have yet to prove you don't have had drinking problem and ate poop. As you said, if there is an accusation there must be some truth to it.

[mitty]

vequote="bluethread"]

So, you do have a drinking problem and eat poop?

Ridiculous Is that the best you can do to attempt to prove Jesus was a heterosexual and didn't have an observed drinking problem?[/quote]

What's good for the goose. You have yet to prove you don't have had drinking problem and ate poop. As you said, if there is an accusation there must be some truth to it.[/quote]
What've my personal activities got to do with the price of chooks in China, or Jesus' sexual orientation, or how serious his drinking problem was? And particularly given that I'm not intending to start up a new religion in the near future in my name, and besides, my name isn't Brian anyway?

[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.

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).

Wow. I think you may be a little mistaken with your bible verse quotes here. John 19:39 tells of the typical burial mix of spices that were placed on the body prior to it being wrapped in linen. Nowhere in there does the bible call them a 'healing concoction'. I believe we call those hallucinations, not visions. A vision is had without the use of mind altering drugs. Matthew 27:52-53 does not call them 'rotting corpses'. Off the top of my head I can't think of another, but please explain how that invalidates Matthew 27. Matthew 13:55-58 implies that His sisters were present when the people in the synagogue ridiculed him, but still acknowledged his wisdom and miracles, but it says nothing about them rejecting Him. John 7:5 says His brothers did not believe in Him. That may well have been because He would not simply do as they told Him. In Matthew 12:46-47 He is teaching a lesson when someone tells Him that His mother and brothers are outside. He used that fact to explain that those who do the will of the Father are His mother and brothers. The verse never says He didn't go speak to them once He was finished teaching. I think you've made a bit of a stretch with some of your conclusions above.

[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.

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?

From reading the website you gave it sounds to me like the Dr. was a pedophile and was not trying to help Reimers but merely getting his own sick pleasure from what was going on. My evidence is the simple fact that gender identity is self reported. It is how a person feels and is not based on anything science has found to be genetic. Why would I change? At that point I would simply have no genitalia and no longe be able to have sex.

[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).

Wow. I think you may be a little mistaken with your bible verse quotes here. John 19:39 tells of the typical burial mix of spices that were placed on the body prior to it being wrapped in linen. Nowhere in there does the bible call them a 'healing concoction'. I believe we call those hallucinations, not visions. A vision is had without the use of mind altering drugs. Matthew 27:52-53 does not call them 'rotting corpses'. Off the top of my head I can't think of another, but please explain how that invalidates Matthew 27. Matthew 13:55-58 implies that His sisters were present when the people in the synagogue ridiculed him, but still acknowledged his wisdom and miracles, but it says nothing about them rejecting Him. John 7:5 says His brothers did not believe in Him. That may well have been because He would not simply do as they told Him. In Matthew 12:46-47 He is teaching a lesson when someone tells Him that His mother and brothers are outside. He used that fact to explain that those who do the will of the Father are His mother and brothers. The verse never says He didn't go speak to them once He was finished teaching. I think you've made a bit of a stretch with some of your conclusions above.

That's just your subjective interpretation, and incidently Matthew 13:57 Mark 1:4 clearly says his family rejected him and I'm sure they knew more about him and his personal conduct than you. I prefer to look for a feasible explanation of the Jesus story and not one involving magic and the supernatural. And none of those stories, however, makes him any more special than Siddhartha Gautama or Muhammad or even Harry Potter or any other magician for that matter. And afterall "divine" is just another word for magic.

[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?

From reading the website you gave it sounds to me like the Dr. was a pedophile and was not trying to help Reimers but merely getting his own sick pleasure from what was going on. My evidence is the simple fact that gender identity is self reported. It is how a person feels and is not based on anything science has found to be genetic. Why would I change? At that point I would simply have no genitalia and no longe be able to have sex.

Since you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary, the only conclusion is that personal gender identity cannot be changed and is set at birth. And similarly for sexual orientation.

[bluethread]

So, you do have a drinking problem and eat poop?

Ridiculous Is that the best you can do to attempt to prove Jesus was a heterosexual and didn't have an observed drinking problem?

What's good for the goose. You have yet to prove you don't have had drinking problem and ate poop. As you said, if there is an accusation there must be some truth to it.

What've my personal activities got to do with the price of chooks in China, or Jesus' sexual orientation, or how serious his drinking problem was? And particularly given that I'm not intending to start up a new religion in the near future in my name, and besides, my name isn't Brian anyway?

It speaks to veracity of your argument. One need not intend on starting a religion to be subject to rational judgment. Your arguments are based on inferred guilt by accusation and circumstantial inference, as you explicitly stated. If inferred guilt by accusation and circumstantial inference is valid, then it applies to everyone, including you. Therefore, since the lack of information directly addressing your speculations regarding Yeshua's behavior constitutes proof of those speculations, then the lack of information directly addressing my speculations regarding your past behavior also constitutes proof of those speculations. Can you provide such information regarding your alleged drinking problems and poop eating, or are you willing to accept that inferred guilt by accusation and circumstantial inference is invalid.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 307 by bluethread]

Alas, none of that Gobbledegook proves that Jesus wasn't a homosexual or didn't have a drinking problem as indicated in the bible. Either way, I'm sure it's not going to concern Jesus or his relies.