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 334 by East of Eden]

However the trick was done, one thing's for certain is that water wasn't magically transformed into a quality wine.

And you know that how? IF Jesus really did do that miracle 2,000 years ago, what evidence would you expect to see today other than the testimony of those who were there and the evidence of their changed lives?

It was only a slightly different miracle than how God works today growing grapes and making wine, just faster.

The only changed lives I can think of, after that obvious conjuring trick of hiding the containers of good wine in the empty water jars, is that they all had super hang-overs in the morning, or even alcoholic poisoning. And perhaps that's one of the reasons his family didn't notice or acknowledge anything extraordinary about him and ignored him (Matt 12:46-50 John 7:5) as he did them (Matt 12:46-50).

From Wikipedia:

"According to Robert Funk, the Gospel of Mark shows that Jesus' mother and brothers were at first sceptical of Jesus' ministry but later became part of the Christian movement.[14] The biblical citatation that Saint James ("the Lord's brother") presided over the Jerusalem church after the apostles dispersed[15] is built on to presume that other kinsmen of Jesus' also exercised some leadership among neighbouring Christian communities. Christian communities were expelled from Jerusalem by the Jews with the founding of Aelia Capitolina (c.131).[15] Traditionally it is believed the Jerusalem Christians waited out the Jewish–Roman wars (66–135) in Pella in the Decapolis. The Jerusalem Sanhedrin relocated to Jamnia sometime c.70.
At an earlier stage James[16] is said to have been granted a special appearance by the resurrected Jesus.[17] When Saint Peter, a leader of the church in Jerusalem left,it was James who became the principal authority and was held in high regard by the Jewish Christians.[18] Hegesippus reports that he was executed by the Sanhedrin in 62.[18]
Sextus Julius Africanus's reference to "Desposyni" (blood relatives of Jesus) is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea's Ecclesiastical History:[19]"

Josephus also mentions James the brother of Jesus being executed due to his Christian beliefs.


Can you answer my question of IF Jesus really did that miracle 2,000 years ago, what evidence would you expect to see today?

[mitty]

[Replying to post 334 by East of Eden]
Can you answer my question of IF Jesus really did that miracle 2,000 years ago, what evidence would you expect to see today?

Exactly the same as any performed by Harry Potter or Gandalf. Even my six-year-old grandson could easily pull off the one with the hidden wine containers in the empty water jars, and without any help from his older sisters. Any unsupported conjecture about Jesus' life is just second-hand hearsay and hearsay isn't acceptable evidence in any court, let alone 2000 year-old hearsay written decades after the event. If you believe otherwise, then you might be interested in buying this slightly used bridge. http://Sydneyharbourbridge.com.au And for a quick deal I could toss in some funny looking white buildings nearby.

[charles_hamm]

[Replying to post 323 by charles_hamm] Despite all that, and their attempts to change his gender identity to match his physical appearance (including female genitals and hormone therapy etc etc etc), his gender identity was unaltered. The conclusion therefore is that personal gender identity cannot be changed and is set at birth. QED. Like many other families of that era, I have photos of my father as an infant dressed in hand-down girl's clothes (and even long hair), but despite that, his gender identity from birth was that of a boy not a girl.

Do you have any evidence to back up your unproved suggestion that the gender identity, particularly of trans-sexuals, can be changed by therapy?

The conclusion from that is a sick, pedophile doctor tormented a child and caused that child to take his own life. There really is no 'despite all that' because the therapy seems to me like it strictly to let the doctor sexually abuse the children. It does not sound to me like the therapy was ever about changing his gender identity. I would imagine your father was wearing hand-me-downs because his family, like many others, could not afford new ones. I don't believe anyone could ever believe that the situation you described would cause anyone to change gender identity.

You still think it is I who has the burden? Please show where gender identity is defined by a gene. My proof stands in the fact that gender identity is self-reported and therefor always open to scrutiny.

