I think it’s an error to think that any organism mates to have offspring (humans have figured out how that happens and occasionally do have that motivation); they mate to have orgasms or at least the pleasure of contact with another member of their species (sometimes only distantly related species). I don’t know what mechanisms trigger attraction, but youth, beauty, health, large breasts/big muscles are good examples, however, I seriously doubt that the young guy who gets turned on by seeing a girl’s boobs thinks, “I’d like to have sex with her because she is apparently good maternal material.” His attraction has to do with orgasms, not impregination.
I don’t know what equivalent characteristics are attractive to gays. I do know that many years ago I worked with a couple of gay guys, excellent chemists and good people. In an attempt to gain some understanding of their thinking, I quietly looked at every male I saw with the framework of having him as a sexual partner. No matter how hard I tried they were all extremely unattractive to me. I was sitting with a fair sized group of people doing this. Suddenly I had some slight sexual attraction to a male, but I was really upset with myself because it was a twelve year old boy. I thought, “Oh, my god, am I an unconscious pedophile?” Then I realized what was happening. The boy was quite androgenic - his appearance was closer to that of an older teen female than an adult male. I was unconsciously reacting to the feminine components. So, I gave up. I don’t know what turns males on by other males, but I’d guess they don’t really understand what turns on a heterosexual male when he looks at a beautiful woman.
I think it’s an error to think that any organism mates to have offspring (humans have figured out how that happens and occasionally do have that motivation); they mate to have orgasms or at least the pleasure of contact with another member of their species (sometimes only distantly related species). I don’t know what mechanisms trigger attraction, but youth, beauty, health, large breasts/big muscles are good examples, however, I seriously doubt that the young guy who gets turned on by seeing a girl’s boobs thinks, “I’d like to have sex with her because she is apparently good maternal material.” His attraction has to do with orgasms, not impregination.
The pleasure/orgasm is a tool to ensure the survival of the species. The fact is that organisms are programmed to seek things that cause pleasure and evolution has co-opted
the “orgasm” as a tool to ensure procreation. The boy and the boobs is making an unconscious evaluation of reproductive fitness that he has no idea about. Authentic displays
of fitness are widely varied across the animal kingdom and whatever causes the “attraction” is known to our genes.
Before anything could exist in the physical world, God had to make plans and create in the heavenly world. Before any plans were made, God had eternity to think about these plans. So just like a designer/builder who visualizes everything long before the building is complete, thoughts were required and then a plan has to be made. Once the plan is finished with all the details on it for the builders and sub-contractors then it can be built according to the plans.
God sees the eternal existence of his creation before he ever made plans. God is only thoughts and in those thoughts is where he made his plans. He needed light to create images out of his thoughts and that’s why he created light energy. This light energy, also known as the Word, was used to create everything according to his plans, or the will of God. Then it was used for the formation of atoms to build a physical world according the created images. It was also the power to put everything into action with all the various forces in play.
These images include inanimate creations and the living ones for God’s people, animals, plants, birds, fish, etc. All the information of our lives are in this image and this is how we’re going to live out our lives forever. When we’re conceived in the womb of our mother, we receive DNA from each parent’s seed, the sperm and the egg. Ever since man existed, we’ve had genetic sins in our DNA.
These genetic sins, or dysfunctional traits, gives power to make our flesh to do things that keep us from knowing who our created images are. We end up focusing on our flesh rather than who we are in God. Everyone was born with the sin of pride, which in a sinful world like we live in, it is a very necessary sin to have. This protects the individual with fear that helps him cope with life. Lust was needed for procreation to populate the world. Greed was necessary to keep lazy people working. Jealousy and envy were needed to help keep the population controlled by starting wars and killing people. Gluttony produced obesity, drugs and other addictions.
God created men, both male and female. However, the genetic sins in our DNA, wouldn’t allow man to be born with two bodies of the opposite sex, which will happen in paradise. We were born with one body having the genes of both male and female. When a child is born, he doesn’t realize he has these genetic dysfunctions in his flesh but as he grows older and takes in information with his senses, he starts to realize his fleshly needs and desires. Sometimes they become adults before they realize these things but normally, by the time they’re well into their teens, they have figured out what these desires are.
