Was Jesus Gay?

[James R]

beyondtimeandspace:

Whether there is a God or not, the human organs developed to function a certain way. The drive of human DNA is to continue itself, as well as purify itself. This
can be shown through science, and evolutionary development both of the physical and of the psychological. Also, such development is reflected in the findings of
sociology, and human sexuality. Homosexuality is a denial of that development, as well as a perversion of it.

Are you asserting that the ONLY legitimate reason for sexual activity is procreation? If so, do you condemn anybody who has sex for a reason other than to make a baby? Because that means you probably condemn about 99% of sex acts. Probably you consider masterbation evil too, right? That doesn't meet the "functional purpose" your mention, either.

I have put this question to the scientist and evolutionist and all those who would claim that homosexuality is a part of nature, and so cannot be wrong. They have given me no satisfactory answer, none that I could not find fault with.

Which scientists did you talk to? Perhaps the people here can help give you a satisfactory scientific answer. What is it that you would like to know?

Science, Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology and Religion all come to the same conclusion, that homosexuality does not meet the design of the human being (either physically, mentally, or spiritually). How could it then be considered natural?

I disagree with your assessment. Briefly:

Science: Studies have shown that many animals exhibit homoseuxal behaviours, particular in some of our closest relative species (e.g. bonobos).

Philosophy: This depends on which philosophy you wish to adopt. You're clearly giving preference to some philosophical views over others, without being specific.

Psychology: There is no evidence that homosexuality is harmful in a psychological sense.

Sociology: This deals with how people act. It makes no statements about "design".

Religion: Certainly, there are many religions which regard homosexuality as sinful, but not all of them do. But then, most religions take very conservative and often bigoted views of the world.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

To answer your first question, no, procreation is not the only legitimate reason for having sex. There are three, actually. Procreation, pleasure, and the expression of love. Yet I think that none of these should deliberately be removed from the act. It is a wrongful negation since it incompletes the design of the act. You are right in saying that there is a high percentage of sexual acts that do not meet the stated requirements. However, what we cannot control we cannot be responsible for (yes this means that if you are homosexual you cannot be guilty of it, only the act).

As for my assessment, itwas not intended to mean that every view agrees with it. I simply meant that there are areas of each that come to the same conclusion. The Philosophical and Religious conclusions should be drawn together, while the others should be view in conjunction as well.

I am aware that science has shown that animals do exhibit homosexual behavior. Yet this does not mean that homosexuality was an intended design of nature. Furthermore, in response to M*W about overcrowding. I highly doubt that God intended that humans only exist on earth. That we cannot says nothing about original intent, since the nature of things has been altered by evil.

In saying that science can conlude the unnaturalness of homosexuality I refer more to the studies that have been done with DNA and its evolution. This is where the studies in psychology and Sociology also come in. Let's talk about sociology and psychology first, because they deal with human behavior. It has been found that the sexual instinct, as well as its physical function have all been designed (whether by creation or evolution) around reproduction. Sexual pleasure evolved to make the procreative act more appealing. Who would want to go through the pain of childbirth? I doubt anyone does. Yet, because of the strength of the attraction of sexual pleasure, the pain of childbirth is forgotten in the moment of passion. Furthermore, all of the things that attract one sexual partner to the other also developed around procreation. For example, a man is attracted to a slim waist, wide hips, developed breasts, a tight rear-end, firm muscle tone, a symmetrical face. Why? Because these are all signs of health, and the healthier your mate is, the better chance of survival there is for your offspring. Much can be said the same for a woman's attraction to the man. Also, the behavior of people with regards to monogamy and polygamy can also be seen to have developed around procreation. The male is more polygamous than the female because he is able to spread his offspring more easily and more quickly that way. Whereas the woman is more monogamous because she is the one who bears the offspring. By being monogamous she is able to produce more offspring. This is because if she were no monogamous, she would waste time between pregnancies trying to attact another mate. If she has a single mate, however, who will be there after she bears her offspring, she is then able to produce more offspring immediately without wasting time seeking out a new partner. I am neither condoning or condemning such actions. I am simply showing how these fields of study show the development of sexuality as surrounding procreation. A recent theory was released (intended to show the purpose of life) that indicated that DNA strives ever and always to continue itself, as well as to get rid of bad strands of DNA. In order to accomplish this DNA had to develope modes for this to be accomplished. This is how the different sexual behaviors developed, both from the physical development to behavioral development. The animal looks for the healthiest mate because it contains the best and strongest DNA. That is how it roots out the bad DNA. An adrogenous species could not accomplish the removal of bad DNA, because whatever DNA is in a personal could then not be rooted out. It would continue in the DNA so long as that DNA produced offspring. It can be seen that the lowest forms (that is, the simplest) of life are Asexual. It is with evolution and growing complixities of organism that gave rise to sexuality in order to be able to root out bad, or unhealthy, or weak DNA.

This being said, all of those behaviors and physical functions involved in procreation are still present in homosexuals. The difference being that the DNA, though it is trying to continue itself, cannot, because the sexual act does not realize its designed conclusion.

