well it probably would have been more self-preserving than claiming to be the son of god. apparently. lol...
Jesus was a Normal Homosexual Man
- Thread starter ripleofdeath
- Start date
well it probably would have been more self-preserving than claiming to be the son of god. apparently. lol...
hm. is that all you could find? i mean, since 1993 i would imagine there would be a hell of a lot of gay scientists out there searching for that gene don't you?
also, if it's passed down from a straight mom, your weeding out theory is mute.
superstring01
Moderator
Hmmm. I'm not sure which one would have elicited the quickest death sentence. My guess is the homosexuality claim would have gotten him killed immediately. At least while faking to be a deity-in-the-flesh he could develop a significant group of followers to protect him.
~String
i thought the romans were big into homosexuality? i thought it was common practice back then?
superstring01
Moderator
Romans afforded a large degree of self-rule to its outlying provinces. Some where ruled directly by Rome (well, as directly as could be engineered back then); while others were pacified by allowing local rules to co-govern under a Roman prefect. Egypt, Greece, Palestine and Anatolia, for example, were prefectures (Egypt being the most important). In the case of Palestine (Israel), local rules were permitted so long as Roman super-rule was respected. Thus, the Jews were allowed to demand Jesus's (properly translated, "Joshuah" by the way; "Jesus" is a Latin contrivance) death to Pontius Pilate for the simple offense of claiming to be Yhwh's son (aka: heresy).
~String
Evolution is a fact. Weeding = natural selection
If one doesn't have any offspring then its the end of the line for the genes of that individual.
http://www.physorg.com/news84720662.html
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm
Religion is pitifully ignorant.
In the future there will most likely be gene treatments for homosexuality and it will be thought of as a disease.
Last edited:
There is no gay gene
There is no gay gene. I'll look around for the article, which I've posted here before (although it's been a couple years), but the leading theories right now involve multiple genes and hormone infusions in utero. Once those are pinned down a little better, we'll be able to start looking at how these outcomes respond to social conditioning. There is also a birth order statistic that isn't winning much favor but nonetheless operates around a curious coincidence that the later a male is in the birth order, the more likely he is to be homosexual. (It's entirely possible they're looking at the wrong aspect of the birth order statistic. I mean, it's the first time I ever heard of "anti-male antibodies", and I'm always dubious about newly-learned terms in those sorts of papers. I do, however, wonder about decalibration (wear and tear) of an oft-used uterus, and whether those later sons are subject to hormonal imbalances in utero that result in alternative responses from the genes in question.
There is no gay gene. I'll look around for the article, which I've posted here before (although it's been a couple years), but the leading theories right now involve multiple genes and hormone infusions in utero. Once those are pinned down a little better, we'll be able to start looking at how these outcomes respond to social conditioning. There is also a birth order statistic that isn't winning much favor but nonetheless operates around a curious coincidence that the later a male is in the birth order, the more likely he is to be homosexual. (It's entirely possible they're looking at the wrong aspect of the birth order statistic. I mean, it's the first time I ever heard of "anti-male antibodies", and I'm always dubious about newly-learned terms in those sorts of papers. I do, however, wonder about decalibration (wear and tear) of an oft-used uterus, and whether those later sons are subject to hormonal imbalances in utero that result in alternative responses from the genes in question.
Actually, study shows that homosexuality is of benefit to a species, (obviously at a relatively small percentage which - in human terms equates to about 3%, although some try to claim 10%).
Studies have revolved around when a homosexual individual is born, (typically a later child), and why it has benefit. If, for instance, you've had three - dare I say -"normal" children and then give birth to a homosexual, he or she actually provides benefit to the aunt and her children. You'll have go to New Scientist to check it, I have no relevant links to hand.
P.S I've just read Tiassas post that makes mention of this. For relevant details I would suggest New Scientist.
