Sexuality

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's possible that S+G had a higher percentage of homosexuals within it's borders but statistically it's not likely unless there was some socialogical / biological reason for it.

Maybe you could educate me as to why these places had such a high number of homosexuals? If that is indeed what you believe.

Birds of a feather f(l)uck together ... 😀

Originally posted by knightmeister
Because once you look deeper into the whole area of sexuality and intersex children and understand what happens during foetal development it becomes much harder to be clear cut about anything. Gender and sexual orientation can be a very muddy grey area and highly complex. These are the brute facts about sexuality and they don't fit easily into the clea ...[text shortened]... cases then how can we be certain regarding homosexuality ? We live in a complex strange world.

It raises philosophical questions reagrding how we define sexuality and gender. For example , do we use genitalia as a guide or DNA? How do we decide what a man is and what a woman is? Is it decided by brain structure for example?

I do not see how it raises those questions at all. The existence of unisexuals only proves that there are some people who are neither male nor female. I do not see why that means male and female are redundant terms.

If a person has a man's body but is shown to have a feminine developed brain and also has female DNA are they male or female? What if they had ovaries , would that change things?

I think we can exclude the possibility of a person having a male body yet female DNA.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why need a unisexual be of either sex? God does not protect people from a number of deformities, so why should it be particularly upsetting to find that some people have deformed sexual organs?
------conrauK------------------------------

Now we are getting somewhere. What IS upsetting is that such a deformity is then declared an abomination or some suggest that they were in the dark ages and the scripture they produced at times was as well.

What IS upsetting is that such a deformity is then declared an abomination or something. If homosexuality is proven to be caused by a biological dysfunction in the womb (eg over or under flooding of testosterone) then in some ways it could be called a "deformity" (no intention to be offensive).

Homosexuals are not unisexuals.


What do you think was the level of awareness amongst the Bible writers regarding discrimination and attitudes towards sexuality? I would suggest that they were in the dark ages and the scripture they produced at times was as well

I expect that they were highly aware of sexuality. In both Hellenic and Roman societies at the time, homosexuality was a controversial topic. In Ancient Greece, pederastery was celebrated in artwork and literature, yet publicly ridiculed; in Ancient Rome, there were strict laws against homosexuality although it did exist (and the likes of Emperor Julius Ceasar and Nero had been accused of homosexual relations.) I expect that the early Christians were very aware of homosexuality.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]It raises philosophical questions reagrding how we define sexuality and gender. For example , do we use genitalia as a guide or DNA? How do we decide what a man is and what a woman is? Is it decided by brain structure for example?

I do not see how it raises those questions at all. The existence of unisexuals only proves that there are some people ? [/b]

I think we can exclude the possibility of a person having a male body yet female DNA.[/b]

I think we can exclude the possibility of a person having a male body yet female DNA.------conrau====

As far as I am aware it DOES occur. It is possible for a person to have male genitalia but female chromosones.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]It raises philosophical questions reagrding how we define sexuality and gender. For example , do we use genitalia as a guide or DNA? How do we decide what a man is and what a woman is? Is it decided by brain structure for example?

I do not see how it raises those questions at all. The existence of unisexuals only proves that there are some people ...[text shortened]... ? [/b]

I think we can exclude the possibility of a person having a male body yet female DNA.[/b]

I do not see how it raises those questions at all. The existence of unisexuals only proves that there are some people who are neither male nor female. I do not see why that means male and female are redundant terms.----conrau------

They are not redundant terms , it;s just less clear in some cases. The existence of unisexuals and other conditions shows the complexity of the issue. Don't worry I will wear you down with the facts eventually , I expected a lot of resistance on this issue.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]What IS upsetting is that such a deformity is then declared an abomination or something. If homosexuality is proven to be caused by a biological dysfunction in the womb (eg over or under flooding of testosterone) then in some ways it could be called a "deformity" (no intention to be offensive).

Homosexuals are not unisexuals.


What do you ...[text shortened]... of homosexual relations.) I expect that the early Christians were very aware of homosexuality.

Homosexuals are not unisexuals. ----conrau---------

But the conditions that bring them about may be more similar than we realise. There may be biological reasons for both. The science is pointing that direction.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]What IS upsetting is that such a deformity is then declared an abomination or something. If homosexuality is proven to be caused by a biological dysfunction in the womb (eg over or under flooding of testosterone) then in some ways it could be called a "deformity" (no intention to be offensive).

