As We Were Meant To Be

[BrDevon]

No, because you compare an act between those old enough to consent to one with those who are not old enough to consent. Nice try on the deflection, though.

[old_nick]

No, because you compare an act between those old enough to consent to one with those who are not old enough to consent. Nice try on the deflection, though.

I've not seen any convincing genetic arguments for it. A lot of people seem to confuse genetic arguments for biological arguments in general. There are features we have which are not a direct result of our genetics but owing to aspects of the environment in which we develop from in utero onward. It appears that sexuality is one of these developmental features. I noted the INAH3 is a good indicator of sexuality in terms of homosexuality and heterosexuality and it appears to be an aspect of developmental biology, not straight genetics. Note that this doesn't make it a malformity, atavism, or indicative of damaged malfunctioning biology.

Now, on to an unpopular opinion. I wouldn't go so far as to call pedophilia biologically malformed. Socially we may find it unacceptable, but one must keep in mind that until two hundred years ago, the average lifespan in the U.S. was mid-thirties and lower in some areas of the world. So there was a lot of benefit in being attracted to and bonding with the young. Many of us have relatives who married young in the "old days". My mother was 13 when she wed my father(himself 21) in 1950. My sister was 15 when she married. It was simply a fact of life and not treated as an abnormality because of the chances of seeing old age. We are living longer and longer and as a result we've shifted the bar of how we see maturity up with us. There's nothing wrong with this, in fact, given that it's now more risky to have children young because we have eliminated so many other threats, it is to be desirable. While calling pedophilia a disease is accurate in terms of psychology, in terms of biology I would be more apt to call it an atavism. Note, I am not saying it is okay or that we should let pedophiles run rampant, simply that we arguably have selected for it biologically in times when it was more useful.

That being said, It's outlived biological utility, now is more dangerous biologically than not, and worst of all violates those not legally deemed capable of informed adult decision-making. Whereas homosexuality does serve biological utility(able to see children to adulthood), isn't inherently biologically dangerous, and doesn't violate someone deemed legally incapable of making decisions. So there is no real basis of comparing pedophilia to homosexuality.

[Hyper Real]

To return to the title of this forum:

"As we were meant to be"

While some people are of the opinion each human being was exactly meant to be with all their flaws I do not believe that at all.

We are the result of fusion of a ovum and a sperm, the ovum and the sperm are what they are with or without flaws, then during the gestation period a lot of things can happen to the embryo.

At any rate I believe we are the result of our parents genes and many random events after conception not some kind of intelligent design.

[To`na Wanagi]

That does not alter the fact that each of us enters the air-breathing world exactly as we were formed in the womb. Any "flaws", as you call them, are still the result of being born exactly the way we were designed in the womb and from the moment of conception onward.

[Songster]

Thank you all for your patience.....

The Question- Is homosexuality a genetic trait, a psychological disorder, or the result of environmental/social disfunction? The fact of the matter is that the causes are still being debated. Since I do not hold the medical or psychological degrees that would enable me to answer your post with the authority that such an education would bestow, I must rely upon the doctrines and teachings of my Faith, the writings of qualified professionals, and my personal background and experience to form the basis for my opinion.

I recognize and accept the medical fact of the exitance of hermaphrodites as individuals possessing the genetic anomaly that produces both male and female organs in a single being. Despite the fact that some cultures (American Indians being but one example) assign these individuals religious significance, most cultures prefer that their citizens assume the roles determined by their physical forms, and life in those societies with strict cultural and religious mores may be difficult for hermaphrodites. Since I am personally acquainted with a pseudo-hermaphrodite that was raised as a male and latter had surgery to become a female, I am well aware of the emotional conflicts and social difficulties faced by those individuals, and I empathize with them (and with you, To'na)

Though there have been several studies conducted that suggest that homosexuality is genetically linked or biologically influenced, even those that initiated projects intending to prove the biological/genetic connection have denied the certainty of their findings. Rather than paraphrase the entire text, I will insert here several quotes from one of the articles-

"Some researchers have studied twins. The study by Bailey and Pillard, published in 1991, reported that when one twin is homosexual, the number of times the other twin is also homosexual occurs more often than the general rates of homosexuality in society. The media reported this as proof that homosexuality is genetic. But Bailey and Pillard themselves clearly stated that this study did not prove that homosexuality was solely caused by something genetic. Interestingly, this study also looked at the rest of the family and found that the rate of homosexuality among the rest of the family, including adopted brothers was 200-300% more frequent than the general rate in society. And so the data indicates that something is causing homosexuality to occur more frequently in the families that were studied but that it can not be genetics because the increase also occurs in adopted brothers who do not share any genes at all with the rest of the family." To me, this would indicate that the determining factor here was the subject's environmental circumstances rather than genetics.