 

[Frisbinator]

Alright everyone, animals exhibiting homosexual acts in nature is a complete MYTH. I wrote a huge term paper on the causes of homosexuality and the only reliable and scientific studies that I found all pointed to homosexuality being caused by several different things: Environmental factors, emotional/physical/sexual abuse from the same sex at an early age, and an overattachment to the opposite sex at an early age. The studies such as the "twin studies" and "the gay gene" were all flawed, there is absolutely no reliable scientific evidence that homosexuality is a natural state, nobody is born gay, the unnatural attraction manifests itself in puberty due to the unnatural abusive factors listed above. I don't want to get into this anymore, I'm sick of posting this stuff on sciforums, just take it or leave it, but I have spent hours in unbiased research, I dont really care if you believe me or not quite frankly.

Sex.........if everyone waited until they were married, I think the world would be a better place. In the year 2004, this probably sounds pretty left wing, but allow me to elaborate. Right now, especially in America, divorce is a huge problem. It rips apart families, causing serious emotional trauma to all involved, especially innocent children. I would conjecture that there would be a DRASTIC decrease in life-ruining affairs if we only had sex with that one special person. Thanks partly to the media, sex has turned into some kind of a "if it feels good do it, there are no emotional attachments" kind of thing. Well, it isn't. There are HUGE emotional attachments. Sex is something one remembers ones entire life. Say you have sex with ten different men/women before finding one you want to marry, are you going to forget those ten? Hell no. Is your commitment going to be as strong as the one you've pledged to spend your entire life with? Hell no. Is sex going to be as special as it would have been had that person been your only sexual partner? Hell no. Here are two ways where having multiple sexual partners is advantageous:

A. Your never plan on GETTING married your entire life.
B. You would trade a couple hours of lustful pleasure for an entire lifetime of memories and comparisons that will weaken your lifelong commitment called marriage and that your partner both doesen't deserve or want you to have.

And about that Jesus being homosexual thing.... complete and utter rubbish. Another example of someone "standing on the shoulders of giants" attempting to make a name for themselves by being as controversial as possible, and selling their entire soul for it in the process, absolutely disgusting. Nobody with a sliver of intelligence or class who is non-ignorant would be influenced by that. Unfortunately, most atheists are the most ignorant people I have ever met towards Christianity and will no doubt be influenced by that garbage.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

I would like to point out a mistake I made in my last post. I mistook the meaning of "androgenous" for something else (a non-sexual creature). So ignore my statements about it. I realized my mistake a while after when I was sitting on the couch thinking about it.

The only justification I can see (given that Frisbinator is wrong, and I doubt he is since professors that I have ever heard speak on the subject say that there is no certainty about where homosexuality arises. They do, however know certainly that in many cases it arises from those reasons Frisbinator said) for the need for androgenous mutations is a natural need for balance which is built into the Natural Order. In the original creation androgeny was neither needed, nor a reality. However, since the time when evil disrupted the natural order of things, the mechanism of balance, adaptation for the return of equilibrium may produce such androgeny. That is the ONLY justification that I can find for that. Yet, even the notion that homosexuality is genetic is entirely unverified.

 

[okinrus]

Yes, you are correct, beyondtimespace. Although there's been some research done, curtailed for the most part by gay activists or simply lack of care, no one has found a gay gene. Doctors lack the information whether sexual preference is caused by genetic factors or by environment. In some cases, such as abuse, the tendancy towards same-sex caused by environment; in others, there's no clear reason for the attraction. Most likely the tendancy towards same-sex attraction is caused by both.

Of course, little that M*W actually says is based upon legitimate research or history. Not everything she says is bad. But if she but spend some time investigating the books that she found, that is the authors who debunk these kind of myths, she would not trust their conclusions nor quote them. She says she was deceived by what she thought was Christianity, all the while deceiving herself again.

 

[Tiassa]

Homosexuality is a result of overcrowding

I would go so far as to say homosexuality may, in some cases, be a result of overcrowding, but how does that population-sexuality balance work in a human world? We tend to not look at ourselves, our thoughts, and our feelings as manifestations of ourselves but as ourselves.

Thus, if we try to describe the process that leads for humans from "heterosexual" to "overcrowded homosexual", we would be describing a process entirely unique to humanity. Our nature is such that, kneeling to perform that fellatio for the first time, one does not stop to think, "If only it was less crowded, then I could have a girl!"

It's just that there's a whole bunch of stuff in the world we could call similarly symptomatic of overpopulation: warfare, murder, cooperative society, currency, &c.

Is it that the homosexual becomes confused, or resource acquisition (e.g. a heterosexual partner) becomes too difficult in a diverse society that responds to will instead of the necessity that drives will? I was once witness to an argument in which a Christian tried to establish himself outside the determinism of nature; his example was, "I get hungry, so I eat". We're animals; the human aspect of eating is whether we we eat a cheeseburger or fettuccine alfredo or steamed vegetables. But to reinforce an abstract sense of free will by asserting an inherent response to natural stimuli just doesn't cut it. I was once participant in an argument in which a poster asserted the Kamikazes--e.g. a society of heavy psychological (acquired) conditioning--as an example opposing the statement that humans are not naturally (inherently) programmed to want to die.

