Garth. Trying to reply point by point to three posts, (especially when you seem to have decided that I'm simply not thinking because I don't agree with you) is um...pointless. So I'll address a couple of your statements and leave it at that.
Jerry, read what I said again. And read it in the context of my overall post. The point re: Christianity is from the standpoint of being born that way / not born that way. The example communicating, if one is born a Christian, they get to enjoy equal civil rights. If not, no equal rights. ... Based on a flawed premise.
Once again, you're mixing apples and oranges. We're talking about separate but related principles here. If freedom of worship is equivalent to civil rights, why did the framers of the Constitution feel the need to address it separately? I say it's because they're not exactly the same. Why? Because one is a matter of genetic identity; something over which the individual has no control. The other is a matter of choice. People are not necessarily born Christian, Muslim, etc. As you and all of us know, people can and do decide to choose a religion and they can choose to change it. Not so with race. It's indelibly part of your identity from birth, like it or not. Religion and sexual orientation are not hard-coded into our DNA. You may disagree with that and that's your prerogative. You can accuse me of ignoring the "SCIENCE" if you like. But I have seen people change their sexual orientation. I've never seen anyone change their racial identity. Can't be done.
Tell me something. Is not challenging what one is taught as biblical instruction really thinking for oneself? Think about that one for a minute. See, I can speak from experience here, as there were a lot of biblical concepts/teachings that I made myself closely examine/challenge/step back from/etc., and it wasn't easy when I still had this fear in my head of God being *angry* that I dared do so. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is still held in that kind of grip, isn't doing too much of thinking anyway.
Wow. That's actually a bit hurtful in addition to being insulting. You were one of the first people I befriended online way back in the late 90's when I discovered the "ex-Way" community. At the time, we were both reexamining what we'd been taught. I can remember things you shared that helped my growth. And, as most of you who've been around that long know, I've spent a great deal of time reconsidering what we were taught and that process was just as uncomfortable and challenging and as you say. But make no mistake, I have done that. My opinions are not based on mindless acceptance of someone else's canned dogma.
But I guess since my conclusions aren't the same as yours, the years of thought, study, prayer, meditation, and soul-searching that I've done don't matter. I really haven't thought about it unless I agree with you. Now who's being intolerant?
It seems you've become something of a pompous liberal.
Sorry Garth, but you've lost my respect and I will not discuss this with you any further.
First off, my ten will get your one, you'll see/read this post, and maybe you'll respond and maybe you won't. You decide.
Two, a strong suggestion, if I may. Next time you accuse me of doing something (ohh, like saying that I have decided that you're simply not thinking because you don't agree with me), please back your presumption (yes Virginia, that IS what you're doing) with a little, ohh fact? ... Because believe it or not, what I'm doing is not any different than what most people do here in this regard, what _you_ have done in this regard: Voicing your point of view in regards to a particular topic, and challenging various point(s) that one finds ... out-to-lunch. That is not automatically the same as a "deciding that you're simply not thinking because you don't agree with me" routine. ... M-m-kay?
And now, I'll give a short(er) synopsis on where my basis for civil rights for homosexuals/black/religious people comes from. (This is so you don't have to wrack your brain going through _all_ of those 'pointless' (uh-huh) points. <_< ) I'm coming at this from the point that, according to lawful, Constitutionally based consideration of equal protection of the law, ... skin color, sexual orientation, religion, hair color (if one has hair that is), have no bearing whatsoever when it comes to equal protection under the law; when it comes to having civil rights. ... Period! (Now if one doesn't have any hair, ... too bad, so sad. ... JUST kidding! :) )
Thus your making the distinction between civil rights for people who "are born that way" (like skin color), from civil rights for people who "make a (lifestyle) choice" (like religion, or *supposedly* homosexuality) ... from the standing of civil rights/equal protection of the law, ... is irrelevent. Makes no difference.
The only difference in this regard is if said person violates the rights of others/breaks the law/becomes a clear and present danger to others.
Now you see what my point is? End of short(er) synopsis.
Oh, and just because you've 'seen' homosexuals behave in a heterosexual manner (What? You're being a peeping tom?) is a *very* weak argument for 'proving' (*snort*) that they aren't gay from birth/nature. There have been a good number of people who were gay who have practiced straight sex, who are still gay. Isolated (even if clear) examples make for a very weak case against the abundance of scientific arguments that are based on a lot more than that to the contrary. See this collection of links that show the abundance of scientific evidence of what I'm saying. Sorry chief, but science trumps the bible here.
Jerry, we all have had our periods when we didn't/don't 'think'. (I know that I have, and no doubt there are a LOT of people here who would *readily* jump on that bandwagon. ;) ) But seriously, being blindly loyal to religious/political/other dogma is but a classic example of this non-thinking, and like I said, I've been there before, so I do speak and relate from experience here.
And it's not that you never think. I know better than to believe that as well. But some of the arguments you brought up here are Yet More of the Same-old, Same-old arguments I hear from Christian fundamentalists every day, and they aren't based on independent thinking. No they're not. It's based upon being blindly loyal to what they're taught, even if it is posed as 'science'.
Sorry to put it to you that way, but a LOT of what religious people say about homosexuality is based upon fear and ignorance. It is. No other way I can put it, and this needs to be said, respect for religion/people's feelings or no.
Still want to be mad at me? Fine. But you try this style of reasoning on the gay people whom you will undoubtedly associate with, ... Feh! And you think that *I'm* rude?? ... You ain't seen nothing yet, guy, ... 6'4" or no.
Just in case anyone's interested in considering this objectively, here is the data I referred to earlier. I mentioned that there was a study done that demonstrated that women change sexual orientations based on relationships and social or circumstantial changes. Garth decided to twist that into an assertion that I'm a peeping Tom.
Here are two links to the information, one from Web MD and one to a ten page document produced by the researcher. For those who just want a summary here's the Reader's Digest version.
Dr. Lisa Diamond works in the field of gender studies at the University of Utah. She says that, over the years, most research into human sexuality has been driven by the preconceived notion that people are hard-wired to be either gay or straight. Most research barely even mentions bisexuality or considers sexual orientation to be fluid. Her research found that women who are not heterosexual are not necessarily Lesbian either and tend to move back and forth along the spectrum of heterosexual and lesbian relationships throughout their lives.