As for Jesus being gay - I frankly have very little, sorry - no, reason to believe that such individual existed in the first place. I know some individuals would argue that a person - not named Jesus obviously but something like Yeshua existed and was a rabbi or something. If we go to that level, we're not talking about "Jesus" anymore to even really bother caring. When someone asks: "did Jesus exist", they mean something very specific when saying "Jesus". If on the other hand we accept the existence of Jesus and christian claims, (he's god), then we know he hates - sorry no, detests - homosexuality. Some would submit that it then makes it unlikely that he was homosexual.
Having said that... I can think of something else that the biblical god stated was disgraceful. Yes.. long hair on a man.
Yet this very same entity had long hair.
So hey, he probably was gay.
Last edited:
Zen something
Zen acuity.
The second sentence is non-sequitur to the first.
Beyond that, surprise me.
Lori, it is my general presumption that people are smart enough to understand certain basic ideas. Admittedly, this is a dangerous proposition, as it is constantly shown to be wrong. But let's try this:
I'm going to say no. I'm very interested in your answer, and why.
No, actually, it's not. For some, sure, but as I noted before, those outcomes have specific etiologies removed from the basic question of sexual orientation. However, when you stop to consider that "roughly a quarter of all gay men don't enjoy and don't indulge in anal sex" (Savage), it should become clear that it's not about your piehole. I mean, the hole in your pie. Er ... I mean your vagina.
It's about something far more profound. Perhaps you've never experienced it with any lover. Or maybe you have and just don't think men, or homosexuals, or whomever, can feel it.
Whichever, I would still suggest your standard about sex appeal and individual worth speaks far more about you than anyone else.
Right. And gay people can't have sex. Or are you going to retract that?
When did you stop?
Never mind. What the hell are you talking about, then? Remember, you are the one who made sexual orientation about bigotry.
The only way this works is if we presume that your responses to String, from which I extracted those quotes, were written completely without regard to the posts you allegedly responded to.
You know, I frequently do this patronizing lecture about how there are these things called letters, and we string them together into words, which make sentences, paragraphs, and so on. The point of it is that at Sciforums, and on the internet in general, people seem to have difficulty recognizing themes. It's as if one sentence isn't connected to the next, and there is no relation between paragraphs, chapters, posts, and so on.
Okay, look: I might be able to force myself to eat enough chorizo to acclimate myself to it. Who knows, I might even be able to love the stuff. But that doesn't mean I'm going to find a pussy that smells like chorizo attractive any more than I would one that smells or tastes like asiago.
Right there is part of the problem. It appears you never understood the chorizo issue. To the other, if you ever happen to read through that whole disaster again, and finally get it, let me know. We can start this whole argument over on completely new terms.
But what do you really expect when someone asks you questions about rape and you respond by dodging the issue and talking about forcing yourself to eat stuff you don't like and eventually learning to love it?
Really. Just stop. Put everything else we're arguing about, and all your pride, aside for a few minutes, and go back and read through that exchange you had with String. Let's just start with something simple. How do you think your answers relate to the questions? That is, when String asked you about lesbians being "required" to take a dick, what did masculine and feminine attributes of men and women have to do with anything? When asked if gay men should be required to sleep with women, what does it matter that you're pouting because someone doesn't want to fuck a vagina? When that question was reiterated, you finally said that genitalia should be a non-issue, which is absurd enough in itself, for suggesting that a sexual partner's comfort and sense of security is a non-issue. And it is also self-contradictory: If your vagina is a non-issue, then stop getting upset that gay men won't fuck it.
Zen acuity, yet again.
Ever hear of a Zen martini? It's a drink that features no gin and no vermouth. There's also no glass.
Oh, stop with that, Lori. You're the one who threw a fit about gay men not liking pussy. You're the one who stuck your nose into "The Gay Fray" with that ridiculous formula describing sexual intercourse. You raised the issue. I'm following it. For instance:
How do I put this gently? I mean, since nothing else has worked?
Ah, let's try this: That's stupid.
