Answer for: Homosexuality: Inherent or Acquired?
#4 Science says it's inherent.
| 
24 Comments
Physiological, hormonal. It exists in other species to about the same degree or percentage. In terms of a population, it's normal.
Help Report a Bug About Grupthink Contact Us Blog/Press
© 2008 by Grupthink, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
No claim of copyright or trademark is made to any material submitted by individual users. Any user-submitted material subject to copyright or trademark protection by third-parties is used solely for comment, criticism and discussion ("fair use").
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Report alleged copyright infringement
Powered by grūpthink
Revision: 2059
Comments |
Leave a comment
I believe your answer is very well said. A problem with this whole "debate" is that the truth lies within the gay person him/herself, & there's not a way to measure it scientifically. See, I KNOW I was born gay because that is the only sexuality I've ever felt, but I can't PROVE that. I just KNOW it, as the many, many, many other gay people I've known would agree. This gene/hormone thing is a double-edged sword: it would show that being gay isn't our "fault", & could lead to more tolerance; however, if it could be detected in utero, some people may choose to abort or give the baby away. I swear, sometimes I get so worked up that this still such a volatile issue. We all need to just "Live, and Let Live." Thanks for your answer.
Absolutely correct analysis and I must say I feel exactly the same - born gay - never felt an ounce of heterosexual lust, not even for one nanosecond. I can remember being very young at school and being fascinated by boys' bodies and finding girls' bodies an irrelevance in relation to desire. And it was desire. Whoever says that very young children do not feel sexual attraction is bound up in a Victorian, hopelessly nineteenth century and moralistic mindset that bears no relation to reality. Children are "not supposed" to feel sexual but they do, so there, I don't care how shocking some of you find it. I digress. To get back to the point. I felt sexual urges towards males at six years old, further back I can't be sure. I've felt the same since. I can remember in school (at puberty) lusting after the sports teacher and longed for him to do the biz with me. Alas it remained a fantasy. The male body, facial features, and genitalia are what do it for me along with a traditionally masculine personality.
Like a lot of other gay men, I view the nature/nurture debate with concern. Right wing minds would say, if its nature, then we can find the mechanism and abort, if its nurture, then we can make sure boys are brought up to be heterosexual (with the implication of punishment for those who "resist"). Great!
I do know that history shows us that world civilisations have been more or less liberal with regards to sexuality over time, going back and forth between oppression and freedom. Just because, in the developed world, there is a greater degree of tolerance for homosexuality now than ever before, does not mean those attitudes are with us forever. We need to be ever watchful and guard our freedoms (and lives), recognising oppressors for what they are, despite the initial impression and the persuasive language, and resist their rise to power.
It's amazing how much progress has been made since the 60's, One would think that issues of sexuality would be insignificant by now... but the Religious Right is busy reviving the Dark Ages. In the current political climate, personal freedom and freedom from persecution should be of great concern to everyone, and anyone noticeably different is especially a target. Unfortunately those who aren't different don't feel any personal danger and are acquiescent to losing their freedoms. "I have nothing to hide." Well, you will, kiddo! One day you will be hauled off for dong something that used to be OK- or for just thinking something, inside your head. Recently-developed technologies and scientific discoveries can be twisted to serve evil, as well as ostensibly good purposes that are like a double-edged sword- and they are probably already being used against the populace.
Boys are sexually aware much earlier than most girls, I think. I don't doubt either of you when you say you knew your 'orientation' so early.
Artemis and Patsyfan - wonderful and fine people both - I can tell.
Bravo to you both, Thoralby & Artemis, for well presented statements free of the histrionics (cool word I very rarely get to use! haha) so often associated with this subject. It is mind boggling how many people are so vehement in their opposition to gay folks, often without having a better argument than, "It's just sinful & wrong...The Bible says so." I mean it's one thing to have your own personal beliefs, but quite another to form national groups to vigorously deny the basic human dignity & rights of a large chunk of the population. That, to me, is "sinful & wrong."
