An accidental homosexuality experiment?

[StSapphire]

Hahaha, not sure if I should take that as a compliment? I'm not a very good writer. Never been good at English.

I've never seen anything wrong with your writing. Reads better than a majority of other writing on the internet, cause you know where the shift button is and know either how to spell well or know how to use spell check, lol.

 

[Reba]

Hahaha, not sure if I should take that as a compliment? I'm not a very good writer. Never been good at English.

Your English is fine.

The story just followed the pattern of writing that's used in email legends. As a former journalist, I have feelers for writing styles, and that one sent up the red flags. Especially, the "a friend told me" parts.

There's nothing wrong with your writing.

 

[Daredevel7]

I've never seen anything wrong with your writing. Reads better than a majority of other writing on the internet, cause you know where the shift button is and know either how to spell well or know how to use spell check, lol.

Well, I meant the class English. Not English language itself. I write a lot of technical papers, so I keep up with my written English. However, when it comes to analyzing stories/poems or developing creative writing prose, it's just not my thing.

I'm a science kinda gal.

Edit: Actually, I AM good at coming up with stories, but not delivering them! But don't let that affect the integrity of the story in the OP!!!

 

[Reba]

Well, I meant the class English. Not English language itself. I write a lot of technical papers, so I keep up with my written English. However, when it comes to analyzing stories/poems or developing creative writing prose, it's just not my thing.

I'm a science kinda gal.

Your writing style is better to deal with than the artsy ones who want to be creative when the article doesn't call for creativity. It was a pain to edit for writers who wanted to be the next Charles Dickens but the article was supposed to be about an annual facility inspection. :roll:

 

[Daredevel7]

Your writing style is better to deal with than the artsy ones who want to be creative when the article doesn't call for creativity. It was a pain to edit for writers who wanted to be the next Charles Dickens but the article was supposed to be about an annual facility inspection. :roll:

I tend to agree with you. I prefer reading books that have a good and creative story written in a normal way rather than a ho hum story written in a creative way.

 

[Frisky Feline]

Due to recent threads, I wanted to share a true story about this gay guy I know.

I went high school with this guy, James*, who was a very flamboyant gay guy who was open about his sexuality. Heck, his self proclaimed nickname was Pinky. Shortly after graduation from high school, he got into a really bad car accident and went into a coma for several days. He woke up but had amnesia (temporary). He didn't even recognize his own mother. His mom, who had never accepted his homosexuality, took this opportunity to "fix" things. She managed to convince one of James' acquaintances to pretend to be his old girlfriend. So the girl did what she was told. Not even a day later (still in the hospital), James confessed to what he thought was his old girlfriend that he is pretty sure that he is gay. He said something to the lines of "I don't remember why I was hiding it from you and I'm really sorry but... I know I'm gay." Needless to say, later on (a few weeks later), when he finally slowly gained his memory back, he was really upset at his mother for doing this to him.

I thought this was actually somewhat of a really good experiment to see if homosexuality is something that is "learned" or "felt from within".

My question to you is: "Is this true story evidence that homosexuality is something that is inherent"?

I am not looking for reasons why homosexuality is right or wrong. There is no point in that. I just want to see if you think that this story is good evidence that homosexuality is not something that is learned and why (or why not)?

god, that is not right what mom did it to her own kid. His own self is the solid evidence.

 

[jillio]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say her church? I found out Baptists in New York don't even adhere to the same belief as the Baptists in North or South Carolina. So even within brethrens, there are differences of opinions. The problem with some posters here is they assume their particular church is the same belief as every other Christian's. So when one claim "my religion" it's not as all-encompassing as they're making it out to be.

I fought constantly with a Baptist who disagreed with my mother's teachings. She really did think all Christians follow the same doctrines. To be honest, sometimes, when Reba talks about Christianity, I have no idea where she's coming from because it's completely the opposite of how my family raised their children within their own brethren.

You are absolutely correct. That would have been much more accurate. I stand corrected.

 

[jillio]

Good question. It's one of the great mysteries to me. I've read some pretty good explainations in the fields of sociolgy and psychology. I suspect hate comes in different kinds and shapes in different cultures and religions.

It absolutely does, and the specific target can be generally traced back to religious and cultural teachings.

 

[deafskeptic]

That is strange indeed. The Baptist distinctive is that they don't accept infant baptism. Believers' baptism only is accepted.

He wasn't always a Baptist. He was a Presbyterian before he converted to the Southern Baptist religion.

 

[netrox]

I find it somewhat amusing that it sounds too much of an urban legend, as if it would never happen in real life. Another question for everyone: Do you honestly believe that this would never happen and why?

I believe it would happen. We have horror stories of gays who lost their partners and their homophobic relatives took everything they worked hard to build together. I've known parents who refuse to accept their children's sexuality. Hell, I know my friend who was taken to a shrink and to Christian camps to cure his homosexuality. And he's only 22 now!

As long as homosexuality is viewed as a sin or an illness, parents can do whatever to "cure" it.

The camp that 'cures' homosexuality -Times Online

Ex-gay movements, you know the usual B.S.

