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]

[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.

Yes, and none of that proves that you are not a boozer or have not engaged in eating poop, as your nonspecific protestations indicate, based on your definition of indication. So we can stay on topic, do you pet and hug dogs and cats?

[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.

Yes, and none of that proves that you are not a boozer or have not engaged in eating poop, as your nonspecific protestations indicate, based on your definition of indication. So we can stay on topic, do you pet and hug dogs and cats?

And does any of that matter given that nothing about my personal lifestyle has been published or recorded. And does it matter if Jesus was a homosexual and had a drinking problem as indicated by the bible? And afterall, I didn't write the bible and that he had a drinking problem which he didn't refute. And if you are uncomfortable with aspects of what was written in the bible then you could erase them, or even rewrite the bible to suit your biases and which is long overdue in order to be relevant to today.

[bluethread]

Yes, and none of that proves that you are not a boozer or have not engaged in eating poop, as your nonspecific protestations indicate, based on your definition of indication. So we can stay on topic, do you pet and hug dogs and cats?

And does any of that matter given that nothing about my personal lifestyle has been published or recorded.

False, You have been publishing and recording things about yourself throughout this thread and elsewhere on this site.

And does it matter if Jesus was a homosexual and had a drinking problem as indicated by the bible? And afterall, I didn't write the bible and that he had a drinking problem which he didn't refute.

What does it matter if you are a poop eating boozer, who likes to make love to animals? Would these inferences be more credible, if another poster were to say that is how he interprets what has been posted on this thread? Afterall, that poster would not have been the one who wrote the posts and you have not refuted the things I have enquired about.

And if you are uncomfortable with aspects of what was written in the bible then you could erase them, or even rewrite the bible to suit your biases and which is long overdue in order to be relevant to today.

I have no problem with what is actually written in the Scriptures, in context. You have made it more than clear how one can erase or even rewrite them to suit one's biases and that you are eager to do so.

[mitty]

,[Replying to post 311 by bluethread] Alas, you wouldn't know me from a bar of soap, and it's only your childish comments about my imagined lifestyle which you have written about. Nonetheless I'm encouraged that you accept that the bible indicates that Jesus was perhaps a homosexual with a drinking problem and that the biblical writers were unconcerned about female homosexuality since, like Jesus, they didn't mention anything about female homosexuality let alone condemned it, which is in stark contrast to the hell-fire-'n-brimstone preachers who dishonestly extrapolate from what the bible actually says.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 311 by bluethread] Alas, you wouldn't know me from a bar of soap, and it's only your childish comments about my imagined lifestyle which you have written about. Nonetheless I'm encouraged that you accept that the bible indicates that Jesus was perhaps a homosexual with a drinking problem and that the biblical writers were unconcerned about female homosexuality since, like Jesus, they didn't mention anything about female homosexuality let alone condemned it which is in stark contrast to the hell-fire-'n-brimstone preachers who dishonestly extrapolate from what the bible actually says.

I am glad that you think my argument is childish, it is based on your line of reasoning with regard to Yeshua. I do not and never have accepted the childish comments you have made regarding your imagined lifestyle of Yeshua. The writers of the Scriptures and Yeshua do not mention or condemn necrophilia either. Do you find that acceptable? As many have pointed out on this site, arguments from silence are questionable at best.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 311 by bluethread] Alas, you wouldn't know me from a bar of soap, and it's only your childish comments about my imagined lifestyle which you have written about. Nonetheless I'm encouraged that you accept that the bible indicates that Jesus was perhaps a homosexual with a drinking problem and that the biblical writers were unconcerned about female homosexuality since, like Jesus, they didn't mention anything about female homosexuality let alone condemned it which is in stark contrast to the hell-fire-'n-brimstone preachers who dishonestly extrapolate from what the bible actually says.

I am glad that you think my argument is childish, it is based on your line of reasoning with regard to Yeshua. I do not and never have accepted the childish comments you have made regarding your imagined lifestyle of Yeshua. The writers of the Scriptures and Yeshua do not mention or condemn necrophilia either. Do you find that acceptable? As many have pointed out on this site, arguments from silence are questionable at best.

I'm sure the Mosaic law deals with how the dead are to be treated, along with many aspects of female sexuality including incest adultery bestiality etc etc, but alas not one word about female homosexuality. And as I have already said, I didn't write the bible and including that Jesus had a witnessed drinking problem which he didn't deny; the bible is hardly silent on that aspect of Jesus' lifestyle, whereas you haven't a clue about my lifestyle.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 311 by bluethread] Alas, you wouldn't know me from a bar of soap, and it's only your childish comments about my imagined lifestyle which you have written about. Nonetheless I'm encouraged that you accept that the bible indicates that Jesus was perhaps a homosexual with a drinking problem and that the biblical writers were unconcerned about female homosexuality since, like Jesus, they didn't mention anything about female homosexuality let alone condemned it which is in stark contrast to the hell-fire-'n-brimstone preachers who dishonestly extrapolate from what the bible actually says.

I am glad that you think my argument is childish, it is based on your line of reasoning with regard to Yeshua. I do not and never have accepted the childish comments you have made regarding your imagined lifestyle of Yeshua. The writers of the Scriptures and Yeshua do not mention or condemn necrophilia either. Do you find that acceptable? As many have pointed out on this site, arguments from silence are questionable at best.

I'm sure the Mosaic law deals with how the dead are to be treated, along with many aspects of female sexuality including incest adultery bestiality etc etc, but alas not one word about female homosexuality. And as I have already said, I didn't write the bible and including that Jesus had a witnessed drinking problem which he didn't deny; the bible is hardly silent on that aspect of Jesus' lifestyle, whereas you haven't a clue about my lifestyle.

No, as with many things in the Scriptures, you are mistaken. HaTorah does not have a law about how a dead body is to be treated, other than touching one makes one unclean in the same manner as sexual relations, except for seven days and not just until sundown. So, using your form of exegesis, this would make necrophilia similar to any other sex act, including female homosexuality, as long one does not go to the temple for seven days afterwards. The prohibition against necrophilia is derived from various verses, using proper exegesis, much like the prohibition against female homosexuality is.

Regarding Yeshua, the only record we have regarding a so called "drinking problem" was Yeshua's saying that others referring to His eating and drinking in that manner, and that as part of a criticism of those accusations being childish. Are we really going to return to the discussion about childish accusations again?

[mitty]

[Replying to post 315 by bluethread]

Then you agree with me that the Mosaic law does deal with treatment of the dead and unlike female homosexuality about which it is silent. None of that, however, says that Jesus didn't have an observed drinking problem which he didn't deny, or that the biblical writers had any interest in female homosexuality, let alone condemned it since it doesn't involve sexual penetration or violation of property rights of men.

[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.

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.

Feasible is fine, except you are having to perform interprentational acrobatics to make the Bible fit you views. Please show where "divine" is another word for magic.

[charles_hamm]

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.

Nice try but the burden of proof is on you. It should be expected that when a claim is made that these are set at birth, undisputable evidence will be presented. It has not been presented so at this point the only logical conclusion is that they are choices. You have made a faulty conclusion because you have tried to reverse the burden of proof.