[Soapbox] Being "naturally" gay

[JollyRoger]

I just do not see why the worshippers of Zeus or Thor should get a special pass on bigotry merely because of their deviant lifestyle choice to worship Zeus or Thor.

 

[Crackerbox]

Well Christians don't get a pass on bigotry. The problem is the central issue of being under the Judaic Law (the 613 commandments) and hence the sexual purity code versus Grace. We're not to judge anyone, but the problem is largely hinged on specific mention of homosexuality (if that's what is implied and not boy prostitution in those verses in the New Testament). Regardless if divorce and remarriage is just as immoral as homosexuality, then Christians cannot give a pass to these folks but not homosexuals.

I realize this is terribly frustrating to someone who thinks Christianity is nuts. Oh well, that's life. I can't impose upon your sexuality and beliefs and you don't get to do it to me either.

You either work with folks like me who are Christians and willing to move on this issue, look at homosexuality as complex, and try to build bridges, or you reject my help, and have to deal solely with the fundamentalists who won't budge one inch or millimeter.

More here. These are the problematic verses that theologians struggle with who consult the national offices of denominations.
Matthew 5:22 ( a very tenuous link to potentially being effeminate not homosexual)
Matthew 8:5-13 (hinges on a single word "pais" which might mean a boy prostitute)
Matthew 19:10-12 (problematic and not about homosexuals)
Mark 7:20-23 (very general)
John
Romans 1:26-27 and Romans 2
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (almost certainly is about boy prostitution, not homosexuality)
1 Timothy 1:8-10
Jude

When you start going through them line by line, then there is enough vagueness to hint at homosexuality, usually boy prostitution, and so it's unclear.

Some information here.

Even if there was definitely proof of a biological basis by a mass of tissue in the brain, or a measurement of a variety of hormones (sexual desire is chiefly developed by testosterone but it's possible that the counterbalance of them results in some manifestation of sexual identity),or a genetic marker, etc then Christians would still wrestle with this based upon these books of the Bible.

Realistically, the only Old Testament references that would be helpful for a Christian homosexual would be found with David and Jonathon in 1 Samuel 18. It absolutely sounds like a homosexual love affair.

 

[Narz]

To say that homosexuality is entirely 100% biologically derived is very unlikely.

Why? Being straight is 100% biological. No one told me that I should love the smell, sight, sound & taste of human females (and I often think life would be easier if I didn't feel this way) & yet I do.

Sure you could say society said men should fall in love with women but all the things I feel were not told to me. Sure I could watch a romantic comedy or porn but those are not very rich compared to my internal world of appreciating femaleness (which was not 'taught' but discovered).

 

[Crackerbox]

Why? Being straight is 100% biological. No one told me that I should love the smell, sight, sound & taste of human females (and I often think life would be easier if I didn't feel this way) & yet I do.

Sure you could say society said men should fall in love with women but all the things I feel were not told to me. Sure I could watch a romantic comedy or porn but those are not very rich compared to my internal world of appreciating femaleness (which was not 'taught' but discovered).

Why is being heterosexual 100% biological? Prove that this is so. The psychological models of the development of sexual desire in heterosexuals is largely learned behavior. Young boys love their moms as the first female who they notice is different than themselves. They find they cannot get their mothers interested in them romantically. They see their mother is attracted to their father. They try to emulate their father to get female attention, and in the end the object of their affection switches to other females. That's one model. The same is true of young girls and their fathers.

It's not purely a biological process of sexual identity.

Besides that process, the young child's idea of Self is the result of their extended family, their schoolmates and teacher, the images they see on television and film. In all of that they emulate those around them who they perceive as having friendship and romantic relationships. A great deal of sexual identity is NOT biological but learned.

Maturation of the frontal lobes and the maturation of neuron's (particularly the isulation of them) results in the instilling of a moral code in the former, while the development of the neuron to be better insulated results in less rash decisions (risk taking). Both of these processes happen from adolescence through the teen years. In addition, at puberty, the release of testosterone results in increased sexual desire and sexual development. Look here.

Precocious sexual identity by learned behavior might supercede the biological processes of puberty.

 

[Narz]

Sure. Research costs money though. For my study I'll need 50 young female college students & $10,000 & I'll get back to you with my findings within a year.

After that we can study whether being hungry is biological. I'll need $100,000 worth of food (and 50 more young female college students just for good measure).

 

[Borachio]

Why is being heterosexual 100% biological? Prove that this is so. The psychological models of the development of sexual desire in heterosexuals is largely learned behavior. Young boys love their moms as the first female who they notice is different than themselves. They find they cannot get their mothers interested in them romantically. They see their mother is attracted to their father. They try to emulate their father to get female attention, and in the end the object of their affection switches to other females. .