Thanks... Now I have a question for you both- I am pretty close to someone who is transgendered. This person says that many gay people are very hostile to those who have had SRS (sex reassignment surgery.) Any thoughts on this, personal or impersonal? This person, whose life is devoted to helping others, feels, and possibly is, terribly vulnerable especially if the current "Christian" climate prevails. Also, I want to make it clear that this is not me, but someone I lived with for quite a few years. Oh, and I always thought of Jesus as a revolutionary. If Christians followed the New Testament teachings, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The majority seem to get their values from the Old Testament, unfortunately.
Again - it is a question of freedom for the individual to do what they want and feel is right for them. There will always be people who have controlling personalities. They often seek power and get it. It is up to people who have a libertarian mind-set to oppose them when they begin to interfere with identity and sexuality (and lots of other things too). Too often, the controlling impulse thinks in black and white, right and wrong terms and applies their own mores to everyone else. They invent reasons to try to force people into the roles they think are correct. For example, controlling psychologists who disapprove of transgendered people will label those people as "confused" at best and "ill" at worst. Religious controllers label those they don't accept or agree with as "evil" and aligned with the devil. Controllers of whatever ilk have their own set of excuses for the cruelties they do to others. These people will never go away. They are born into every generation. Sometimes they have more say than at other times. Currently, although they make a lot of noise, they have less power over individuals and their sexuality than they have had for centuries. However, backlashes occur with regularity throughout history. I see no reason why that would change. We need to be ever vigilant and learn to spot a controller and shoot it down whenever it raises its stupid, ugly mind above the parapet. Always tell them - "Keep your filthy laws off our bodies!"
Thoralby said it so well: we have to remain vigilant & on guard against those who would have us exiled or forced to live either a hidden or fake life. I think it's important for gay people to be "out", thereby showing the folks we come in contact with that we're just people, not hedonistic perverts (well, most of us, anyway!haha), out to ensnare their children or "convert" their masses. Actions speak louder than words. Many people I've met say they couldn't believe I was gay because they had the image of gay men as limp-wristed, effeminate fairies. I tell them we come in all shapes & styles, and not to look down on those "fairies" because they are just as valuable as anyone else. We all (gay & straight) just want to live our lives free from persecution & fear, loving those we fall in love with. (Sometimes it's so damn hard not to dangle a preposition!) As for your question, Artemis, unfortunately there are some queers who do look down upon transgendered folks as "sick" or "too weird". As I said earlier, we come in all shapes & styles, and some are negative like with any group of people. Perhaps they need to feel superior to alleviate their insecurity, or they're just plain ignorant. This is quite sad, as they try to deny the dignity trannies deserve just as some would deny THEIR dignity & fundamental human rights. In my opinion, it all goes back to Jesus' command: 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' (Unless you're a masochist!) I also agree with your statement concerning the Old & New Testaments. Christian means "Little Christ", & I cannot believe that Jesus would even endorse the Right-Wing Fundamentalists, much less behave accordingly. Not the Jesus I know. He is all about love, compassion, & kindness. Hey, sorry I went on & on, but once I start it's difficult to stop! Hope to hear more from you both. Peace.
You are right about Jesus and you are right about the Old Testament. Right wing fundamentalists call themselves Christians, but all their hate and justification for it comes from the Old Testament. I defy anyone to find anything in the four gospels that justifies hatred or condemnation.
Thoralby, The NEW testament, and the imaginary friend Jesus himself, state very CLEARLY that the old testament should NOT BE IGNORED. And as we all know, the old testament justifies racism, genocide and hatred.
New Testament Verses Which Demand Following the Old Testament and Law Contradictions:
1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.
2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)
3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)
5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)
6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)
7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18
8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).
9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35
Yikes! As I started to read this, I was hoping it was the 10 Commandments the passages referred to- but no-. Thanks for the chilling contribution! Yet there are statements that refute by implication, maybe- "Judge not..." for instance. And we might possibly consider the fact that none of the New Testament was actually written within 100 years of 'the imaginary friend's' lifetime. An impartial Biblical scholar could probably add some illumination on what influences were brought to bear in the meantime, and whether it is likely that reinforcement of Old Testament law was introduced into these texts later, just as some texts were eliminated in the era of Justinian and Theodora in the 8th c..