They're not, as some would assume, in a stage of linear transition from hetero to lesbian lifestyles. They go back and forth. This phenomenom is little known primarily because it's contrary to the mindset of the scientific community.
Here's a quote from another researcher that sums it up pretty well. (emphasis added)
Critiques of the rigid categorization of individuals as “gay/lesbian,”
“heterosexual,” and (now) “bisexual” have a long history. Kinsey, of course, famously argued that “The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats” (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948, p. 639) and that same-sex and other-sex desires varied along a continuous dimension. More recently, this point of view has been articulated by researchers emphasizing the flexible, socially constructed nature of human sexuality (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1990; Golden,
1987; Kitzinger & Wilkinson, 1995; Rust, 1992, 1993). As Paul (1985) succintly summarized, “There is far more variability and fluidity in many people’s sexual patterns than theoretical notions tend to allow, suggesting that researchers have imparted an artificial
So, according to these researchers, the "born gay" or "born straight" idea is based on an "artificial consistency" that's been injected into the accepted studies. Those who already have their minds made up will no doubt dismiss this as irrelevant or worse. Those who are objective have information that can be considered on its own merits.
I would like to add that my recent experiences with EFT and the information in the related book The Body Electric has somewhat diminished my readiness to accept what is declared as accepted fact by the scientific and medical communities. The truth is scientific communities have dogma that is just as rigidly defended--sometimes through unethical means-- as religions do. Scientists will ridicule or ignore valid data if it contradicts the established theories. You know why? 'Cause they're people, just like us. We all have our prejudices and sometimes we're petty. And sometimes what everyone knows to be true, eventually turns out to be not so true after all.
The notion of people being hard-wired by birth into one orientation or another may be one such "truth".
First off, Jerry, my 'peeping Tom' crack was a joke, and I thought you'd see it that way. Apparently not, and for my side of that misunderstanding, I apologize. Seriously, I don't really think that you're a peeping Tom.
Two, while scientists can be, and often are, biased, emotional human beings with flaws, science (the process) is far better than that. It's that way because its based upon not only observation and continued study and testing, but also coincides with already proven mathematical, physical, biological, and medical laws and facts. And even with the facts that may have been uncovered by the sources you indicate, they are far outweighed in amount by findings of human sexuality being more hard-wired than you think, even when you take into consideration those who 'have it both ways'. Invariably, those who are either gay or straight naturally, as much as they might try to 'do it' the other way, are still biased in their natures to their sexual orientation. This isn't even dealing with findings in the animal world, despite Jerry's discounting of that.
Oh, I've read through your two articles, Jerry, and they are dealing with adolescent development. Straight kids go through a much similar development; its all with them experimenting in the sexual world. But by the time they reach adulthood, it becomes more set; gay or straight. Those articles made no mention that any 'artificial consistency' has been injected into the accepted studies. That's _your_ conclusion.
Oh, by the way, it seems that Web MD hasn't really given up on this idea of gay sexual orientation. Know why? Check out this article from Web MD. Man! Talk about pointing the finger at what's behind homosexuality!
And Jerry, ever hear the bruhaha, the 'conspiracy theory' about how the scientific world is biased for homosexuality based upon intimidating influence from the gay activists? Feh! Nothing more than church fed propaganda. I too heard that song-and-dance in TWI, and there is _absolutely_ no evidence of said back room arm twisting. The evidence backing this claim up wasn't coming from them, and neither is it coming from any of the main stream, conservative churches either.
Jerry, I've been down that road where religion backed 'science' claims that homosexuality can be cured, that Intelligent Design trumps evolution, and quite a few other things that would make any reputable scientist puke, and would make for good, Texas public school approved, 'science' class. <_< And yes, I reject all of that, because it is all based upon fear. Fear at challenging religious fundamentalism, fear of challenging all the millions of people who are still loyal to it, fear at challenging the 'integrity' of the bible to any serious degree. It's the same kind of fear that we in TWI went through before we just had it up to here, and told them to go 'f' themselves and walked away. I've seen this kind of 'Fear of the Lord' in a good number of other fundamentalist religions as well. And that fear still has a very sizable mistrust (which is undeserved) towards science; often pitting science against religion.
Pax - can you give some of the background from the book that supports the author's conclusions? For the sake of discussion it would be good to know what the book says.
Based on the web page content I think there's a lot of assumptions being made - like this:
In "The Same-Sex Triptych of Jesus," he not only mentions three gay and lesbian couples, but he completely accepted the gay and lesbian relationships, and would have endorsed Marriage Equality had it been around in those days.
"...mentions..." - not sure that's what's really going on there.
"would have endorsed" - strong statement. Jesus didn't "endorse" very many things. In fact he stayed out of some areas of life that he was questioned about.
Likewise when Goethe says Jesus "completely accepted" it - that's a very heavily baggaged statement, for some reason it's perplexing to me. Maybe it's just me. I'm not sure what that would mean or if I really see it anywhere in the records about Him. In fact, I would postulate it differently from the records to be honest - that He completely accepted who He himself was and He understood others in light of that.
Jesus was once asked about the status of a man and woman in the Kingdom of God, following a life where there had been multiple spouses. He responded that there is neither male or female in that realm and that the marriage relationship in this life wouldn't be a governing factor in their relationship then.
In the future, procreation doesn't appear to be an activity that's going to happen - at least for the purpose of "replenishing" or increasing the population in the Kingdom of God. The relationships read different too, based on the new experience of the relationship with "God".
We know there's male and female in this realm, and important ingredients of that relationship include procreation, "family" groupings, and a unified supportive interaction one-to-one. When we expand the relationship out we get a lot of diversity, though, "marriage" isn't the only kind of relationship.
One other thing in relation to those verses that are being dealt with in Matt and Luke is that the different 'greek" versions don't seem to support the kind of translation and understanding that R Goethe is coming up with. Same with the context in Luke. So I'm curious about some of the major points covered, if you get a sec. Thanks.
First off, Jerry, my 'peeping Tom' crack was a joke, and I thought you'd see it that way. Apparently not, and for my side of that misunderstanding, I apologize. Seriously, I don't really think that you're a peeping Tom.
Oh okay. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.
...