Nonsense. Unless you can provide evidence that gender identity can be changed by therapy etc, then alas, you are just continuing to blow in the wind, and particularly given the tragic case of Brenda/David Reimer which says his gender identity could not be changed regardless of whether the quack was a pedophile or not. And similarly for a genetically-male person with Swyer syndrome who also has female genitalia like Brenda/David Reimer, their personal gender identity cannot be changed, and as too for trans-sexuals. In the case of trans-sexuals, why on earth would someone face the public ridicule and personal agony if they could change their personal gender identity at will as you erroneously suggest. None of what you suggest makes the slightest sense, and the same applies to sexual orientation which is set from birth, where the sexual orientation of true homosexuals and heterosexuals are set and the intermediate bi-sexuals can alternate between sexual preferences.

Well I'll give you credit for going down with the ship here. Reimer is a tragic case. It says when an unethical doctor repeatedly rapes a young boy, the young boy will be traumatized for life. Please explain how this doctor was ever going to provide any benefit at all to Reimer when Reimers parents had FORCED a sex change on him and the doctor was continually RAPPING him. What therapy was being provided? Your example has proven nothing about gender identity and has thoroughly confused therapy with flat out rape. You are making broad generalizations that just are not supported by any information you have provided. For example, you failed to show where Reimer ever WANTED to change his gender in the first place. HIS PARENTS wanted it changed and FORCED that on him. If anything the "therapy", or rape as it really was, was a sad attempt to show that a persons gender can be reassigned against his/her will. It had nothing to do with a person wanting to change his/her gender identity.

Public ridicule means very little to a person who so desperately wants something that they are willing to go to any length to get it. You can see this in drug addicts. I think we can toss out the whole 'why would someone go through public ridicule' argument if we just look at human nature.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 341 by charles_hamm] That's certainly a long winded way to say you haven't any evidence to support your conjectures and prejudices.

[charles_hamm]

[Replying to post 341 by charles_hamm] That's certainly a long winded way to say you haven't any evidence to support your conjectures and prejudices.

As I said, you have to provide the evidence not me. You claim these things are set from birth. You claim they can't be changed. You need to provide what controls them. What gene determines them? Is it a defective gene? Until then I must take it that you are dodging my request for proof because you have none.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 341 by charles_hamm] That's certainly a long winded way to say you haven't any evidence to support your conjectures and prejudices.

As I said, you have to provide the evidence not me. You claim these things are set from birth. You claim they can't be changed. You need to provide what controls them. What gene determines them? Is it a defective gene? Until then I must take it that you are dodging my request for proof because you have none.

The evidence is the millions of personal testimonials of homosexuals and intersexes who say you're wrong, and that's good enough for me. What you say is totally irrelevant to me unless you can present evidence to support your conjectures and prejudices.

[East of Eden]

[Replying to post 334 by East of Eden]
Can you answer my question of IF Jesus really did that miracle 2,000 years ago, what evidence would you expect to see today?

Exactly the same as any performed by Harry Potter or Gandalf. Even my six-year-old grandson could easily pull off the one with the hidden wine containers in the empty water jars, and without any help from his older sisters.

Your six year old grandson could buy and move around 200 lb. containers of the best wine available? Walk on water? Heal a leper? Come back from the dead? When he was born, did he fulfill many prophecies?

Any unsupported conjecture about Jesus' life is just second-hand hearsay and hearsay isn't acceptable evidence in any court, let alone 2000 year-old hearsay written decades after the event. If you believe otherwise, then you might be interested in buying this slightly used bridge.

Your flippant answers aside, the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses. Here is someone who was recently convicted with hearsay evidence: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/justice/i ... on-verdict

Your continued dodging of my question of what evidence would you expect to see IF Jesus did those miracles shows your insincerety, and what a waste of time this discussion with you is.

[charles_hamm]

[Replying to post 341 by charles_hamm] That's certainly a long winded way to say you haven't any evidence to support your conjectures and prejudices.

As I said, you have to provide the evidence not me. You claim these things are set from birth. You claim they can't be changed. You need to provide what controls them. What gene determines them? Is it a defective gene? Until then I must take it that you are dodging my request for proof because you have none.

The evidence is the millions of personal testimonials of homosexuals and intersexes who say you're wrong, and that's good enough for me. What you say is totally irrelevant to me unless you can present evidence to support your conjectures and prejudices.

