The Physiology of Homosexuality

[-Peacemaker-]

First of all, who are you to judge the veracity of my Christianity? How dare you place my spiritual condition in quotation marks, as if you're in some sort of position to make that judgment call. This is the same kind of self-righteous judgment that keeps homosexual individuals beat down.

Second, what's difficult is reasoning with Christians who won't reason -- those who simply take the texts at face value without considering the historical, religious, cultural, textual, literary, and theological stances of the writers and how those stances differ from our own.

The authority of scripture is governed by love and mercy.

I can't imagine what you would say constitutes Jesus' nature.


You need more training, Mr. "Christian-In-Training."

Let's play a Bible game called "who would say what?"

Biblical Character A: "No matter what you do in this life, you're already saved. No sacrifice for sin was even necessary. Rejecting Jesus has no implications for one's salvation. Also, God's definition of sexual immorality has changed with time."

I'll give you a hint: it isn't God

 

[tempter]

This thread arose from another that I contributed to recently. Of course, the discussion got heated and started heading down a road that I didn't intend.

Here was the premise: There is now (overwhelming) medical evidence that sexual orientation can be determined/changed in the womb by prenatal exposure to chemicals and hormones, particularly xenoestrogens, which are exogenous (made outside the body) estrogens from plants (e.g. the powerful isoflavones of soy) and man-made chemicals (e.g. from toxins/pollutants, pesticides, plastics, and more). Genetics have also been implicated in determining sexual orientation, with certain genes being turned on or off by certain outside stimuli, such as the ones listed above, much like "genetic diseases" (e.g. familial cancers) are expressed under the influences certain chemicals (e.g. carcinogens).

If you Google "xenoestrogens, sexual orientation", "epigenetics, sexual orientation", "prenatal hormones, homosexuality", "right hand finger length study, homosexuality", and related searches you will find plenty of scientific evidence. Epigenetics is particularly fascinating - the layer of genetic information (much of which is viral) that helps determine what the true genes in the DNA are going to do when challenged by outside forces, such as xenoestrogens, chemicals/toxins/pollutants/carcinogens.

So...there are physiological events that help explain why many gay individuals unequivocally state that they have felt the way they do for as long as they can remember. In some, it may be a lifestyle choice. However, most that I know have felt this way...some even fighting the compulsion to be this way...their entire life. They are as convinced of their sexual orientation as any heterosexual.

Here was my point: The church is going to have to deal with the fact that homosexuality is not simply a matter of being "seduced by the dark side". There is overwhelming evidence that sexual orientation can be changed in utero and even later in life through epigenetics. Homosexuality is now much more than the “simple” lifestyle choice that the uneducated individual thinks it is. It may have been more of choice in OT times and the Word (the law) was there to govern this behavior. But in today's world, under the influences of MAN, this has changed and become more of a physiological issue.

Now, this concept is not a "win" for either side. In fact, it will be hard to swallow by both sides. Many evangelical are convinced that homosexuality is merely a choice and purely sinful behavior and don't want to hear otherwise while I'm sure that most homosexuals will not enjoy the perspective that their sexual orientation is "abnormal" in any way (e.g. being a "birth defect" caused by chemical exposure in the womb). But...the medical data is what it is - a scientific explanation for the rise in homosexuality in modern times AND support for the testimony of those who are gay and (correctly) claim to have been born this way. Just as most homosexuals will tell you, they did not choose to be gay.

As painful as this topic may be, I believe it opens the door for reconciliation between the two groups. Yes, most homosexuals were born this way or became so under what we now know to be definable circumstances. Again, they were not simply "seduced by the dark side" or products of "improper upbringing".

This should help open the minds - and the church doors - of Christians to the homosexual individual and afford them the unconditional love that we all desire...and that Christians are being slammed every day for not exhibiting (and rightfully so. Shame on us!)

This is/should be the bridge.

Then, if we want to address the Scriptural aspects of this lifestyle, we can hopefully do so in a setting of love and understanding, remembering that "sin" comes in many forms...with ALL of us being guilty. If heterosexuals battle lust for members of the opposite sex (which most do much more than they care to admit), imagine how hard it must be for those who have those same urges for someone of the same sex before they can fully comprehend/integrate those feelings as an adult. And many pour gas on the fire through ignorant condemnation, which is both factually and spiritually the wrong thing to do.

We must address the hatred that is being expressed on both sides of this issue, much of which can be defused by understanding the physiology of sexual orientation.

So...will you Google it?

Can we at least discuss this in a civilized manner?

Ignoring the zealots of each side (some people will never be content), in my experience there are two types of christians: those that are willing and those that aren't: the willing side are open while the other side is not.
Speaking on those that won't change, they will never agree to what science says simply because they enjoy the aspect of 'being better than others' &/or hating others that don't agree with them &/or they feel the bible is true 110% (except for when it effects their lifestyle).
Yes this should be a step in the right direction, but it never will. Even today, in my area of the country, there are still christians that say inter-racial marriage is sinful.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Let's play a Bible game called "who would say what?"

Biblical Character A: "No matter what you do in this life, you're already saved. No sacrifice for sin was even necessary. Rejecting Jesus has no implications for one's salvation. Also, God's definition of sexual immorality has changed with time."

I'll give you a hint: it isn't God

Hey, I like this Biblical Character A guy. He sounds reasonable. Though I do disagree with him that god's definition of sexual immorality has changed with time. I don't think god really has too much to say on the matter. Hell, he did the nasty with some chick, only stuck the tip in, but hey, he still got her pregnant. And without child support payments, I'm not sure he's the authority you want to be following on sexual immorality...

 

[sojourner]

Let's play a Bible game called "who would say what?"