"Most researchers agree that homosexuality is multi-causal and complex; many factors contribute to the development of same-sex attraction. Most researchers, including Dr. Dean Hamer, the "gay gene” researcher who is himself a gay man, agree that homosexuality is due to a combination of social, biological, and psychological factors.”

"Human choice can be accurately viewed as one of the factors influencing the development of sexual orientation but this does not mean that people consciously decide their sexual orientation. No one decides on a specific day that from that day onward that they will be a homosexual or a heterosexual. No one can decide that they will experience opposite-sex or same-sex attractions. Instead, sexual orientation is shaped and reshaped by a series of many choices and response to circumstances in one’s life and enormous social and cultural pressures." Even if one cannot choose to change the feeling of attraction to another, they most certainly must make an active decision (choice) to act upon their desire. I was born with a gene that makes me more susceptible to the effects of alcohol and was one of the causes of my becoming an alcoholic. I am personally, physically, and emotionally attracted to long-neck bottles of cold brew. I could choose to indulge my passions, but knowing that my addiction to the bottle is not in my best interests (or society's), I have learned to deny myself the pleasure of satiating my desire. (I realize that it's a stretch to compare the two, but it was the best example I could construct to illustrate one's ability to over-come a biological impulse.)

"....is homosexuality genetic or is it a choice? The answer is neither. The simple question of what causes homosexuality appears to have a rather complicated answer. And we do not have to adopt a simplistic either/or approach when looking for what causes homosexuality." Although I disagree with part of the above quote, I have included it here strictly to demonstrate that not only is the jury still out, but it appears to be deadlocked.

Conclusion- When I was in college in the 70's, homosexuality was listed in texts as a psychological disease (although the texts have now been changed to read otherwise). I am just a man, a product of my education and environment, with no claim to superior intelligence nor an infallible judgment, so I may be mistaken. However, until my GOD instructs me differently, I will have to continue to rely upon my morals, education, and personal experience, and will continue to act according to my conscience and the tenets of my Faith. That being said, IN MY OPINION, only those persons with the particular genetic disposition or mutation that determines they are hermaphrodites are "entitled" to choose their sexual orientation without social or religious censure. Others, those that are born "whole" and deviate from their genetically determined and socially accepted roles are either suffering from a social or psychological disfunction/disorder, or using their FREE WILL to defy the established morals and standards of the community in which they live and the Laws of the Creator.

http://www.exodusglo...g/causesc37.php

Edited December 14, 2011 by Songster

[Hyper Real]

Admirable attempt Songster to use science and reason however I feel we now live in a day and age where political correctness overrules science and reason whether it be sexual orientation, race and intelligence or global warming.

[Dan56]

That being said, IN MY OPINION, only those persons with the particular genetic disposition or mutation that determines they are hermaphrodites are "entitled" to choose their sexual orientation without social or religious censure. Others, those that are born "whole" and deviate from their genetically determined and socially accepted roles are either suffering from a social or psychological disfunction/disorder, or using their FREE WILL to defy the established morals and standards of the community in which they live and the Laws of the Creator.

That's pretty much my opinion too. (Romans 1:24-28)

[To`na Wanagi]

_{What did Jesus have to say about all this? Ohhhhhh......Nothing? Well then, I must assume He had no problems with those who were born differently. He did have a lot to say about heterosexuals though....}

_{And those of you who do have a problem? You should probably get used to it, because we are not going away. No. In fact, because of pollution of our water supplies there are more and more of us born every day. Soon the earth will be filled with androgynous individuals created by the will of man and his foolish enterprises. Perhaps in that day heterosexuals will be deemed the "freaks"?. .....Just sayin'....}

[Songster]

Dan, I think that Romans 1: 32 - "Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." - is also fitting. Though I believe that "spiritual death" is implied here, as even those that try to obey God's commands must experience a physical death. I also think that the DEMAND that others accept and condone their acts is a rationalization that "It must be OK if it meets with another's approval."

To'na, since the term homosexuality was not coined until the 20th century, Jesus could not have used the word. The word he would have used is "sodomite", and though he did not single them out from others in need of His message of Forgiveness, they were definitely among the crowds that he preached to and several of those that were exorcized of demons were practicing "sodomites." (I must also add that I find your choice of words in the above post curious. I know that I did not use the word "freaks", and I don't believe that anyone else has used the word. I find it very interesting that in your prophetized future, when our numbers will be reversed, that you chose to use the term to describe heterosexuals.)

