[Soapbox] Being "naturally" gay

[Wolfbeckett]

Nope. Why do you even think so ???

Because it makes no sense that a group of people being overpopulated would somehow induce gay people to have more kids. I haven't seen any proposed mechanism for why that should be instead of the opposite. If you have any ideas in that regard, please, do share. What is it about overpopulated groups of people that causes gay people to have more children and spread the homosexuality genes around?

 

[Domen]

Yes I agree with you (I edited my last post, check).

IMO your hypothesis that it could be caused by societal pressure on gay people to have children makes more sense.

Especially that we can think of many societies where such pressure existed, and gays were persecuted if they revealed their gayness publicly.

And also the assumption of authors of that hypothesis that hunter-gatherer societies are not overpopulated, and farming or pastoralist societies are, is wrong. Hunter-gatherer societies are just as overpopulated as agricultural societies, if not actually more overpopulated - they experience frequent food shortages. In most of hunter-gatherer societies there is concern about having too many children to feed. Agricultural societies can produce more food per person.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Yes I agree with you (I edited my last post, check).

IMO your hypothesis that it could be caused by societal pressure on gay people to have children makes more sense.

Especially that we can think of many societies where such pressure existed, and gays were persecuted if they revealed their gayness publicly.

Well, yes, it pretty easy to think of societies where that happened because many of them actually still exist, just look at the Middle East. Even in the western world homosexuality has only become something that people talk about openly quite recently.

I think it's far more likely that IF homosexuality is genetic... and there's no reason to assume it is, it was pointed out earlier in the thread that it could also be caused by things like hormone balance while in utero, but IF it is, then it probably spread more or less randomly (genetic drift) due to gay people being pressured by society to be "normal". Of all the proposals I've seen on the subject this one seems most likely to be true and therefore any other hypothesis is going to need some compelling evidence to overturn it.

 

[Narz]

Masturbation is basically rediscovered by everyone who has arms long enough to reach their genitals, so I find these claims of it being "unknown" to a whole culture rather... dubious.

I dunno, if I was able to get laid from an early age I doubt I would bother with it. Even in the modern day with pornography at the touch of a button I almost never do it if I'm in a cohabitation situation with a women with an equally high sex drive (not so common & the female sexual appetite waxes & wanes far more quickly than mine but its nice when it happens).

Back in the day before cheap lube I doubt masturbation was as common (I guess they used spit but its not so pleasant).

 

[Senethro]

Homosexuality is frequently barely a barrier to reproduction. Look at the number of right wing politicians with wives/families voting one way and shagging men on the side.

 

[Narz]

And also the assumption of authors of that hypothesis that hunter-gatherer societies are not overpopulated, and farming or pastoralist societies are, is wrong. Hunter-gatherer societies are just as overpopulated as agricultural societies, if not actually more overpopulated - they experience frequent food shortages.

Temporarily food shortages but far less famine. Hunter-gatheres might go somewhat hungry for a day or two once in awhile but given the variety of their diet they never had to deal with something like a potato famine.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I dunno, if I was able to get laid from an early age I doubt I would bother with it. Even in the modern day with pornography at the touch of a button I almost never do it if I'm in a cohabitation situation with a women with an equally high sex drive (not so common & the female sexual appetite waxes & wanes far more quickly than mine but its nice when it happens).

Back in the day before cheap lube I doubt masturbation was as common (I guess they used spit but its not so pleasant).

Lube is for girly men anyway, raw doggin' for life.

 

[Narz]

Well you probably have your foreskin (from what I'm read it releases a small amount of its own lube somehow, I don't really understand the mechanics of one as I haven't handled one since about 2-days old).

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Nope, I don't. I just don't believe in spending money for things I deem unnecessary. I don't use shaving cream to shave either, and the lack of those products has never caused me any harm or even discomfort.

 

[NovaKart]

Do you use just soap? Or an electric razor? When i used a disposable I used just soap and it was fine.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Do you use just soap? Or an electric razor? When i used a disposable I used just soap and it was fine.

Not even that, I just moisten my face and go to town. Just a standard Gillette Fusion swivelhead razor.

 

[NovaKart]

Do you just have a really light beard? I can't imagine doing that. I use an electric one now.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Do you just have a really light beard? I can't imagine doing that. I use an electric one now.

I do, yes, in fact I generally only have to shave once or twice a week because my facial hair is both light colored and not very full in volume. If I had really thick facial hair I probably would use an electric.

 

[Crackerbox]

I shy away from this topic, but I'll give it a shot.