Was this true for you, Mr Box.

It wasn't true for me.

 

[Farm Boy]

You don't compromise and people call you a racist and anti-religion

You try to compromise and people call you a Catholic..

A sign that Catholics do some things pretty well.

 

[Crackerbox]

Was this true for you, Mr Box.

It wasn't true for me.

http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/273/Gender-Identity.html
It's basic gender identity theory developed by Sigmund Freud, and if you studied it in school, it would be the first model proposed for the development of gender identity. There are many such models and they typically are based around a learned behavior theory, but with a biological component.

To say that we are naturally heterosexual or naturally heterosexual, well that's not a medical paradigm at all. People are not born 100% one way. We emulate those around us and learn what is socially acceptable. Our parents and extended family enforce a gender identity upon us from the moment they first dress us and make distinction. Our concept of Self begins to form when we realize as children that females get certain toys and males get different ones.

We watch a television show, and see what Hollywood thinks how a boy or girl could act with specific situations. Before revisionism and the depiction of antiheroes, then certain agreed upon "good" characters then benefited within the serialized fiction after dealing with conflict and then won either relationships of friendship, romance, and approval from parents.

The rise of inexpensive access to film, broaded those ideas, but were less bound by censorship. What once was rare has become commonplace. Streaming of cinema and less censored television allows much earlier access and musing upon sexual identity.

The rise of the teenager in the post-WW2 era was then cultivated by Madison Ave as a new niche economic market. As such, they could tailor certain television, popular music, and film that was designed to appeal to teenagers, plus advertise products within the film, tv program, and music such as to gain money by that process. All of those mediums provided an environment in which the teenager mused upon the meaning of their sexual identity.

Those that attended mosques, churches, and temples, then also went through rites of passage rituals in which those who emulated and exemplified proper male and female roles then were rewarded with approval and attention. Those who didn't do these things were criticized and even mocked.

You were largely taught in all of these ways from birth on through age 15 or so. At that point, as you developed more and more independence, then you had both the critical thinking plus the yearning to rebel against any ideas which were not internally developed, especially by your parents, your school, and spiritual systems.

As media depictions loosened the tradition ideas that those groups proposed and offered alternatives, and particularly if those traditional communicators were quiet and unconvincing, then the media alternatives were more persuasive. But don't be fooled because the media depictions were not to benefit you, but to sell your products and services.

All of that is learned behavior. Young people then find affinity from peers within school, spiritual systems, outside activities, trying to emulate those who are slightly older who have the appearance of being more mature and possessing more social skills.

University life leads to more condemnation of traditional roles, examination of alternative ideas, more intellectual freedom, more experimenting with boundaries, etc.

I'm not saying that these things are "bad". I'm saying that these are common elements of Western culture in which the formation of gender and sexual identity develop.

You see, this idea of naturally gay or naturally heterosexual, well traditional spiritual systems will try to say that all beings are naturally heterosexual and some people reject it. I doubt this. Likewise some homosexual people and their advocates will say, "I was born this way." I doubt this. Your sex organs will immediately induce caregivers to treat that individual a certain way, and they are dominant over that growing child. Much of childhood revolves around applying a template over the child's sexual and gender identity.

But are there biological triggers as well which induce sexual identity? Sure. The amount of testosterone in a young person at puberty will then result in progressive more and more sexual desire. Certain things can cause more testosterone to be released based upon biological causes.

Not only that, but in Western culture we're seeing a lot of phytochemicals released which produce early onset maturation of females. This earlier than normal sign of female maturity like breast development and starting menstruation results in earlier hormonal release as well as perceived maturity in social situations. In female social life, then those who first develop are perceived as superior (it's a very cruel process in a young girl's life) and those who do will often adopt riskier behavior while not being prepared mentally for it.

See early maturation of gender in girls (precocious puberty) here.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/precocious-puberty/basics/definition/con-20029745

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/m...-age-10-a-new-normal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

There's some indication that certain plastics release estrogen-like compounds i.e. xenoestrogen when food is heated in a microwave. In addition, in urban areas, then city water systems process waste water and filter sewage out, but the body excretes pharmaceutical compounds like birth control pills (estrogen and progesterone). That's also been considered as a candidate for causing precocious puberty but it's probably a minor source. We need more testing.

In America, we're seeing a physiological change happening at 10 that used to happen at 12. This certainly results in an out of synch development of sexual identity before the typical mental processes of childhood are ready for them.

Besides that, we have certain medical conditions like Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia in boys and girls and Klinefelter's Syndrome in boys. Both of these conditions result in alterations in sexual maturation and development of sexual characteristics. Changes in the body result in alteration of sexual identity all along a continuum.

