Evidence for God from Science

Starhunter wrote:While I don't disagree with your responses, they don't answer the question why someone would claim to like the same sex and yet imitate the opposite sex, which they supposedly shun.

Again, I'm just having trouble seeing why this is a question at all. There are heterosexual couples with the same dynamic. For me, I tend not to be terribly attracted to "girly-girls." I tend to like stronger women, both physically and emotionally. I think my wife is absolutely gorgeous when she puts on a dress and makeup, but I am in love with her in large part because she is very comfortable in jeans and a t-shirt without a speck of make up. I'm not saying she's "manly" by any stretch of the imagination. But she's definitely not the California valley girl or the Disney princess. And do you have any idea how many men love the idea of their girlfriends/wives being into sports? My wife hates them. We were watching a movie about baseball a few weeks back and she asked me what a strikezone is . . . it would be fun to watch a game with her the way I watch it with "one of the guys." That's not her thing, but I know women who love that stuff. Not as many, of course, but I know them.

And I'm just one part of the spectrum. There are guys who prefer their women even "less feminine" than I do, and there are guys--like my brother--who wants a princess. I don't see effeminate homosexual males or masculine lesbians all that differently. It might be an interesting question why they seem bent on what seems like a consious and intentional adoption of certain opposite-sex features. But why their partner would prefer that? I just don't think there's any deep or meaningful reason under it apart from shear preference. Some straight men like their women blond, some brunette. Some homosexual men like their men blond, some brunette. Some straight men like their women to be into sports and hunting, some like them to be into shopping and gossip. Some homosexual men like their men to be into sports and hunting, some like them to be into shopping and gossip.

I guess what I'm getting at is I don't see how the question you are asking is relevant to homosexual couples explicitly. You seem to be suggesting that a homosexual person attracted to a member of the same sex who acts like a member of the opposite sex is implicitly suggesting something about sexuality (their own, or human sexuality in general, perhaps trying to get at some divine plan for the sexes). But if so, I just don't see that as a valid suggestion. And look, I'm the last person in the world to buy into the whole feminist ideology that says there are no differences in men and women. There are. And generalizations are not bad. To the extent that they are usually true, they are helpful. But which of those differences are rooted in the biological sexual differences and which are rooted in culturla messages? And when you take all that and apply it at the individual level, a very different picture emerges still.

In short, I'm afraid you are asking the wrong question: ask why little boys tend to like playing with trucks and little girls tend to like dolls. Don't make a rule out of it, as there are straight boys who prefer dolls and straight girls who prefer trucks; there are homosexual boys who prefer trucks and homosexual girls who prefer dolls. But working on the generalities, why do sexes prefer one to the other? How much is cultural and how much is biological? Why does this individual not prefer the way his "class" prefers? Is there something principled beneath the difference or could it just be that this person likes this much as you prefer chocolate to vanilla--shear and meaningless preference? What does all that say about friendship--are we attracted to others in friendship due to similar interests, and how does our biology, cultural messaging, and personal preference affect all that?

Those strike me as the more interesting questions. They are more nuanced, and there is no simple answer for any of them. But I think that they are much more valid than asking why a gay man prefers an effeminate man and implying that preference speaks to the natural male/female partnership God intended.

But just my thoughts . . . I could, as always, be terribly wrong!

It's always had some logic to me. People who are attracted to men are usually feminine, so gay men are apparently often more feminine than the average man; people who are attracted to women are usually masculine so gay women are apparently often more masculine than the average woman. I haven't known many people I knew to be gay however, so I'm just going by stereotypes really. It's always seemed a possibility to me too that people could be born gay; individuals are sometimes born with things wrong with them and even with tendencies to do things that are wrong.

Nicki wrote:It's always had some logic to me. People who are attracted to men are usually feminine, so gay men are apparently often more feminine than the average man; people who are attracted to women are usually masculine so gay women are apparently often more masculine than the average woman. I haven't known many people I knew to be gay however, so I'm just going by stereotypes really. It's always seemed a possibility to me too that people could be born gay; individuals are sometimes born with things wrong with them and even with tendencies to do things that are wrong.

If this were the case though, wouldn`t you have two feminine men or two masculine women together? It doesn`t seem to work like that to me.
I think, and it is only my opinion, that it is about dominant/submissive roles. Generally, in any relationship (but it is sometimes more apparent in gay relationships) there is one partner who is more dominant and one who is more submissive. I think we are attracted to our oppisites and when we are with a similar type we clash.