What I learned in grad school was that there was evidence that it was a blend of nature and nurture. Some of our sexual identity is determined by human biology, mental constructs of desire, the forbidden, access to sexual partners, admiration for parents, and choice.

I know some people would like it to be binary: a choice or a biological result, but it's probably not one or the other.

For a fundamentalist Christian, then they've got a big problem. If they assume the model that God is responsible for every single thing within Creation, then every twig that falls is a consequence of God's Presence and Power, as well as every baby that gets Cancer. I don't subscribe to that model.

For the fundamentalist Christian, then the issue becomes being an apologist for GOD, for then a person who is homosexuals is then either born that way (ordained by God as such) or choses to be one.

The reality in human sexuality, at least from what little we know for it's been forbidden to discuss much of it in medicine, is that sexuality is along a continuum. It's not that people are homosexual or not, but rather that.
1. People have a very strong inclination to be attracted to a certain person's gender.
2. Others are asexual, perhaps from being partially of schizoid personality.
3. Some are asexual by religious enforcement but still have desires of either sex.
4. Some are attracted to some degree in either sex but never act on it due to stigma, accessibility, or belief systems.
5. Others are very heterosexual and it's unthinkable to be any other way.

Make that a very large continuum that's contingent upon all of those subfactors.

So then, what are we do as Christians? Are we called to ever condemn anyone especially if they're not a believer in our spirituality? Do we make it difficult for the homosexual by passing laws which harm them?

Both of these are forbidden by our sacred text.

If we start down that road, then we've got a ton of theological issues. If one sin is equivalent to another sin, and we're not bound to the 613 commandments of the Jewish code (the Mitzvot), then what does that mean regarding sexuality?

If the church is full of divorced people, then the very same Mitzvot that condemn divorce then also condemn homosexuality, so who would be left in church? In Jesus' own words, lusting after another is sexual immorality, so we can hardly throw stones at homosexuals when our own sins of this kind are manifold.

Hmmmm.

I've largely stayed silent while privately and publically supported some fairness in these matters. We can't encourage suffering of human beings as it's against Matthew 25. We can't encourage sexual immorality (sorry but it's among many such sins).

Say a Christian watches a porn video. That's sexual immorality. Do I condemn the speck in my brother/sister's eye or try to remove the immense LOG that's in my own eye? I need to fix myself, not them. I need to repair my relationship, not try to fix them.

Say you're a Christian politician. You've got a tough job. I don't recommend any Christians become politicians. It hardly seems compatible with being a follower of Jesus. Do you intentionally put in legislation that harms homosexuals? How are you going to justify that when you meet your Maker? If there is Free Will, and that's the basis for our faith, then can we ever foist our spirituality upon the unbeliever?

If the homosexual is a Christian, then can we judge them? Hmmm, that's really tricky. I doubt I'd touch that one as if I begin doing that for say the Christian Discipline texts in the Bible, then I'd have to do it for a whole string of things.

We could find some middle ground if we could respect each other. The homosexual and the Christian can find that place, and actually are doing so in America, for otherwise there would be zero movement on something like the recognition of marriage in America. If only homosexuals voted for them, then these would not pass. It's why you build bridges even when there's little in common or even controversy about them.

Who determines the validity of marriage? Well in America and for many generations, it's not the Christian pastor or priest who blesses but the state who grants the license. Therefore marriage is no longer a sacrament in the Church in reality. What is a sacrament is the blessing of a civil union that is then sanctified within a ceremony.

It would be an abomination for the State to determine who a Christian pastor must marry within a church. If we allow that, we might as well close the churches altogether and refuse nonprofit status. Such things would be tantamount to the State determining who we can baptize.

We can argue about from whence came the impetus for homosexuality, but I think this really is an impossible thing to determine and certainly is not binary.

 

[bhavv]

Oh so God made homosexuals. And smallpox. And cancer. And murderers. And rapists.

Not that there is any kind of relation between those things, just saying that God made it all!

God made us all masturbate!!!

 

[Crackerbox]

Oh so God made homosexuals. And smallpox. And cancer. And murderers. And rapists.

Not that there is any kind of relation between those things, just saying that God made it all!

God made us all masturbate!!!

You know, when you do this, you alienate yourself. As homosexuality is not in keeping with Christian spirituality, then if you persist, then what few Christians who are willing to be supportive as much as they can and stay within their own spirituality, well of what use is that divisiveness?

It's as though with your railing that you desire to create antipathy.

