A comment on Pakistani people in another thread


Oh and everyone knows Pakistani people are The People of Lot.

reminded me of this video on atheist homophobes I saw recently


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anvlms-Z_u0

What is the reason for homophobia in atheists?

What is the reason for homophobia in atheists?

There could be many.

Some ideas:

Atheism is stressful; prolonged stress can manifest in paranoia; fear (and/or hatred) of people can be part of that paranoia.

An even shorter path to paranoia is that atheism forces a person
1. to rely on a relatively small scope of experience and knowledge (since all traditional religious texts and the testimony of the religious are inadmissable for atheism),
and 2. to extrapolate on all life-important issues from that small scope of experience and knowledge.
This results in a kind of sheltering, a deliberate living in a small bunker in the midst of a huge universe - and who wouldn't get scared by that.

Also, atheism has no recourse to a source and justification of values, other than common sense and humanism.
Common sense is very variegated, contains even mutually exclusive propositions.
The humanistic philosophy is shallow, and empty optimism at best.
So neither are reliable. So relying on either leads to a fearful and hateful disposition toward people, and also oneself and life in general.

what is sad is how people still get categorized according to a label.

is there some long list somewhere that i need to check off?

What is the reason for homophobia in atheists?
Much the same as homophobia in anyone.
Religious types simply have a dogma to explain it with.

atheist homophobes


interesting concept
do explain

Much the same as homophobia in anyone.
.

You'll have to tell me what that is, since I have no problems with a normal distribution of sexual orientations.

interesting concept
do explain

See video.

i did
the freak, as do you, make an acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality, a necessary condition for a valid argument for atheism

I think the argument was based on the assumption of rationality and its alleged association with a recognition of universal human rights. While I do not confuse atheism with rationality, I would like to understand the basis for homophobia not based on "myths and superstitions".

If I try to examine the basis of my own lack of belief in homophobia, it generally comes down to "people do weird stuff"

You'll have to tell me what that is, since I have no problems with a normal distribution of sexual orientations.
I'm not homophobic. Sorry, can't help you.

As long as you continue to evaluate human prejudice based only upon one facet of it, SAM, then you're never going to understand anything at all.

A comment on Pakistani people in another thread



reminded me of this video on atheist homophobes I saw recently


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anvlms-Z_u0

What is the reason for homophobia in atheists?

What is the reason for homophobia in theists (which is A LOT more common by the way) ?

Atheism is stressful; prolonged stress can manifest in paranoia; fear (and/or hatred) of people can be part of that paranoia.

An even shorter path to paranoia is that atheism forces a person
1. to rely on a relatively small scope of experience and knowledge (since all traditional religious texts and the testimony of the religious are inadmissable for atheism),
and 2. to extrapolate on all life-important issues from that small scope of experience and knowledge.
This results in a kind of sheltering, a deliberate living in a small bunker in the midst of a huge universe - and who wouldn't get scared by that.

Also, atheism has no recourse to a source and justification of values, other than common sense and humanism.
Common sense is very variegated, contains even mutually exclusive propositions.
The humanistic philosophy is shallow, and empty optimism at best.
So neither are reliable. So relying on either leads to a fearful and hateful disposition toward people, and also oneself and life in general.

Wow.. you are a bigot !

While I do not confuse atheism with rationality,

what?
nibiru, klaatu, not real?

lack of supporting evidence :D

What is the reason for homophobia in atheists?There is probably a long answer to that one but I would suggest it was the same reason why theists are homophobic and the same thinking that lead to it being in the bible in the first place.

But are you really after an answer SAM or are you just playing dumb and trying to point out that atheists can be intolerant too?

If I try to examine the basis of my own lack of belief in homophobia, it generally comes down to "people do weird stuff"


weird? what, just some youthful experimenting?

There is probably a long answer to that one but I would suggest it was the same reason why theists are homophobic and the same thinking that lead to it being in the bible in the first place.

Which is?


weird? what, just some youthful experimenting?

Nope, just incomprehensible.
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know yet"

Nope, just incomprehensible. "

hmm
"sugar and spice and all things nice"?

hmm
"sugar and spice and all things nice"?

For some thats a poop chute, for others a two year old kid.