What attracts us to who we are attracted to is a fascinating thing. I am most definitely not a girly-girl, I live in jeans and t shirts, hate dresses and heels, the only time I wore make up (and a dress, come to think of it, was when I got married) yet I wouldn`t say I was masculine in any way, shape or form. yet I enjoy camping, fishing and would take a beer over most alcohol. I muck in with the guys way better than I do girls but I am not attracted to women.
My husband wasn`t attracted to me for my femininity, it was the fact we were best friends, drinking buddies, camping buddies and we had each others backs.

Not sure any of that made sense!

Makes sense to me, but I'm sure you'll be shocked when I say it only goes to my point. Your husband apparently isn't the type who is overly attracted to the girly-girl types (or if he is, he just REALLY likes something about you!). I bet, though, you would object if I suggested that you were dominant and he was more submissive. In other words, I don't think you should equate masculinity with dominance and femininity with submission, as if dominant people are attracted to more feminine types and more submissive people are attracted to more masculine types.

I DO think that your dominant/submissive distinction is an important one. I think if you leave the gender identification out of it, it makes a lot of sense. I also think that masculinity tends to express itself in one way when thinking about competition (words like "aggressive" or "face to face") might come to mind, whereas femininity might tend to express itself another way in competition (so words like "crafty" or "political" might come to mind). If those stereotypes are rooted in reality, then perhaps the association of dominance with "aggressive competition" might be more obvious, but, again, when this gets down to the individual level, I just want to be very, very, very careful about how we apply it.

Does any of THAT make sense?

Ah, but here's the thing. His ex girlfriends have all been girly girls. Outsiders, generally, think that he is the dominant one in our relationship too.

When considering dominance and submissiveness I don't really think gender comes into it. You can have a dominant woman who is totally feminine or a man who is submissive but totally masculine. I find it curious that dominance is generally paired with masculinity and vice versa.

Nicki wrote:It's always had some logic to me. People who are attracted to men are usually feminine, so gay men are apparently often more feminine than the average man; people who are attracted to women are usually masculine so gay women are apparently often more masculine than the average woman. I haven't known many people I knew to be gay however, so I'm just going by stereotypes really. It's always seemed a possibility to me too that people could be born gay; individuals are sometimes born with things wrong with them and even with tendencies to do things that are wrong.

Well...I've known many lesbians and gays, and we still have a lesbian couple as friends, though they are more friends with my wife now. I also have a lesbian couple as tenants in one of my apartments. All this is to say that lesbian women are not all masculine. My tenants are both attractive young women, one of them is a hostess for a major airline. Our lesbian friends are both unattractive women and swear like dockworkers, but they have not always been so foul-mouthed..or so hard on the eyes. They've degenerated as they've aged...

Of the gay men I've known, none was a stereotypical raving homo. None really cared about fashion or interior decoration or plants... they were all just guys.

The image we have of LGBT people is skewed; most easy pass under the "gaydar", or gay radar. And as society becomes more and more perverse, I suspect more and more regular people will be tempted by unnatural attractions.

FL

It all goes back to the Natural Need for Attention we human beings all have and share. That need has been corrupted by humanities sin nature but it is still there. In someway, in some form, a natural need for attention is met in those who people are attracted too. A need is met on various levels. When you just look at the attraction aspect, you will miss seeing that whatever attracts fills a need. There is nothing wrong with this as that is how we were designed to be. However, human sin nature enters in and brings things into the need dynamic that twist and warps it. If you are looking at what attracts - also look a the need factor and what it feeds.

Point: in criminal justice field, you can have two people, who by themselves would never never kill anyone, yet, after the get to know each other, then killed for sport. Two people can feed off each other's needs for attention and murder can be the result. This is only one scenario example of how a need for attention is ruined by sin nature.

Does this make sense?
-
-
-

Jac3510 wrote: Again, I'm just having trouble seeing why this is a question at all. There are heterosexual couples with the same dynamic.
...
In short, I'm afraid you are asking the wrong question: ask why little boys tend to like playing with trucks and little girls tend to like dolls. Don't make a rule out of it, as there are straight boys who prefer dolls and straight girls who prefer trucks; there are homosexual boys who prefer trucks and homosexual girls who prefer dolls. But working on the generalities, why do sexes prefer one to the other? How much is cultural and how much is biological? Why does this individual not prefer the way his "class" prefers? Is there something principled beneath the difference or could it just be that this person likes this much as you prefer chocolate to vanilla--shear and meaningless preference? What does all that say about friendship--are we attracted to others in friendship due to similar interests, and how does our biology, cultural messaging, and personal preference affect all that?

