The Bible and Homosexuality

well the first thing to say is that scientific definitions of homo/heterosexuality are actually far less rigid than the colloquial usage of the terms. homo/heterosexuality is defined by distinctive arousal patterns when exposed to certain sexual stimuli, but even here there is a lot of overlap between sexualities, clearly the boundaries are not as cut and dried as some would like to believe (men who identify themselves as homophobic have been shown, during these trials, to have more of a reaction to homoerotic material than those who don't; methinks the laddies do protest too much)

but obviously there isnt any way of knowing at what age people start to fall into either of these groups ("can i have a grant, please? i want to perform an experiment where i show porn to underage children.")

"straight" women, in terms of response to stimuli, exhibit, on average, far less rigidity in terms their sexual orientation.

so straight away, when talking about "gay" and "straight" we have to accept that these are terms defined socially and politically, rather than ones based on science or biology.

there's actually very little evidence for a "gay gene" even though some point to the corellation of sexualities in monozygotic versus dyzygotic twins as evidence of a genetic basis for determining sexuality, the evidence, although it does point to some genetic predisposition, paints a picture of a predispostion so mild that other environmental factors are believed by most to be far more important as contributing factors.

which is just as well, really. soon as you tell some people its genetic, they'll be clamoring for a cure. nothing like the whiff of eugenics to get the old blood boiling...

anyway.

there ARE some things which make homosexuality statistically more likely, such as the fraternal birth order effect in men and congenital adrenal hyperplasia in women, both having to do with exposure to certain hormones in the womb, but even these are only known to push the odds slightly in favor of homosexuality

so yes, telling a child what his or her sexual orientation is when they are that young is patently absurd, either straight or gay, because they're neither.

interestingly, as well as being....just.... weird this practice would have no effect whatsoever, homosexuality is not learned behavior. cultures in which homosexual practices are part of traditional coming of age rights (i.e. cultures where homosexuality is not merely accepted and normalised, but seen as a social obligation) produce no higher rates of homosexuals than any other. and boys given sex changes at young ages (as a result of accidents or birth defects in which their male genitalia was lost) and raised as girls still tend to be attracted to females despite hormone surgery and a lifetime of nurture

so telling kids and forcing them to try and be one thing or the other is pointless as it won't change a thing, and having them live in a society in which homosexuality is accepted makes them no more likely to become homosexuals. nothing left to do really but support and love them unconditionally whatever their sexual orientation is, eh?


anyway, i'm no expert on the bible, and i haven't identified myself as christian in a long time, but it seems to me that the sections pertaining to homosexuality are far less likely to be condemnation from the almighty and far more likely to be symptomatic of an incredibly patriarchal society in which the lawmakers and males in general, feared that their control over society would crumble if they permitted homosexuality, as it would challenge their own sexual identities. a hatred born of fear.

probably best to just love your neighbor. even if he's gay.

 

There is the new scientific study on pheromones. It has been determined that gay men are attracted to the pheromones given off by other men while the pheromones given off by women have no impact on them.

Robin Reardon mentions the study a great deal in her books.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/s...5bf851ac9&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

 

removed on account of tiredness, response below.

 

You seem to have removed what you posted. Anyway, as far as you believing it is a learned behavior, I can easily discredit that from my own personal experience, of course. I had no concept of homosexuality while growing up in a relatively small community. I understood that boys were supposed to like girls, but until I reached puberty I felt no sexual attraction to either gender. One day, and I remember it quite clearly, I was walking behind a guy who was wearing tight wrangler jeans and I thought to myself what a great ass he had. I did not know the guy, I knew nothing about homosexuality, and yet my first sexual attraction was to another guy. I never felt any sexual attraction toward females.

 

Yeah, I tend to agree with Kinsey's continuium.

I agree with you that the notion of a single "gay gene" accounting for homosexuality is as unlikely as a "God gene" accounting for religion--although Hamer has made a dubious case for both. More likely, genes and physiological factors such as the prenatal hormones you mention, have an effect on traits that can predispose toward sexual attraction. But we have done no better from an "environmental" perspective. "Reparative" therapists have tried a wide variety of approaches to alter homosexual orientation--psychoanalysis, guilt, behavioral conditioning, etc., all without notable success. I think the whole issue is too infused with ideological import to allow much scientific objectivity. And from a moral standpoint, before putting people through possibly harmful therapeutic regimens, we must ask "So what?"

That's my conclusion, based on what I think Jesus taught us.
If people would actually view the video, I think the young man puts together a compelling case that the passages from scripture that are often used to bash gays don't apply to loving, committed same-sex relationships. They refer instead to gang rape, temple and shrine prostitution, domination, sexploitation, pederasty, and/or lust. There are certainly aspects of the gay scene, as well as the straight scene, today to which all of these admonitions are applicable. But should we therefore conclude that sex is evil and should be avoided? Evangelical Christians seem to have developed a tolerant attitude toward adultery and divorce, which Jesus specifically condemned; at least they've backed politicians like Reagan, Gingrich and Giuliani as their standard bearers for the highest offices in the land. For gays, they provide the choice of heterosexual marriage or celibacy. I don't think it's a good idea to encourage gays to marry people of the opposite sex unless they really want to. Enough kids have suffered from broken homes or loveless marriages even when the partners are presumably straight. As for celibacy, that's a heavy cross to bear--especially when we ask it of others but not ourselves. So before condemning gays, I think we need a stronger case than the biblical texts that they're doing something really wrong.

 

yeah i removed what i posted because i suddenly realised how incredibly tired i was and that therefore my sentences were beginning to not make sense (if they ever did). when i talked about learned behavior (an incredibly poor choice of words, symptomatic of my tiredness) i wasn't talking about homosexuality in general being learned behavior (indeed, in my previous post, i argued against this idea vehemently) i was referring specifically to the distinct preferences for pheremones to which you referred , which i meant that i thought was an effect rather than a cause, as we pick up on pheromones subconsciously, it is perfectly possible that one would learn to subconsciously identify the scent which belongs to the group to which one is already attracted, rather than attraction being created, at first, by pheromone reception.

 

I've done a bit of research into pheromones...and all research, from insects to animals to mammals to humans indicate there is nothing subconscious whatsoever in the reaction(s) to the smell of pheromones. All subjects studied had (or certainly appeared to have) innate and/or inherent responses to whatever pheromones were presented.
It seems you have thought about this subject quite a bit, and although almost anything could be possible...tons of research reflect attraction as well as other types of reactions is, indeed, first created by pheromone reception.

 

i thought pheremones did act on us subconsciously, i've certainly never been conscious of my attraction to somebody starting with their smell, although i'm perfectly willing to accept that that is where it does start...

 

lol - I guess I was thinking there is a difference between subconscious and innate and/or inherent. (Probably not. ) but (just to dig my stupid in here deeper)...one's subconscious feelings, as I understand it, could come from something that happened as a child, or even something that was in a movie but that didn't consciously bother us, but subconsciously did. (Although I am certain there are other examples, those 2 are what I would think are most common.) Whereas something innate or inherent is something that is deeper than subconscious...something that is there within us from the time we are born.
Does that make sense?

 

I am so greatful I just follow my nose, drawers and that strange thing I think might be my heart around. I've peeled the flesh from enough bones to still not understand what I was looking at to be happy leaving the wrap on.
When I first taught post-graduate level I thought "My God! The WORST thing I hate the MOST about these here is that they either Think they understand, are desperate to or want others to think they do! Monstorous!" But of course there were those exceptionals who were content to wander through walking around like a big question mark, but an exclamation point within themselves.
I don't disagree with any of the reasonable theory about possible causality or motivation, but when people start turning theories into laws and philosophies, there is the suffering of the world and souls.
So it's too deep for me now, but so happy to see the rule of love overtake the liers and hypocrites of slavedom and those whose only milk is misery, the better spread around.
Applause for all the candor, high thought and humanity!
Just leaves me with the obligatory part "The master is most earnestly cautioned against believing any of this." - which of course should be above the doors of all our schools and churches here, right under the "know Thyself" scrolling...

 

granny played with my baby penis , old daddy screamed at me as
i lay in the crib yowling in the night , ma could've been laying naked
in the sun for her babe in the womb remembers the first light feeling .

oh , the mysteries of remembrance . peace to it . oh is a word
for heartfulness and respect .

so as i've been writing here i've been remembering my experiences with aspects of the psycho sexual .

i one aspect i am a spirit action that protects and guides the young . it happens . one time it was blippin
the nose hairs of two crusty gay guys in the local pub who were bothering on a just too pretty and too lonesome
college boy from the art school . twas about a three second peace action and we all survived it fine .

 

Tikoo, you honestly need to attempt to make yourself more coherent, because I never understand a single concept you try to convey.

 

then i do not write for you .

have you a philosophy of Opposite i can relate to ?

a christian might understand
a spirit action as wrasslin with a demon - but no i don't at
all quite say it that way at all .

if you have a question about spirit i can consult the
oracle wheel for you .

 

eh?

 

for example :

what literally is the opposite of sex , or perhaps ,
what does opposite sex mean ? to the hermaphrodite ?

 

as a noun or verb "sex" doesn't have an antonym, as an adjective (sexual) you could have "asexual"

the concept of "opposite sex" is based on a system of two opposing genders, male and female. since hermaphrodites are not placed within this structural opposition, they create a context in which the term is rendered useless.

"hermaphrodite" has no literal antonym since none is necessary. "non-hermaphrodite" is pretty much all that's needed from either a medicinal or linguistic perspective.

although technically one could argue that the opposite of hermaphrodite is asexual again, which it is in the animal kingdom.

 

sex does not need to be a noun , verb or adjective . it is
an actuality of life . it's opposite can be expressed literally
though , however not so well with a single word .

 

The sound of one hand clapping? (Or something to do with the clap).

 

All nouns, verbs and adjectives are actualities of life.

 

At least your koans are intact.