But the original question doesn't justify a debate about the Bible, here.
The two following "answers" provided by a Christian theologian are the usual ways that Christians reply to the applicability of the OT Mosaic law. I don't say I agree with it. However, it does explain why some gay people feel that they too may be included in the saved category. What it seems to amounts to is that if you accept Christ, you are accepting his sacrifice and his sacrifice fulfilled the law. So when he said the law applies until I have fulfilled it, he means until I am killed. After that time, the law no longer applies to his followers.
Have a read, see what you think.
1. "Question: "What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law, but did not abolish it?"
Answer: In Matthew’s record of what is commonly called, “The Sermon on the Mount,” these words of Jesus are recorded: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18).
It is frequently argued that if Jesus did not “abolish” the law, then it must still be binding. Accordingly, such components as the “Sabbath day” requirement must be operative still, along with perhaps numerous other elements of the Mosaic Law. This assumption is grounded upon a misunderstanding of the words and intent of this passage. Christ did not here suggest that the binding nature of the law of Moses would remain forever in effect. Such a view would contradict everything we learn from the balance of the New Testament record (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15). Consider the following points.
Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “abolish.” It translates the Greek term “kataluo,” literally meaning to “loose down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans (Matthew 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14), and of the dissolving of the human body at death (2 Corinthians 5:1). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., to “render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to invalidate.”
It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “abolish” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” The meaning is this. Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment. Rather, he revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding himself (Luke 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience, or else imposed a “curse” (see Galatians 3:10,13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.
If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, as it did before Christ came, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what he came “to do.” On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish what he came to accomplish, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal institution today. Further, if the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ, and thus remains as a binding legal system for today, then it is not just partially binding. Rather, it is totally compelling system. Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled. Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose. Jesus fulfilled the law. Jesus fulfilled all of the law. We cannot say that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system, but did not fulfill the other aspects of the law. Jesus either fulfilled all of the law, or none of it. What Jesus' death means for the sacrificial system, it also means for the other aspects of the law.
2. Question: "Do Christians have to obey the Old Testament law?"
Answer: The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. Some of the laws were to make the Israelites know how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments for example), some of them were to show them how to worship God (the sacrificial system), some of them were to simply make the Israelites different from other nations (the food and clothing rules). None of the Old Testament law applies to us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).
In place of the Old Testament law, we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) which is to, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:37-40). If we do these two things, we will be fulfilling all that Christ wants for us to do, “This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). Technically, the Ten Commandments are not even applicable to Christians. However, 9 of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament (all except the command to observe the Sabbath day). Obviously, if we are loving God we won't be worshipping other gods or worshipping idols. If we are loving our neighbors, we won't be murdering them, lying to them, committing adultery against them, or coveting what belongs to them. So, we are not under any of the requirements of the Old Testament law. We are to love God and love our neighbors. If we do those two things faithfully, everything else will fall into place."
PLEASE DON'T MARK THIS AS IRRELEVANT - LEAVE IT OPEN FOR GAY PEOPLE TO READ WHO ARE BELIEVERS AND TROUBLED BY THE CONFLICT OF THEIR GAYNESS WITH THEIR BELIEF. IF THESE "ANSWERS" MAKE THEM FEEL HAPPY, THEN WHO ARE YOU TO PREVENT THAT. EVEN IF YOU THINK IT IS HOOEY AND YOU WISH them TO ACCEPT ATHEISM - YOUR ATTEMPT MIGHT LEAD TO A GREAT DEAL OF UNHAPPINESS. SOMETIMES IGNORANCE IS BETTER. ATHEISTS THINK DEATH IS THE END. IF THAT IS CORRECT, THEN NO REAL HARM IS DONE BY LEAVING GAY BELIEVERS IN IGNORANCE. AT LEAST THEY HAVE A STAB AT HAPPINESS FOR THE FEW SHORT YEARS THAT THEY ARE ALIVE. THEY GET TO MUCH SHIT AS IT IS, WHY FORCE FEED THEM ANYMORE? IF A DIET OF BIBLICAL SHIT MAKES THEM HAPPY, THEN SO BE IT.
http://skepticsannot...ra/otlaw.html
Friar Zero - an interesting link
The link also made me wonder how anyone who is Jewish would wish to stay with the Mosaic Law. It seems to me that Christianity (even if it is just another fiction) seems like such a relief in comparison.