In other animals (rats), murder is a result of overcrowding. Crowd primates in a small area and they act like people in an elevator: physically withdrawn, overtly cautious of their position in relation to others, uncommunicative. Let them out after an extended period and they celebrate like humans, with hugs and clapping one another on the back and lots of smiles. But overpopulation does not necessarily determine their same-sex contact. Bonobos seem designed by nature to be Dandy Warhols fans, seeking almost constant relief and release. There are apes whose behavior includes cunnilingus as a ritual of the female hierarchy.

The problem, I think, would be identifying the "overpopulation = homosexuality" switch in diverse animals, and then properly translating that device to the human dimension. It is the latter task that will prove most difficult.

Population issues most likely play their role, but in humans, overcrowding would probably have more to do with finding a utility for homosexuality: e.g. the process of (re-)acceptance.

Homosexuality is definitely a part of evolution and should not be condemned. Sexual orientation is a developing factor in evolution. The perfect human would then be androgynous.

Androgynous, how? And toward what perfection?

The androgyny seems as if it can only be superficial, else the kingdom of God will truly come when people don't, so to speak. So there must be something obvious I'm overlooking.

And pending the resolution of that issue, there may or may not be the consideration of perfection in regard to what? Certain assertions of perfection are nihilistically-derived, and within Abramism we see in various prophecies the idea that perfection will bring the end of the world.

That's where Christianity and I sever relations!

Indeed; didn't mean to turn you into a soapbox, but it happens sometimes.

Since we're at this point, though, I'm given to wonder how many points upon which you sever your relations with Christianity and whether this occasion or any other identifies openly the singular form of an underlying theme encompassing that severance. Your question strikes after that point: "To be homosexual and rejected by 'Christianity', or be a Christian and reject everything that nature provides?"

But it's not so much a rejection as it is an inappropriate assignation.

I vote against Christianity, because it is the most evil thing in this world.

Remember that "real" Christianity is about as mysterious as the meaning of life. It's a hard consideration, as I don't like to think so ill of my neighbors, and they don't like being thought of as victims. So I'm left with this broad range of regressive assertions and superficial foci that don't seem to have much purpose beyond an experimental social order shown to have cracked up and imploded.

Think of it like Republicans for a moment. I know some folks who are Republicans; I don't like to believe these people are as evil as the party. But they choose certain issues that are important enough to them to compel a sacrifice of principles.

My brother once got angry after people identified him as a Republican. Judging by his presidential votes, one might have had a case. And he realized in there that a couple of people had called him out on issues that were his for a long time that the GOP had put voice to in recent times. He started staking out his actual, seemingly-independent political territory in response because he refused to be identified as a Gingrich or Bush Republican. He knows they're evil; he's constantly reassessing his positions on issues, as one ought to. Every time he catches himself sinking into a pundit's complicity, he shakes off and tries to think anew.

Life is a learning process; as much as I want Bush eliminated, I can't stand the DNC, and think the Party, the people of the United States, and our neighbors around the world would all be better off if the chair and current directors resigned and withdrew from politics altogether.

Some folks get caught up in their identities political. The GOP convention is a perfect example. You know, those people probably aren't all evil, but they're delegates to a nefarious cause cheering on attitudes of belligerence and divisiveness that manifest themselves in ways that exact tolls in terms of human life. What are we supposed to think? There's nobody with rifles marching these folks into the arena: Do they really choose this?

They're probably not evil, but if not then why support an evil agenda? Are they victims? Are they deceived? Are they conned and conditioned so that they never stood a chance from the word, "Go"? For here they are, challenging the U.S. Constitution and the very traditions of America which brought them to prominence. There's something sympathetically devilish about it, as if these folks are somehow condemned to spend their lives railing against that which would save them. From a perspective demanding human sympathy, it's heartbreaking.

And so it goes with Christians, too. I know that my Christian neighbors can put up the appearance of being good people; how, then, to regard the doubt? Is it merely Jim's lifetime of hard work and the home he owns and the education he's accomplished that define him? I wouldn't say Jim is a bad person just because he's a Christian. But I would say the way he raised his child calls certain ideas into question. It sounds extreme to compare his love to a child abuser's love, but why adopt a child just to send her away to schools--she stayed with friends over vacations, so as to not trouble her parents--and beat her when she's home? And when Jim relies on his faith to justify his decisions? What, then, am I supposed to think of this faith that compels him to inflict so much damage emotional, spiritual, psychological, and physical, on his daughter?

The suggestion is that "real" Christianity is unknown. In other words, only Christ knew exactly what He meant, and nobody has figured it out yet. As we don't know the "real" Christianity, we can only say that its current phase is or seems evil.