 

[Borachio]

Well, yeah. I realized it was Freudian.

It says nothing about the relationship I had with my parents.

What a strange kind of person who wants to sleep with his mother, for goodness sake!

 

[warpus]

Weren't most of Freud's idea eventually thrown out and replaced with other theories? I was under the impression that studying Freud mostly only makes sense from a historical perspective.

 

[Senethro]

Whats the problem? Column A is most certainly present so why does it matter to quibble about how much Column B is present?

 

[Crackerbox]

It's not that Freud is the only model. If you read my post, then it is but one model of sexual identity. The take away point is that is a learned model of sexual identity as well as gender identity. The child emulates in order to cope to form relationships.

First, there isn't a column A and a column B. Gender identity and Sexual identity are along a continuum. The forcefulness of the manifestation, the sensitivity of the person, the learned roles that are imparted by spirituality and governments, the upbringing styles of the parent, the amount of assertiveness of the person, the rejection of parental values, the culture in which the person is raised, the peer groups that the person has affinity and identity with, these all and more form both sexual identity and gender identity.

Why it matters is to help understand the Other who is different than ourselves. It's not to put people into two boxes, because there are lots and lots of boxes, but what's more the individual personality that is innate then determines how those arise.

To say that's it's purely natural is most assuredly ignoring the body of evidence from medicine(anatomy, histology, biochemistry, physiology, behavioural science, pathology, etc) plus the social sciences (chiefly anthropology and sociology).

Don't be reductionist, that's primarily what I'm getting to. Human beings are not biological machines by any means.

Philosophy and theology are not static. What people have said prior is not set in stone, but made living in the human mind and heart. Integration of that is the soul. Call it spirit if offended by perceived spiritual associations with soul. That which animates you is extremely dynamic. You're not a biological robot with purely an innate template to which sexual and gender identity arises.

Haven't people taken Gender studies or classes on Sexuality? I'm kind of incredulous when people accept that their identity is a product of purely biological random assortment.

 

[warpus]

I agree that sexuality is probably more than just a product of biology. But well, either way it doesn't really matter - "homosexuality isn't natural yo" isn't a good argument against homosexuality either way.

 

[Crackerbox]

I agree that sexuality is probably more than just a product of biology. But well, either way it doesn't really matter - "homosexuality isn't natural yo" isn't a good argument against homosexuality either way.

Yeah, I'm not arguing against homosexuality whatsoever. I'm saying purely that the continuum of homosexuality and heterosexuality is largely a learned one with biological components. The intellectual leap that many make is that a Christian who talks about sexual or gender identity is somehow against homosexuals.

This is nonsense. I'd say the youth ministers in postmodern America are trying to be advocates for young men and women, regardless of their internally developed sense of Self in both how their gender and sexuality are made known. We're not trying to turn back the clock and do barbarous things to reset sexual or gender identity.

Are there Christians who try this? Yes. Are they the majority? No.

If we look at the formation of Christian gender identity and sexual identity, then actually part of the feminist movement got its beginnings in both the temperance leagues, Christian women's associations, altered ideas of gender identity of the American pioneer women, etc.

Feminism evolved, and as it became more and more secular, and more and more was influenced by homosexuals, then the prior messages of education to achieve occupations formerly restricted to women, as well independence, was supplanted by twisted ideas about men, patriarchy as a control system, and even an outright rejection of men as sexual beings or as superfluous to society.

Only since 1980 or so are you seeing a Christian movement that is attempting to live within one verse of yielding to the husband as an authority figure (so not applicable to single women whatsoever), but not a return to a tired pre-1950 model of the housewife. But many of them utterly reject feminism (which they shouldn't as Christians were part of that movement) because it was tainted by people like Betty Friedan. She made men out to be predatory animals and subhuman. How could anyone take that seriously? Men as rapists and sociopaths by their innate nature.

What we're moving towards is an acceptance of homosexuals and new models of feminism in that dynamic process of diversity within American culture. This is why a Christian might be a lesbian and reject feminism, but develop a newer idea of what it means to be a woman within American culture. This is why a Christian male might be a homosexual, have a committed partner, be respected, and sit with him in the church pew. Both are members, both donate time, talent, and treasure, and so theologians and pastors/priests and church governing councils are struggling to match up what their hearts tell them to do in response versus Scriptural teaching.

The natural way to consider this is looking at the evolution of formerly divorced and then remarried couples in church. Their attendance became commonplace. They serve on those church councils. They make up pastors and priests. They influence the direction of Christianity.

The same thing will happen with homosexuals. As it happens in Christianity, then it affects the secular culture that has already embraced these ideas.