In essence it seems to go like this:
Judaism - I have broken a law, I am condemned to hell.
Christianity - I have broken a law but since I believe that Jesus sacrificed his life for me so that my sins would be forgiven, the fact of my belief means that the broken law does not prevent my entry to heaven. I am saved.
I've never thought of it like this before. Grupthink really is interesting - you learn all sorts of things.
That Is a handy link from the Friar.
Re. Jewish- I understand that currently, at least in the U.S., Jews don't commonly subscribe to the idea of an afterlife at all, and certainly don't believe in heaven or hell. Or, I may be generalizing too much, here. Like principled atheists, though, some choose to live as well and as compassionately as they can, making their lives count for something, and try to leave the world better than they found it. (Isn't that what Christianity is supposed to be about? Or am I simply being, as a friend puts it, 'a bliss ninny'?
Yep - you are. "Bliss Ninny"! What an expression - how come you Americans are so creative and funny with language?
Wow. What can I say? I never knew this would evolve like this, & I think it's pretty cool. THIS is the grupthink I signed up for: a calm, rational, intelligent discussion w/out the histrionics (again!) & pettiness I've seen elsewhere. I must say Artemis, Thoralby, & Friar Zero have certainly illuminated this topic, and for that I am grateful. You are all so smart, knowing all those references and express yourselves very well (Friar Zero seems to be a man of few words!). All I know is that I believe Jesus died for my salvation, He loves me, and He won't abide hatred, persecution, or injustice. So I need to make sure I don't perpetrate those evils, & I'll be right as rain. That's MY God.
Patsyfan- If I could believe in a God that is a separate entity rather than something that suffuses all life, it would be the kind you believe in- it seems to me that these ideals are the reason for religions, now that we know we don't need to propitiate the gods to grow crops, be fertile or survive an eclipse. I don't really think we have been illuminating the original topic, but this tangent has been fun. I for one am not that smart and certainly not well-read. I don't think I've ever ploughed thru the O.T. all the way, and haven't read the N.T. for many years either. And we need to remember- those who stick pins in our statements are helping us to be more logical and back up what we say... in other words, helping us to form better arguments and think more clearly. It's all good... re. "bliss ninny," that's a friend, not me, and I usually find out it didn't originate with him. If Americans are clever with words at all, Thoralby, I'm sure it's only because we try in vain to live up to the high cleverness standards of the Brits..!
Well, Artemis, as I scrolled down the comment page, it seems someone thinks you're "boring", & we all received "Poorly Said" ratings. It proves that you are right about those "pin-stickers", doesn't it? I mean it's one thing to award(?) us Thumbs-Down, but to Give "Poorly Said" when clearly both you & Thoralby made very astute observations makes your point for you. Ah well. I certainly hope to see you both elsewhere on grupthink. God Bless.
I asked for one of my comments to be left open for a specific reason - to help gay believers reconcile any cognitive dissonance. It was marked down nevertheless. I bet it was marked down precisely because I asked for it not be. I think that was mean. There are so many people around who want to exercise power, no matter how petty. This Grupthink site is frequented by people who seem to think that it is necessary for some to lose so they can win. Win-Win is better. See my topic on power for a description of the power seeking personality type:
http://www.grupthink.com/topic/11515
Thoralby=Eraneo?
I think we need to move the religious discussion out of this topic. Also, I think the thumbs-up/thumbs down mechanics have been debated black and blue, so let's not dig up that dead horse.
"Thoralby=Eraneo?"
No - two separate people.