Now, where do we draw the line? Joe the racist, at 19, may have no real choice in the matter, depending on his upbringing. But if he can't figure it out after a year in the city, perhaps he doesn't deserve the friends he wants who won't tolerate his rhetoric about ethnic supremacy. If I watch a child turn around and smack a nagging younger sibling, I might feel a spur of sympathy for both, as the likelihood that the striking child learned that behavior by habit from the parents. But at some point, that child will turn into an adult and cannot conduct themselves in such a manner; where do they cross that line between victim and perpetrator? When is Joe no longer a victim of his father's bad ideas and a willing promoter of his own? When does the violent child stop imitating and start initiating?

When does the person of faith stop following and start understanding?

Consider the portion of Beyond's post you responded to. I'm as sure as I can be that Beyondtimeandspace is not devilspawn, or some other incarnation of evil. However, one must wonder at the scientists and evolutionists Beyond has talked to; either they are unaware of birds, primates, and other nests of same-sex contact in nature, or our fellow poster is asking the question according to an unconventional standard which may preclude a satisfactory answer.

For instance, as Beyond notes:

The drive of human DNA is to continue itself, as well as purify itself. This can be shown through science, and evolutionary development both of the physical and of the psychological. Also, such development is reflected in the findings of sociology, and human sexuality. Homosexuality is a denial of that development, as well as a perversion of it. For even though the attraction may be for the same sex, the DNA comprising that person is still driving him toward the continuance of the DNA, that is why that person has any sexual attraction at all. That is why all the functionality of the sexual act remains, except that it does not meet its functional conclusion.

Why is "evolution" treated so simplistically and superficially? Beyond has a fair assertion, except that it only runs skin deep, if even that. Even if we could establish that homosexuality is, indeed, DNA's attempt to purify itself out of the gene pool (a thoroughly unlikely behavior), we must still argue the conclusion that homosexuality does not meet the functional conclusion of sexual intercourse.

After all, regardless of whether or not overpopulation is a, the, or no cause of homosexuality in humans, it can be fairly said that homosexuals generally do not contribute to the continuing problematic aspects of overpopulation. If the functional conclusion of the sexual impulse is reproduction and only reproduction, that would make our DNA suicidal at the level of our species.

What Christianity is supposed to be is unknown. What it is in the hands of the faithful is a curious mix of apathy and hope. They hope for the end of the world, and are apathetic toward what that actually means. The pattern of hoping for something while not thinking about what else that something necessarily brings is a hallmark of Christian political and institutional discourse. We need to offer the faithful themselves a route up the hill so they can leave behind them the shadows of the Valley of Death. The victimization generally suffered by the faithful does not necessarily make them evil; vote against ignorance and apathy, which cousins demand more evil action from the spiritually blind than anyone should be able to ask of another human being.

 

[James R]

beyondtimeandspace:

To answer your first question, no, procreation is not the only legitimate reason for having sex. There are three, actually. Procreation, pleasure, and the expression of love. Yet I think that none of these should deliberately be removed from the act.

So, I guess you are against all forms of contraception then? (Just out of interest, are you Catholic?) In the heterosexual case, this removes the procreation element you feel is so necessary, and without that we have exactly the same situation as the homosexual case, since it would be silly to deny that all homosexual sex is loveless and unenjoyable for the participants.

I am aware that science has shown that animals do exhibit homosexual behavior. Yet this does not mean that homosexuality was an intended design of nature.

Nature doesn't "intend" anything. Teleological explanations are religious rather than scientific.

In saying that science can conlude the unnaturalness of homosexuality I refer more to the studies that have been done with DNA and its evolution. This is where the studies in psychology and Sociology also come in. Let's talk about sociology and psychology first, because they deal with human behavior. It has been found that ...[etc.]

I am aware of all the scientific findings you mention here.

This being said, all of those behaviors and physical functions involved in procreation are still present in homosexuals. The difference being that the DNA, though it is trying to continue itself, cannot, because the sexual act does not realize its designed conclusion.

There's that "design" word again. You are implying a design where there is no good evidence for one. I imagine that you do so on religious grounds.


Frisbinator:

Alright everyone, animals exhibiting homosexual acts in nature is a complete MYTH.

Did you research this for your term paper? It seems you didn't look very hard.

I wrote a huge term paper on the causes of homosexuality and the only reliable and scientific studies that I found all pointed to homosexuality being caused by several different things: Environmental factors, emotional/physical/sexual abuse from the same sex at an early age, and an overattachment to the opposite sex at an early age.

"Environmental factors" is fairly non-specific, isn't it, so let's leave that alone for now. As to your other postulated factors, I do not believe that most homosexuals suffered abuse at an early age. Presumably, you have suitable references for that claim in your term paper. Could you please provide them here? And could you also explain how you identify an "overattachment to the opposite sex" objectively?

The studies such as the "twin studies" and "the gay gene" were all flawed, there is absolutely no reliable scientific evidence that homosexuality is a natural state, nobody is born gay, the unnatural attraction manifests itself in puberty due to the unnatural abusive factors listed above.

Which twin studies, in particular?

Regarding the "gay gene", you are correct that a single such gene has never been found. More probably, homosexuality is a tendancy controlled in part by a complex of many genes. Studies suggest that there may be some kind of genetic "switch" involved too, which explains the observed proportion of homosexuals in the general population (around 10%).

Your use of the term "unnatural" demonstrates a rather clear bias on your part, since any behaviour with this degree of prevalence can hardly be called unnatural. Homosexuality seems to be "natural" for 10% of the population.

I don't want to get into this anymore, I'm sick of posting this stuff on sciforums, just take it or leave it, but I have spent hours in unbiased research, I dont really care if you believe me or not quite frankly.

Fine. You don't sound unbiased to me, though. Frankly, I doubt your motivations, especially considering the remainder of your post. I think that you, too, are most likely religiously motivated. You probably used sources selectively in your term paper to support a conclusion you had decided on in advance.

Sex.........if everyone waited until they were married, I think the world would be a better place.

Maybe so, but that has never happened in the history of humanity, and is never likely. If you really want to concentrate on things which are unnatural, in the sense of not being observed in the real world, then this one is probably a good example.

In the year 2004, this probably sounds pretty left wing, but allow me to elaborate. Right now, especially in America, divorce is a huge problem. It rips apart families, causing serious emotional trauma to all involved, especially innocent children.

It also allows countless women to escape from unhappy and abusive relationships, in which they would suffer much greater trauma (physical and emotional) than if divorce was not a possibility, as has happened in the past.

I would conjecture that there would be a DRASTIC decrease in life-ruining affairs if we only had sex with that one special person.

Well, yes. That's fairly obvious, isn't it?

Thanks partly to the media, sex has turned into some kind of a "if it feels good do it, there are no emotional attachments" kind of thing.

You don't think the media reflects the society?

Sex is something one remembers ones entire life. Say you have sex with ten different men/women before finding one you want to marry, are you going to forget those ten? Hell no. Is your commitment going to be as strong as the one you've pledged to spend your entire life with? Hell no. Is sex going to be as special as it would have been had that person been your only sexual partner? Hell no.

What is true for you, personally, may well not be true at all for other people. I think you're drawing a very long bow here. There are plenty of people out there who would not remember a particular sexual experience for their whole life. There are plenty who have numerous sexual partners, yet somehow nevertheless end up in committed, lifelong relationships with a single person.

Unfortunately, most atheists are the most ignorant people I have ever met towards Christianity and will no doubt be influenced by that garbage.
beyondtimeandspace

Who mentioned atheists? Your true colours are showing again.


okinrus:

Yes, you are correct, beyondtimespace. Although there's been some research done, curtailed for the most part by gay activists or simply lack of care, no one has found a gay gene.

Name one "gay activist" who has curtailed research into a "gay gene", if you can.

Doctors lack the information whether sexual preference is caused by genetic factors or by environment.

Correct.

In some cases, such as abuse, the tendancy towards same-sex caused by environment; in others, there's no clear reason for the attraction. Most likely the tendancy towards same-sex attraction is caused by both.

Correct again, and equally true for heterosexuality in all its forms.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

If all forms of contraception involve an active blocking of conception, and the users intend that no conception occur (so that they are entirely closed to it in will), then yes, I would be against all forms of contraception. This is because they intentionally remove a good from the function of the act. I would equally condemn such actions as sex without love, or sex without pleasure.

There is also another aspect about homosexuality that I have not yet mentioned. It stunts the loving couple from giving of themselves entirely to one another. In a heterosexual relationship, at the moment of conception, genes from the male actually attach themselves to the female through the infant. In this way, the female comes to resemble her mate in a much more immediate and tangible way than reflected personality. At the same time, the female offers her own body as her mate's child's home for its first 9 months of life. A man could ask nothing more of a woman, and a woman could ask nothing more of a man (except life itself, yet who among us is so bold or worthy?). Such a bond can never take place between homosexual couples. As deep as their love may be for one another, it can never experience these things. You may argue that a heterosexual couple cannot know one another as well as a homosexual couple could (since heterosexuals experience the world with different eyes). However, you could also argue that there is strength in diversity. If this is still unsatisfactory, I would still hold that understanding of one another does not compare to the above stated.

You are right in saying that nature does not intend. Also, you are right in indicating my error of using design. For now, let's just use design in the sense that there is pattern and structure, function.

Now, just because there is homosexuality in nature does not mean that such "states" are true to the design (that is, pattern and structure, function) that nature developed in the principle of specie-promulgation.

Furthermore, all of those behaviors and physical functions involved in procreation are still present in homosexuals. The difference being that the DNA, though it is trying to continue itself, cannot, because the sexual act does not realize its designed (that is, patternal and structural, functional) conclusion.

For interest sake, yes, I am Catholic.

 

[Tiassa]

In a heterosexual relationship, at the moment of conception, genes from the male actually attach themselves to the female through the infant. In this way, the female comes to resemble her mate in a much more immediate and tangible way than reflected personality. At the same time, the female offers her own body as her mate's child's home for its first 9 months of life. A man could ask nothing more of a woman, and a woman could ask nothing more of a man (except life itself, yet who among us is so bold or worthy?).

The adopted child in the corner apparently doesn't know when to stop laughing and where to start with what's wrong with that.

 

[path]

In a heterosexual relationship, at the moment of conception, genes from the male actually attach themselves to the female through the infant.

That certainly is some trick or did you simply describe that incorrectly?

 

[Silas]

Rollan McCleary, was awarded his doctorate in 2003-MAY for his work researching the sexual orientation of Jesus and his disciples. He obtained about $33,000 US in funding from the government to finance his degree. He concluded that Jesus and at least three of his disciples were gay. He based this conclusion on excerpts from the Gospel of John and on Jesus' astrological chart based on the approximate year, month, day and place where he was born.

Personally I think it's disgusting that government money went on a study, the conclusions of which were at least partially based upon the utterly worthless nostrums of astrology!

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

tiassa, I am not sure where your comment comes from. The quote that you commented on says nothing about a parent's love for its child. It only speaks of the relationship between mates. Why an adopted child would find anything funny about that kind of relationship is beyond me. My sister had her child adopted because she was too young to care for it at the time. I believe she made the right decision, for that child grew up in a stable household with brothers and sisters who loved him, and parents who also loved him deeply as one of their own. My parents also adopted my younger brother, and exerted every bit of effort in raising him that they spent in raising me and the rest of my siblings. You comment about the adopted child is meaningless to me here. Would you please explain your thoughts.

path, yes I did describe it incorrectly. This occurrence is not immediately at conception. Genes from the male and female exist in the child conceived. Blood from the child is pumped through the mother's body, and pass through the brain. The molecules from the child's blood attach themselves to the mother's brain, thus genes from the male attach themselves to the famale through the infant. As a result, the woman becomes slightly more like the male. It also means that the more children a couple have together, the more alike they become.

 

[Gravity]

Was Jesus Gay? This is as meaningful of a question as: "Is the Easter Bunny an Albino or just very pale?", or "Did Thor abuse himself as a teenage boy?", or "Are Ogres really that ugly?"

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

Would you please explain your thoughts.

Most certainly.

In a heterosexual relationship, at the moment of conception, genes from the male actually attach themselves to the female through the infant. In this way, the female comes to resemble her mate in a much more immediate and tangible way than reflected personality. At the same time, the female offers her own body as her mate's child's home for its first 9 months of life. A man could ask nothing more of a woman, and a woman could ask nothing more of a man (except life itself, yet who among us is so bold or worthy?). Such a bond can never take place between homosexual couples.

Here you are asserting a certain bond between heterosexual parents who have biological offspring that is superior--

There is also another aspect about homosexuality that I have not yet mentioned. It stunts the loving couple from giving of themselves entirely to one another.

--to the homosexual because of the genetic bond created between heterosexual parents through the biological progeny.

This condition naturally precludes heterosexual parents who are unable for various reasons to bear their own biological offspring and choose to adopt. Furthermore, this condition inherently overlooks the number of biological offspring available for adoption.

While both romantic and empowering, I just don't see the underlying merit of the assertion.

Parents are parents. Two's fortunate and three's a crowd; four and five are nine.

Heterosexual parents of adopted children are, according to your assertion, stunted, unable to "give of themselves entirely to one another". I disagree entirely, just as I do of homosexual parents.

The adopted child with two loving parents chuckles, as his parents are no more stunted than anyone else.

A general note for the topic

I've forgotten until now to include this link:

• McKinley, Brian E. "When Christ was Gay". See http://www.elroy.net/ehr/gay.html

Enjoy; it's one of my favorites whenever this discussion arises.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Is it not true that a couple who cannot bear children lack a natural ability that exists between heterosexual couples? Therefore, their state of being unable to bear children is also unnatural, and cannot be considered a fault of their own (as is the case with homosexuals). The couple (just as homosexuals) may give of themselves as fully as they are capable, yet that giving still falls short of natural entirety. I am in no way doubting the willingness of the couple to give of themselves to one another, I'm simply questioning their capability. Nor am I doubting the love that might exist between the two. However, the fact remains, there is an aspect of the bond that they would desire that is lacking in a relationship where biological reproduction between the couple is not possible.

However, the possibility of a heterosexual couple not being able to reproduce is negligible. The conditions that are said not to allow reproduction do not 100% exclude the possibility of reproduction (unless there is a desire that reproduction not occur). I know that you will indicate such conditions that do exclude entirely reproduction, yet I will remain unconvinced. Not for the possibility of miracle, but for the possibility of will (I will let you take this however you mean).

 

[Tiassa]

Is it not true that a couple who cannot bear children lack a natural ability that exists between heterosexual couples?

This is a separate question from the qualification that the presence of that natural ability somehow enhances, or the lack thereof somehow stunts a relationship.

Therefore, their state of being unable to bear children is also unnatural

"Statistically deviant" does not equal "unnatural".