One of the odd things that happens around here is that people, when backed into a corner, devise these strange suppositions that all things and situations are equal.
Thus the existence of a fat man in another country means one should not criticize obesity in the U.S. Or joining a hobby club is no different from joining a religion. Hell, by your standard, punching you in the face at random is the same as raping you.
These things aren't the same.
Feminism has come a long way in my lifetime; I mention that to preface the note that over the years, I've seen a certain presupposition driven out of the culture. For heterosexual guys, sticking a penis into a warm, wet vagina—especially for the first time—is an overwhelmingly joyful feeling. Not always so for women. Yet over the course of my lifetime, I've seen the men's presupposition that since it feels that good for them it must necessarily feel that good for the women choke and gasp and very nearly die in the street. Now, I can't tell you what it feels like to have my vagina properly shagged, as I don't have one. But I can tell you that penetrating and being penetrated are not the same.
As far as bigotry goes, yeah, you have a point if sexual intercourse is the psychological equivalent of sharing a church pew with someone.
And perhaps it is to you. But that would be quite the statistical deviation.
O ... kay.
When you have bizarre, or even unique standards, don't be surprised if people question them. And if you use those standards to accuse, don't be surprised if people find you ridiculous.
Why would homophobes attack one of their own? Especially when you've added such a novel and perplexing argument to their arsenal of hatred?
We'll try this again:
Notes:
Savage, Dan. "Plunge In". The Stranger. October 22, 2009. TheStranger.com. November 19, 2009. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=2531572
Lori 7 said:
Zen acuity.
The second sentence is non-sequitur to the first.
Beyond that, surprise me.
Lori, it is my general presumption that people are smart enough to understand certain basic ideas. Admittedly, this is a dangerous proposition, as it is constantly shown to be wrong. But let's try this:
• If fucking you doesn't feel good, does that make you a bad person?
I'm going to say no. I'm very interested in your answer, and why.
No, actually, it's not. For some, sure, but as I noted before, those outcomes have specific etiologies removed from the basic question of sexual orientation. However, when you stop to consider that "roughly a quarter of all gay men don't enjoy and don't indulge in anal sex" (Savage), it should become clear that it's not about your piehole. I mean, the hole in your pie. Er ... I mean your vagina.
It's about something far more profound. Perhaps you've never experienced it with any lover. Or maybe you have and just don't think men, or homosexuals, or whomever, can feel it.
Whichever, I would still suggest your standard about sex appeal and individual worth speaks far more about you than anyone else.
Right. And gay people can't have sex. Or are you going to retract that?
When did you stop?
Never mind. What the hell are you talking about, then? Remember, you are the one who made sexual orientation about bigotry.
The only way this works is if we presume that your responses to String, from which I extracted those quotes, were written completely without regard to the posts you allegedly responded to.
You know, I frequently do this patronizing lecture about how there are these things called letters, and we string them together into words, which make sentences, paragraphs, and so on. The point of it is that at Sciforums, and on the internet in general, people seem to have difficulty recognizing themes. It's as if one sentence isn't connected to the next, and there is no relation between paragraphs, chapters, posts, and so on.
Okay, look: I might be able to force myself to eat enough chorizo to acclimate myself to it. Who knows, I might even be able to love the stuff. But that doesn't mean I'm going to find a pussy that smells like chorizo attractive any more than I would one that smells or tastes like asiago.
Right there is part of the problem. It appears you never understood the chorizo issue. To the other, if you ever happen to read through that whole disaster again, and finally get it, let me know. We can start this whole argument over on completely new terms.
But what do you really expect when someone asks you questions about rape and you respond by dodging the issue and talking about forcing yourself to eat stuff you don't like and eventually learning to love it?
