Was a gay always gay from birth or environment play a part?

last SG · 2005-10-31T14:01:50+00:00

And here too http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=144859

shade343 SG

I fail to see why christians like to accept the bible as a whole....this is despite knowing very well that the original teachings of the bibles has been manipulated and changed throughout the century. Worst...they accept human views on certain subjects as "Word of God".

They have the freedom to believe what is truth and what is fiction from the bible. Yet they decide to believe fiction as truth. Oh well...I guess I should respect their free will after all... Laughing

[email protected] SG

disagree. the difference is that the early parts of the NT were written factually about Jesus's life as a newspaper report might report on an incident. Later parts written after Jesus's death are like a newspaper columnist expressing his views on some things. Simple fact is, it is the Church who lump all these writings together n label them "Bible" and "New Testament" So I don't see why I must accept them all word for word as facts.

Chin Eng SG

Three of the Gospels were written at between AD 50 and AD 60. Luke may have been written as late as AD 80.
The book of Romans was written in the early spring of AD 57.
Source: The NIV Study Bible

So chronologically speaking the gospels and the Romans were not far apart. In the first place, why believe the gospels anyway, seeing that the earliest one was a good 27 years from the resurrection of Christ? What determines this to be "factual"..... As far as I can see, where you are concern, it goes back to what you, as an individual, is willing to accept or not, isn't it.

WiNtEr'SkiLL SG

Mr. Green

Chin Eng SG

Yes, you are right! The same way I respect other religion's basis for their belief, and I do not question or comment on that at all. Respectfully, I ask you to do the same thing.

alfagal SG

there is no such thing as gay from birth as our sex is determined by XX(male) or XY(female) chomosomes (of cos there are other defects where pple r born w XXY and XYY combi).

gays: but some pple have higher mobidity (nature) rates than others. so yes true in e sense that it could b genetically inherited. however whether e person will become gay or not in later life, it will depend on his enviroment (or nurture).

genes are inherited from parents. they r e genotype (genes tat are expressed). they determine many stuff in u...eg colour of ur eyes...there is no such thing as weak genes..its either a on or off switch..e.g in tis case e gay might have an on switch, but e enviromental or nurturing factors did not trigger it off in the behavior (phenotype - how much potential from genotype) therefore, not a gay...

i dun think there is such a think called weak brain due to genes that causes it to shrink..brain shrinks due to diseases and aging...(so it could imply they are born w already a 'shrink' in tat area of the brain)

yes schizo patients are usually genetically inherited..yes environment plays a big part..many are triggered by stress factors..(they have higher mobidity ragtes to start w) yes they can b spared if they do not face e trigger factors..stress is not e only factor, it could b jus e defect of e brain w imbalance neurotransmitter..can b treated with medications

there is no right or wrong ans to cure gays or to find out exactly wat causes it..therefore its a trial n error thingy to diagnose and go for therapy. ultimately, if medication doesnt work (some pple jus dont react to medications) then psychotherapy would b needed. however, it would also need e willingess of tat person to be under therapy or not..no point in forcing a person..

whether they are to b blamed is very subjective. if u are totally against them then of cos u would have a prejudice n might even discriminate...if u are a medical profession, then u will have to b impartial..

frontal cortext was not activated might b due to other factors. defect in e brain is jus one possiblility. if so, its considered a medical condition. so who u do think is to blame? nothing to do w nerve cells...

there is something called adaptation...once a person is used to e level of stimuli, e person might think tat e stimuli is not there..eg. entering a room which is perfumed...after a while u will not b able to sense it anymore..

same goes for e reason y pple say watchin porn is unhealthy...porn is all made up and acted out..therefore it fulfills one's fantasies..those scenes that include SM are so fake tat e pple do not show pain at all..once a person who is addicted to this level of stimuli would b numbed to wats in reality..therefore, analogous to e murder, who has a high threshold of anger, does not feel a thing when he carries out e act..

but tat is jus all about biology at play..we live in a world where we need to socialize. if such a dangerous person is on e loose, e most rational thing is to keep them behind bars...justified or not, it has to go thru trials to see if e person is sane enough...if yes, then of cos guilty of killing, therefore hanged..if e person is found insane, then would b sent for treatment..simple...

[email protected] SG

more like, it goes to you, as an individual, is willing to believe what the church tells u or not. And why do u have to consider that bit about the earliest one being 37 years from his resurrection? His life, what he did and said, was just as important. The point is, those are written ABOUT him. Different from texts written to express the own ideas of the author.

[email protected] SG

2 things wrong with what u said.

1) Chromosomes determine PHYSICAL GENDER. NOT sexuality.

2) Nuture will not determine whether a person will become gay or not. However. it WILL determie whether he/she will be in denial or not, whether he will try to convince him/herself that he/she is not gay but straight. But that doesn't make him/her a real straight person. It only makes him/her a gay person in denial. Likely to develop homophobia as well because gays will reflect on something deep within his/herself that he/she doesn't want to face or accept and wants to repress.

alfagal SG

Originally posted by [email protected]:

2 things wrong with what u said.

1) Chromosomes determine PHYSICAL GENDER. [b]NOT sexuality.

2) Nuture will not determine whether a person will become gay or not. It will determie whether he/she will be in denial or not, whether he will try to convince him/herself that he/she is not gay but straight. But that doesn't make him/her a real straight person. It only makes him/her a gay person in denial. Likely to develop homophobia as well because gays will reflect on something deep within his/herself that he/she doesn't want to face or accept and wants to repress.

[/b]

1. yes, i ans to his qn u see...cos there is no gays at birth at all ma...so its e language use..anyway as a baby, how to think if u gay or not?

2. yes..tatz wat i m trying to say, cos genes are already fixed..therefore its only nurture that will b e factor..

if u wanna look into another way under psychoanlaytical view, it would be a fight against e id and superego (freud theory) therefore fighting to b in denial or not..

[email protected] SG

1) as a baby u won't know if u're straight either. but that doesn't mean that its not coded deep into your mind. Many of my gay friends have known from a young age (5 or 6) that they simply have no interest in the opposite sex.

2) what u said is someone will turn gay due to nuture. it is different from what i said. u dun 'turn gay' if in your mind, u're straight coded. u can try, u can be gay for a short while, but u'll end up frustrated and return to being straight. if u're gay coded on the other hand, your nuture will either decide if u understand that your gay thoughts are because u are gay by nature, and decide if u will accept that u are gay or not. nuture DOES NOT affect if someone will be gay, only affects if someone will REALISE and ACCEPT that they r gay.

alfagal SG

1. okie interesting for tat..cos nv read up in cases so young!

2.as stated: genes are inherited from parents. they r e genotype (genes tat are expressed). they determine many stuff in u...eg colour of ur eyes...there is no such thing as weak genes..its either a on or off switch..e.g in tis case e gay might have an on switch, but e enviromental or nurturing factors did not trigger it off in the behavior (phenotype - how much potential from genotype) therefore, not a gay...

therefore, if u have a on switch for gay in e genetics, plus positive factors in e env, or nurture, then e person might turn out to b gay lo..

for words in orange, it will be off switch in e genetics, but positive factors in e nurture doesnt makes e person gay...

[email protected] SG

2) genes do play a part in deciding a person's sexuality. There are several genes which are the 'sexuality factor' genes. For eg, a man has the genes A B C D, which in that combination makes him want to love a woman as a man himself. Thus he is straight. His wife has the genes E F G H, which makes her want to love a man as a woman herself. So she is straight. Their child receives the genes A B and E F from his father n mother. A B E F is a gay combination. So he is born gay.

Chin Eng SG

Precisely..... unless there is an autobiography by Jesus (which there isn't), all the gospels are merely biographies. On the assumption that all the writers are human, each gospel writer can freely inject his own ideas. My question to you is still: in spite of the fact that none of the gospels are autobiographies, what makes you believe in them rather than the epistles? Who is to say that Matt is not a bigot? What is the authority of Luke as his was believe to be some as a copying from the other gospels, especially when he was not even around at the time of Jesus' ministry.

It goes back to the BASIS of YOUR belief.... which as it stands at the moment, is a buffet spread - pick and choose.

You are different from those who do not believe in the Bible, at least such people has consistency and has a basis for that belief - that the entire Bible as well as the Christian message is false.... I have no problem with that....

You take excerpts from the Bible and considers some to be true, while the others do not agree with your lifestyle, you brand them as bigotted....

And by the way... have you found the explanation of Ecclesiastes... you do remember you promised me an explanation don't you?

alfagal SG

yes i dun deny tat part..and yes i see where u coming from..was stated right? 'gays: but some pple have higher mobidity (nature) rates than others. so yes true in e sense that it could b genetically inherited.'

i still say tat genes n nurture interact..and there is a chance, where genes are a on switch, and e negative fators prevent e person from being gay..like i stated: e.g in tis case e gay might have an on switch, but e enviromental or nurturing factors did not trigger it off in the behavior (phenotype - how much potential from genotype) therefore, not a gay...

laurence82 SG

we have quite a few duplicate threads on this ya noe

duplicate threads cause lag, and i hate to see sgforums apologise to me so many times....

[email protected] SG

i dun think its an "on" switch because deep down, a person who's in denial will know he is gay. he just won't believe it or face it or accept it. but that doesn't make him not a gay. u can't "be" someone u are not, so even if he is not living a gay lifestyle, doesn't mean he is "being" straight.

no matter what way he is living his life, he is gay.

[email protected] SG

Originally posted by Chin Eng:

Precisely..... unless there is an [b]autobiography by Jesus (which there isn't), all the gospels are merely biographies. On the assumption that all the writers are human, each gospel writer can freely inject his own ideas. My question to you is still: in spite of the fact that none of the gospels are autobiographies, what makes you believe in them rather than the epistles? Who is to say that Matt is not a bigot? What is the authority of Luke as his was believe to be some as a copying from the other gospels, especially when he was not even around at the time of Jesus' ministry. [/b]

The difference is, they are simply writing down what he did.

Eg. If Jesus ate an apple, they write he ate an apple.

If Jesus says "Good day to you"
they write Jesus said "good day to you"

They DON'T write 'I think Jesus said something that is sort of like "aloha to you man!" and I think that's rad'
thats the difference. Its as simple as that. If I can see it, why can't u?

« Previous Page