I did a quick search on Google and found at least 50 testimonies of people who had chosen to become heterosexual in the first three pages. Unless you can prove them wrong, what you say is only an opinion and simply can't be accepted as fact.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 334 by East of Eden]
Can you answer my question of IF Jesus really did that miracle 2,000 years ago, what evidence would you expect to see today?

Exactly the same as any performed by Harry Potter or Gandalf. Even my six-year-old grandson could easily pull off the one with the hidden wine containers in the empty water jars, and without any help from his older sisters.

Your six year old grandson could buy and move around 200 lb. containers of the best wine available? Walk on water? Heal a leper? Come back from the dead? When he was born, did he fulfill many prophecies?

Any unsupported conjecture about Jesus' life is just second-hand hearsay and hearsay isn't acceptable evidence in any court, let alone 2000 year-old hearsay written decades after the event. If you believe otherwise, then you might be interested in buying this slightly used bridge.

Your flippant answers aside, the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses. Here is someone who was recently convicted with hearsay evidence: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/justice/i ... on-verdict

Your continued dodging of my question of what evidence would you expect to see IF Jesus did those miracles shows your insincerety, and what a waste of time this discussion with you is.

There's nothing in John 2 about anyone moving full water jars. It simply says the waiter used an empty wine container to get some wine from the water jar, vis "Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast". The waiter simply let the wine container (now full of water) drop to the bottom of the full water jar and lifted out another wine container of wine which had floated as the water jar was filled. No magic there but only a simple trick by a half drunk Jesus (at that stage) which fooled the few remaining guests who were still only half drunk. If you seriously think 600 litres of quality wine was poofed into existence then how many litres per person (or tens of litres) did this group of drunks drink in total, given that they would have already guzzled down the hundreds or even thousands of litres of cheap plonk which had been catered for.

Do you have the slightest bit of evidence to support your assertion that any of those other "miracles" weren't just similar illusions and that the second-hand hearsay was written down decades later by those who weren't even witnesses. Do you seriously believe that the writers of Matthew were witnesses of Jesus conception and birth, and given that Luke 3:23 says that his biological father was probably Heli's son presumably based on an observed relationship between Heli's son (coincidently also named Joseph) and Joachime's daughter (Mary) which was somewhat more than platonic. If his conception was by parthenogenesis then "he" would have been a girl, or are you saying this bloke did the deed? http://Sofadasala.com/english/jahova.htm Do you actually believe that rotting corpses clambered out of their graves and paraded in down-town Jerusalem (Matt 27:52-3), or that it was just an imaginative embellishment to the story? And do you believe that Gandalf and Harry Potter also performed "miracles"? And do you believe that the Achaean gods helped the Achaeans at Troy. Afterall, they are all only words in books, and in the case of Homer, his stories are also based on historical events.

And just where is this Jesus, given his followers expected his return in their lifetimes. Alas they were disappointed, as have those expecting his return at the first and second millennia etc etc etc, but it hasn't stopped those who make a good living from selling salvation to the gullible over the centuries. And it would be interesting if DNA testing of the remains in a tomb near Srinager showed they were of a middle eastern man particularly if there was evidence he had survived crucifixion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Bal If, however, he poofs himself existence in my living room then that is probably proof, anything less - nah!!!

Are you interested in buying the bridge and the nearby buildings?

[mitty]

[Replying to post 341 by charles_hamm] That's certainly a long winded way to say you haven't any evidence to support your conjectures and prejudices.

As I said, you have to provide the evidence not me. You claim these things are set from birth. You claim they can't be changed. You need to provide what controls them. What gene determines them? Is it a defective gene? Until then I must take it that you are dodging my request for proof because you have none.

The evidence is the millions of personal testimonials of homosexuals and intersexes who say you're wrong, and that's good enough for me. What you say is totally irrelevant to me unless you can present evidence to support your conjectures and prejudices.

I did a quick search on Google and found at least 50 testimonies of people who had chosen to become heterosexual in the first three pages. Unless you can prove them wrong, what you say is only an opinion and simply can't be accepted as fact.

So what, I prefer to believe the testimonials of the millions who disagree. But then there are some who even believe that Jesus magically produced 600 litres of quality wine from water.