I was eleven years old when I first drank enough alcohol to get drunk and I knew at that moment, I liked it. It did something to me that was fantastic and by the age of 16, I was a full blown alcoholic. I never wanted to be an alcoholic but that’s what God planned for me to be. With this in mind about our bodies being both male and female, we can easily see bodies that appear male but with these genetic dysfunctions, they have sexual desires for other males or vice versa with females desiring other females.
There are many people who appear male and are very feminine but are sexually attracted to females. There are females who look masculine but are attracted to males. We have males and females who are sexually attracted to animals as well as being attracted to children. All these desires come from the genetic sin traits of our DNA that’s in each cell of our bodies. We can’t change anything about who we are and that’s why we were commanded not to bear false witness against our neighbors. In other words, don’t judge each other because we all have genetic sins in our flesh. We’re all doomed to death as the law states, the penalty of sin is death.
There are a few of us who died to our genetic sins while we we’re living in the flesh because God changed them to stop the power to deceive our thoughts. But this was only possible because of Jesus dying in the flesh for the forgiveness of sins. This required obedience to the spoken Word until God made us sinless. This was all according to God’s plans and no decisions on our part. We just obeyed his commands and ended up knowing who we are as the Word of God. All the prophets, Jesus and us saints die in the flesh, too. No flesh will ever leave this age into the next age to come. None of these genetic problems will exist in paradise so we’ll function perfectly for the rest of eternity according to the plans of God.
The pleasure/orgasm is a tool to ensure the survival of the species. The fact is that organisms are programmed to seek things that cause pleasure and evolution has co-opted
the “orgasm” as a tool to ensure procreation. The boy and the boobs is making an unconscious evaluation of reproductive fitness that he has no idea about. Authentic displays
of fitness are widely varied across the animal kingdom and whatever causes the “attraction” is known to our genes.
That’s my way of thinking as well. Does anyone think it’s odd that we males can get aroused just by looking a pictures of naked women? Speaking in evolutionary terms, the photographs are “co-opting” our natural attraction to attractive females, while not returning any reproductive advantage.
And in a roundabout sort of way, that reminds me of another argument I’ve heard against homosexuality. Namely that gays and lesbians shouldn’t legally be allowed to marry since marriage was “designed” to have children. That’s strange, because I know quite a few heterosexual couples who don’t have children. Or who had only one child and haven’t had anymore. By that logic, shouldn’t these hetero marriages be annulled?
Namely that gays and lesbians shouldn’t legally be allowed to marry since marriage was “designed” to have children.
I believe that anybody doing even the most basic research into the cultural history of marraige is going to be in for some very nasty surprises. A lot of marraiges in history, particularly within wealthy famlies and the nobility were marraiges of convenience which cemented political/family alliances and protected inheritance/property rights.
Does anybody seriously believe that, for example, King Solomon, had sex with all of the hundreds of wives and concubines in his harem?
He may have, but that wasn’t the primary reason for the union, just a fringe benefit.
Years ago my bf and I were discussing what causes different fetishes. He said, “Analysing fetishes is like dissecting a frog. No one cares you did it, and it kills the frog.” I feel that way on this subject, too.
Who cares why anyone is gay. We need to stop legitimizing the homophobes by trying to answer them.
I’m a long ways from being a troll. In fact, you people will end up being the trolls in here because of your uncontrollable anger.
I believe your rapid posting here is based on your own anger towards those who think differently than you. That’s understandable since you appear to have no actual reason to believe anything you’re posting here. All you have is blind obedience. Of course, you are free to believe anything you want, but it’s odd given your actual lack of justification to attempt to put that nonsense in front of an audience of people different from yourself. In fact, it’s pretty aggressive: we’re to take your word for it all, or it’s the highway.
Hmmm ...
God has me preaching the gospel about 12-14 hours a day so I can usually handle about ten threads at a time. Sometimes I need about three forums to keep busy because most of them are dying now.
Don’t worry about me because I’m the bold one who preaches the gospel to a world that hates God. Christians hate him with a passion because he interferes with all their gods they love so much. At least you guys are interacting with the gospel without too much anxiety. I joined one Christian forum today and put up a couple threads. I came back and they were deleted. Then I put up several more and when i came back, I was banned. I didn’t even get to have a conversation with anyone and that’s what it’s like preaching the gospel to Christians. I rarely get to stay in their forums for more than a day and I don’t get angry, swear, or anything to get banned for. It’s only because they hate the truth that confuses them.
You might wish to consider just why it is that even other xians find you annoying and pointless.