Oh, I've read through your two articles, Jerry, and they are dealing with adolescent development. Straight kids go through a much similar development; its all with them experimenting in the sexual world. But by the time they reach adulthood, it becomes more set; gay or straight. Those articles made no mention that any 'artificial consistency' has been injected into the accepted studies. That's _your_ conclusion.
The web MD article is focused on adolescent development, but Dr. Diamond's research, which was one part of the article is more broad based. Nevertheless, the fact that adolescents don't settle into one camp or the other as readily as we expect contradicts the notion that all homosexuals are born that way. If that were the case, one wouldn't expect college age people to still be experimenting and moving among sexual orientations and lifestyles.
Oh, by the way, it seems that Web MD hasn't really given up on this idea of gay sexual orientation. Know why? Check out this article from Web MD. Man! Talk about pointing the finger at what's behind homosexuality!
I haven't seen that one, I'll take a look at it.
And Jerry, ever hear the bruhaha, the 'conspiracy theory' about how the scientific world is biased for homosexuality based upon intimidating influence from the gay activists? Feh! Nothing more than church fed propaganda. I too heard that song-and-dance in TWI, and there is _absolutely_ no evidence of said back room arm twisting. The evidence backing this claim up wasn't coming from them, and neither is it coming from any of the main stream, conservative churches either.
Jerry, I've been down that road where religion backed 'science' claims that homosexuality can be cured, that Intelligent Design trumps evolution, and quite a few other things that would make any reputable scientist puke, and would make for good, Texas public school approved, 'science' class. <_< And yes, I reject all of that, because it is all based upon fear.
I haven't heard that conspiracy argument. Certainly there are a lot of knee-jerk Fundamentalists who object to anything that contradicts the Bible. So that charge is probably right for "Creationism". I do however believe that there is validity to Intelligent Design. I don't think Intelligent Design is born from fear of science, but is instead a product of better science. It's based on a logical interpretation of the growing empirical evidence. (I think we've discussed this before). One such scientist is Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box. Behe's treatise against Darwinian evolution is that, based on the level of complexity that has been discovered at the cellular level, it's impossible for life as it exists today to have evolved from single celled organisms without some kind of outside influence.
...Fear at challenging religious fundamentalism, fear of challenging all the millions of people who are still loyal to it, fear at challenging the 'integrity' of the bible to any serious degree. It's the same kind of fear that we in TWI went through before we just had it up to here, and told them to go 'f' themselves and walked away. I've seen this kind of 'Fear of the Lord' in a good number of other fundamentalist religions as well. And that fear still has a very sizable mistrust (which is undeserved) towards science; often pitting science against religion.
Consider _that_ if you dare.
Been there done that. I'm not a Fundamentalist. I gave it up a few years ago because there are too many contradictions in the Scripture, and because I came to the conclusion that the NT writers believed that Jesus would return in their lifetime. The entire New Testament is apocaplptic. That obviously didn't happen, so that makes the promises of Christ's soon return, in my humble opinion....false. You can read about it here....if you dare.
As I said, I have thought this through. We just don't quite see it the same way. :-)
The entire New Testament is apocaplptic. That obviously didn't happen, so that makes the promises of Christ's soon return, in my humble opinion....false. You can read about it here....if you dare.
Interesting paper. Well-written.
Incidentally, your citation of Acts 2:16-20 skipped over what I think is one of funniest verses in the bible, Act 2:15, "These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning!"
Thanks. I don't think it's particularly well written; rather redundant actually, but it communicates the idea.
Incidentally, your citation of Acts 2:16-20 skipped over what I think is one of funniest verses in the bible, Act 2:15, "These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning!"
LOL. That is one of the best. The expanded literal according to usage adds,
"Hell you should see 'em last night after supper at Luke's place. They were all sh&^faced!"
Indeed. I confess I struggle with the original proposition as put forth. Not a lot to be honest, it just sounds far fetched, not because of the subject matter but because after just a cursory reading of the verses in question - well, I just don't "get it", figuratively speaking of course and present subject matter aside and with no metaphorical aspersions implied and therefore denied. I simply don't see the necessary foundations for the conclusion. Lacking further information as well as the 15 bucks to buy the book I can go no further.
That's never stopped me before though so have no fear, I have additional personal insight to share. Read on, it's well worth the time.
It's not uniquely American but it's definitely an aspect of our national personality to treat each other like crap. "Crap" being badly. This is easy to do - if I have something you want I already know the answer to immediately exercise my god given right to Be Crappy - "No." See? It's just that easy. Again, in the greek: "Nope". Transliterated: "Go fly a kite!" French: "Non!" Danish: "Nej!" Work it kids - it works.
People have died for our freedoms and what better way to express them? To further Mssr. Aar's comments I would add then, whatbetter institution than marriage to exercise this freedom? It's legal, it's binding, it's a contract. Marriage Inc. - the ultimate petri plate for perfecting our proclivities and performance of this, our most prestigious constitutionally guaranteed right - the right to make others less right. Who am I, nay we, to say no? Well, we are the ones to say no but here we can take the high road and build for the future. Let's not waste a minute of it. Crappy - it's the new Good.
Someone has to be right. Who better than me? If elected, I promise to solemnly and with great vigor fulfull this post! No one will be ignored or denied and all can rest peacefully know that their time will sure come and quickly! No - amend that statement - I assume the post. Thank you! You're welcome! Repeat after me, please: "I Do!"
Indeed and moreover, doing this reflects that most basic of human rights, the right to tell anyone at any time exactly what I think of them It's as if we sit with the Founding Fathers themselves, pens in hand and looking over their shoulders - "We hold these truths to be self-evident: you suck. I don't, as much." Freedom in action, doesn't get any better.
We recognize with laser like acuity and surgical precision that most common of all human qualities - we all like some things and don't like others. There may be reasons, good reasons, biblical reasons, logical reasons, reasons so plain they don't require but will get all the explanation they can hold and more but either way there is one last reason that stands true and proud, oak-like in it's strength - if I don't like it that's reason enough.
That may not be scientific or reasonable or travel the high road on anyone's moral map but it is, in fact, a basic impulse of our human nature. We have favorite colors, favorite Beatle songs, favorite pairs of jeans. The other end of the spectrum needs recognition too and we do it well, although not nearly as well as we think or as others - the French come to mind - they're Black Belts at birth I think.