Edited December 14, 2011 by Songster

[Hyper Real]

I also think that the DEMAND that others accept and condone their acts is a rationalization that "It must be OK if it meets with another's approval."

With this you open Pandora's box in my opinion.

I am all for equal legal rights for regular and same sex marriages.

But I am not for FORCING people to accept same sex marriages.

I suspect I will still witness in what is left of my life the situation where a citizen will commit a federal crime by stating that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman,

Again fighting for equal rights I am all in favor off but fighting to FORCE people to think a certain way I am strongly against.

With respect to sodomy, I believe the matter is clear, God strictly forbids it.

Edited December 14, 2011 by hyperreal

[Songster]

Hyper, I have honestly tried not to be offensive in stating my opinion here, and believe that another's life choices are their own soul's responsibility. I am not trying to force my morals on anyone, and I resent it when others deride, denigrate, cajole, or otherwise try to force me to accept, approve, condone, and applaud an act that I believe to be contrary to the Laws of God (and then condemned me for not amending my opinion to match their views).

Edited December 14, 2011 by Songster

[Hyper Real]

Hyper, I have honestly tried not to be offensive in stating my opinion here, and believe that another's life choices are their own soul's responsibility. I am not trying to force my morals on anyone, and I resent it when others deride, denigrate, cajole, or otherwise try to force me to accept, approve, condone, and applaud an act that I believe to be contrary to the Laws of God (and then condemned me for not amending my opinion to match their views).

Exactly, that's how I feel about it as well.

But there are people who seriously want to force people to think like they do. I am telling you I think I will witness in my lifetime where a person goes to jail for some kind of hate crime for smply being of the opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Edited December 14, 2011 by hyperreal

[To`na Wanagi]

To'na, since the term homosexuality was not coined until the 20th century, Jesus could not have used the word. The word he would have used is "sodomite", and though he did not single them out from others in need of His message of Forgiveness, they were definitely among the crowds that he preached to and several of those that were exorcized of demons were practicing "sodomites."

Show me NT scripture in the words of Jesus where he used the term sodomite.

(I must also add that I find your choice of words in the above post curious. I know that I did not use the word "freaks", and I don't believe that anyone else has used the word. I find it very interesting that in your prophetized future, when our numbers will be reversed, that you chose to use the term to describe heterosexuals.)

Do you really think there are any in the glbt community who have not been described as freaks and much worse? Why? Simply because they are different....and that is the nature of the human condition, to deride any who do not follow after their specific doctrines, prejudices, are the "wrong" color, "wrong" sex, or "wrong" orientation according to their judgments. Why would you think that would change if the roles were reversed after generations of persecution from the religious right? It is not unusual for the "liberators" to become the oppressors. Everyone wants their pound of flesh so they can feel righteous....... don't they?

[RabbiO]

It has been awhile since I poured over Christian scripture, but as I recall there are no words attributed to Jesus in which he condemns homosexuality - of course, there being no words by which he endorses it. Such condemnation as I recall comes in the Pauline epistles. As for Jewish scripture, it would be a mistake to see the story of Sodom and Gomorrah - and a parallel story in Judges - as condemnations of homosexuality either. Those stories actually deal with a violation of הכנסת אורחים the rules regarding hospitality and the protection one owes to visitors. Nor can one say that the passages in Leviticus - which are usually, but not always, mistranslated - which are quoted in support of a condemnation of homosexuality or, at least, homosexual behavior, actually stand for that proposition. I believe that I have covered this in previous posts and so I will not repeat myself here.

Edited December 15, 2011 by RabbiO

[To`na Wanagi]

It has been awhile since I poured over Christian scripture, but as I recall there are no words attributed to Jesus in which he condemns homosexuality - of course, there being no words by which he endorses it. Such condemnation as I recall comes in the Pauline epistles. As for Jewish scripture, it would be a mistake to see the story of Sodom and Gomorrah - and a parallel story in Judges - as condemnations of homosexuality either. Those stories actually deal with a violation of הכנסת אורחים the rules regarding hospitality and the protection one owes to visitors. Nor can one say that the passages in Leviticus - which are usually, but not always, mistranslated - which are quoted in support of a condemnation of homosexuality or, at least, homosexual behavior, actually stand for that proposition. I believe that I have covered this in previous posts and so I will not repeat myself here.

But dear friend, sometimes we all need reminders....especially when we reach a "certain age"....if ya know what I mean?..But know this, I would never, ever, throw you to the lions!!!.But even if someone else did, I know you would be just like Daniel!.

[Hyper Real]

Nor can one say that the passages in Leviticus - which are usually, but not always, mistranslated - which are quoted in support of a condemnation of homosexuality or, at least, homosexual behavior, actually stand for that proposition.