Incomprehensible.

What is the reason for homophobia in atheists?

The same reason it is with those who use religious reasons.

I think the argument was based on the assumption of rationality and its alleged association with a recognition of universal human rights. While I do not confuse atheism with rationality, I would like to understand the basis for homophobia not based on "myths and superstitions".



The drive to be rational can also drive one to irrational beliefs, much like know-it-all types have trouble believing that they could be wrong, and aren't so good at recognizing their own faults.

As far as non-religious/atheists adopting anti-homo ideals, I can think of two related ideas:

1. Natural Law philosophy
Though it can lead to irrationality through assumption of what is and isn't natural, I can see a materialist adopting homophobic beliefs from a Natural Law idealism.
Usually, Natural Law arguments against homosexuality are used to support a religious objection ie "God created Nature to follow certain laws, and since homosexuality is out of line with those laws, that is why God said it is wrong, and observation of Nature proves this."
I can see, however, an atheist using this kind of reasoning, though, which leads to

2. Darwinism/evolution/biological order/sexual selection
The idea of sexuality as the lynchpin of evolution (no reproduction, no evolution) and of the biological purposes of sex, may lead one to seeing
homosexuality as inherently disordered (to borrow that phrase from the Catholic Church!) from an evolutionary perspective.
That would be a form of Natural Law theory, in that it attempts to discount homosexuality as normal or valid by appealing to biology, anatomy, genetics, and the purpose of sex and reproduction.

To me, however, embracing a Natural Law system would seem to require a quasi-religious dogma of sorts.

It's a natural taboo, probably instinctive. One's reason for atheism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with one's attitudes on other subjects.

It's a natural taboo, probably instinctive. One's reason for atheism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with one's attitudes on other subjects.

True. However, most atheists tend to be so because they find religion and belief in God irrational. Thusly, if one were homophobic, one might expect said atheist to have some type of rational reasoning to support themselves, otherwise, they would fall into the same category as those religionists they claim to be above.

How do you figure that it's a natural taboo? Not saying you're wrong, but I've rarely thought about it from that perspective.

"Natural taboo" would imply it has always existed, in most societies however, the notion of homosexuality as a distinct and separate sexual orientation is very recent.

Homosexuality is a recent Western concept (Foucault, 1980) unique among the conceptualization of male-male sexual bonds of other cultures in several ways. Where the western concept of homosexuality assumes a life-long predisposition, other cultures have typically construed male-male sexual bonds as temporary phases, as in the initiation rites of tribes in New Guinea or ancient Crete, or age-based relationships – such as in ancient Greece. An even more profound uniqueness of the Western concept of homosexuality is revealed when it is contrasted with how male-male sexual and romantic bonds were treated in Imperial China where several male emperors were known to have had male harems and favorite male concubines, and also where male prostitution (for male clients) was prevalent up to the end of the Qing Dynasty. The reason why there was no word for homosexuality in Chinese was because it was never seen as a defining or integral part of a person’s identity. Male-male sexual and romantic bonds were construed as relationships between two people as opposed to a psychological essence that defined either person. Moreover, these same-sex bonds were seen as a perfectly acceptable and natural way of life in Imperial China (Hinsch, 1992).

The Assumptions of Homosexuality

Part of the reason why gay culture exists is as a counter-reaction to the oppression and marginalization of homosexuals over the past 150 years in Western culture, but the reason why that marginalization occurred in the first place was because a special category of life-long sexual preferences was created and defined as psychologically aberrant. There are two assumptions that were embedded in that definition and both are problematic. First of all, the concept of homosexuality, and more importantly our conceptualization of sexual orientation, assumes a life-long predisposition. The general sense is that if someone figures out that they are gay today, then they must have been gay when they were born, and they will be gay for the rest of their life. But there is simply not much empirical data that supports the position that sexual preference is a life-long predisposition that never wavers or changes because there are such strong social norms to identify with being straight, gay or bisexual. It is also unclear how many people would choose to have sex with both genders if there were not cultural norms for sexual preferences for one gender. Think about it this way. When someone realizes they are strongly attracted to Asians as sexual partners, they do not have to deal with the anxiety of wondering whether they will only like Asians for the rest of their life because there is no strong social norm for racial preference. But when someone thinks that they are attracted to someone of the same gender, they are suddenly forced to deal with a life-long decision.

Secondly, the concept of homosexuality has come to define an integral part of an individual’s identity in a way that other equally well-defined terms do not. For example, straight people do not think that being straight is an integral part of their identity. In personality psychology, we know that basic traits such as introversion can be measured accurately during childhood and are fairly stable over a life-time, but introverts do not typically report that introversion is an integral part of their identity. No freshmen at college will introduce themselves by saying, “I am an introvert. I realized I was an introvert when I was 13”. There is no Introvert Pride Day, nor is there anything referred to as Introvert Culture. Again, Gay Pride is a counter-reaction to a past injustice, but that injustice was itself created by a socially constructed category that was purposefully meant to be alienating.

http://www.nickyee.com/ponder/social_construction.html

"Natural taboo" would imply it has always existed, in most societies however, the notion of homosexuality as a distinct and separate sexual orientation is very recent.


Or exclusive orientation...

Where the western concept of homosexuality assumes a life-long predisposition, other cultures have typically construed male-male sexual bonds as temporary phases, as in the initiation rites of tribes in New Guinea or ancient Crete, or age-based relationships – such as in ancient Greece.

I did some reading on the New Guinea tribal practices. Some of them go beyond sexualized initiation rites from what I remember. It depends on the islands and tribes involved.

It's extremely difficult to apply reason to the subject of what is good for society. Why is tolerance more reasonable than intolerance?

"Natural taboo" would imply it has always existed, in most societies however, the notion of homosexuality as a distinct and separate sexual orientation is very recent.
One does not contradict the other. Being able to select your own choice of profession or mate is also a recent innovation in society.

Not really, the idea of romantic love has been around forever. Marriage is a separate issue.

That's what I mean. Just like romantic love always existed and did not correspond to marriage, homosexuality always existed and did not correspond to any particular public status.

Secondly, the concept of homosexuality has come to define an integral part of an individual’s identity in a way that other equally well-defined terms do not. For example, straight people do not think that being straight is an integral part of their identity. In personality psychology, we know that basic traits such as introversion can be measured accurately during childhood and are fairly stable over a life-time, but introverts do not typically report that introversion is an integral part of their identity. No freshmen at college will introduce themselves by saying, “I am an introvert. I realized I was an introvert when I was 13”. There is no Introvert Pride Day, nor is there anything referred to as Introvert Culture. Again, Gay Pride is a counter-reaction to a past injustice, but that injustice was itself created by a socially constructed category that was purposefully meant to be alienating.

Exactly what I have said before! Which is why I try my best to refrain from using the word "gay" when referring to homosexuality. It tends to perpetuate a superficial identity.

Aren't most identities superficial?

Aren't most identities superficial?

Esattamente!
Which is why they should generally be avoided! No reason to base one's entire being on a single trait, or build a silly culture out of it. A culture caricature! :o

I really suck, I know.

Oh, Battista, be fun.

Gay pride parades are a good time. We're becoming a more tolerant culture, and it's a day for ANYONE, and I do mean ANYONE, to wear short-shorts.

Oh, Battista, be fun.

Gay pride parades are a good time. We're becoming a more tolerant culture, and it's a day for ANYONE, and I do mean ANYONE, to wear short-shorts.

They don't have such parades where I live.
I don't really care for parades in the first place! They kind of bore me...:o

Battista is NOT a fun person. Which is why he has no friends in real life.

I might consider wearing the short-shorts, though. Sounds kind of fun.

maybe they will have a parade when you move.

:roflmao:

i'm just kidding. were buddies.

They don't have such parades where I live.
I don't really care for parades in the first place! They kind of bore me...:o

Battista is NOT a fun person. Which is why he has no friends in real life.

I might consider wearing the short-shorts, though. Sounds kind of fun.

I think you're fun. :p Then again, my idea of "fun" includes buying books entitled Hubert the Pudge.

maybe they will have a parade when you move.

:roflmao:
They'd definitely throw one if I blew my brains out, I'm sure of it.

i'm just kidding. were buddies.

We do have some gay times, don't we?

I think you're fun. :p Then again, my idea of "fun" includes buying books entitled Hubert the Pudge.

That sounds like an interesting book.:cool:

Wow.. you are a bigot !

You are a homophobe. QED.

It's about a pudge that runs away from the sadistic pudge mill where pudges are turned into television dinners and greasy pudge chops! He becomes a GIANT pudge who turns Farmer Jake to vegetarianism. :D Farmer Jake marries the beautiful physical fitness trainer named Heidi and they start a tofu hotdog factory. I thought my niece would like it.

As for short shorts, I haven't worn those since my cocaine chic thin days. And we're all better off for it. I was mildly offended no one purchased them at my yard sale. Oh, to be 100 lbs again and thinking it was attractive...

You are a homophobe. QED.

Enmos isn't a homophobe. He said he's sure I'm a lesbian, but he needs video evidence, and he does not judge me. He just hates the idea of me living my life in the closet. :D

It's about a pudge that runs away from the sadistic pudge mill where pudges are turned into television dinners and greasy pudge chops! He becomes a GIANT pudge who turns Farmer Jake to vegetarianism. :D Farmer Jake marries the beautiful physical fitness trainer named Heidi and they start a tofu hotdog factory. I thought my niece would like it.

If it has a bizarre, misanthropic slant, it may just be PETA propaganda for children! :p
Tofurkey brats are pretty good. Not really a hot dog flavor, but very tasty. You might want to give them a try.

As for short shorts, I haven't worn those since my cocaine chic thin days. And we're all better off for it. I was mildly offended no one purchased them at my yard sale. Oh, to be 100 lbs again and thinking it was attractive...

I am sorry for your loss, errr... gain.

A comment on Pakistani people in another thread



reminded me of this video on atheist homophobes I saw recently


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anvlms-Z_u0

What is the reason for homophobia in atheists?

Atheist's can be idiots too.

SAM there's no correlation between atheism and homophobia. The reason for homophobia in atheists is the same as in theists, they're uncomfortable, they think it's "wrong", etc

Don't you know? We can't be atheists without having to compete with theisms' percieved strength- legislated compassion.

If it has a bizarre, misanthropic slant, it may just be PETA propaganda for children! :p
Tofurkey brats are pretty good. Not really a hot dog flavor, but very tasty. You might want to give them a try.

Will do! It's pretty bizarre, but made me laugh.



I am sorry for your loss, errr... gain.

I'm sure you're heartbroken. :p S'okay. If I get really fat, I assume you'll tend to my mobility issues. That's what internet friends are for.

It's a natural taboo, probably instinctive. One's reason for atheism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with one's attitudes on other subjects.

I second this statement. It pretty much kills this thread.

It's a natural taboo, probably instinctive.

I disagree. There is ZERO evidence for this assumption.

Hating what is "other" is not specific to religion. Atheists are driven by the same foibles as everyone else. They may have to dress up the reasons for their hatred in different clothes but we all have a part of us that tries to define our world by "what we are" and "what we are not", and a large part of that comes up as the knee-jerk rejection of anyone dispolaying those "not" characteristics.

Which characteristics a given person fixates on are determined in part by culture, but also in part by some myterious subjective calculation. Once upon a time religion was the great divider. Catholics were burned in Protestant England. Jews were not burned, mostly because they had all been expelled by Edward I in 1290 (and some of them were left to drown in the process of that). Later race came to the forefront. Race seems less of an issue than once it was, but other reasons arise. Homosexuals have the unfortunate distinction of having been especially hated by the Jews, which then translated directly into the other Abrahamic faiths. (As for why the Jews hated them, I have always suspected that it was because the Jews saw the practice as largely "foreign" and then when the Jews and Cristians were ni contact with the Greeks, Greek custioms were constantly making inroads with their children so rules condemning things the Greeks liked and Jews did not (like public nudity) got another shot in the arm.

Religion is used as a reason to hate homosexuals because religion is often a wholistic view of the world. If you hate people with crooked teeth, and you adhere to such a worldview, it makes sense that you would use that worldview in an attempt to justify your belief.

Giving up religion forces atheists to abandon one system of explanations for why what they hate is Evil and Wrong(tm), but religion hardly had the monopoly on such things. Atheists are not "more logical" than everyone else (despite occasional claims to the contrary), so they are subject to the same errors as everyone else,

Homosexuals have the unfortunate distinction of having been especially hated by the Jews, which then translated directly into the other Abrahamic faiths. (As for why the Jews hated them, I have always suspected that it was because the Jews saw the practice as largely "foreign" and then when the Jews and Cristians were ni contact with the Greeks, Greek custioms were constantly making inroads with their children so rules condemning things the Greeks liked and Jews did not (like public nudity) got another shot in the arm.

How do you then explain nude gay beaches, gay marriages and gay pride parades in Tel Aviv? What causes people to overcome such hate? Or dismiss it?

How do you then explain nude gay beaches, gay marriages and gay pride parades in Tel Aviv? What causes people to overcome such hate? Or dismiss it?
I am guessing...
Israel does not want to look like a country that discriminates against gays. Even if the majority does not happen to like them, to them, its a free country.

I disagree. There is ZERO evidence for this assumption.

Where doesn't it appear? Maybe it only corresponds to places corrupted by Judeo-Christian-Islamic values.

Not really, the idea of romantic love has been around forever.

This has actually been academically studied and is not generally been agreed to be the case. Sexual relationships, marriage, partenrships, yes, romantic love? Not necessarily.
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/Q&A-800.html

Hindu mythology has both Kama [lust] and Prema [romantic love]. Thats old enough for me.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Love#encyclopedia

I disagree. There is ZERO evidence for this assumption.

You're absolutely right S.A.M. Hate is learned, & not instinctive. I was just explaining to my boy just this month what homophobia was. :o Course, first I had to initiate a "birds and bees" discussion, and what homosexuals were. . . but once we started getting beyond that, he has already been exposed to a little of that at school, can you imagine? Already by first grade. iOye, the mass media! And I don't even have a t.v at home!

Any way, he thinks it's sick that other kids call each other "fags" and "queers" as terms of disparagement. He clearly understands that everyone should get to choose to live their lives how every they want to. What the hell happened to freedom, isn't this a free country? Can't people just mind their own business and love one another? That's his point of view. He doesn't understand what the big deal is and where all the hatred comes from. All he can do is ask me "why daddy?" "why are people so mean and hateful to people that are different then they are?"

"Fear and ignorance of differences and that which they don't understand son."

Hostility to that which is unfamiliar. Whether you are a theist or an atheist, makes no difference. It is human nature to prefer that which you are comfortable with and that which makes sense."

Hindu mythology has both Kama [lust] and Prema [romantic love]. Thats old enough for me.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Love#encyclopedia


lol. Clearly the people in the east were loving and far more satisfied to love, while the western people lacked knowledge of romantic love for far longer. . .

perhaps that's why they had to go out and conquer and enslave the world? Nothing better to do? :eek: Certainly explains the Romans and Greeks behavior, no?

Or maybe they just didn't have good records. Or ones that survived.

We do have some gay times, don't we?

hey, i said BUDDIES.

You know S.A.M., I've looked into this definition of "prem" and no where have I seen it mention anything about "romantic" love, or anything approximating the definition. Perhaps, but, eh, I suppose that is subjective.

The definitions I have seen all refer to something called, "elated love." And, I suppose, there may be SOME elements of "romantic love" in this. . . but I do not think that other cultures have fabricated "romantic love" and brainwashed their participating individuals to the degree we here in the western world have.

To be sure, we have spread this disease onto the rest of the world through stories and ideals, so that it seems like second nature that it has always existed among all cultures. If it had existed, then I posit, that the whole notion of polygamy among the Islamic and Hindu societies would never have arisen. Indeed, even among Hebrew society, Jewish law does not forbid polygamy, it was practiced up until the inventions of romantic love.

We are social beings who LEARN our habits. And indeed, ROMANTIC love, and the qualities which constitute it, are purely an invention of the past millennium. Likewise, they continue to exist, clinging and dependent upon the existence of the personal ego. Once in a relationship, a person is no longer able to grow, spiritually, or intellectually, for this will threaten the balance of a "romantic" relationship, as the partner has identified their EGO with the EGO of another, it becomes an ego-matrix. Any upset in this balance causes grave insecurity.

If romantic love had existed before the last millennium, one would expect the same amount of art, literature, poetry, writing and all manner of humanities to be devoted to it in the same proportion that we devote to it today. Which is to say, and overwhelming amount. However, when you go back and look at the historical record? *cricket, cricket* Not a whole lot is there devoted to "love." Sure, we (as a species) have some devoted to the pleasures of the human body, and some devoted to the beauty of the human body. . . . but to the FEELING of the obsession of romantic love, like we do today? Nope, it isn't in the record.

Read the following description and think, did your average Indian peasant have the luxury to indulge in such foolishness before a 1000 years ago? If it wasn't in the culture, in the songs, movies and magazines, if it wasn't a paradigm that was taught, if people weren't "in love with the idea of being in love" would it exist? Sorry, there is just no evidence that it does exist before a thousand years ago, it's a fantasy.

"The following questions should help us determine
whether our feelings correspond with
the conventional experience of romantic love.
Answer each question "yes" or "no"—agree or disagree.
Keep a count of your "yes" answers.
The scoring is explained at the end of the test.

A. Romantic love arises from pre-existing yearnings.

Did I enter the 'love-market' with strong expectations
of what love was supposed to feel like?

B. Romantic love begins suddenly, creating instant intimacy.

Did I 'fall in love' with _____ when I first met him/her?

C. Romantic love is blind.

Was I temporarily blinded by an intense flash of love
so I could no longer see who the other person was?

Romantic love is often one-sided; it loves from afar.

Do I have obsessive day-dreams about a distant love-object?
Do I imagine how it would be for some distant person
to notice me—and 'fall in love' with me?
Have I worked out a whole story of how I might meet
my love-object and begin a long life together?

E. Romantic love watches for small signs of reciprocation.

Do I interpret any response
as a sign that he/she really notices and cares about me?
Do I sometimes keep a 'love' going for a long time,
sustained by mere crumbs of hope?

F. Romantic love is often uncertain and fearful of rejection;
it is exclusive, possessive, and jealous.

Do I often ask "Do you love me?"
—perhaps phrasing it some other way?
When my beloved tells me that he/she loves me,
do I wonder what that means?
Do I want something more than mere words
to convince me that my beloved really loves me?

G. Romantic love is a fantasy-trip,
a prefabricated emotion projected onto others.

When I think of us together,
does it sometimes seem like a fairy tale?
Am I clinging to an illusion, something that was never really there?

H. Romance creates an illusion of oneness.

Can I see directly into _____'s soul?
Is communication no longer necessary
because we have become one person?

I. Romantic love depends on imagination.

Did I have elaborate love-feelings before I found a target for them?

J. Romance is being in love with love
—attempting to actualize a feeling learned from others.

Am I enjoying primarily my own internal feelings of love?

K. Romantic love sometimes depends on manipulation.

Do I sometimes wonder what I should do
to make my beloved 'fall in love' with me?
Do I strategize various things I could do or say
to bring about the response I want from my beloved?

L. Romantic love is like watching a movie.

Do I feel I am re-enacting a movie I once saw?
Am I sometimes trying to re-create a story
I saw on TV or read in a novel?

M. Romantic love is an ecstatic feeling.

Is being in love the happiest experience of my life?
Does it feel so good to be in love that I want to return to love
(or remain in love) for the rest of my life?

N. Romantic love is an altered state of consciousness.

Does the intensity of my emotion sometimes surprise me?

O. Romantic love sees the beloved as perfect.

Do I overlook his/her faults or interpret them as charming?
Do I sometimes transform the negative dimensions
of my beloved into positive attributes?

P. Romantic love causes violent mood-swings.

Do my feelings for _____ seem like a roller-coaster ride
—momentary weightlessness at the peak of feeling,
followed by crushing pressure at the bottom of the slide?

Q. Romantic love causes preoccupation and distraction.

Do I want to be with _____ every moment—day and night?
Would I like to spend the rest of my life
linked with _____ like Siamese twins?

R. Romantic love causes intrusive thinking.

Do these compulsive thoughts keep coming back
even tho I try to dismiss them and get on with my life?
Does my mind seems to have "a mind of its own"
—so that love-fantasies take over—like the wrong radio station
breaking into the program I was enjoying?
When I am involved doing other things,
do thoughts of my beloved come crowding into my mind?

S. Romantic love causes compulsive, neurotic,
dependent thoughts and feelings.

Have I spend hours going over a simple encounter,
attempting to make it mean something that it does not obviously mean?
For example, do I sift and re-sift the fragments of a conversation
for evidence of what my obsessive mind wants to find
—either proofs of love or proofs of infidelity?

T. Romantic love is an overwhelming experience.

Am I swept along by a surging power I could never control?
Is love like riding the crest of an ocean wave?

U. Romantic love is the most important thing in life.

Has my passion become so strong
that all previous concerns have fallen by the wayside?
When I am in love nothing else matters.

V. Romantic love includes suffering.

Does my emotional attachment to _____
cause me to overlook conflicts, unhappiness, and even abuse?

W. Near its end, romantic love clings to any shred of hope.

When I feel love slipping away, does my heart ache?
When I believe that he/she has 'fallen for' someone else,
do I feel sick?
Do I get other psycho-somatic reactions
whenever I get some sign that our love may be over?

X. Romantic Love is temporary—lasting 18 months to 3 years.

When I have 'fallen out of love',
does it seem that scales have fallen from my eyes,
so that I can see the one I used to love as he/she really is?

Y. When romantic love is over, it sometimes becomes hatred.

After love is gone, is my emotional orientation reversed:
Do I then exaggerate every fault I can think of?
Does it seem that nothing about a former lover is good?
Am I somewhat disgusted by the one I once 'loved'?

Z. Romantic love resists analysis.

Do I fear thinking too deeply about love
because questioning any part of the myth
may cause the whole house of cards to collapse?
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/RLT-WEB.html

Every been puzzled by people who claim to "love" each other who have met only over the internet, and want to get married on only that alone? It's called being in love with love. If people from a millennium ago saw our behavior today, they would think we are the most ridiculous creatures imaginable to have descended from them. I'm just sayin'. :rolleyes:

who in their right mind would read all that?

who in their right mind would read all that?

tiassa? :D

Hindu mythology has both Kama [lust] and Prema [romantic love]. Thats old enough for me.
Eros/ agape.

You know S.A.M., I've looked into this definition of "prem" and no where have I seen it mention anything about "romantic" love, or anything approximating the definition. Perhaps, but, eh, I suppose that is subjective.

Where did you look?

Sanskrit prem =love, premi = male lover, premika = female lover.

shringara = erotic love


Every been puzzled by people who claim to "love" each other who have met only over the internet, and want to get married on only that alone? It's called being in love with love. If people from a millennium ago saw our behavior today, they would think we are the most ridiculous creatures imaginable to have descended from them. I'm just sayin'. :rolleyes:

Not at all. It is perfectly acceptable in the vast realms of Asian love to fall in love with the notion of love.

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/4589/picture7z.png (http://img191.imageshack.us/i/picture7z.png/)

source (http://books.google.co.in/books?id=kWG6wH4lDqUC&pg=RA5-PA164&lpg=RA5-PA164&dq=prem+sanskrit&source=bl&ots=8-NsBQhyuw&sig=H2x6kSd-meHQMpS_4VrXsRylyzM&hl=en&ei=6egySre1JpCgkQX2mPWGCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PRA5-PA173,M1)

I really can't discuss with you this topic S.A.M. I am not sure we are in agreement on definitions, truly. For instance, Oli just posted to definitions of Greek love, which are NOT what I would define as either romantic love, however, both seem to be parallels to the love terms that exist in Sanskrit.

Now, those lines you listed. . . if I am not correct, with the little reading I did, seem to have been authored by one Rabindranath Tagarore (1866-1941) He lived well after the time "romantic love" was invented? No?

This idea that romantic love was invented is NOT my supposition, I do not wish to defend it any longer. It is a well recorded idea within the humanities. I am NOT saying that LOVE didn't exist. I think this might be where the confusion exists. I am saying the Romeo/Juliette - commit suicide if you can't be together kind didn't exist; the soap opera five days a week kind didn't exist; the romantic comedy every Friday night at the cina-plex and trashy romance novel kind didn't exist. The kind of love that has parents ignoring children, cheating, and breaking up families over.