Those strike me as the more interesting questions. They are more nuanced, and there is no simple answer for any of them. But I think that they are much more valid than asking why a gay man prefers an effeminate man and implying that preference speaks to the natural male/female partnership God intended.

But just my thoughts . . . I could, as always, be terribly wrong!

OK, you have just shown the full extent of preferences... we all have them, and we seem to know why in most cases.

But with gay societies it is common to show contradiction with those preferences. That's the point of the question.

The boy who likes dolls is not a contradiction, only if he fights to have trucks for his birthday, and then throws the trucks in the bin and plays with the dolls.

Men claiming to adore and love men, dressing up and or acting like women. Who do they love men or women?
Contradicting actions, living a lie.
Women claiming to love and adore women, acting and dressing like men. Sometimes one of the partners, sometimes both?
A contradiction of preferences.

It's like you telling me that you would die for a sleek sports car, make a special garage for it and then go out and buy a tractor with the same price?
People are lying to themselves. What are the main causes behind this self sabotaging life?

The sinners plight before conversion is to do the things they don't want to do. Romans 7. Are people doing what they don't want to - contradicting themselves?

Nicki wrote:It's always had some logic to me. People who are attracted to men are usually feminine, so gay men are apparently often more feminine than the average man; people who are attracted to women are usually masculine so gay women are apparently often more masculine than the average woman. I haven't known many people I knew to be gay however, so I'm just going by stereotypes really. It's always seemed a possibility to me too that people could be born gay; individuals are sometimes born with things wrong with them and even with tendencies to do things that are wrong.

Now there is an interesting cause behind preferences. In some cases people cannot help their drive, it's the way that they have been born. Nature has not made it easy for them at all.

Then there are those whose preferences have been shaped since birth - not necessarily having physical and mental tendencies, but from those social influences, in the home, school etc.

But what about shaped preferences, what are some of the causes behind that?

Some who have learned homosexuality, say that they were born that way. We don't want to argue with that, but show what some of the things shape a person's thinking to become gay - besides the generally accepted trends in society which influence many.

Somehow male and female role models today are not what God intended, so we cannot apply this study to the gay community alone by any means.
For example, there are qualities often displayed in gay communities, which show a distinct lack in the hetero society in certain areas of relating, deficiencies in hetero relationships which are in themselves the cause of gay preferences in the off spring.

B. W. wrote:It all goes back to the Natural Need for Attention we human beings all have and share. That need has been corrupted by humanities sin nature but it is still there. In someway, in some form, a natural need for attention is met in those who people are attracted too. A need is met on various levels. When you just look at the attraction aspect, you will miss seeing that whatever attracts fills a need. There is nothing wrong with this as that is how we were designed to be. However, human sin nature enters in and brings things into the need dynamic that twist and warps it. If you are looking at what attracts - also look a the need factor and what it feeds.

Point: in criminal justice field, you can have two people, who by themselves would never never kill anyone, yet, after the get to know each other, then killed for sport. Two people can feed off each other's needs for attention and murder can be the result. This is only one scenario example of how a need for attention is ruined by sin nature.

Does this make sense?
-

Yes, the means of influence is stronger with people who are codependent and unprincipled. Who make their own pleasure the only criterion for action. This is what Paul basically said in Romans 1. Hence we have men even pairing off with cars, dolls and trees - can you believe it.

There is a difference between "need" and "greed" besides the spelling.

So far we have discussed the fact that people are different with varied preferences in all aspects of life, but that there are trends in society which influence people, encouraging self will and self indulgence, which are the curse in any relationship, and we have touched on the dynamics of relationships so far as the leading role is concerned, and that this balance can vary and even change with time in any relationship.

As Christians we have been given an example of Christ as the husband to the church as the way to relate as God intended.

We say, for instance that males typically dominate because they are perhaps physically stronger, if not stereotyped by society to dominate - as in nearly every culture on earth - in history as well.

The example of Christ is that the husband should be the first to submit himself to her in the relationship. How does this differ from the role that the world has presented through out time?

Why would that work, and does it contradict masculinity?

Starhunter wrote:

Jac3510 wrote: Again, I'm just having trouble seeing why this is a question at all. There are heterosexual couples with the same dynamic.
...
In short, I'm afraid you are asking the wrong question: ask why little boys tend to like playing with trucks and little girls tend to like dolls. Don't make a rule out of it, as there are straight boys who prefer dolls and straight girls who prefer trucks; there are homosexual boys who prefer trucks and homosexual girls who prefer dolls. But working on the generalities, why do sexes prefer one to the other? How much is cultural and how much is biological? Why does this individual not prefer the way his "class" prefers? Is there something principled beneath the difference or could it just be that this person likes this much as you prefer chocolate to vanilla--shear and meaningless preference? What does all that say about friendship--are we attracted to others in friendship due to similar interests, and how does our biology, cultural messaging, and personal preference affect all that?