 

[Narz]

Haven't people taken Gender studies or classes on Sexuality?

I don't need to pay some sexless professor to know who I want to screw.

I'd rather actually have sex than spend $30k a year to learn a bunch of unscientific gobbledeegook from a 'gender studies professor'.

Haven't people taken Gender studies or classes on Sexuality? I'm kind of incredulous when people accept that their identity is a product of purely biological random assortment.

So if you think you'd be raised in a different family you would have a different sexual orientation? Deep down do you really believe that?

I don't know if they've ever done a sexual orientation study with biological twins raised apart but considering how closely they match on other traits (traits far more fluid than sexual orientation) I would be surprised if there was even one case of totally opposite orientation.

 

[Crackerbox]

The manifestation of sexual orientation is based upon acceptance. The more liberal the acceptance, then a different manifestation will emerge. We show people only that which we think will be accepted, and if not, then closet those feelings unless around our peer group who does support it.

Because we know that a large part of sexual identity and gender identity is learned, then there's concern about parenting and outcomes.

We don't have conclusive evidence on twin studies.
I linked to the best known study performed to date. The sample size is small (only 7,652 individuals).

Now, say you were a homosexual male, and a genetic marker was known. Would homosexuals get genetic testing (it's expensive) and then would that information then be known to your health insurance? Might that then affect the healthcare costs for that homosexual? Do you see the issues?

We can't point to a single root biological cause. Science has been reticent to do them for fear of ridicule (any kind of such study was relegated to people like Kinsey and later Masters and Johnson) and that stigma resulted in discounting and discrediting and distancing from those limited studies.

Read about Kinsey and pedophilia and you've got major ethical problems with how he did his research.

We don't have an adequate amount of anatomical studies to determine if brain formation actually plays a role.

I fully admit that there is lots of anecdotal evidence about twins doing similar things even when seperated. Some of it is downright supernatural in the common manifestation. That's not evidence. Certainly this is only seen anecdotally in identical twins and not fraternal twins. That points to a genetic component, right?

You start going down that path, trust me there are major issues of ethics along those lines. If a parent determines that their fetus has a homosexual inclination based upon limited tests of amniotic fluid and genetic testing, then will some people abort their fetus? See the problem?

 

[warpus]

The manifestation of sexual orientation is based upon acceptance. The more liberal the acceptance, then a different manifestation will emerge. We show people only that which we think will be accepted, and if not, then closet those feelings unless around our peer group who does support it.

Because we know that a large part of sexual identity and gender identity is learned, then there's concern about parenting and outcomes.

One reason why it's important to teach your kids to accept people whether they're attracted to their own gender or not. That's where our society is slowly headed - but in many ways not fast enough.

 

[Crackerbox]

One reason why it's important to teach your kids to accept people whether they're attracted to their own gender or not. That's where our society is slowly headed - but in many ways not fast enough.

Sure, that rather goes without saying. The opposite would be to cause divisivness because the Other is perceived to be different. How many advocate that in truth?

The problem within Christianity is that we are not called to be the natural man or woman that we would be without Jesus. We're called to be servants to Jesus. So for a Christian who is a homosexual, then it's a quandry. Then it becomes an issue of studying Scripture to see what it really says versus some outright bigot, but it's a measured study so we don't force our beliefs upon Scripture too.

Who I am before, cannot be who I am after conversion. If my manifestation of sexuality is counter to God's Word, then I have to alter it or be in rebellion. If I have relationships outside of marriage, then that is forbidden.

And this is why it comes down to determining a theology of civil unions. We cannot expect for the homosexual to be accepted within churches (in the same manner of remarried people) unless we do the hard work of contending with Scripture.

Sure, some homosexuals would like to be married in Church and so fully accepted. I can tell you that even some churches won't do this for remarried heterosexual couples, but they still will allow those remarried to serve in important ministries within that church.

If there is no recognized legal and spiritual commitment service, it forces the Christian homosexual to be a relationship outside of that. It's primarily a problem created by the definition of the sexual immorality code of the Old Testament .

 

[warpus]

We cannot expect for the homosexual to be accepted within churches (in the same manner of remarried people)

Of course we can - and we do.

Not all churches mind you, but many churches welcome homosexuals with open arms.

And hey, those churches that close their doors to such people, they can be discriminatory as such.. for now. (fair enough compromise, etc.)

 

[Farm Boy]

They're churches Warpus. It can be as ominiously "... for now" as they want forever, so long as they retain members and they act in the realm of churches. It's not a compromise. It is a secular society's rejection of zealotry and witch hunting from all camps, not just the ones the majority of the hour agrees with. Stamping them out with law would be the opposite of progress. But I think you know all that.