Does making us small with your words have any effect? Does it diminish us? Doesn't it repel and so the next time some politicial issue comes up with homosexuals, do you think for a second that it helps...or does it hurt?

There can be no understanding when you make a mockery of Christianity. There can be no understanding of the feelings of homosexuals unless we make an intentional effort and not resort to the sin of mockery.

 

[Senethro]

Eh, there are so many christian perspectives though and they're as much at each others throats as at non-christians.

 

[Crackerbox]

If both nonbeliever and believer in Christiantiy are both children of God, and we are to respect the being in each person due to the Summary of the Law, then it seems to me that regardless what we feel as Christians that we cannot ostracize the homosexual for sexual immorality for it's not in keeping with that principle.

Heck the whole tale of King David and Jonathon sure seems like a homosexual love affair to me. If so, and David is so beloved by God, then what are we to think? But this is just speculation just as the thorn in Paul's flesh (a topic that comes up in seminary).

So Christians need not be this way or that regarding this issue. Which means there is some wiggle room despite what the Calvinists and their descendents say.

We can't be swallowed by the world, but transformed by the renewing of our mind, but the problem is so many people live in urban environments where of course we are daily confronted with this issue. We have to find a balance on it.

I am certain that for an atheist this seems like nonsense. If we approach that way, then immediately nothing is accomplished, certainly to assist justice for the homosexual.

I actually grew up when that word was a perjorative and was told to say gay, but recently have been told that "homosexual" is more accurate, so it's tough to know what to say. Certainly there are stronger words that once repelled but now have become embraced much as some African-Americans embrace the N word to nullify it's old power.

A certain Calvinist pastor whom I deeply admire but also disagree with says this, that the excuse that Jesus didn't speak to it means nothing. That since Jesus was there at the foundation of the world, that even at Sodom and Gomorrah, Jesus was there to destroy them. I don't buy it. If anything, Jesus is full of mercy. If that is so, then I bet Jesus wept.

 

[JollyRoger]

In the beginning, it was Adam and SteveGod in God's garden. Then God tried to hook Adam up with an animal and, failing that, then invented woman. Once Adam and Eve started having heterosexual lust, God kicked them out of his garden and had the garden guarded by a beloved creature with a "flaming sword."

 

[Angst]

You know, when you do this, you alienate yourself. As homosexuality is not in keeping with Christian spirituality, then if you persist, then what few Christians who are willing to be supportive as much as they can and stay within their own spirituality, well of what use is that divisiveness?

It's as though with your railing that you desire to create antipathy.

Does making us small with your words have any effect? Does it diminish us? Doesn't it repel and so the next time some politicial issue comes up with homosexuals, do you think for a second that it helps...or does it hurt?

There can be no understanding when you make a mockery of Christianity. There can be no understanding of the feelings of homosexuals unless we make an intentional effort and not resort to the sin of mockery.

Abrahamist here.

Either homosexuality is a virtue of love like many others, or God is an inherently evil entity. Homosexuality acts on a particular form of love; there is no rational or humane reason it should be an abomination whatsoever, except God's cruel word in the Old Testament.

It has been hypothetised that hatred towards homosexuality historically developed for the first states' formations to have proper lineage laws. It has connections to how the patriarchy developed from farming, along with armies and currency, as homosexuality disrupts stability of lineage laws. I'm not sure whether it's right, but I think reasonable hypotheticals more believable than some Old Testament Jew claiming God said it was an abomination at some point.

Believing literally in the Bible (or the Jewish laws before it) is not a good recipe for good Christianity.

On the other hand, the Bible could be considered literally true and God would be a fault-ridden, cruel, hateful God.

Of course, as God is the judge of all things and therefore transcendent of morality (ie transcendent of his own judgement, untouched by the framework with which he judges others) he cannot truly be judged evil. But while it's cool for him to have the best spot reserved in Heaven, it nevertheless renders him a cruel, judgmental authority, creating a cruel world for his creations to be punished in.

I refuse Him as an inherent authority if he wants me to do cruel things to other people. I will suffer in Hell rather than kill my brother, even if there are stories of people that God has arbitrarily punished to test their faith. Because my brother is the sweetest person in the world, and he's been punished enough by other people in spite of that. He does not deserve death or any kind of cruelty. Following God just to save your own skin, doing evil things to other people when it is told by scripture, in order to not go to hell, is egoistic and self-centered. Saving myself is not why I am charmed by Jesus. I am charmed by him because he preaches that I should love my next, that I should turn my other cheek, and forgive all sins.