Baptist Minister Says Jesus Was Neither Heterosexual Nor Homosexual

[Skwim]

He was in between.

"[Baptist minister and] sexologist William Stayton said "the same embryonic material develops in the womb into both male and female. Which depends on factors including whether the default progression toward an XX chromosome pair is switched off by the introduction of the Y chromosome from the male.

“There is no binary male and female,” . . . “We are all on a spectrum.”

“Even in this room, we’re all on a spectrum, and it’s important that we begin to see the matrix, the dimensions, the possibilities along that spectrum that we all are on, that it’s all normal.”

Regarding sexual orientation, Stayton introduced the Kinsey Scale, used in college textbooks ranging from zero for exclusively heterosexual to six for exclusively homosexual. Stayton said research indicates that 80 percent of people are somewhere in between.

‘Nature’s intention really is to produce a three,” he said. “The more repressive a society becomes, the more it reaches out to the bipolar opposites. The less repressive societies move into the two, three, four categories.”

Stayton then proposed a “solid biblical case” for proving that Jesus was “a solid three.”
source
​

Unfortunately, I can't locate any such proposed “solid biblical case,” but it's hardly an earth shaking announcement anyway---I don't believe any Christian cares if Jesus was partially homosexual---it's just kind of interesting.

.
.

 

[Sunstone]

Fascinating that in 2018 some people still believe in the Kinsey scale.

 

[sun rise]

Fascinating that in 2018 some people still believe in the Kinsey scale.

Compared to what 12 million believe in, that's nothing. Conspiracy craze: why 12 million Americans believe alien lizards rule us

 

[sun rise]

If god wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the
only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job.​

-Carl Sagan

This is yet another classic example of how neatly those who believe God communicates in "ancient writings" and those who don't believe it are a perfect pair of opposites.

Of course that ignores the possibility that God has a much better way of sending us a message.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

He was in between.

"[Baptist minister and] sexologist William Stayton said "the same embryonic material develops in the womb into both male and female. Which depends on factors including whether the default progression toward an XX chromosome pair is switched off by the introduction of the Y chromosome from the male.

“There is no binary male and female,” . . . “We are all on a spectrum.”

“Even in this room, we’re all on a spectrum, and it’s important that we begin to see the matrix, the dimensions, the possibilities along that spectrum that we all are on, that it’s all normal.”

Regarding sexual orientation, Stayton introduced the Kinsey Scale, used in college textbooks ranging from zero for exclusively heterosexual to six for exclusively homosexual. Stayton said research indicates that 80 percent of people are somewhere in between.

‘Nature’s intention really is to produce a three,” he said. “The more repressive a society becomes, the more it reaches out to the bipolar opposites. The less repressive societies move into the two, three, four categories.”

Stayton then proposed a “solid biblical case” for proving that Jesus was “a solid three.”
source
​

Unfortunately, I can't locate any such proposed a “solid biblical case,” but it's hardly an earth shaking announcement anyway---I don't believe any Christian cares if Jesus wasn't a full heterosexual---just kind of interesting.

.
.

I highly doubt 80% of people are not exclusively heterosexual. I don't think natural selection would favor a population with such a ratio.

 

[ecco]

I highly doubt 80% of people are not exclusively heterosexual. I don't think natural selection would favor a population with such a ratio.

I think on an island of all men, "exclusively heterosexual" men would find they are not exclusively heterosexual.

Don't think of it as homosexuality, think of it as any port in a storm.




ETA: Regarding your natural selection comment, one does not have to be exclusively heterosexual to procreate. If the legends are true, there was a lot of bisexuality going on in ancient Greece.

Furthermore, bonobo populations would have been long extinct if your theory was correct.

 

[Polymath257]

I highly doubt 80% of people are not exclusively heterosexual. I don't think natural selection would favor a population with such a ratio.

Well, there are species where most individuals are not *exclusively* heterosexual. All that is required for species survival is enough individuals that are not *exclusively homosexual*.

 

[Jainarayan]

I thought this was going to be about Jesus being lumbersexual. I mean, he was a carpenter after all.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Well, there are species where most individuals are not *exclusively* heterosexual. All that is required for species survival is enough individuals that are not *exclusively homosexual*.

True, but the more offspring a member of a species has, the more likely that member's genes are to be preserved. Since exclusively heterosexual animals will presumably produce more offspring than animals that are not exclusively heterosexual, it seems logical to me that exclusively heterosexual animals will tend to dominate the gene pool in most animals (in general).

