Was Jesus Christ a Queer (homosexual)?
- Thread starter Arabian Guy
- Start date
Okay AG would like to fashion himself as some sort of religous expert but he should not have started talking about genetics as that was my major in university and I have a few published papers to prove it and two degrees to prove it unlike his claims of being a lawyer(albeit as second or third authors).
Anyways, he tried to claim that a woman could produce a female on its own by merging two eggs. Perhaps on a cellular level this has occurred but it has never yielded a living child.
But to be more accurate its not the merging of two eggs but a failure in cells that produce eggs to divide properly. But generally speaking cells that don't split properly are not viable.
Once the cells have split to become eggs they would never merge again and there is no recorded evidence of this ever happening. But if it did this person would be female and have very similar traits to Mary so much so they might be twins..... but recombination might have something to say about that.
Now for Jesus to have male characteristics he would need a y chromosome since the male determining genes are located on the solely on the y chromosome. This is why children lacking a y chromosome will appear to be female.
I see where he's trying to go with this in suggesting how immaculate conception could have occurred and how he claims Jesus would have female characteristics. But he will need to use a different line of reasoning since what he is suggesting has never produced a live adult. If it did it would completely rewrite the vertebrate textbook which by the way usually doesn't include this type of info. Normally reproduction is found in intro to bio texts, genetics texts, or cellular bio texts. Vertebrate texts tend to discuss anatomy more than reproduction.
As for psychology and what it tells us about behaviour its a combination of nature and nuture. Homosexual behaviour has not been isolated as strictly a genetic condition nor a matter of upbringing. I think it would be foolish to suggest that behaviour is attributed to just one of those factors and most scientists will agree with that.
Anyways, he tried to claim that a woman could produce a female on its own by merging two eggs. Perhaps on a cellular level this has occurred but it has never yielded a living child.
But to be more accurate its not the merging of two eggs but a failure in cells that produce eggs to divide properly. But generally speaking cells that don't split properly are not viable.
Once the cells have split to become eggs they would never merge again and there is no recorded evidence of this ever happening. But if it did this person would be female and have very similar traits to Mary so much so they might be twins..... but recombination might have something to say about that.
Now for Jesus to have male characteristics he would need a y chromosome since the male determining genes are located on the solely on the y chromosome. This is why children lacking a y chromosome will appear to be female.
I see where he's trying to go with this in suggesting how immaculate conception could have occurred and how he claims Jesus would have female characteristics. But he will need to use a different line of reasoning since what he is suggesting has never produced a live adult. If it did it would completely rewrite the vertebrate textbook which by the way usually doesn't include this type of info. Normally reproduction is found in intro to bio texts, genetics texts, or cellular bio texts. Vertebrate texts tend to discuss anatomy more than reproduction.
As for psychology and what it tells us about behaviour its a combination of nature and nuture. Homosexual behaviour has not been isolated as strictly a genetic condition nor a matter of upbringing. I think it would be foolish to suggest that behaviour is attributed to just one of those factors and most scientists will agree with that.
F
feminista
It is more accurate to say that embryos lacking the leg of the 2nd X chromosome (making it a Y) would be male.
U R either (unless aberations occur) XX (female) or XY(male)
I agree that research suggests that the y chromosome had its roots as a X chromosome but that shift to the Y chromosome happened looooong ago well before the bible. So there is no need to use the nomenclature that you are suggesting since for all intents and purposes what you are referring to is the Y chromosome. Perhaps what I should have said is to appear male one requires the male determining genes that are found on the y chromosome but in rare cases can be found on the X chromosome.feminista said:
Strictly speaking to be male you need the male determining genes. 99% of the time its found on the Y chromosome. Only in rare cases would a male pass an X to their child that has the male determining genes on it.
I was referring to abberations like Turner's Syndrome (XO) or (XXX) forget what that one is called. Because AG was talking about a child resulting from a strictly female source (asexual reproduction) but this doesn't fit his theory of a child that has both male and female characteristics.
I was basing the assumption on Mary being (XX) since she could reproduce (since people with abberant genotypes are less likely and sometimes unable to reproduce). So AG's hypothesis seems implausible since for Jesus to have male characteristics he would need at the very least the male determining genes usually found on the y chromosome. If Mary was a carrier for this gene she would appeaer male herself despite having a XX genotype.
Let me put it another way.
AG suggested that Jesus came from Mary through asexual reproduction (immaculate conception) but that would result in Jesus being XX (most likely), XO or XXX or even XXXX (unlikely).
The problem with this theory is that none of these genotypes results in a child that has male characteristics....... unless one of the X's happens to have the male determining genes that are normally found on the Y chromosome.
But that is unlikely since Mary would have appeared male.
For interests sake it is possible to have
XY and appear female ----- androgen insensitivity
AG suggested that Jesus came from Mary through asexual reproduction (immaculate conception) but that would result in Jesus being XX (most likely), XO or XXX or even XXXX (unlikely).
The problem with this theory is that none of these genotypes results in a child that has male characteristics....... unless one of the X's happens to have the male determining genes that are normally found on the Y chromosome.
But that is unlikely since Mary would have appeared male.
For interests sake it is possible to have
XY and appear female ----- androgen insensitivity
Okay I need to make one correction.
XXY people have male genitalia and breasts.
Also I have excluded discussion on hermaphrodite. Origins of these include
a XX embryo and XY embryo merging to produce a mosiac (XX/XY) instead of fraternal twins. But this could only happen with Joseph's help. XX hermaphodites are also possible the cause of this is related to genes other than the ones associated with the Y chromosome.
So who knows perhaps there was no immaculate conception and Joseph and Mary had a hermaphrodite or a child with turner syndrome.
I admit the last four sentences I had to go to my human genetics textbook since the incidences of these are so rare its not the type of thing I have memorized.
So in conclusion while AG's science was off base yes its possible that Jesus could have been a person that displayed both male and female characteristics but its all based on his assumption that biblical references to breast means boobs and not chest, that the bible is a historical reference and that all of it is true.
XXY people have male genitalia and breasts.
Also I have excluded discussion on hermaphrodite. Origins of these include
a XX embryo and XY embryo merging to produce a mosiac (XX/XY) instead of fraternal twins. But this could only happen with Joseph's help. XX hermaphodites are also possible the cause of this is related to genes other than the ones associated with the Y chromosome.
So who knows perhaps there was no immaculate conception and Joseph and Mary had a hermaphrodite or a child with turner syndrome.
I admit the last four sentences I had to go to my human genetics textbook since the incidences of these are so rare its not the type of thing I have memorized.
So in conclusion while AG's science was off base yes its possible that Jesus could have been a person that displayed both male and female characteristics but its all based on his assumption that biblical references to breast means boobs and not chest, that the bible is a historical reference and that all of it is true.
F
feminista
maybe jesus was a hermaphrodite.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/SexChromosomes.html
.......................................
damn frankcastle U beat me by 3 seconds
Now i have to change my theory: jesus was part alien. Mary sexed alien(aka angel)gabriel when he asked if if she would carry godspawn (the name he picked for jesus)
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/SexChromosomes.html
.......................................
damn frankcastle U beat me by 3 seconds
Now i have to change my theory: jesus was part alien. Mary sexed alien(aka angel)gabriel when he asked if if she would carry godspawn (the name he picked for jesus)
Sorry. Now this is the most ridiculous thread. Next thing you know someone's going to say that Santa's Elves were dwarves and that he is an alien capable of faster than light travel.