Who cares why anyone is gay. We need to stop legitimizing the homophobes by trying to answer them.
I grok, The problem is trying to convince these busybodies that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is just not any of their damned business! Idiots who think they’re doing the work of The Lordy and immune to reason in spectacular fashion.
Americans are just weird when it comes to sex. Allow blood & guts but censor boobs? When I worked in China, I saw guys holding hands and putting their arms around each other simply because they were friends. No effin’ big deal.
Well, who cares about 5,5-diphenylimidazolidine-2,4-dione? Not you, probably, and not me. But lots of people *are* interested in it, and as part of the physical world it’s still interesting just in itself.
I realize the quote above was a cri de cour, not an argument. But careful: ‘who cares’ is not a good answer to most any question. Lots of people *are* on about homosexuality and why people are gay, even if you or I may not. And as part of the world it’s interesting in itself. ‘Who cares’ might well have been Mother Darwin’s reply to her son rooting for earthworms, no? It turns out gazing at worms gave us great insight into the nature of our soil. ‘Who cares about the farmers, nothing I eat comes from a farm’, said the sullen step-son of a friend of mine back during the drought in the 80s. (God knows what the kid was thinking.)
Finally, some of your neighbors are interested in it: some because they are abhorred, some because they are homosexual and don’t want to be, others because they are simply interested in the phenomena itself. As your neighbors, and as someone purporting to be scientifically minded and therefore curious, you will often be the go-to person for those people. Priests are such people; if you’re claiming they’re no reliable source, naturally people will turn to *you*, since you must know something if you can judge one of their chief sources of information.
Of course, if someone is being obstreperous or you just can’t communicate with him, stop talking about the subject; but ‘who cares’ is an expression about ones own feelings, not about what we should or should not be interested in objectively.
I think it’s an error to think that any organism mates to have offspring . . .
A detail.
Does a frog snap at flies to eat, or in response to an automatic reflex upon seeing a black dot move across its visual field? I’d say the second is the means to the first. It’s not an error to think that frogs snap at flies in order to eat and maintain themselves, but they don’t *ruminate* on it. Is that all you meant?
Homosexual attraction is - in a statistical not moral sense - a deviation from the norm. There are many reasons why things deviate from the norm. I doubt that there is a single kind of cause of homosexual attraction, just as i doubt that there is one main way for a nuclear plant to fail or for aspen trees to grow significantly under or over average height.
I think it’s an error to think that any organism mates to have offspring . . .
A detail.
Does a frog snap at flies to eat, or in response to an automatic reflex upon seeing a black dot move across its visual field? I’d say the second is the means to the first. It’s not an error to think that frogs snap at flies in order to eat and maintain themselves, but they don’t *ruminate* on it. Is that all you meant?
Homosexual attraction is - in a statistical not moral sense - a deviation from the norm. There are many reasons why things deviate from the norm. I doubt that there is a single kind of cause of homosexual attraction, just as i doubt that there is one main way for a nuclear plant to fail or for aspen trees to grow significantly under or over average height.
I beg to differ in part. Just because statistically there are fewer gays than hetero’s, does not argue in favour of homosexuality being a “deviation from the norm”. Had homosexuality suddenly appeared in the last 100 or 1000 years, perhaps. However, it has been with us as long as we have been us. Homosexual intercourse is also found amongst many mammals and so is both natural, as it is found in nature and normal, as it has always been with us.
Homosexual attraction is - in a statistical not moral sense - a deviation from the norm. . . .
I beg to differ in part. Just because statistically there are fewer gays than hetero’s, does not argue in favour of homosexuality being a “deviation from the norm”. Had homosexuality suddenly appeared in the last 100 or 1000 years, perhaps. However, it has been with us as long as we have been us. Homosexual intercourse is also found amongst many mammals and so is both natural, as it is found in nature and normal, as it has always been with us.
Well, since it’s a small minority (2.5 % is the best estimate i’ve heard, from a mid-90’s study featured in uh, Time or Newsweek), it’s a deviation from the statistical norm by definition.
And it doesn’t matter that homosexual attraction has been around a long time. Undersized aspens have been growing for millions of years, but one-foot-tall adult aspens are still deviations from the norm for aspen-trees.
We can say all this without moving to talking about moral ‘deviation’: behavior that’s rare is not, just for that reason, behavior that’s immoral.