We still have work to do therefore and fortunately the freedom and time to do it. If we never become truly the Best At It, that's still okay though because we know exactly what to tell whoever is.
Cool Pax, please give some of the pertinent points from that book if you would, so I can get a better grip on it. Figuratively speaking.
Works both ways - hypocrisy is like pie - no matter how you cut it, it's still really good with ice cream. Everyone likes to use the bible - well, not Garth, but everyone else likes to use it to justify something - isn't presenting Jesus in the way Goethe does a form of that?
Why use Jesus to promote anything? It's a little odd. I hope He gets a percentage of a cut on all the things He's used to endorse. He-be a rich dude then.I mean, the Roman Catholic concessions alone would have to be mega. Add in all the issues from this aeon - that's gonna be a big stack.
For the record, having never read Goetz's book (finally got the name right) and having virtually no first hand knowledge of it or time in investigating what he's written I can say without a doubt, he's wrong. Aaaah....smell that? That's American Pie baby!!
But I can say for sure that those verses forming his "Triptych" (Triple A used to have Trip Tiks - whole 'nother deal but they were cool map spiral binder thingies, great for mapping out a route on the road) are not referring to Jesus talking about, mentioning, accepting or otherwise endorsing homosexuals.
I'm not suggesting Jesus hated homosexuals. I don't know that he hated Italians either, short people or bald men or people who dressed badly. He never really addresses correct fashion sense although I suspect He was a snappy dresser. Functional, current, good fit, that sort of thing.
One of my favorite gospel records is the guy who came to him to get him to settle an inheritance squabble. Apparently the guy'd gotten screwed by his family, a sad situation to be sure but Jesus returns his request by saying "who made me a judge or divider over you?" Surprising to many ministers today no doubt as I'm sure he could have claimed a hefty percentage as a fee for just a few hours work, thus capitalizing who knows how many Good Works. But he seems to have stopped short on civil matters. Same deal on Roman taxes, which one of the gospels says he handled with Peter, privately, paying the tax. I yearn to know the forms that were involved but I'm sure I could postulate that out to support the use of Quick Books as the only true godly way to calculate your taxes, given enough time.
So I dunno - the "equality of marriage"....? Is anything in life ever equal?
I'm not suggesting Jesus hated homosexuals. I don't know that he hated Italians either, short people or bald men or people who dressed badly. He never really addresses correct fashion sense although I suspect He was a snappy dresser. Functional, current, good fit, that sort of thing.
It's possible to conclude that, waysider. Such a line of clothing and the very name implies something's amiss. Perhaps He would have cursed such a suit, causing wrinkling that no iron could soften, leaving the wearer to wear the shame for the life of the suit (and leisure suits last). Or perhaps He'd come up with His own line of "Day of Rest" clothing. One never knows.
It's difficult to imagine Jesus in the world today, but I'm sure He'd have management, a large mega-facility for broadcasting to the world, book deals for days and a package of business-ready contracts for endorsement opportunities. Snappy slogans - "Put the name that's above all names to work. Jesus is ready to go - for you!!" Forget turning lemons into lemonade - The Son is a vintner's marketing dream come true. I'd suspect He'd dabble in politics but only for a time, why be President when you're already The King of Kings? Makes no sense.
(GarthP2000 stays real quiet here, as he had a leisure suit early in his first WOW year, ... and actually thought back then that it was kinda cool. :blush: )
I'm not suggesting Jesus hated homosexuals. I don't know that he hated Italians either, short people or bald men or people who dressed badly. He never really addresses correct fashion sense although I suspect He was a snappy dresser. Functional, current, good fit, that sort of thing.
I know you're joking but just the same,
Matthew 6:25 (NIV)
Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?
One of my favorite gospel records is the guy who came to him to get him to settle an inheritance squabble. Apparently the guy'd gotten screwed by his family, a sad situation to be sure but Jesus returns his request by saying "who made me a judge or divider over you?"
Mine, too. But you gotta get the "man" in there, as in, "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?" (Luke 12:14, NIV).
Maybe an 80's style "Whoa...dude!...that's like, totally heinous and all but, no way am I like, that judge dude for you. And stuff. But I can completely relate, definitely dude, that sucks! "
Mullets? No, DEFinitely not a mullet. Condemned, right out of the gate. Proceed to Super Cuts Purgatory till your mind is right.
Garth, hard to know what to say. A moment of silence for polyester weave.
SS, that's the ticket! For all those who have struggled with deciding what to wear, finally the answer - Jesus was pro-nudity. The records speak for themselves. We came into this world with nothing, leave with nothing - clearly nothing is the New Paradigm and what a game changer it is!
The gravity of this realization requires our most serious attention. Pursuant to such work -
I'd have to ponder the human condition overall in relation to the general topic of homosexuality. I don't see the attraction so to speak so it's a very difficult topic to consider practically or otherwise. It's the opposite of what I find normal and for that I make no apologies, I'm me and for me, normal is well - normal.
The bible overall doesn't ever sound like it's supportive of the idea, in fact if I took out any specific references that Goetz refers to as the "slam" sections, I'd still have a long view of history that's decidedly heterosexual. Course who knows what anyone does on their own time but the read of it reads like that. If it's the bible that's the point of reference it seems pretty obvious, to me, others may feel differently.
If the two were set as opposites and we make them 1-2...consider the biology then. If there's "man" = 1 and "woman" = 2 (ladies, no harm meant, 2 as we all know is the New 1) it seems we could have a 1.2, or 1.9. Perhaps even an Uber 2.9 or a .93......?
Y'know, guys - guy digs football, the manly sport for all men. (Imagine the Fantasy Football team Jesus would have had! Ka-ching!!!)
Football -check.
Hunting - check.
Rambo Part 1 - check.
Gas guzzler truck (with monster tires, of course) - check.
John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever - che-ch-che-cheeee.....
Hold up there bud-ski.
Try Bruce Willis - Die Hard...check. Aaaaah. Better.
Variances - normal or an age gone haywire? And what were they taking back in the day if that's the case? Metro Man - the New Stud or the Stud Buster?
Just about the only thing I believe about homosexuality is that it has nothing to do with debbil spurts.
There are so many variations in our chromosomes, and we're finding out that our genes have more to say about who we are (at least initially) that was once originally thought.