Biblical Character A: "No matter what you do in this life, you're already saved. No sacrifice for sin was even necessary. Rejecting Jesus has no implications for one's salvation. Also, God's definition of sexual immorality has changed with time."

I'll give you a hint: it isn't God

:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

You kill me! You really do!

Hoo!
**wipes eyes**
**chuckles some more**

I'm not going be lured into some fundigelical debate on salvation theology. Those who've been here a while are well aware of my universalist stance and my ability to defend it successfully. I don't know what you think your post here remotely has to do with my having called out your boorish entitlement, but what it has done is further illuminate your propensity to be judgmental of others, and either your inability or your unwillingness to curb your bad form.

Nonetheless, I doubt that God's standards (or expectations) for human sexuality have changed. But ours have, based upon changing cultural parameters and a development of the psychology of sexuality and an understanding of both the existence and complexity of sexual orientation. We have a much better understanding of human sexuality than the ancients.

But please -- continue your self-righteous clown-show. It's highly entertaining.

 

[Quagmire]

Let's play a Bible game called "who would say what?"

Biblical Character A: "No matter what you do in this life, you're already saved. No sacrifice for sin was even necessary. Rejecting Jesus has no implications for one's salvation. Also, God's definition of sexual immorality has changed with time."

I'll give you a hint: it isn't God

Ew! I know! Is it the Bible itself?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

You kill me! You really do!

Hoo!
**wipes eyes**
**chuckles some more**

I'm not going be lured into some fundigelical debate on salvation theology. Those who've been here a while are well aware of my universalist stance and my ability to defend it successfully. I don't know what you think your post here remotely has to do with my having called out your boorish entitlement, but what it has done is further illuminate your propensity to be judgmental of others, and either your inability or your unwillingness to curb your bad form.

Nonetheless, I doubt that God's standards (or expectations) for human sexuality have changed. But ours have, based upon changing cultural parameters and a development of the psychology of sexuality and an understanding of both the existence and complexity of sexual orientation. We have a much better understanding of human sexuality than the ancients.

But please -- continue your self-righteous clown-show. It's highly entertaining.

If I recall, your "defense" consists of the claim that the Bible is just a bunch of convoluted metaphors. Who really cares what your defense is however? If you're going around telling people that repentence is strongly encouraged but not actually required to be right with God then you're not speaking anything that remotely resembles the message of Yahweh/Jesus in either the OT or the NT. All that aside, like I said before, I can't begin to fathom what you would tell us you consider to be the Bible if you feel there's no condemnation of homosexual acts mentioned in it.

 

[sojourner]

If I recall, your "defense" consists of the claim that the Bible is just a bunch of convoluted metaphors.

You're conflating what I have said. Yes there is much metaphor in the bible (none of which I've ever claimed is "convoluted.") But that has nothing to do with my defense of universalism. If that's really what you think, either you're a bad reader, or completely unable to reason out a well-constructed argument. Or both. If that's not really what you think, then you're lying here, which is a clear violation of the ten commandments.

And you know what happens to those who violate the ten commandments...

Who really cares what your defense is however?

Apparently you do. Otherwise, there was no reason for you to bring it up here. Unless, of course, you're doing as I've opined: Displaying bad form by displaying an overblown sense of entitlement.

If you're going around telling people that repentence is strongly encouraged but not actually required to be right with God then you're not speaking anything that remotely resembles the message of Yahweh/Jesus in either the OT or the NT.

I don't recall having said that. I have said that the Incarnation was sufficient to effect reconciliation. If you can't fathom the theological differences between those two concepts, perhaps you don't have any business playing with theological matches...

All that aside, like I said before, I can't begin to fathom what you would tell us you consider to be the Bible if you feel there's no condemnation of homosexual acts mentioned in it.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the concept is completely beyond you. I can't help it if you can't grasp the very simple concept of "exegesis" in biblical interpretation. As I said, judging by your posts, you're in need of further training in Xy.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

And you know what happens to those who violate the ten commandments...

.

According to you very little except perhaps a verbal rebuke

 

[sojourner]

According to you very little except perhaps a verbal rebuke

I was speaking according to you -- but I'm sure you are, at this point -- having been caught in a lie -- far more comfortable with my take than with your own. Which makes you a hypocrite -- also frowned upon by Jesus.

I'd love to enter a battle of wits with you, but It's against my religious principles to fight the unarmed.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

I'm not comparing the victims. I'm comparing the systemic way in which they are victimized.

Eh, slippery slope there but ok

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I was speaking according to you -- but I'm sure you are, at this point -- having been caught in a lie -- far more comfortable with my take than with your own. Which makes you a hypocrite -- also frowned upon by Jesus.

I'd love to enter a battle of wits with you, but It's against my religious principles to fight the unarmed.

What in Heaven's name are you even talking about? Your claim is that hell and eternal judgement are metaphors. I assumed it would be understood that my use of the word "convoluted" was refering to how I would describe the 'logic" that I remember being used to defend that position.

edit: Mr. deadly with his wits: I wouldn't worry too much about breaking such a religious principle. It's probably just a metaphor.

 

[sojourner]

What in Heaven's name are you even talking about?

That about sums up the extent of your ability to track a theological argument. All the rest was simply... well... embarrassing for you.



[edit]:

edit: Mr. deadly with his wits: I wouldn't worry too much about breaking such a religious principle. It's probably just a metaphor.

Ooh! Now there's the nail in the coffin!

 

[methylatedghosts]

That about sums up the extent of your ability to track a theological argument. All the rest was simply... well... embarrassing for you.

You have got to be one of my favourite people here!

 

[sojourner]

You have got to be one of my favourite people here!

I'm awe...



(Wait for it...)


Some!


:takeabow: