Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Philothei]

Sidhe if you so wish to prove there is such a sex as "pansexual" I would agree with ya ...only in the case of "hermaphrodite" those who have both genitals..that of a man and a woman a rare genetic condition that is extremely rare....

Claiming that we are born both is as much of a myth as Ancient Greek mythology I am afraid...Science fortunately confirms naturally man is born either male or female despite the small minority that existed and recorded over time in human history...

 

[Philothei]

That isn't what 2 Peter 1:20-21 says.

If the Bible were exactly dicatated by God, as you suggest, then whats with all the errors, contradictions and vagueries?

Not to mention the various printing nd translation errors

It is our human limitation to not fully comprehend God and His message that is written in the Bible. Not the fact that God did not speak to us clearly. Jesus did and others recorded his words. If you plan to go that way and "dispute" the word of God then you might as well dispute the truth that we recieved from God and specifically Christ. Despite our human limitations still God's message prevails or then Christ did not fulfill his mission that of "giving us the Kerygma" of God... the "Kingdom of God". It is either one or the other. To dispute the Bible as "biased" is to say that God's revelation to us was not "perfect" thus Christ has not yet fullfilled that mission. Are you claiming Christ was limited? Because if you do then you must also deny the whole incarnation of Christ as pointless...and futile since it did not accomplish anything due to man's inability to "comprehend" the Kerygma of God... For starters that is a basic gnostic notion (or one of them) that similar to a conspiracy theory in our modern times

 

[LightHorseman]

It is our human limitation to not fully comprehend God and His message that is written in the Bible. Not the fact that God did not speak to us clearly. Jesus did and others recorded his words. If you plan to go that way and "dispute" the word of God then you might as well dispute the truth that we recieved from God and specifically Christ. Despite our human limitations still God's message prevails or then Christ did not fulfill his mission that of "giving us the Kerygma" of God... the "Kingdom of God". It is either one or the other. To dispute the Bible as "biased" is to say that God's revelation to us was not "perfect" thus Christ has not yet fullfilled that mission. Are you claiming Christ was limited? Because if you do then you must also deny the whole incarnation of Christ as pointless...and futile since it did not accomplish anything due to man's inability to "comprehend" the Kerygma of God... For starters that is a basic gnostic notion (or one of them) that similar to a conspiracy theory in our modern times

Or, you know, you could read the Bible acknowledging that it is a collection of almost a hundred books by probably many more authors, some of which containing pre-textual traditions that were transmitted orally for several generations before being written down, as well as containing numerous works that may have suffered poor translation or transcription in the past, and whose ultimate inclusion or exclusion from the collection was based on the contemporary political motives of the various bishops at various councils in the first few centuries of the first Millenium, and use your brain to ascribe appropriate meaning accordingly.

 

[Philothei]

Or, you know, you could read the Bible acknowledging that it is a collection of almost a hundred books by probably many more authors, some of which containing pre-textual traditions that were transmitted orally for several generations before being written down, as well as containing numerous works that may have suffered poor translation or transcription in the past, and whose ultimate inclusion or exclusion from the collection was based on the contemporary political motives of the various bishops at various councils in the first few centuries of the first Millenium, and use your brain to ascribe appropriate meaning accordingly.

Okay I can see how human element could have falsify some instances that does not though is the standard. Esp. in the translation from Aramaic to Greek to English (esp. my personal exp. since I am a native Greek speaker) I have seen the mistranslation hapennig and in this topic i.e. the arsenokoite example is very vivid. Scholars trying desperately to "translate" the words to "manipulate the text" to mean something that we want it to say. The "manipulation" that you are taking about hardly took place in the first Millenium except if you are talkign about the Gospel of St. John and Revelation. Again after that first Millenium by the end of the 3rd century we had the collection of books that was called the Bible. In the words of the Apostles it is obvious that the Bible had it limitation and it is quoted as such "not all the books of the world could contain the works and word of Christ" (not excact verse ). If we though accept that the Bible is NOT a valid document God inspired with limitations then we are in danger to deny that Christ gave us a Kerygma that was undisputably His word and in extention of God... So we neither doubt nor we imply it is "complete" as God cannot be contained in a Book...
That is why the Christian "experience" is important that is the encounter with God in general because we interpret His word via that experience. And that is what is the conscience of the Christian faith through the centuries. Some beliefs are true trial and error. Many have fallen short on their faith to be proven later wrong... That does not mean that we "interpreting" should fall into each individual mind as you suggest because the collective mind was always the experience of the first Apostolic community. The Pentecost was an example of that collective conscience...

The idea of a synod deciding on the bible is the same vivid image of those who were called continuing the praxis of collectively "voting" with the Holy Spirit guiding them...

 

[Kharak]

Sidhe if you so wish to prove there is such a sex as "pansexual" I would agree with ya ...only in the case of "hermaphrodite" those who have both genitals..that of a man and a woman a rare genetic condition that is extremely rare....

Claiming that we are born both is as much of a myth as Ancient Greek mythology I am afraid...Science fortunately confirms naturally man is born either male or female despite the small minority that existed and recorded over time in human history...

The Intersex Society of North America would disagree with you. The term is not hermaphrodite, for the record, and "intersex" better reflects the condition normally thought of (sexual ambiguity).

Scientifically, humans are actually developed more along the lines of a female body plan: The introduction of certain hormones during the fetal stage determine whether or not a human will be fully female or fully male. If something goes wrong in this phase, you can end up with people who have androgen insensitivity syndrome or progestin-induced virilisation (the latter is actually caused use of a specific drug). The concept of fully male or fully female as taught in high school biology is actually a bit misleading, for our biology does not work that way (and regardless, the difference of two chromosomes is quite trivial). Though having both genitals is unusual, this does not lessen the many misconceptions about intersexuality.

 

[Philothei]

who? the Intersex Society? Hmm i would be more interested of the Scientific research and reputable scientists had to say esp. on a university level had to say, prior to the agenda ridden(both by the conservative and liberal sides) times....And how the pathology of the Homosexual "personality" is "normal" or malajusted.

Such as Dr. Goldberg states:

The liberal's favorite tactic, Goldberg explains, is to offer "muddled empirical explanations in an attempt to camouflage the subjective roots" of his argument. He says such false arguments "infuse social science today and are responsible for millions of people accepting explanations of the world that have no logical consistency." The liberal's greatest tendency seems to be his remarkable ability to confuse wish with reality, Goldberg tells us. "Indoctrination into a set of subjective beliefs is passed off in today's universities as 'education.'" As an example, he says, most sociology textbooks "have an ideological commitment to a denial of the possibility that masculine and feminine behaviors and emotions are rooted in male and female physiologies and that all societies conform their social systems to the limits and directions imposed by this reality."

Goldberg says that other studies have been able to discriminate homosexuals from heterosexuals on the basis of psychological distress.
Professor Goldberg moves on to another key gay argument. Gay spokesmen are torn between two positions--on the one hand they say (using the Hooker study as proof) that gays are normal because they exhibit no more pathology than straights. On the other hand, they agree that there is more pathology (such as suicide and depression) but claim it is due to society's oppression. Goldberg cites a study by Williams and Weinberg (l974) which reveals that the distress does not decrease as social tolerance is increased. This study compared gay-friendly societies (such as Denmark) with societies hostile to homosexuality (such as the U.S. in previous years). The study's findings of psychological distress among gays in all cultures suggest the pathology is linked to the homosexuality itself, rather than oppression by society.

And also I am glad he speaks "unbiased" and free from any agenda of the religious establishment :

Goldberg is quick to admit that there are limits to scientific investigation. Science, he says, is nothing more than the attempt to find general empirical relationships. Whether or not any behavior is moral is a completely different philosophical question from what is taken to be "normal" in the view of the psychological establishment.

Understanding How We Think about HomosexualityI am also glad to know that his scientific experience agrees with the Biblical view of God's creation of male and female...

 

[Philothei]

triple post?

 

[Philothei]

sorry double post

 

[LightHorseman]

The "manipulation" that you are taking about hardly took place in the first Millenium except if you are talkign about the Gospel of St. John and Revelation.

Really? So, why are the apocrypha apocryphal rather than cannon?

Again after that first Millenium by the end of the 3rd century we had the collection of books that was called the Bible.

I think you may be confusing millenium (a thousand years) with century ( 100 years) the first Millenium is 1AD to 1000 AD, the first century is 1AD to 100 AD. But your English is still a whole lot better than my Greek, so I totally understand how you might make such an easy mistake.

If we though accept that the Bible is NOT a valid document God inspired with limitations then we are in danger to deny that Christ gave us a Kerygma that was undisputably His word and in extention of God... So we neither doubt nor we imply it is "complete" as God cannot be contained in a Book...

I have never denied the Bible is a valid document, nor that it contains words inspired by God, OR, useful for teaching and correction. Every part of it is good for something.I just don't believe that this necesarily means every part of it is literally "the word of God". You have to use your God given logic and reason, as well as supporting sources and historical knowledge to determine which bits can be read amd followed exactly as written, and which other bits are allegorical, metaphorical, or the product of cross cultural transmission.

That is why the Christian "experience" is important that is the encounter with God in general because we interpret His word via that experience. And that is what is the conscience of the Christian faith through the centuries. Some beliefs are true trial and error. Many have fallen short on their faith to be proven later wrong... That does not mean that we "interpreting" should fall into each individual mind as you suggest because the collective mind was always the experience of the first Apostolic community. The Pentecost was an example of that collective conscience...

I don't for a minute suggest that everyone should individually interpret the Bible by themselves for themselves, it is fitting and proper, and indeed, utterly necesary to listen to those more learned in theology, history, Biblical languages and a host of other disciplines to get a valid appreciation of some of the subtler messages in the Bible.

What I sincerely do NOT believe, is that people get an accurate idea of the Bible's message by reading it in English and taking it at its first read word, with no attempt at further in depth analysis or contextual scrutiny. Thus we end up with Biblical literalists who try to argue that the Flood is real and women shouldn't be allowed to vote cos, "the Bible SEZ!"

 

[Kharak]

who? the Intersex Society? Hmm i would be more interested of the Scientific research and reputable scientists had to say esp. on a university level had to say, prior to the agenda ridden(both by the conservative and liberal sides) times....And how the pathology of the Homosexual "personality" is "normal" or malajusted.

Intersex, not homosexual. You tried arguing that there was no such thing as gender ambiguity, but I provided a length with resources that prove otherwise.

I am also glad to know that his scientific experience agrees with the Biblical view of God's creation of male and female...

That would be unscientific of him to argue in that manner. Science, well ALL SCIENCE is methodically naturalistic and makes no assumption of any supernatural forces. Regardless, humanity is not the only species to have homosexuals, and homosexuality did not have the stigma in ancient and foreign cultures that it has gained in Western civilization. Classical Greece, Macedonia, Rome, Japan and China all had homosexual cultures within them and often institutionalized in the case of Greece (which is expecially the case in the Greek military system of both the Classical and Hellenic era).

 

[Philothei]

yeah from a slanted source that pushes an agenda. Sorry i wil not waste my time reading this material if you do not mind. I presented you with material from a source that is not "biased" form either side. Like you admited that that is true science. Your point that chromosomes do not matter is not valid either or there should be scientific proof to claim that and there is none. You are claiming also "biases" from the ancient times toward homosexuals... I wonder how you come to that conclusion since pre-biblical times obviously did not have any influence on what was "morally ok" or not.. Also you never dealed with the points that Dr. Goldberg made about the Homosexual thesis.... I wonder why? How come pschycologists like himself do not find homosexual personality "normal"? And according to the ones who endorse such notion that homosexuals are indeed no less normal than others how come there is more deperssion? I know talking from both ends of one's mouth is difficult sometimes

 

[LightHorseman]

Intersex, not homosexual. You tried arguing that there was no such thing as gender ambiguity, but I provided a length with resources that prove otherwise.


That would be unscientific of him to argue in that manner. Science, well ALL SCIENCE is methodically naturalistic and makes no assumption of any supernatural forces. Regardless, humanity is not the only species to have homosexuals, and homosexuality did not have the stigma in ancient and foreign cultures that it has gained in Western civilization. Classical Greece, Macedonia, Rome, Japan and China all had homosexual cultures within them and often institutionalized in the case of Greece (which is expecially the case in the Greek military system of both the Classical and Hellenic era).

Don't forget pre-Columbian native Americans, both North and South.

 

[Philothei]

Really? So, why are the apocrypha apocryphal rather than cannon?I think you may be confusing millenium (a thousand years) with century ( 100 years) the first Millenium is 1AD to 1000 AD, the first century is 1AD to 100 AD. But your English is still a whole lot better than my Greek, so I totally understand how you might make such an easy mistake.I have never denied the Bible is a valid document, nor that it contains words inspired by God, OR, useful for teaching and correction. Every part of it is good for something.I just don't believe that this necesarily means every part of it is literally "the word of God".

Okie I admit it is late and got confused... No sweat here. Again I realize I understand what you are talkng about I just do agree that the literal interpretation of the bible can be misleading and in all honesty I am not the one to disagree with that. I do believe in theistic evolution and many in my own faith agree although we do not have anything "cut and dry" as yet. It takes centuries (better use that instead of millenia hehe) to get "theories" that has not be proven scientifically as dogma.

You have to use your God given logic and reason, as well as supporting sources and historical knowledge to determine which bits can be read amd followed exactly as written, and which other bits are allegorical, metaphorical, or the product of cross cultural transmission.I don't for a minute suggest that everyone should individually interpret the Bible by themselves for themselves, it is fitting and proper, and indeed, utterly necesary to listen to those more learned in theology, history, Biblical languages and a host of other disciplines to get a valid appreciation of some of the subtler messages in the Bible.

No doubt about using your logic it is given for that purpose for sure... I would agree in all about allegorical and metaphorical but not the bit about cross cultural since the gospel was supposed to be transmitted "interculturally" and still be "effective" that is to bring salvation. If it cannot transcend any given culture and "gets stuck" into translation then it must not be effective...Given there are glitzes still it does transmit and transcends. I am glad to see you agree into those "more knowledgable" in theology since there is certain wisdom to those men who labored more in the persuit of deeper theological and spiritual understanding.

What I sincerely do NOT believe, is that people get an accurate idea of the Bible's message by reading it in English and taking it at its first read word, with no attempt at further in depth analysis or contextual scrutiny. Thus we end up with Biblical literalists who try to argue that the Flood is real and women shouldn't be allowed to vote cos, "the Bible SEZ!

I agree here too and it does not serve right to do claim that we will "defend" the homosexual issue and be agaisnt it from a strickly "biblical" clause but that is not so. The text itself tends to speak on its own about the fundamental truth about man's destiny and salvation. Without even going to St. Paul's writting in the Genesis we see that there is a clear cut between what is male and female. As much as we might want to try to see the Genesis story in a non literal sense stll it holds truth about the deferentiantion of the sexes. Also like your mentioned wise men/ theologians of earlier times interpret it in such a way that it points to that differentiation, not for society's purpose but as God's given revelation to us. As a covenant to man and God's providence. I will stop here as I do not want to confuse things more...

 

[LightHorseman]

No doubt about using your logic it is given for that purpose for sure... I would agree in all about allegorical and metaphorical but not the bit about cross cultural since the gospel was supposed to be transmitted "interculturally" and still be "effective" that is to bring salvation. If it cannot transcend any given culture and "gets stuck" into translation then it must not be effective...Given there are glitzes still it does transmit and transcends. I am glad to see you agree into those "more knowledgable" in theology since there is certain wisdom to those men who labored more in the persuit of deeper theological and spiritual understanding.

For the cross cultural bits, I meant more the Old Testament, for example, the Flood story is lifted virtually intact from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

There ARE some elements of the Gospels that some scholars believe are the artifact of cross cultural drift, for example the virgin birth, but whether you believe it or not is up to you. At least such matters are aspects of faith, rather than "literal history" as some of the Flood believers would tell you.

I will stop here as I do not want to confuse things more...

OK. Nice talking to you

 

[Philothei]

Nice to talk to you all too Goodnight folks

 

[Kharak]

yeah from a slanted source that pushes an agenda. Sorry i wil not waste my time reading this material if you do not mind. I presented you with material from a source that is not "biased" form either side. Like you admited that that is true science.

There is not 'either' side in science, nor is there only one. Regardless, one should not have to hold your hand in describing general (and well established) medical facts.

Your point that chromosomes do not matter is not valid either or there should be scientific proof to claim that and there is none.

Chromosomes do not work that way!

If chromosomes worked the way you are proposing, then why do XY intersex people have female genitilia!? Why do XX intersex people have male genitilia!? Some intersex people may only have one x chromosome, and others have three! Regardless, did I not just claim that homosexuals and intersex people are different things?

You are claiming also "biases" from the ancient times toward homosexuals...

Well then aren't you biased for simply making a claim that it's bad *now*? Do you even know the legend of Zeus and Ganymede? Alexander the Great and his lovers? They put the stuff on pottery for Pete's sake! And now homosexuals are bad? They can fight, they can work, and they can pay taxes; but it's just too icky.

I wonder how you come to that conclusion since pre-biblical times obviously did not have any influence on what was "morally ok" or not..

Since when was the Bible that absolute source of morality for non-Christians? And since when were Christians able to agree on what morality is (let alone the color of the sky)? Wasn't there this whole thing about Protestants and Catholics trying to kill eachother in the seventeenth century? To put some context here, do remember that the Catholic Church tried to ban the celebration Christmas at times. Isn't that a bit odd?

Also you never dealed with the points that Dr. Goldberg made about the Homosexual thesis.... I wonder why? How come pschycologists like himself do not find homosexual personality "normal"? And according to the ones who endorse such notion that homosexuals are indeed no less normal than others how come there is more deperssion? I know talking from both ends of one's mouth is difficult sometimes

And one man, a psychologist no less, is the absolute authority for your claims? The American Psychiatric Association does not advertise his views as the norm, and it seems the likeminded "homosexuality as disease" minority is now a lunatic fringe group doomed to obscurity (if the Commissar doesn't get to them first, that is). Irrelevant though, as your conjecture that he is right because his views agree with the Bible is completely unscientific. Moreso because you are injecting morality into the scientific aspect, this is a blatant disregard for the foundation of any true scientific endeavor.

If you cannot seperate "morality" from the heartless mother that is "science", then you really can't make an argument for either. Defending everything ensures you safeguard nothing at all, and this is exactly why the Creation demographic of fundamentalism is repeatedly turned away from institutions that actually work (unless you think intersex people don't exist still). Furthermore, if a homosexual (like the Theban Sacred Band) is able to fight, then denying them access to a secular marriage is ridiculous. Who knows, maybe they might just help me in my destruction of this outlandish Victorian resurgance.

 

[sidhe]

Sidhe if you so wish to prove there is such a sex as "pansexual" I would agree with ya ...only in the case of "hermaphrodite" those who have both genitals..that of a man and a woman a rare genetic condition that is extremely rare....

Claiming that we are born both is as much of a myth as Ancient Greek mythology I am afraid...Science fortunately confirms naturally man is born either male or female despite the small minority that existed and recorded over time in human history...

Gender is between the ears, sex is between the legs. Unfortunately, the two terms are interchangeable in day-to-day conversation, which leads to a lot of confusion...by your standards, someone would have to prove that there was a gender called "homosexual" to demonstrate the existence of homosexuality, when in reality it only requires the existence of men or women.

Pansexuality acknowledges the potential for romantic/sexual attraction to genderqueer, transgender, third-gender, and two-spirit individuals, thus denying the gender dichotomy and acknowledging that one is attracted to an individual, not their physical bits.

 

[rosenherman]

What if I love my wife, but hate your god? Is that ok?

To quote my mother "To each his own, said the farmer, as he kissed the cow."

What if my wife and I marry and want to sleep with other people?

Then you shouldn't have gotten married. Marriage signifies you are bound to this woman and will keep only to her. If you want to carry out [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]tish behavior the marriage should be dissolved.

But as you haven't given any good reasons why we shouldn't...

Because the more people you have sex with the greater chance you will catch some disease; which are too numerous for me to list right here. Those diseases can cause sterility, and insanity among others; not the least of which is aids.

 

[Shane Roach]

There is not 'either' side in science, nor is there only one. Regardless, one should not have to hold your hand in describing general (and well established) medical facts.

Chromosomes do not work that way!

If chromosomes worked the way you are proposing, then why do XY intersex people have female genitilia!? Why do XX intersex people have male genitilia!? Some intersex people may only have one x chromosome, and others have three! Regardless, did I not just claim that homosexuals and intersex people are different things?


Well then aren't you biased for simply making a claim that it's bad *now*? Do you even know the legend of Zeus and Ganymede? Alexander the Great and his lovers? They put the stuff on pottery for Pete's sake! And now homosexuals are bad? They can fight, they can work, and they can pay taxes; but it's just too icky.


Since when was the Bible that absolute source of morality for non-Christians? And since when were Christians able to agree on what morality is (let alone the color of the sky)? Wasn't there this whole thing about Protestants and Catholics trying to kill eachother in the seventeenth century? To put some context here, do remember that the Catholic Church tried to ban the celebration Christmas at times. Isn't that a bit odd?


And one man, a psychologist no less, is the absolute authority for your claims? The American Psychiatric Association does not advertise his views as the norm, and it seems the likeminded "homosexuality as disease" minority is now a lunatic fringe group doomed to obscurity (if the Commissar doesn't get to them first, that is). Irrelevant though, as your conjecture that he is right because his views agree with the Bible is completely unscientific. Moreso because you are injecting morality into the scientific aspect, this is a blatant disregard for the foundation of any true scientific endeavor.

If you cannot seperate "morality" from the heartless mother that is "science", then you really can't make an argument for either. Defending everything ensures you safeguard nothing at all, and this is exactly why the Creation demographic of fundamentalism is repeatedly turned away from institutions that actually work (unless you think intersex people don't exist still). Furthermore, if a homosexual (like the Theban Sacred Band) is able to fight, then denying them access to a secular marriage is ridiculous. Who knows, maybe they might just help me in my destruction of this outlandish Victorian resurgance.

Someone should not have to hold your hand?

By and large, the relatively limited number of reasons for gender confused genitalia are documented and understood. They do not represent any natural flow between the genders. They represent identifiable disorders.

I am speaking specifically NOT about sexual orientation here. Let's be clear on that. I am talking about things such as --

• 5-alpha reductase deficiency
• androgen insensitivity syndrome
• aphallia
• clitoromegaly
• congenital adrenal hyperplasia
• gonadal dysgenesis (partial & complete)
• hypospadias
• Kallmann syndrome
• Klinefelter syndrome
• micropenis
• mosaicism involving sex chromosomes
• MRKH (Müllerian agenesis; vaginal agenesis; congenital absence of vagina)
• ovo-testes (formerly called "true hermaphroditism")
• partial androgen insensitivity syndrome
• progestin-induced virilisation
• Swyer syndrome
• Turner syndrome

See also

• 17-beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase deficiency
• cryptorchidism

(All from intersex in Wikipedia.)


Anything you are trying to say beyond that is lost in your attempts at accusing the poster of some personal malfeasance, but even what you have to say in the specifically medical portion of your post is simply wrong. A debate about how best do deal with these disorders is not synonymous with an assertion in the medical community that they are not abnormal, or that humans are like certain creatures in nature that function naturally as both male and female.

A lot of the stuff about being gender neutral is rather dishonest even in Wikipedia. They are keen to point out that the decisions on how to deal with these disorders sometimes are not to the patient's liking when they grow up, but they do not even attempt to compare the percentage of people who are glad they were given a chance to grow up with a clear gender delineation vs. those who resented the interference. They just presumptuously assert that there is something wrong with assuming people might want to be either male or female for emotional and social purposes. A child might just as easily grow up to resent that something wasn't done earlier to save them the hassle later in life.

It's a lot of politically correct activism that is likely going to hurt a lot of people before it's all over with.

 

[andross77]

That isn't what 2 Peter 1:20-21 says.

If the Bible were exactly dicatated by God, as you suggest, then whats with all the errors, contradictions and vagueries?

Not to mention the various printing nd translation errors

it does say that men only wrote what the Holy Spirit inspired them to write. i can't believe you are lying about something that is plain for all to see. I can't help you if you reject the Scriptures that i present to you.