"Nor can one say"?

I think you are wrong,

I can say it and I will and with me many others.

If you have the opinion that the Leviticus passage in question mean something else then you are certainly entitled to your opinion but so are those to whom it is a clear indication that homosexual intercourse is not permitted.

I think you make it appear that you are the defining voice on what the Leviticus passages should mean but you are not at least not to me.

[old_nick]

"Nor can one say"?

I think you are wrong,

I can say it and I will and with me many others.

If you have the opinion that the Leviticus passage in question mean something else then you are certainly entitled to your opinion but so are those to whom it is a clear indication that homosexual intercourse is not permitted.

I think you make it appear that you are the defining voice on what the Leviticus passages should mean but you are not at least not to me.

An opinion is only as valid as it is informed. This is the reason you go to a mechanic with auto troubles and not a heart surgeon. This is the reason you go to a heart surgeon for a heart problem and not a mechanic. Their training and study lends higher validity to the opinions they express in that which we seek their opinion for. On this issue, RabbiO has demonstrated a greater depth of knowledge and mirrors that of a great many opinions by those who have studied and trained in the literature at great depths. So while you certainly may have your own opinion, that doesn't make your opinion informed, educated, or valid.

I'm siding with RabbiO on this one.

[RabbiO]

"Nor can one say"? I think you are wrong, I can say it and I will and with me many others. If you have the opinion that the Leviticus passage in question mean something else then you are certainly entitled to your opinion but so are those to whom it is a clear indication that homosexual intercourse is not permitted. I think you make it appear that you are the defining voice on what the Leviticus passages should mean but you are not at least not to me.

I could amend my statement to read "Nor can one say with certitude......" but I don't suspect you'd be any happier with my statement.

I have previously written regarding the use of the Hebrew word tachar, but there are additonal concerns as well. For example, Rabbi Jacob Milgrom z'l who was probably the foremost Jewish expert on Leviticus in the 20th century noted - "[T]he prohibition is severely limited. First, it is addressed only to Israel, not to other nations. Second, compliance with this law is a condition for residing in the Holy Land, but is irrelevant outside it (see the closing exhortation, Lev.18: 24-30). Third, it is limited to men; lesbianism is not prohibited. Thus it is incorrect to apply this prohibition on a universal scale. Moreover,..both occurrences of the prohibition (18: 22; 20: 13) contain the phrase "as one lies with a woman" משכבי אישה(lit. "lyings a woman"), an idiom used only for illicit heterosexual unions. Thus one could argue that carnal relations are forbidden only if their correlated heterosexual unions would be in these lists. For example, the Bible lists the following prohibited relations: nephew-aunt, grandfather-granddaughter, and stepmother-stepson. Thus, according to this theory, nephew-uncle, grandfather-grandson, and stepfather-stepson are also forbidden. This implies that the homosexual prohibition does not cover all male-male liaisons, but only those within the limited circle of family. However, homosexual relations with unrelated males are neither prohibited nor penalized."

Edited December 15, 2011 by RabbiO

[To`na Wanagi]

See? I told you some of us need reminders! And even if you took them back in a time machine to prove what one says, they still would not listen.... I'm with you dear brother!

[Brother Kaman]

I could amend my statement to read "Nor can one say with certitude......" but I don't suspect you'd be any happier with my statement.

I have previously written regarding the use of the Hebrew word tachar, but there are additonal concerns as well. For example, Rabbi Jacob Milgrom z'l who was probably the foremost Jewish expert on Leviticus in the 20th century noted - "[T]he prohibition is severely limited. First, it is addressed only to Israel, not to other nations. Second, compliance with this law is a condition for residing in the Holy Land, but is irrelevant outside it (see the closing exhortation, Lev.18: 24-30). Third, it is limited to men; lesbianism is not prohibited. Thus it is incorrect to apply this prohibition on a universal scale. Moreover,..both occurrences of the prohibition (18: 22; 20: 13) contain the phrase "as one lies with a woman" משכבי אישה(lit. "lyings a woman"), an idiom used only for illicit heterosexual unions. Thus one could argue that carnal relations are forbidden only if their correlated heterosexual unions would be in these lists. For example, the Bible lists the following prohibited relations: nephew-aunt, grandfather-granddaughter, and stepmother-stepson. Thus, according to this theory, nephew-uncle, grandfather-grandson, and stepfather-stepson are also forbidden. This implies that the homosexual prohibition does not cover all male-male liaisons, but only those within the limited circle of family. However, homosexual relations with unrelated males are neither prohibited nor penalized."

Ah, a voice of reason.

Peace.