Really. Just stop. Put everything else we're arguing about, and all your pride, aside for a few minutes, and go back and read through that exchange you had with String. Let's just start with something simple. How do you think your answers relate to the questions? That is, when String asked you about lesbians being "required" to take a dick, what did masculine and feminine attributes of men and women have to do with anything? When asked if gay men should be required to sleep with women, what does it matter that you're pouting because someone doesn't want to fuck a vagina? When that question was reiterated, you finally said that genitalia should be a non-issue, which is absurd enough in itself, for suggesting that a sexual partner's comfort and sense of security is a non-issue. And it is also self-contradictory: If your vagina is a non-issue, then stop getting upset that gay men won't fuck it.
Zen acuity, yet again.
Ever hear of a Zen martini? It's a drink that features no gin and no vermouth. There's also no glass.
Oh, stop with that, Lori. You're the one who threw a fit about gay men not liking pussy. You're the one who stuck your nose into "The Gay Fray" with that ridiculous formula describing sexual intercourse. You raised the issue. I'm following it. For instance:
How do I put this gently? I mean, since nothing else has worked?
Ah, let's try this: That's stupid.
One of the odd things that happens around here is that people, when backed into a corner, devise these strange suppositions that all things and situations are equal.
Thus the existence of a fat man in another country means one should not criticize obesity in the U.S. Or joining a hobby club is no different from joining a religion. Hell, by your standard, punching you in the face at random is the same as raping you.
These things aren't the same.
Feminism has come a long way in my lifetime; I mention that to preface the note that over the years, I've seen a certain presupposition driven out of the culture. For heterosexual guys, sticking a penis into a warm, wet vagina—especially for the first time—is an overwhelmingly joyful feeling. Not always so for women. Yet over the course of my lifetime, I've seen the men's presupposition that since it feels that good for them it must necessarily feel that good for the women choke and gasp and very nearly die in the street. Now, I can't tell you what it feels like to have my vagina properly shagged, as I don't have one. But I can tell you that penetrating and being penetrated are not the same.
As far as bigotry goes, yeah, you have a point if sexual intercourse is the psychological equivalent of sharing a church pew with someone.
And perhaps it is to you. But that would be quite the statistical deviation.
O ... kay.
When you have bizarre, or even unique standards, don't be surprised if people question them. And if you use those standards to accuse, don't be surprised if people find you ridiculous.
Why would homophobes attack one of their own? Especially when you've added such a novel and perplexing argument to their arsenal of hatred?
We'll try this again:
Let's start with something basic: Explain, please, the leap from evaluating the appeal of one's sex organs to judging the whole worth of a person.
_____________________Notes:
Savage, Dan. "Plunge In". The Stranger. October 22, 2009. TheStranger.com. November 19, 2009. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=2531572
Last edited:
What consternates me is, that such an experience doesn't define one's sexual orientation, it just proves that one can be sexually stimulated by anyone and anything as long as the thought of it doesn't plague them. So, I don't really understand why anyone would panic..I mean, just because you enjoyed the blowjob doesn't make you a gay/lesbian, it just means that you really really enjoyed that awesome sexual stimulation.
Don't know how to word this properly, but I always wondered how much someone's sexual organ does matter. For example, would they still be into girls if girls had instead of a cunt a dick, and vice versa? Or is it more about the general physical appearance, in other words aesthetics? You know..the typical characteristics for each gender..
Well, I guess not everybody's into anal sex, and that's probably not relevant to gender. Could also be connected with what purpose the asshole serves, and that the feeling of being penetrated in the back isn't considered as enjoyable by everyone.
Exactly. There's no mention of Jesus having any sexual life whatsoever. Not in the canonical Gospels, which admittedly are heavily biased; and not in the third-party accounts, e.g. Josephus or Tacitus. There's no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was married, was gay, or had an active sexual life at all.
Last edited:
Technically, would Jesus be a man, a member of the genus Homo? If he is real and because he is generally regarded as a man then what does that make his father? The story indicates the mother as being a bipedal ape but we know precious little about the sperm donor. In fact there is some doubts as to his validity as a man for that matter. Unless the father was a man there is no way Jesus would have been normal as you say. The least he could be is a hybrid homo.
Maybe its ok for a half-breed god-man to like the company of human men, after all women aren't all that important to the Big Guy are they?
First off thanks Mister for telling me what my pussy is and what it isn't to me.
You need to read that thread and my comments there and here again if you think it was just about gay men finding women 'repulsive' sexually; that it was just me (Lori has other issues don't lump me in with those) who had a problem with the word usage and that it was just about some of us missing the point. I certainly don't want to have peope hanged (as some would have me) but I do want to look a little more closely. So here goes attempt number umpty kazillion.
At least one man who identified himselve as gay in that thread said he found women, blacks, asians and dogs equally repulsive/repugnant. Now I find that sort of sentiment worrysome. Don't you? Not because I'm so stupid or at all homophobic or because I equate my pussy as my worth but because I find the sentiment expressed in the particular way it was worrying. You get it? Worrying. I do realise, and pretty much always have, that gay men don't want the pussy and I don't worrying about it.
Now try very, very hard to understand why some folks might find the words repulsive, repugnant in association with women, blacks and asians worrying.
Really? Got a citation?
No shit sherlock?
So now you are eqauting female genetalia with dirt? Nice one. You know some people who are not deeply religious keep their genetalia clean without the need for a message from god....males and females.
Oh yeah I get it. Eleven year old boys. When I hear thirty something men expressing the same sentiments using the same sort of language I start to think.....
Where his money is?
I don't equate my pussy with my worth. But then I wouldn't call yours or string's cock repulsive or repugnant either because I realise that when I utter repugnant any where near a gay, bisexual, asian, black or mixed ethnicity man my words might get misconstrued and cause hurt or trouble. But then I gots some empathy for the struggles of others. Seems that some gay (hmm is that term an example of equating oneself with a sexual measure of worth) men don't have similar levels of empathy.
You get it? Yet?
You have no idea what impulses I have and whom I want to act on them. however I would expect lust, desire, passion, the need to replicate one's genes might have something to do with it. The same might be true of sucking cock.
I don't think any discussion should be forbidden on sci. Not sure what you mean by 'over ripe bigotry'. There is either bigotry or there isn't. I'm not one for ignoring issues. I'm one for facing them.
What? I'm making the point that quite often on sci the only conversation about women is about rape, what a woman should or shouldn't say, what a woman should or shouldn't wear or have an opinion on. How a woman should or shouldn't behave. A woman certainly shouldn't criticise a gay man, it seems. Or be petulant (petulant ohh silly, silly girl). It's ok to be angry is it?
What about those who are discriminated against because of the non white colour of their skin or their 'asianness' or that of their sex partner? Oh brush that one under the carpet quickly......
*************
M*W: The "oft-used" uterus is an interesting theory. I believe, however, that hormonal infusions in utero play a role in gender specification. With oral contraceptives being put on the market some 40 years ago, I think this is the single largest culprit of fetal hormone imbalances. Then there is the bombardment of ultrasound into the fetal brain. Then post-natally, there are hormones and other toxins in our food supply.
The article you mentioned, is that the study done with twin males in California? I'm too lazy to look it up. I seem to recall that the study investigated identical twins where one was gay and the other one not. The hypothesis was that the size or shape of the hypothalamus was what determined homosexuality. I cannot remember exactly.
This subject requires further investigation, but the bottom-line is that homosexuality is not evil, it's not a sin, and there should be no social stigma. Like heart disease, cancer, diabetes or hammertoes, it needs to stay out of the pulpit.
*************
M*W: Actually, you are correct. The empiric Romans married for socio-economic and political reasons, but they kept young boys around for their pleasure. It was a common practice not frowned on by the populace according to what I have read in Sex Lives of the Roman Emperors. I don't recall the author.
do you have any real sources for this?
Yes.