I've heard of individual babies being born where it's not obvious whether they are male or female. At first I didn't believe it....but having studied and taught biology for so long, I have seen it myself, and I understand some of the genetics behind it. True, this is abnormal. However......there are plenty of kids raised in non-functional households whose whole behavior is wierded out. Perhaps homosexuality is a learned or instilled behavior.
So many of our characteristics fall on a spectrum rather than either/or. Haven't we all seen masculinized women who are, really straight women, they just look peculiar? And the same for some men?
I'm not prepared to say that our sexuality is inborn, that is, it's the way you were made and you can't change it.....but I do have to admit I believe it's a possibility.
I have heard that Dr. Oz tomorrow on his show will present the issue of babies born whose gender is indeterminate at birth. I do plan to watch it....it may help me understand more about this issue.
Well - - I certainly did watch that program. And as I suspected, these kinds of anomalies are accidents and so called "freaks" of nature. HOWEVER - - there was also considerable discussion about the hormonal effects over development of both the embryo and the genitalia. There appears to be a lot more to this than I thought at first.
Perhaps some of the things we wrestle with today is, indeed, the result of our degraded environment and negative spiritual influences over the Milena. I suspect, however, that this latter group is in the minoroty of those homosexual, lesbian, transgenders etc.
Recommended Posts
year2027
God first
thanks Pax
I agree with book and I not read it yet
because can see it helping alot
to bridge the gap that been open to long
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Garth. Trying to reply point by point to three posts, (especially when you seem to have decided that I'm simply not thinking because I don't agree with you) is um...pointless. So I'll address a couple of your statements and leave it at that.
Once again, you're mixing apples and oranges. We're talking about separate but related principles here. If freedom of worship is equivalent to civil rights, why did the framers of the Constitution feel the need to address it separately? I say it's because they're not exactly the same. Why? Because one is a matter of genetic identity; something over which the individual has no control. The other is a matter of choice. People are not necessarily born Christian, Muslim, etc. As you and all of us know, people can and do decide to choose a religion and they can choose to change it. Not so with race. It's indelibly part of your identity from birth, like it or not. Religion and sexual orientation are not hard-coded into our DNA. You may disagree with that and that's your prerogative. You can accuse me of ignoring the "SCIENCE" if you like. But I have seen people change their sexual orientation. I've never seen anyone change their racial identity. Can't be done.
Wow. That's actually a bit hurtful in addition to being insulting. You were one of the first people I befriended online way back in the late 90's when I discovered the "ex-Way" community. At the time, we were both reexamining what we'd been taught. I can remember things you shared that helped my growth. And, as most of you who've been around that long know, I've spent a great deal of time reconsidering what we were taught and that process was just as uncomfortable and challenging and as you say. But make no mistake, I have done that. My opinions are not based on mindless acceptance of someone else's canned dogma.
But I guess since my conclusions aren't the same as yours, the years of thought, study, prayer, meditation, and soul-searching that I've done don't matter. I really haven't thought about it unless I agree with you. Now who's being intolerant?
It seems you've become something of a pompous liberal.
Sorry Garth, but you've lost my respect and I will not discuss this with you any further.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Jerry,
First off, my ten will get your one, you'll see/read this post, and maybe you'll respond and maybe you won't. You decide.
Two, a strong suggestion, if I may. Next time you accuse me of doing something (ohh, like saying that I have decided that you're simply not thinking because you don't agree with me), please back your presumption (yes Virginia, that IS what you're doing) with a little, ohh fact? ... Because believe it or not, what I'm doing is not any different than what most people do here in this regard, what _you_ have done in this regard: Voicing your point of view in regards to a particular topic, and challenging various point(s) that one finds ... out-to-lunch.
That is not automatically the same as a "deciding that you're simply not thinking because you don't agree with me" routine. ... M-m-kay?
And now, I'll give a short(er) synopsis on where my basis for civil rights for homosexuals/black/religious people comes from. (This is so you don't have to wrack your brain going through _all_ of those 'pointless' (uh-huh) points. <_< ) I'm coming at this from the point that, according to lawful, Constitutionally based consideration of equal protection of the law, ... skin color, sexual orientation, religion, hair color (if one has hair that is), have no bearing whatsoever when it comes to equal protection under the law; when it comes to having civil rights. ... Period! (Now if one doesn't have any hair, ... too bad, so sad. ... JUST kidding! :) )
Thus your making the distinction between civil rights for people who "are born that way" (like skin color), from civil rights for people who "make a (lifestyle) choice" (like religion, or *supposedly* homosexuality) ... from the standing of civil rights/equal protection of the law, ... is irrelevent. Makes no difference.
The only difference in this regard is if said person violates the rights of others/breaks the law/becomes a clear and present danger to others.
Now you see what my point is? End of short(er) synopsis.
Oh, and just because you've 'seen' homosexuals behave in a heterosexual manner (What? You're being a peeping tom?) is a *very* weak argument for 'proving' (*snort*) that they aren't gay from birth/nature. There have been a good number of people who were gay who have practiced straight sex, who are still gay. Isolated (even if clear) examples make for a very weak case against the abundance of scientific arguments that are based on a lot more than that to the contrary. See this collection of links that show the abundance of scientific evidence of what I'm saying. Sorry chief, but science trumps the bible here.
Jerry, we all have had our periods when we didn't/don't 'think'. (I know that I have, and no doubt there are a LOT of people here who would *readily* jump on that bandwagon. ;) ) But seriously, being blindly loyal to religious/political/other dogma is but a classic example of this non-thinking, and like I said, I've been there before, so I do speak and relate from experience here.
And it's not that you never think. I know better than to believe that as well. But some of the arguments you brought up here are Yet More of the Same-old, Same-old arguments I hear from Christian fundamentalists every day, and they aren't based on independent thinking. No they're not. It's based upon being blindly loyal to what they're taught, even if it is posed as 'science'.
Sorry to put it to you that way, but a LOT of what religious people say about homosexuality is based upon fear and ignorance. It is. No other way I can put it, and this needs to be said, respect for religion/people's feelings or no.