Those strike me as the more interesting questions. They are more nuanced, and there is no simple answer for any of them. But I think that they are much more valid than asking why a gay man prefers an effeminate man and implying that preference speaks to the natural male/female partnership God intended.

But just my thoughts . . . I could, as always, be terribly wrong!

OK, you have just shown the full extent of preferences... we all have them, and we seem to know why in most cases.

But with gay societies it is common to show contradiction with those preferences. That's the point of the question.

The boy who likes dolls is not a contradiction, only if he fights to have trucks for his birthday, and then throws the trucks in the bin and plays with the dolls.

Men claiming to adore and love men, dressing up and or acting like women. Who do they love men or women?
Contradicting actions, living a lie.
Women claiming to love and adore women, acting and dressing like men. Sometimes one of the partners, sometimes both?
A contradiction of preferences.

It's like you telling me that you would die for a sleek sports car, make a special garage for it and then go out and buy a tractor with the same price?
People are lying to themselves. What are the main causes behind this self sabotaging life?

The sinners plight before conversion is to do the things they don't want to do. Romans 7. Are people doing what they don't want to - contradicting themselves?

But straight men (who act like men) don't love men, and straight women don't love women. It's one thing to be (or be like) a certain gender yourself and another to be attracted to a certain gender. Usually the two are opposite - men are attracted to women and vice versa. So it makes some sense to me that a man attracted to other men would be more feminine than usual. As I said though, I'm not that familiar with actual gays so I can't really comment on their actual relationships.

Nicki wrote: But straight men (who act like men) don't love men, and straight women don't love women. It's one thing to be (or be like) a certain gender yourself and another to be attracted to a certain gender. Usually the two are opposite - men are attracted to women and vice versa. So it makes some sense to me that a man attracted to other men would be more feminine than usual. As I said though, I'm not that familiar with actual gays so I can't really comment on their actual relationships.

As someone has already posted, the male and female complement each other, they are not the same in mind or body to some degree, but they are equal - or at least should be.

So what you are saying makes sense, because for a relationship to be equal and complementary, you need those male/female qualities. And if you don't have the right gender, then you can try your best if inclined to.

When it comes to leadership in the relationship, in general - because people can take exchange rule for the different responsibilities of living together, is the dominant role male in type and the submissive role female in type, even though the genders may not coincide with those roles?

Is this how we define leadership and dominance - by the male role?

Any question on life has been answered in the book of Genesis, so here we have the admonition that a man should leave his father and mother and be joined unto his wife, and they will be one.

We are born with the hope of oneness or belonging, whether that is fulfilled or not is another story, but we long for it and need it, and in a lot of cases are damaged so that we cannot find it. That is the condition that Satan would have the world - unable to find belonging on the level that God intended.

The Christian life is supposed to offer this belonging to all, by belonging to the family of God. The reality of that belonging is yet to be fulfilled, in the same way that the disciples never really had that experience until after Christ left for heaven.

As children we try to make our parents fulfill that need, and if not our siblings, and if not the nearest and dearest person.

The parent figures of male and female offer one part each of the total picture of belonging, and depending on what parent is there for the child will determine to a large degree how they shape their ideas of how to belong.

But the crucial moment of gender orientation and sexual preferences usually happens in the process of transition from living by a parent as a child and becoming an adult - early teens with the onset of puberty.

At this stage the child can go either and any way.

The main cause of gender role mix ups comes from not separating from the parents at all, or not totally, or in the improper manner. The Bible make it clear that there should be a separation, before a man can be independent enough to become a husband.

In the world independence is typically replaced by co-dependence.

Taking on both gender roles or another gender role is part of the need to belong, without having learned independence.
We cannot single out any particular gender type relationship because we have fully grown men using their wives like mom.
And we have fully grown males trying to be mom, and fully grown females trying be a responsible dad or husband.

So rather than looking at gay people and hetero sex fiends as the worst sinners, maybe we should understand that they are simply trying to be responsible in the place of the missing or inappropriate parent, or husband or wife, to create an identity of belonging. Knowing that Satan has made it nigh impossible for poor human beings to fulfill that need.

How does separation prepare someone for a relationship, and what does that separation involve?