Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was referring exclusively to bisexuals and bisexuality. We don't have to compare bisexuals to murderers or thieves, we can compare them to alcoholics or drug addicts if you prefer.
I said bisexuality was a choice.
This also confirms it:
Sorry, no link, but it's on PsychLit: Diamond, Lisa M., Female Bisexuality From Adolescence to Adulthood: Results From a 10-Year Longitudinal Study, Developmental Psychology 2008, Vol. 44, No. 1, 5–14.
Granted, the studies on bisexuality are limited, but even as Kinsey reported in both studies, the incidence is rare and suggests that bisexuality is psychological, and not biological or physiological.
In the study by Blumstein and Schwartz, bisexuals claimed to be attracted to an individual's persona and that gender was of no consequence. That's psychological. In the same study, females reported that their relationships with men and women fulfilled different needs. Again, physiological not biological or physiological.
Getting it right...
Mircea
There is a difference in women's sexuality and men's sexuality though more studies are needed to show this. Studying bisexuality in women does not mean the the conclusion applies to men.
I will note that women can come to homosexual preferences (they may have been bisexual to begin with) through choice. Sometimes abusive relationships with men drive women to lesbianism. Sometimes political stances due. That does NOT appear to be the case for men.
and again
Lesbian.org « Resources for Lesbian and Bisexual Women (http://www.lesbian.org/amy/essays/*****-choice.html - broken link)
Quote:
A final critique offered by what I have been calling a radical theory of ***** identity is that neither choice nor biology provides an adequate explanation for those people whose sexual identities shift throughout their lifetimes, so that taken on the whole they could be said to be multi-sexual. Clearly choice may play a role in such behavior, but in the face of tremendous social pressure to be exclusively heterosexual, it would also seem that biology is partly responsible for providing such people with the necessary motivation to seek out same-sex relationships. This also seems to be true for those myriads of people who identified or were identified by others as homosexual long before the gay rights movements of the past few decades, when simply choosing to be gay could often be suicidal. For the most part, then, we can conclude that both biology and personal choice are potent forces in the process of developing one's sexual identity, and it is the task of this newly developing radical theory to not only promote an understanding of the complex and interrelated nature of sexuality, but also to point to the political and personal advantages of advocating sexual liberty for all, so that no one continues to suffer at the hands of the restrictive ideology of the Religious Right. Only when the gay subculture and then the culture at large realizes that such a theory would benefit all of society, however, will it ever gain the power and popularity needed to achieve its go
That being said, I am pretty sure there have got to be at least some atheist homophobes out there. But, I don't know a LOT of atheists. I can think of two people in my life who I know are atheist. So, I can't exactly have an accurate idea of how much more openminded atheist are on this subject.
Can you tell me if I'm right or wrong on this?
Here's a little tip for you, and anyone else who is wondering about atheists.
If your question starts with "Do all atheists . . ." or "Are there any atheists who . . ." you can pretty much assume that whatever answer indicates that some atheists do or think one thing, while other atheists do or think another thing is probably the right answer.
Similarly, it's a good bet that whatever answer indicates that all atheists think the same way, no matter what the subject, is probably wrong.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,037,872 times
Reputation: 11862
Like I've said, there are hard-wired lesbians and then there are lesbians for other reasons. I can't say what the percentages are, but yeah for various reasons women can CHOOSE while few men seem to do. The thing is, once someone identifies as such it's not always easy to tell, and besides you can't tell them what they are and what they're not, so it just muddies up the debate.
I do think many 'straight' men and women are certainly capable of the odd gay encounter without it saying much about their orientation. Supposedly all bonobos are bisexual.
I think there is a continuum ranging from hardcore hetero to hardcore homosexuality, and everyone falls somewhere along it, at least regarding his attitude.
In the US the religiously unaffiliated tend to be the most accepting of homosexuality, but it's not universal among them. A small 15% agree that homosexuality should be discouraged.
That tells us of the unaffiliated not of atheists as such. I'm just not sure many polls break down to ask non-theists in specific, at least not in the US, as self-declared non-theists are a rather small percent of the population.
I would think much of Eastern Europe (exempting Croatia, Poland, Romania, and a couple others), and China, might be places where you see highly atheistic societies with a fair amount of anti-gay. So at least some of it presumably comes from atheists. Historically atheists who objected to homosexuality had reasons related to things like psychology, gender-views, or nationalism. Until the 1970s, or late 1950s at earliest, psychology tended to view homosexuality as a psycho-sexual disorder. In terms of gender-views the men of many cultures, regardless of religion, found homosexual males to be going too far from the norms of masculinity. Even ancient Romans, who didn't mind homosexuality as such, deemed a man being penetrated as slightly emasculating. Also homosexuality being non-procreative made it a negative for secular-nationalists who wanted to "breed an army" or people who emphasized producing heirs.
In Eastern Europe we have nations with some history of ultra-nationalism who are going through a period of population decline. The fertility rates of much of Eastern Europe are well-below replacement. So "pro-natalist" forces I could see inspiring a hostility to homosexuality in some cases.
On the other thing I think making it a dichotomy of "choice or chance" is erroneous. A person does not choose to have English as their first-language, as opposed to some other language, but this does not mean they were born to speak English. Homosexuality or bisexuality could be something that can't be changed, but still not be something one is born to. This is a controversial example but personality-disorders, like borderline personality, are incurable so far as I know. I don't know that this is proof they are genetic. Going on my own history of same-sex attractions I think it's likely a mix of genetics and early environmental factors.
If those factors had not existed, if I'd been in a community where being disabled or scrupulous or enjoying fiction did not make one "less of a man" I think it's possible my same-sex attractions would have not occurred or been much more minimal than they are now. This is a controversial notion, I know, but I feel it fits my situation. However this theory doesn't mean I think I can eliminate my attractions. My sexual development, or whatever you wish to call it, occurred as it did. And in honesty I always displayed some "gender non-conforming" behavior so maybe in any culture some of that would have lead my mind to wander. Whichever my brain or whatever has likely been set at this point. If you reran my life maybe I'd be "straighter" or "gayer" but at this point I don't know that such musings are worthwhile.
Last edited by Thomas R.; 01-22-2012 at 03:18 AM..
Here's a little tip for you, and anyone else who is wondering about atheists.
If your question starts with "Do all atheists . . ." or "Are there any atheists who . . ." you can pretty much assume that whatever answer indicates that some atheists do or think one thing, while other atheists do or think another thing is probably the right answer.
Similarly, it's a good bet that whatever answer indicates that all atheists think the same way, no matter what the subject, is probably wrong.
I understand what your saying, and to some extent I agree. But, I couldn't think of a better way to ask the question that I have. Maybe I didn't do such a great job of it, but fortunately I did get some of the answers and follow up discussion that I was hoping form.
Many theists (at least those who claim the bible as the world of god) are stuck in a quandary. It appears on the surface that their bible tells them that homosexuality is a great abomination to god citing passages in Leviticus and Romans as well as the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. They also believe that god is the creator of all life and it is unthinkable that god would create a human predisposed with a characteristic he supposedly loathes. After all, how would that make god look? THAT is the crux of the objection but it is never said and it blocks ALL ability to reason on the matter.
The atheist is NOT confined to this rigid, narrow line of reasoning. He/she can check scientific discoveries and conclusions on human behavior, genetics and so on. He/she can despise gays if he/she wants to out of sheer dislike for their way of life and can just as easily see that his displeasure comes from nothing more than something that emanates from his/her own prejudice. No holy book to hide it behind.
Here's a little tip for you, and anyone else who is wondering about atheists.
If your question starts with "Do all atheists . . ." or "Are there any atheists who . . ." you can pretty much assume that whatever answer indicates that some atheists do or think one thing, while other atheists do or think another thing is probably the right answer.
Similarly, it's a good bet that whatever answer indicates that all atheists think the same way, no matter what the subject, is probably wrong.
Your "tip" makes absolutely no sense.
I re-read the original post and it made perfect sense. The writer stated an opinion and asked if she was right or wrong. It was that simple.
Firstly yes I have. You do not know me so do not pretend to know things about me you do not.
Secondly not finding something is not synonymous with not having looked. Even when you look for something that actually is there you can still not find it.
Thirdly your throw away comment is meaningless. If you are aware of such arguments then simply present them. Indicating you think they are there but running away without presenting a single one of them is to literally say nothing at all.
I re-read the original post and it made perfect sense. The writer stated an opinion and asked if she was right or wrong. It was that simple.
While I took the point of the 'tip' that many 'Do atheists..?' threads are trying to find some lever to discredit atheism, not to use the 'T' word, looking4answers wasn't quite in that league and I am prepared to give the benefit of doubt that OP is genuinely curious. It is a question whether atheists are all stoutly pro - gay as required by the Rules of Dogma in the Unholy Book of Athe or whether some are just turned off by homosexuality.
The fact is that a lot of things disinterest me me or fail to engage my interest or even approval, but, like many atheists, I would never actively oppose those who were inclined towards it unless I was convinced that there were real social dangers.
Now theists may argue social dangers and even personal disinclination, but the social danger arguments are so flimsy and biased that the supposition that this is the old problem of a Faith - based conclusion trying to furrick up some handy supportive evidence is a pretty fair bet.
Religious Faith and indeed personal disinclination is no sound reason to demand legislation against gay marriage, far less gay activity. Atheists, being free from Religious bias and able to be more tolerant, seem generally to be willing to exercise that tolerance. The religious do not and that is why atheism is actually morally superior to theism.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-23-2012 at 07:12 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