Still want to be mad at me? Fine. But you try this style of reasoning on the gay people whom you will undoubtedly associate with, ... Feh! And you think that *I'm* rude?? ... You ain't seen nothing yet, guy, ... 6'4" or no.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Just in case anyone's interested in considering this objectively, here is the data I referred to earlier. I mentioned that there was a study done that demonstrated that women change sexual orientations based on relationships and social or circumstantial changes. Garth decided to twist that into an assertion that I'm a peeping Tom.
Here are two links to the information, one from Web MD and one to a ten page document produced by the researcher. For those who just want a summary here's the Reader's Digest version.
Dr. Lisa Diamond works in the field of gender studies at the University of Utah. She says that, over the years, most research into human sexuality has been driven by the preconceived notion that people are hard-wired to be either gay or straight. Most research barely even mentions bisexuality or considers sexual orientation to be fluid. Her research found that women who are not heterosexual are not necessarily Lesbian either and tend to move back and forth along the spectrum of heterosexual and lesbian relationships throughout their lives.
They're not, as some would assume, in a stage of linear transition from hetero to lesbian lifestyles. They go back and forth. This phenomenom is little known primarily because it's contrary to the mindset of the scientific community.
Here's a quote from another researcher that sums it up pretty well. (emphasis added)
Here's the synopsis from Web MD.
Here's Dr. Diamond's publication.
So, according to these researchers, the "born gay" or "born straight" idea is based on an "artificial consistency" that's been injected into the accepted studies. Those who already have their minds made up will no doubt dismiss this as irrelevant or worse. Those who are objective have information that can be considered on its own merits.
I would like to add that my recent experiences with EFT and the information in the related book The Body Electric has somewhat diminished my readiness to accept what is declared as accepted fact by the scientific and medical communities. The truth is scientific communities have dogma that is just as rigidly defended--sometimes through unethical means-- as religions do. Scientists will ridicule or ignore valid data if it contradicts the established theories. You know why? 'Cause they're people, just like us. We all have our prejudices and sometimes we're petty. And sometimes what everyone knows to be true, eventually turns out to be not so true after all.
The notion of people being hard-wired by birth into one orientation or another may be one such "truth".
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
First off, Jerry, my 'peeping Tom' crack was a joke, and I thought you'd see it that way. Apparently not, and for my side of that misunderstanding, I apologize. Seriously, I don't really think that you're a peeping Tom.
Two, while scientists can be, and often are, biased, emotional human beings with flaws, science (the process) is far better than that. It's that way because its based upon not only observation and continued study and testing, but also coincides with already proven mathematical, physical, biological, and medical laws and facts. And even with the facts that may have been uncovered by the sources you indicate, they are far outweighed in amount by findings of human sexuality being more hard-wired than you think, even when you take into consideration those who 'have it both ways'. Invariably, those who are either gay or straight naturally, as much as they might try to 'do it' the other way, are still biased in their natures to their sexual orientation. This isn't even dealing with findings in the animal world, despite Jerry's discounting of that.
Oh, I've read through your two articles, Jerry, and they are dealing with adolescent development. Straight kids go through a much similar development; its all with them experimenting in the sexual world. But by the time they reach adulthood, it becomes more set; gay or straight. Those articles made no mention that any 'artificial consistency' has been injected into the accepted studies. That's _your_ conclusion.
Oh, by the way, it seems that Web MD hasn't really given up on this idea of gay sexual orientation. Know why? Check out this article from Web MD. Man! Talk about pointing the finger at what's behind homosexuality!
And Jerry, ever hear the bruhaha, the 'conspiracy theory' about how the scientific world is biased for homosexuality based upon intimidating influence from the gay activists? Feh! Nothing more than church fed propaganda.
I too heard that song-and-dance in TWI, and there is _absolutely_ no evidence of said back room arm twisting. The evidence backing this claim up wasn't coming from them, and neither is it coming from any of the main stream, conservative churches either.
Jerry, I've been down that road where religion backed 'science' claims that homosexuality can be cured, that Intelligent Design trumps evolution, and quite a few other things that would make any reputable scientist puke, and would make for good, Texas public school approved, 'science' class. <_< And yes, I reject all of that, because it is all based upon fear. Fear at challenging religious fundamentalism, fear of challenging all the millions of people who are still loyal to it, fear at challenging the 'integrity' of the bible to any serious degree. It's the same kind of fear that we in TWI went through before we just had it up to here, and told them to go 'f' themselves and walked away. I've seen this kind of 'Fear of the Lord' in a good number of other fundamentalist religions as well. And that fear still has a very sizable mistrust (which is undeserved) towards science; often pitting science against religion.
Consider _that_ if you dare.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Pax - can you give some of the background from the book that supports the author's conclusions? For the sake of discussion it would be good to know what the book says.
Based on the web page content I think there's a lot of assumptions being made - like this:
In "The Same-Sex Triptych of Jesus," he not only mentions three gay and lesbian couples, but he completely accepted the gay and lesbian relationships, and would have endorsed Marriage Equality had it been around in those days.
"...mentions..." - not sure that's what's really going on there.
"would have endorsed" - strong statement. Jesus didn't "endorse" very many things. In fact he stayed out of some areas of life that he was questioned about.
Likewise when Goethe says Jesus "completely accepted" it - that's a very heavily baggaged statement, for some reason it's perplexing to me. Maybe it's just me. I'm not sure what that would mean or if I really see it anywhere in the records about Him. In fact, I would postulate it differently from the records to be honest - that He completely accepted who He himself was and He understood others in light of that.
Jesus was once asked about the status of a man and woman in the Kingdom of God, following a life where there had been multiple spouses. He responded that there is neither male or female in that realm and that the marriage relationship in this life wouldn't be a governing factor in their relationship then.
In the future, procreation doesn't appear to be an activity that's going to happen - at least for the purpose of "replenishing" or increasing the population in the Kingdom of God. The relationships read different too, based on the new experience of the relationship with "God".
We know there's male and female in this realm, and important ingredients of that relationship include procreation, "family" groupings, and a unified supportive interaction one-to-one. When we expand the relationship out we get a lot of diversity, though, "marriage" isn't the only kind of relationship.
One other thing in relation to those verses that are being dealt with in Matt and Luke is that the different 'greek" versions don't seem to support the kind of translation and understanding that R Goethe is coming up with. Same with the context in Luke. So I'm curious about some of the major points covered, if you get a sec. Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Oh okay. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.
The web MD article is focused on adolescent development, but Dr. Diamond's research, which was one part of the article is more broad based. Nevertheless, the fact that adolescents don't settle into one camp or the other as readily as we expect contradicts the notion that all homosexuals are born that way. If that were the case, one wouldn't expect college age people to still be experimenting and moving among sexual orientations and lifestyles.
I haven't seen that one, I'll take a look at it.
I haven't heard that conspiracy argument. Certainly there are a lot of knee-jerk Fundamentalists who object to anything that contradicts the Bible. So that charge is probably right for "Creationism". I do however believe that there is validity to Intelligent Design. I don't think Intelligent Design is born from fear of science, but is instead a product of better science. It's based on a logical interpretation of the growing empirical evidence. (I think we've discussed this before). One such scientist is Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box. Behe's treatise against Darwinian evolution is that, based on the level of complexity that has been discovered at the cellular level, it's impossible for life as it exists today to have evolved from single celled organisms without some kind of outside influence.
Been there done that. I'm not a Fundamentalist. I gave it up a few years ago because there are too many contradictions in the Scripture, and because I came to the conclusion that the NT writers believed that Jesus would return in their lifetime. The entire New Testament is apocaplptic. That obviously didn't happen, so that makes the promises of Christ's soon return, in my humble opinion....false. You can read about it here....if you dare.
As I said, I have thought this through. We just don't quite see it the same way. :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Interesting paper. Well-written.
Incidentally, your citation of Acts 2:16-20 skipped over what I think is one of funniest verses in the bible, Act 2:15, "These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Socks said to Pax:
I'm sure he'll be by to answer your questions...in a year, maybe two. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Thanks. I don't think it's particularly well written; rather redundant actually, but it communicates the idea.
LOL. That is one of the best. The expanded literal according to usage adds,
"Hell you should see 'em last night after supper at Luke's place. They were all sh&^faced!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
LinZa said: "...in a year, maybe two."
Indeed. I confess I struggle with the original proposition as put forth. Not a lot to be honest, it just sounds far fetched, not because of the subject matter but because after just a cursory reading of the verses in question - well, I just don't "get it", figuratively speaking of course and present subject matter aside and with no metaphorical aspersions implied and therefore denied. I simply don't see the necessary foundations for the conclusion. Lacking further information as well as the 15 bucks to buy the book I can go no further.
That's never stopped me before though so have no fear, I have additional personal insight to share. Read on, it's well worth the time.
It's not uniquely American but it's definitely an aspect of our national personality to treat each other like crap. "Crap" being badly. This is easy to do - if I have something you want I already know the answer to immediately exercise my god given right to Be Crappy - "No." See? It's just that easy. Again, in the greek: "Nope". Transliterated: "Go fly a kite!" French: "Non!" Danish: "Nej!" Work it kids - it works.
People have died for our freedoms and what better way to express them? To further Mssr. Aar's comments I would add then, what better institution than marriage to exercise this freedom? It's legal, it's binding, it's a contract. Marriage Inc. - the ultimate petri plate for perfecting our proclivities and performance of this, our most prestigious constitutionally guaranteed right - the right to make others less right. Who am I, nay we, to say no? Well, we are the ones to say no but here we can take the high road and build for the future. Let's not waste a minute of it. Crappy - it's the new Good.
Someone has to be right. Who better than me? If elected, I promise to solemnly and with great vigor fulfull this post! No one will be ignored or denied and all can rest peacefully know that their time will sure come and quickly! No - amend that statement - I assume the post. Thank you! You're welcome! Repeat after me, please: "I Do!"
Indeed and moreover, doing this reflects that most basic of human rights, the right to tell anyone at any time exactly what I think of them It's as if we sit with the Founding Fathers themselves, pens in hand and looking over their shoulders - "We hold these truths to be self-evident: you suck. I don't, as much." Freedom in action, doesn't get any better.
We recognize with laser like acuity and surgical precision that most common of all human qualities - we all like some things and don't like others. There may be reasons, good reasons, biblical reasons, logical reasons, reasons so plain they don't require but will get all the explanation they can hold and more but either way there is one last reason that stands true and proud, oak-like in it's strength - if I don't like it that's reason enough.
That may not be scientific or reasonable or travel the high road on anyone's moral map but it is, in fact, a basic impulse of our human nature. We have favorite colors, favorite Beatle songs, favorite pairs of jeans. The other end of the spectrum needs recognition too and we do it well, although not nearly as well as we think or as others - the French come to mind - they're Black Belts at birth I think.
We still have work to do therefore and fortunately the freedom and time to do it. If we never become truly the Best At It, that's still okay though because we know exactly what to tell whoever is.
There, see? Tol' ya.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pax
sorry guys, that I've been away
lots of wonderful things happening
in my life and and family and faith family :)
I'll try to read what others have written here
except I really don't have much patience
for attempts to justify oppression
using the Bible...
common, really, wake up
smell the aeon we're in...
hell, we could justify slavery and massacres of women and children
using the Bible
It's not what we don't know about the Bible that's troublesome....
it's what we DO know!
and yet, it's central to our faith
it's our story
our identity document
It's our faith ancestors' response to who they thought God was
(and sometimes they were right)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
"our identity document"
My driver's license works well enough for me, thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Cool Pax, please give some of the pertinent points from that book if you would, so I can get a better grip on it. Figuratively speaking.
Works both ways - hypocrisy is like pie - no matter how you cut it, it's still really good with ice cream. Everyone likes to use the bible - well, not Garth, but everyone else likes to use it to justify something - isn't presenting Jesus in the way Goethe does a form of that?
Why use Jesus to promote anything? It's a little odd. I hope He gets a percentage of a cut on all the things He's used to endorse. He-be a rich dude then.I mean, the Roman Catholic concessions alone would have to be mega. Add in all the issues from this aeon - that's gonna be a big stack.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pax
Socks,
I like your post and hope to respond further
but regarding the book...
I didn't write or read the book,
I don't intend to read it anytime soon...
I said, regarding the book,
"It may be as crazy as using the Bible against equality..."
I really meant that.
I posted a link to it as a conversation starter...
sometimes these far-fetched theories
lead on to better ones.
It kinda makes me chuckle that someone found
three affirmed gay couples in Jesus' storytelling...
crazier things are in scripture
and I'd be delighted if it were true.
The only important thing
is that marriage equality is the better stance
for those of us wishing to be faithful
to the whole witness of scriptural truth.
IMHO
Pax
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Well, there ya go.
For the record, having never read Goetz's book (finally got the name right) and having virtually no first hand knowledge of it or time in investigating what he's written I can say without a doubt, he's wrong. Aaaah....smell that? That's American Pie baby!!
But I can say for sure that those verses forming his "Triptych" (Triple A used to have Trip Tiks - whole 'nother deal but they were cool map spiral binder thingies, great for mapping out a route on the road) are not referring to Jesus talking about, mentioning, accepting or otherwise endorsing homosexuals.
I'm not suggesting Jesus hated homosexuals. I don't know that he hated Italians either, short people or bald men or people who dressed badly. He never really addresses correct fashion sense although I suspect He was a snappy dresser. Functional, current, good fit, that sort of thing.
One of my favorite gospel records is the guy who came to him to get him to settle an inheritance squabble. Apparently the guy'd gotten screwed by his family, a sad situation to be sure but Jesus returns his request by saying "who made me a judge or divider over you?" Surprising to many ministers today no doubt as I'm sure he could have claimed a hefty percentage as a fee for just a few hours work, thus capitalizing who knows how many Good Works. But he seems to have stopped short on civil matters. Same deal on Roman taxes, which one of the gospels says he handled with Peter, privately, paying the tax. I yearn to know the forms that were involved but I'm sure I could postulate that out to support the use of Quick Books as the only true godly way to calculate your taxes, given enough time.
So I dunno - the "equality of marriage"....? Is anything in life ever equal?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm pretty sure he hated leisure suits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
It's possible to conclude that, waysider. Such a line of clothing and the very name implies something's amiss. Perhaps He would have cursed such a suit, causing wrinkling that no iron could soften, leaving the wearer to wear the shame for the life of the suit (and leisure suits last). Or perhaps He'd come up with His own line of "Day of Rest" clothing. One never knows.
It's difficult to imagine Jesus in the world today, but I'm sure He'd have management, a large mega-facility for broadcasting to the world, book deals for days and a package of business-ready contracts for endorsement opportunities. Snappy slogans - "Put the name that's above all names to work. Jesus is ready to go - for you!!" Forget turning lemons into lemonade - The Son is a vintner's marketing dream come true. I'd suspect He'd dabble in politics but only for a time, why be President when you're already The King of Kings? Makes no sense.
The possiblities are endless. The mind reels.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
(GarthP2000 stays real quiet here, as he had a leisure suit early in his first WOW year, ... and actually thought back then that it was kinda cool. :blush: )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
I know you're joking but just the same,
Matthew 6:25 (NIV)
Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Oh yeah!
Maybe an 80's style "Whoa...dude!...that's like, totally heinous and all but, no way am I like, that judge dude for you. And stuff. But I can completely relate, definitely dude, that sucks! "
Mullets? No, DEFinitely not a mullet. Condemned, right out of the gate. Proceed to Super Cuts Purgatory till your mind is right.
Garth, hard to know what to say. A moment of silence for polyester weave.
SS, that's the ticket! For all those who have struggled with deciding what to wear, finally the answer - Jesus was pro-nudity. The records speak for themselves. We came into this world with nothing, leave with nothing - clearly nothing is the New Paradigm and what a game changer it is!
The gravity of this realization requires our most serious attention. Pursuant to such work -
I'd have to ponder the human condition overall in relation to the general topic of homosexuality. I don't see the attraction so to speak so it's a very difficult topic to consider practically or otherwise. It's the opposite of what I find normal and for that I make no apologies, I'm me and for me, normal is well - normal.
The bible overall doesn't ever sound like it's supportive of the idea, in fact if I took out any specific references that Goetz refers to as the "slam" sections, I'd still have a long view of history that's decidedly heterosexual. Course who knows what anyone does on their own time but the read of it reads like that. If it's the bible that's the point of reference it seems pretty obvious, to me, others may feel differently.
If the two were set as opposites and we make them 1-2...consider the biology then. If there's "man" = 1 and "woman" = 2 (ladies, no harm meant, 2 as we all know is the New 1) it seems we could have a 1.2, or 1.9. Perhaps even an Uber 2.9 or a .93......?
Y'know, guys - guy digs football, the manly sport for all men. (Imagine the Fantasy Football team Jesus would have had! Ka-ching!!!)
Football -check.
Hunting - check.
Rambo Part 1 - check.
Gas guzzler truck (with monster tires, of course) - check.
John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever - che-ch-che-cheeee.....
Hold up there bud-ski.
Try Bruce Willis - Die Hard...check. Aaaaah. Better.
Variances - normal or an age gone haywire? And what were they taking back in the day if that's the case? Metro Man - the New Stud or the Stud Buster?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Just about the only thing I believe about homosexuality is that it has nothing to do with debbil spurts.
There are so many variations in our chromosomes, and we're finding out that our genes have more to say about who we are (at least initially) that was once originally thought.
I've heard of individual babies being born where it's not obvious whether they are male or female. At first I didn't believe it....but having studied and taught biology for so long, I have seen it myself, and I understand some of the genetics behind it. True, this is abnormal. However......there are plenty of kids raised in non-functional households whose whole behavior is wierded out. Perhaps homosexuality is a learned or instilled behavior.
So many of our characteristics fall on a spectrum rather than either/or. Haven't we all seen masculinized women who are, really straight women, they just look peculiar? And the same for some men?
I'm not prepared to say that our sexuality is inborn, that is, it's the way you were made and you can't change it.....but I do have to admit I believe it's a possibility.
I have heard that Dr. Oz tomorrow on his show will present the issue of babies born whose gender is indeterminate at birth. I do plan to watch it....it may help me understand more about this issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Well - - I certainly did watch that program. And as I suspected, these kinds of anomalies are accidents and so called "freaks" of nature. HOWEVER - - there was also considerable discussion about the hormonal effects over development of both the embryo and the genitalia. There appears to be a lot more to this than I thought at first.
Perhaps some of the things we wrestle with today is, indeed, the result of our degraded environment and negative spiritual influences over the Milena. I suspect, however, that this latter group is in the minoroty of those homosexual, lesbian, transgenders etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.