Homosexuals are not unisexuals.


What do you ...[text shortened]... of homosexual relations.) I expect that the early Christians were very aware of homosexuality.

I expect that the early Christians were very aware of homosexuality.
CONRAU------------------

But had no idea why it existed probably.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I do not see how it raises those questions at all. The existence of unisexuals only proves that there are some people who are neither male nor female. I do not see why that means male and female are redundant terms.----conrau------

They are not redundant terms , it;s just less clear in some cases. The existence of unisexuals and other conditions sho ...[text shortened]... I will wear you down with the facts eventually , I expected a lot of resistance on this issue.

They are not redundant terms , it;s just less clear in some cases. The existence of unisexuals and other conditions shows the complexity of the issue. Don't worry I will wear you down with the facts eventually , I expected a lot of resistance on this issue.

I do not see that as the case at all. You have not given any reason why unisexuals problematise gender categories as yet. To me, it seems analogous to questioning the existence of chairs and tables merely because of the discovery of a bench (which can function dually as both a seat and a table). Can you see a problem in that reasoning?

Originally posted by knightmeister

But the conditions that bring them about may be more similar than we realise. There may be biological reasons for both. The science is pointing that direction.

Actually, science is not suggesting anything of the sort. Whereas unisexuality may be attributed to a chromosomal abnormality, there has been no discovery of a link between homosexuality and genes. Were homosexuality merely genetic, twins would have an identical orientation which is not the case.

Originally posted by knightmeister

But had no idea why it existed probably.

No, probably not. Indeed, I doubt that they understood homosexuality in the same way as us.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The problem with your argument is that in the vast majority of cases it is indeed possible to figure out why God has declared certain things sinful. His laws on behaviour make sense and have a consistent pattern to them that include the following principles..

Mental / physical health of the individual
Respect for relationships
Treating others as y ...[text shortened]... ey understand why then all's the better.

I really don't get where you are coming from.

I agree with you in that I think God does want us to grow and learn. However, the Bible also states that there are some things man was not meant to know---that are in God's realm only, so to speak---and it could be that the "reason" why He declared homosexuality a sin is in that realm.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Actually, science is not suggesting anything of the sort. Whereas unisexuality may be attributed to a chromosomal abnormality, there has been no discovery of a link between homosexuality and genes. Were homosexuality merely genetic, twins would have an identical orientation which is not the case.

I have not speculated that it was genetics , merely that it may well have biological causes. The evidence seesm to be that hormonal imbalances in the womb might be the cause. There is some evidence that homosexuality is not merely a "phase" or "lifestyle choice". This perception will I believe be seen by future generations as redundant and discriminatory.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I agree with you in that I think God [b] does want us to grow and learn. However, the Bible also states that there are some things man was not meant to know---that are in God's realm only, so to speak---and it could be that the "reason" why He declared homosexuality a sin is in that realm.[/b]

It's possible but doesn't sound likely. God seems to be very concerned about our behaviour and wants us to understand why he sets his rules in place.

How many other sins can you think of where this is the case (ie God gives us no idea why they are declared sins)?

Could you at least speculate as to why homosexuality is a sin?

Originally posted by Conrau K
No, probably not. Indeed, I doubt that they understood homosexuality in the same way as us.

So you agree that anything written on the subject would have been based on an incomplete understanding and tainted by the value systems of that time and culture.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]
They are not redundant terms , it;s just less clear in some cases. The existence of unisexuals and other conditions shows the complexity of the issue. Don't worry I will wear you down with the facts eventually , I expected a lot of resistance on this issue.

I do not see that as the case at all. You have not given any reason why unisexuals proble ...[text shortened]... which can function dually as both a seat and a table). Can you see a problem in that reasoning?[/b]

If I may use your metaphor?

Your stance seems to be "we know benches exist but because chairs exist and tables exist then the bench must be one of those , it cannot be both or non specific. It cannot be a bench that likes other benches because that would be wrong. Chairs must like tables as well and they cannot like other chairs"

I do not seek to say that chairs and tables do not exist NOR that chairs and tables are not the template for humanity. I simply say that in amongst these chairs and tables exist a lot of benches and we need to recognise this as the case and stop pretending that benches don't exist or are "wrong".

If we don't accept the benches then our thinking is almost facist and totalitarian where difference and freedom of expression are outlawed. In facist thinking there are no greys , only certainty.