 

[flip]

It absolutely does, and the specific target can be generally traced back to religious and cultural teachings.

And those religious and cultural teachings can be traced back to real politics and secular problems. Textual criticism used on holy scriptures gives us some interesting answers.

 

[Reba]

He wasn't always a Baptist. He was a Presbyterian before he converted to the Southern Baptist religion.

I wonder why he converted if he didn't believe in their doctrines? I wouldn't convert to something that I didn't believe in.

 

[Reba]

In our church, the pastor never preaches to hate anyone. In fact, hating people, individuals or groups, is a sin.

 

[StSapphire]

The only reason to ask this question, is because the semitic religions have claimed modern homosexuality is against the will of God.

It absolutely does, and the specific target can be generally traced back to religious and cultural teachings.

And those religious and cultural teachings can be traced back to real politics and secular problems. Textual criticism used on holy scriptures gives us some interesting answers.

Um... So, which is it? You first argued with me that it had to come from religious teachings rather than non-religious preferences. Now you're arguing with jillio that religious teachings had to come from non-religious preferences (using that term as a wibbly-wobbly ball of stuff including historical politics and secular issues), which is almost verbatim what I was saying originally!

Once again, seculars are allowed to discuss how wrong those semitic people are, and semitic people aren't allowed to make a reply. Cowards, aren't we?

This also seems quite apt. Nobody's prevented you, Reba or any other religious person from replying for five pages, even when some of her responses were quite literally biblical. So, just for future reference, there's no need to go around preemptively name-calling your opponents.

Just thought I'd point that out, while I was already quoting another post of yours.

 

[Reba]

Hate is an innate emotion. No one needs to be taught how to hate. That's why it's such a difficult problem to deal with.

Environment and upbringing can influence who or what become targets of that innate hate.

Hate can be stimulated and encouraged by other negative emotions such as jealousy and fear.

In my opinion.

 

[StSapphire]

I wonder why he converted if he didn't believe in their doctrines? I wouldn't convert to something that I didn't believe in.

Independent churches are allowed to set their own doctrines, so he (presumably) had a different interpretation of that doctrine than your church. (Or, less generously, he saw more of a profit in preaching something else - many churches are not ideologically pure, especially when doctrine conflicts with sustenance.)

In our church, the pastor never preaches to hate anyone. In fact, hating people, individuals or groups, is a sin.

That's good.

 

[StSapphire]

Hate is an innate emotion. No one needs to be taught how to hate. That's why it's such a difficult problem to deal with.

Environment and upbringing can influence who or what become targets of that innate hate.

Hate can be stimulated and encouraged by other negative emotions such as jealousy and fear.

In my opinion.

Most of that sounds quite reasonable to me, except for "no one needs to be taught how to hate". People easily learn by observation of those around them. I would be surprised if someone who was raised in a family where there was no hate (and managed to avoid being exposed to enough of it to not pick it up via peers) later grew up to be a hateful person.

Of course, that's also just my opinion.

 

[flip]

Um... So, which is it? You first argued with me that it had to come from religious teachings rather than non-religious preferences. Now you're arguing with jillio that religious teachings had to come from non-religious preferences (using that term as a wibbly-wobbly ball of stuff including historical politics and secular issues), which is almost verbatim what I was saying originally!

This also seems quite apt. Nobody's prevented you, Reba or any other religious person from replying for five pages, even when some of her responses were quite literally biblical. So, just for future reference, there's no need to go around preemptively name-calling your opponents.

Just thought I'd point that out, while I was already quoting another post of yours.

What I am saying is that religious teachings are traceable, not that it's religious or not. If someone says that the ten commandments are similar to older laws found in other semitic cultures, there will allways be some people that jump up and say "I knew it! It's all fake! No God involved.". Sigh.

The arugment is still that the gay issue comes from a religious mindset that once ruled the western world, and is a part of our heritage. Wether this mindset is man made or from God, don't matter. The claim is that the AD ban of religious discussions are hard to handle because of this, and this creates threads that are religious in the nature, but at the same time, belivers are not allowed to tell their versions. That's all I'm saying, nothing more or less. I think the fact we are discussing something like this in the thread, and not which mindset is superior, is the reason Reba have been allowed to make "religious" replies, but not sure. There is a religious ban policy on AD, so you know.

You have been allowed to express that your worldview is superior, as it includes some math that you claim some religions don't. This is an example of how the religious ban on AD allows seculars to express how right they are and how wrong religious people are, while religious people aren't allowed to explain why their faith is the best one. This is close to ethical monoism, and as unappealing as ethical relativism.

I'm a agnostic atheist, btw.

 

[jillio]

Hate is an innate emotion. No one needs to be taught how to hate. That's why it's such a difficult problem to deal with.

Environment and upbringing can influence who or what become targets of that innate hate.

Hate can be stimulated and encouraged by other negative emotions such as jealousy and fear.

In my opinion.

Hate is not innate. It is a learned emotional response.

 

[Banjo]

Hate is an innate emotion. No one needs to be taught how to hate. That's why it's such a difficult problem to deal with.

I beg to differ, hatred is a learned emotional and behavioural trait.