 

[Polymath257]

True, but the more offspring a member of a species has, the more likely that member's genes are to be preserved. Since exclusively heterosexual animals will presumably produce more offspring than animals that are not exclusively heterosexual, it seems logical to me that exclusively heterosexual animals will tend to dominate the gene pool in most animals (in general).

Unfortunately, that isn't quite correct. There are a couple of strategies: one is to produce a lot of offspring and the other is to produce a few and really make sure they survive. In this way, non-reproducing individuals can still ensure survival of their genes by taking care of children of siblings. Another aspect is that social species tend to pass on genes better when there are strong bonds between the individuals. That allows for better care taking and better survival rates. Homosexuality can help promote such bonds.

By focusing on one strategy, you miss another strategy that is often better at preserving genes in the gene pool.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Unfortunately, that isn't quite correct. There are a couple of strategies: one is to produce a lot of offspring and the other is to produce a few and really make sure they survive. In this way, non-reproducing individuals can still ensure survival of their genes by taking care of children of siblings. Another aspect is that social species tend to pass on genes better when there are strong bonds between the individuals. That allows for better care taking and better survival rates. Homosexuality can help promote such bonds.

By focusing on one strategy, you miss another strategy that is often better at preserving genes in the gene pool.

Of course you're correct that it's not necessary to produce a lot of offspring in order for one's genes to survive. However, producing a maximal amount of offspring and making sure they survive leads to the greatest likelihood of having the greatest number of surviving offspring say "n" generations into the future. To optimize both of these areas to the fullest extent possible, the animal must be both exclusively heterosexual and make sure its offspring and relatives survive. At least, this is what makes sense to me.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course you're correct that it's not necessary to produce a lot of offspring in order for one's genes to survive. However, producing a maximal amount of offspring and making sure they survive leads to the greatest likelihood of having the greatest number of surviving offspring say "n" generations into the future. To optimize both of these areas to the fullest extent possible, the animal must be both exclusively heterosexual and make sure its offspring and relatives survive. At least, this is what makes sense to me.

The only problem is that actual observations contradict this viewpoint in most mammalian species. Producing too many children in a species that cares for its young tends to mean that each child has fewer resources and increases mortality. Because of this, it is better for overall survival to devote some resources that would go for reproduction to caring for the children produced. And that makes it possible for non-breeders to have a benefit for gene survival.

The point is that there are not infinite resources, so which resources go which way to optimize survival can depend highly on the species.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The only problem is that actual observations contradict this viewpoint in most mammalian species. Producing too many children in a species that cares for its young tends to mean that each child has fewer resources and increases mortality. Because of this, it is better for overall survival to devote some resources that would go for reproduction to caring for the children produced. And that makes it possible for non-breeders to have a benefit for gene survival.

The point is that there are not infinite resources, so which resources go which way to optimize survival can depend highly on the species.

Good points. I realize now that my thinking was somewhat incorrect.

 

[Prestor John]

He was in between.

"[Baptist minister and] sexologist William Stayton said "the same embryonic material develops in the womb into both male and female. Which depends on factors including whether the default progression toward an XX chromosome pair is switched off by the introduction of the Y chromosome from the male.

“There is no binary male and female,” . . . “We are all on a spectrum.”

“Even in this room, we’re all on a spectrum, and it’s important that we begin to see the matrix, the dimensions, the possibilities along that spectrum that we all are on, that it’s all normal.”

Regarding sexual orientation, Stayton introduced the Kinsey Scale, used in college textbooks ranging from zero for exclusively heterosexual to six for exclusively homosexual. Stayton said research indicates that 80 percent of people are somewhere in between.

‘Nature’s intention really is to produce a three,” he said. “The more repressive a society becomes, the more it reaches out to the bipolar opposites. The less repressive societies move into the two, three, four categories.”

Stayton then proposed a “solid biblical case” for proving that Jesus was “a solid three.”
source
​

Unfortunately, I can't locate any such proposed “solid biblical case,” but it's hardly an earth shaking announcement anyway---I don't believe any Christian cares if Jesus was partially homosexual---it's just kind of interesting.

.
.

According to my beliefs homosexuality is sinful, therefore, Jesus was in no way homosexual - since He was sinless.

If there is a spectrum of sin - He was not on it.

 

[ecco]

Did Jesus have a belly button?

Yes, because He was born of a human woman.
No, because, as God, He wouldn't have needed to feed during gestation.

 

[allright]

This clown is as close to being a Christian minister as Hitler was to being a Rabbi