The couple (just as homosexuals) may give of themselves as fully as they are capable, yet that giving still falls short of natural entirety. I am in no way doubting the willingness of the couple to give of themselves to one another, I'm simply questioning their capability.

You're questioning their capability groundlessly on this point. There's too many presumptions of conditional outcome in the hetrosexual-fertile relationship.

However, the fact remains, there is an aspect of the bond that they would desire that is lacking in a relationship where biological reproduction between the couple is not possible.

You have not, however, shown that this bond is in any way superior to its lack; I sincerely doubt you can:

There is also another aspect about homosexuality that I have not yet mentioned. It stunts the loving couple from giving of themselves entirely to one another.

You present the lack of this abstract bond as somehow a disadvantage, that the lack of the bond is a stain on a couple's qualifications--capability--of parenthood.

This is untenable, without basis, and requisite of a presumption contrary to observation.

However, the possibility of a heterosexual couple not being able to reproduce is negligible.

I disagree:

About 10% to 15% of couples experience some form of infertility, and, in approximately 40% of these cases, male infertility is the major factor. Another 40% of infertility problems are caused by abnormalities of the woman's reproductive system, and the remaining 20% involve couples who both suffer reproductive difficulties.

Infertility affects one in 25 American men. More than 90% of male infertility cases are due to low sperm counts, poor sperm quality, or both. Whether sperm counts are declining overall in industrialized countries is a controversial issue.

Source: Reuters

Four percent of men may be low enough a figure to seem negligible to you, but ten to fifteen percent of couples is a significant portion.

The conditions that are said not to allow reproduction do not 100% exclude the possibility of reproduction

I once had a teacher at a Catholic school who, ironically, taught bioethics. She was so determined to have her own flesh and blood child instead of adopt that she damn near died because of it. A composition teacher at the school tried all sorts of therapy in order to have biological offspring; it eventually wrecked her marriage and sent her into the bottle. My question is simply this: what do we call a love that cannot extend outside a prejudice? All of that alleged love buried away in these two bitter women who were determined to experience that very bond you describe: it was too good a love to waste on an adopted child, apparently.

This "bond" you assert is mere bigotry.

I mean, does the woman whose fertility treatments result in septuplets create with her partner even that much more pure and proper and capable a love?

 

[okinrus]

Tiassa, a couple who is infertile may still hope for a miracle, and the Bible records a few occasions where such as happend. Thus a couple's intentions may still be within God's providence. To say that a miracle is not possible, even when the doctor says, is limiting God's power. If, however, a infertile couple does not hope for a miracle, they are doing something outside of God's providence. I don't want to say this always "sinful" but there's something wrong. Because married, fertile couples may also have sex without the intentions of having offspring, there's no distinction between infertile and fertile couples.

 

[Tiassa]

Because married, fertile couples may also have sex without the intentions of having offspring, there's no distinction between infertile and fertile couples.

Well, half of that I agree with, though we might have some contextual issues. And it's not that I disagree with the other half, per se, but rather don't see the general significance of recreational sex in this context.

 

[what768]

Jesus was not homosexual. Jesus did not have a sexuality. Jesus and God are one. God does not need to procreate Himself, there is only one God, and He is omnipotent. Neither does God have a desire of worldly lusts.

When God was sent on earth in flesh, He could only manifest one pole, which was male. Because God sent Himself to earth in flesh, He was tested in every way by "satan".

1."Then the Devil placeth before him a woman, of exceeding beauty and comeliness and of subtle wit, and a ready understanding withal, and he said unto him. Take her as thou wilt, for her desire is unto thee, and thou shalt have love and happiness and comfort all thy life, and see thy children's children, yea is it not written, It is not good for man that he should be alone?"

2."And Jesu-Maria said, Get thee behind me, for it is written, Be not led away by the beauty of woman, yea, all flesh is as grass and the flower of the field; the grass withereth and the flower fadeth away, but the Word of the Eternal endureth for ever. My work is to teach and to heal the children of men, and he that is born of God keepeth his seed within him."

As man is neither male nor female, neither does he have a sexuality, only the body needs functions like this.

Satan is but the law of matter without man. Whenever man's consciousness identifies itself with the law of matter so that his thinking, words and deeds, instead of serving the divine law, serve the law of matter, man is bringing satan to life, man is becoming satanic himself. Without man satan cannot exist; for without the self of man, satan is only an unconscious force, a necessary natural law of matter.

As long as this law manifests itself in matter and as matter, the law is operating in its place and consequently in a divine manner. But inert matter becomes living matter when the divine spirit, the self, clothes itself in matter and becomes flesh. The self, life, penetrates the inert matter, and out of the law of matter there arises a living spirit: the reflected image which has only been able to become spirit by virtue of the fact that God, as the self of the living creatures, has breathed his own life into matter, is Satan. Satan lies dead in matter, as its law, until with its own life the divine spirit makes him come alive.

At its right place and in its right time, every law, (or act) is divine, but the opposite is "satanic".

Desire stems from a feeling of deficiency, from the search for a complementary half which we lack, without which we feel alone and forsaken. If, however, we have found everything in ourselves, if we are a whole, what more do we require? What can we lack?

---

You must remember not to judge too much. It is not right to say your thoughts about homosexual people aloud because homosexuals are also people like you, and you really make them feel sad. You can have your thoughts about them but please make the world better and keep them for yourself. All who commit sins will suffer according to the Law, God never said that we should punish those who make sins, because we all do, and that is why we must not judge.

Also, remember that everything you see in the world belongs to someone. When you say anything about something in the world, you say it about someone. Try to say only good things and if your thoughts are bad, then let them be inside yourself so that they have the chance of being divine.

It is not wrong to speak, neither is it wrong to be silent. But when a word can hurt, let it stay inside you, so that it might grow into something better. And also when a word can heal, let it out of you, so that it might grow into something good.

Also you must understand that no religion is right because there are good things in all of them. There shall come a time when you shall not judge with the Bible or Qur'an, or the Vedas, or with science. But you will have these Divine books, and knowledge inside of yourself, and you have thrown away what is not Divine in them. Because there were only one teaching sent on earth, which then became different "religions", because of man.

All of you know what is right according to the Divine Law. Do not hesitate to do right thing. Also read the divine books and take what is good in them. Discard everything that is evil. God will correct everyone to the right path. And because God is inside all of you, you feel when things are wrong. So do not hesitate to do the right thing. Show your true self and do not be ashamed of it. You will not have people on your side, but you will have God. And you will know that you did the right thing.

It does not matter how Right something is if it's not right for you. All people have their own truth, and they should listen to it. Belive me when I say that there is an ultimate truth, because when you have discovered everything, and nothing remains; Now then, what remains, is the ultimate truth.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Re-read what I said. I did not say the relationship between the couple is stunted. I said their ability to give of themselves FULLY (to a maximal degree, in every possible way) is stunted, because there are ways in which they cannot give of themselves to one another.

I have said nothing about statistical deviation. If I had meant that a statistical deviation resulted in unnaturality, then a person in a population consisting mostly of blondes would then be considered unnatural. Something unnatural is contrary to nature (structure, function). The construct of our bodies and behaviors is such that reproduction is a natural function. To be UNABLE to carry out this function simply means that the given area is damaged or somehow underdeveloped. Such damage, while it now occurs in what we call "nature," should not be considered natural (conforming to functional and structural parameters).

I'm arguing from the point of perfect (that is, complete, lacking in nothing according to functional construct of designated specie) activity. Obviously such activity is not perfect, and the various outcomes cannot all be taken into consideration. However, the various outcomes that pertain to a lacking where the physical parameters for completion are actual I would consider unnatural also, due to lack of human understanding and self-control.

Superiority comes with nearness to perfection (don't confuse perfection with absolute perfection). Anytime there is a lacking, there is a furthering from perfection. Therefore, to lack is a given natural quality means to lose a degree of superiority. If the bond between a couple lacks a given quality that another couple has, then the bond of the former couple is inferior to the bond of the latter couple. This is not to say that the heterosexual couple necessarily has a superior bond to the homosexual couple, since the heterosexual couple may be lacking in other areas. However, given a perfect situation, the heterosexual bond is naturally superior, since it includes what bond the homosexual couple may have, and more.

I have said nothing about the couple's capability to parent. I do not know where you get the idea that I do. However, since you bring up the case, that may also be said of the heterosexual couple who produces their own offspring. Assuming that the parents are intelligent, good-natured, and wise (that is, they're not bad paretns... abusive, or lacking in parental knowledges), the parents who produce their own offspring are able to raise their children more capably than otherwise because what strengths and weaknesses they possess, by way of genetics, will also be present in their children. I have witnessed this myself, as my younger brother was adopted. My parents had the most difficulty raising him because much of his personality they did not understand in the same way that they understood their own biological children.

Again, you misunderstood. I did not say that the number of people who are infertile is negligible, I said that the INABILITY to reproduce is negligible. That is, those who are said to be infertile are not 100% infertile. What I mean by this is that though one is said to be infertile, it simply means that their chances of reproduction is greatly (greatly) reduced. However, this is not to say that everyone can reproduce. I simply mean that the inability (100%) to do so is negligible.

Furthermore, in response to your two unhappy tales, I am not saying don't adopt. I, myself was willing (though she wasn't) to marry a woman who was inable to bear children. I would have willingly and happily adopted. However, I would never have completely closed the door to having children of our own (since I, and she, always believed it to be possible). The difference being that we would have raised the adopted children with as much care as our own. We would have accepted the unnatural state, but hoped to overcome it. We would not have worried over it.

My point here is not to convince people not to adopt, for such an action is noble and indeed an action of necessary justice (shelter the homeless is one of the acts of mercy that we are called to do). It is a different kind of love than the love a parent has for its biological child, but no less a love. My point here is simply to show that homosexual relations inherently lack a natural quality that is possessed in heterosexual relationships. As a result, it cannot be considered natural, for it does not meet the developed structural functionality of the act in the given specie.