› ›

Sexual Identity

Comments

  • IoannesIoannes
    Wow. This is great evidence of science replacing God.This article seems as if these people are trying to justify gender reassignment surgeries for the homosexuals confused about their sexuality. It is disturbing. These doctors are playing God, or are attempting to anyways.
  • CopticdeaconCopticdeacon
    It was an accident....the article is about how the statement that infants are not born with their sexual identity is wrong. It has the story of this person. So when this person was an infant he had his penis accidentally cut off. So the doctor told them to grow up as he was a girl. So they basically converted to him to a girl. They dressed him with all those girly things, dresses, and what not. But he didn't like all of those things...then when he was 12 they gave him estrogen and he grew breasts. But he could grow hair, and he was destroyed by kids at school. He also said that when he did NOT know he was a man he said he was not attracted to boys. So than he finally got sick of it and his parents told him he was actually a man and he said he felt relieved. So basically people who support homosexuality are saying this person didn't even know he was a man and yet he completely hated being a man because his brain knew he was a man. So by that they say homosexuals are born gay.
  • IoannesIoannes
    This is a terrible argument to use to try and prove that homosexuals are born this way. God would not create people gay only to condemn them in His book, it doesnt make sense and neither does that particular argument. That is if I even understand it correctly.
  • jesusmystrengthjesusmystrength
    you know what really sucks is researchers say they supposedly found "evidence" that homosexuality may be genetic (PALEAAASE!) and that sexual identity is on a continuum (so like homosexual, things in between like bisexual etc, heterosexual). As Christians we need to try and not take things like that lightly, question things...both from a logical perspective and from our spiritual perspective

    So logically, if that above is true, then how come people (in the world, not us hopefully) are able to "experiment" with their sexual identity and pick and choose? It's a decision that people make, nurture (environment) NOT nature (genes). Just like no one is born falling in love either! It's something that just happens...not sure if that's a good analogy/example
  • gmankbadigmankbadi
    To begin with this, such an article should oppose no alarm to those adhering to the Christian life and world view. On the contrary, when assessed carefully the inferences made from the article are in direct correlation to the presence of the Christian God. After all, to suggest that one's identity is wholly innate from the moment of conception is to suggest an immutable identity of spirit embedded within the person of each man. Thus as God creates one male or female they are wholly and sophisticatedly male or female embedded with the breath of the Spirit. So, I don't see a real problem with this article's ramifications to begin with. If anything, it is the non-believer that should find concern in an article that suggests that apart from physical and neurological scaffolding an individual has a permanent undeniable uniqueness crafted into their identity. For unless a supreme Being to which all immutability can be founded upon exist, there is no basis for one to claim that even after surgical manipulation of sexual gender, his identity has utterly been established since birth.
         
    Secondly, it does not follow that if a person's sexual identity is etched into one's personhood from the moment of conception, that claims on homosexual orientation in gigantic foundation is made any stronger. For suppose one were to find reasons to believe that one' homosexual identity was genetically grafted; the claim in itself would hold no bearing upon his imago dei or "personal self". For within the theistic worldview man is crafted with a unique self that situates itself apart from physical genetics. Thus, even if one was to legitimately claim the physical components of a female identity, the spiritual identity would whole heartedly been unscathed. Thus, the boy in the article who genetically manipulates his physical identity so as to live the lifestyle of a girl, will still, when all physical remains dissipate hold the true identity that Christ has grafted within his spirit....that of a man.
           
    The question that logically arises is then whether or not men and women are identified as male and female on the basis of flesh alone or spirit as well. However, I believe it would be a grave misconception of Christian theology to explicate a worldview where's one's spiritual identity is undecidedly neutral. For I believe that with each person's spiritual self there arises a stark distinction between male and female identity. Aside form physical constraints, one's spiritual identity is uniquely man or women in the eyes of God. Thus, one may even go so far as to hypothesize that one all is said and done in this world's limited timeframe, the spirits of all men and women will be identified in their unique gender that God has consigned to each individual. For instance, as saint Paul speaks of the resurrection of the dead into glorified states or bodies, the assumption must be that the body of each individual will be uniquely crafted in the person's intended gender. Those who alter their physical identities in the realm of genetic manipulation will only have an effect of changing identity in finite physical realm. There is no reason to believe that one's spirit is neutral in relation to identity nor is there any reason to believe one's spirit is neutral to sexual gender.

    Would it hold true to claim that before the physical incarnation of the Logos, Christ was neutral in terms of Gender? Were one to claim that the Logos was initially genderless one would essentially deny the very authority of Christ's identity. For although the New Testament is explicitly silent of the concept such an identity before the incarnation, it is implicitly clear the very Logos who was incarnate knew of His pre-material self and the dreadful crucifixion He was to endure before all time began and as such, absorbed the role of gender such an event would be pre-consigned with even prior to the incarnation. Furthermore, as Christ ascends in HIs new glorified body up into the heavens one is forced to recant of a present physical neutrality for the begotten Son of God, the Logos as he presently stands. Therefore, while my theory is only hypothetical and holds no efficacious potency on foundational Christian doctrine, I find it difficult to believe that in any possible world the Logos would have incarnated as anything but the Man named Jesus Christ. Thus, the article bears no initial concern for those adhering to the Christian world-view.
  • IoannesIoannes
    [quote author=jesusmystrength link=topic=8452.msg107434#msg107434 date=1256873126]
    you know what really sucks is researchers say they supposedly found "evidence" that homosexuality may be genetic (PALEAAASE!) and that sexual identity is on a continuum (so like homosexual, things in between like bisexual etc, heterosexual). As Christians we need to try and not take things like that lightly, question things...both from a logical perspective and from our spiritual perspective

    So logically, if that above is true, then how come people (in the world, not us hopefully) are able to "experiment" with their sexual identity and pick and choose? It's a decision that people make, nurture (environment) NOT nature (genes). Just like no one is born falling in love either! It's something that just happens...not sure if that's a good analogy/example


    If homosexuality is indeed genetic, then they would be extinct because they cannot naturally re-produce. Since there were homosexuals ages ago who couldnt have artificially insemenated someone, wouldnt they be extinct?
  • jesusmystrengthjesusmystrength
    [quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8452.msg107467#msg107467 date=1257007353]
    If homosexuality is indeed genetic, then they would be extinct because they cannot naturally re-produce. Since there were homosexuals ages ago who couldnt have artificially insemenated someone, wouldnt they be extinct?


    Exactly!!! Good point...i think that relates to Darwin's theory of natural selection or survival of the fittest or whatever...being able to reproduce and keep the generations going leads to survival. It's so stupid because they say things thinking "oh it's scientific, it's all correct" but they don't realize they are contradicting themselves!
  • IoannesIoannes
    [quote author=jesusmystrength link=topic=8452.msg107469#msg107469 date=1257009497]
    [quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8452.msg107467#msg107467 date=1257007353]
    If homosexuality is indeed genetic, then they would be extinct because they cannot naturally re-produce. Since there were homosexuals ages ago who couldnt have artificially insemenated someone, wouldnt they be extinct?


    Exactly!!! Good point...i think that relates to Darwin's theory of natural selection or survival of the fittest or whatever...being able to reproduce and keep the generations going leads to survival. It's so stupid because they say things thinking "oh it's scientific, it's all correct" but they don't realize they are contradicting themselves!


    Absolutely, this is not only against Christianity and natural law, it goes against evolution. This would be a backward step as it does nothing to further the species. It is certainly not a beneficial mutation. Scientifically it cannot be accepted for that very reason, they would be contradicting their religion...wait theory of evolution. Good point my friend!
Sign In or Register to comment.