This idea is really the scourge of more traditional societies like China, India, Japan, etc. etc. Only in the west is the romantic relationship more compatible. How common are arranged marriages still in India? I would hazard to guess, they still occur with some frequency. They still occur in China too I'm willing to bet. The notion of "arranged marriages" was a tragedy that was dealt with in European literature at the same time that the notion of "romantic love" was being born. It was a common theme of stories at the time period. In fact, it led to the death of arranged marriages. By the time the Colonies were settled, arranged marriages were anachronistic. It was at this time the notion of "romantic love" was spreading to other cultures and the notion of arranged marriages in those cultures would only begin to draw the ire of the youth.

How do would YOU feel about being put in an arranged marriage today?

I have listened to the arguments by people far more qualified and more prepared to make this presentation than I. I can really go no further. You can present more material from India that I am not familiar with to support your case, but it will be a case of differing definitions I am afraid. One in which you are not reading the original post with the original link that a gave which defined the ego-centered definition of "romantic love." Romantic love centers on the person FEELING the emotions, not on the object of the love. It is narcissistic, and really, when it comes down to it? Selfish.

How do would YOU feel about being put in an arranged marriage today?

No idea, we did entertain the notion for a while. but I'm too whimsical for conventions.

Romantic love centers on the person FEELING the emotions, not on the object of the love. It is narcissistic, and really, when it comes down to it? Selfish.

You say that like its a novel idea. Isn't love always described as what the protagonist feels?

If I get really fat, I assume you'll tend to my mobility issues. That's what internet friends are for.
We'll all pitch in and get you a Rascal. Or a forklift, depending on how dedicated you are.

What is the reason for homophobia in atheists?
beats me,
Im an atheist and have no fear of homos

Atheism is stressful;
really..are YOU an atheist,
if not then how could you know?

An even shorter path to paranoia is that atheism forces a person
1. to rely on a relatively small scope of experience and knowledge (since all traditional religious texts and the testimony of the religious are inadmissable for atheism),
and 2. to extrapolate on all life-important issues from that small scope of experience and knowledge.
that would be funny if it wasnt so idiotic

This results in a kind of sheltering, a deliberate living in a small bunker in the midst of a huge universe - and who wouldn't get scared by that.
Also, atheism has no recourse to a source and justification of values, other than common sense and humanism.
Common sense is very variegated, contains even mutually exclusive propositions.
The humanistic philosophy is shallow, and empty optimism at best.
So neither are reliable. So relying on either leads to a fearful and hateful disposition toward people, and also oneself and life in general.
which silly kristain apologetics site have you pulled this load of horse poop from?

I've never met a homophobic atheist, personally, but the general approach of the OP doesn't seem to key off of that anyway - apparently, the long obvious and extraordinarily vicious homophobia of the Abrahamic theistic tradition is best defended by attack.

It looks like coincidence, from the outside. There appears to be no particular reason a monotheistic religion would spawn homophobes, and plenty of examples of culturally reinforced homophobia in other cultures and peoples.

But it's possible there's a connection.

About the only thing that cannot be blamed for culturally reinforced generations of homophobia is atheism - at least, not until after the stable and successful atheistic culture capable of inculcating such a psychological peculiarity is identified.

beats me,
Im an atheist and have no fear of homos

Comedy, well done.

What is the reason for homophobia in atheists?

Usually either fear of the unknown, or not knowing how to cope with one's own homosexuality.

Same as in Muslims.

Atheism is stressful

Life is stressful.

An even shorter path to paranoia is that atheism forces a person
1. to rely on a relatively small scope of experience and knowledge (since all traditional religious texts and the testimony of the religious are inadmissable for atheism),

Most of science is inadmissible for theists, and there's more of that than there are religious texts. Agree?

This results in a kind of sheltering, a deliberate living in a small bunker in the midst of a huge universe - and who wouldn't get scared by that.

Theists, on the other hand, get to believe that the huge universe was built especially for them, and it revolves around them as God's special little people.

Right?

Also, atheism has no recourse to a source and justification of values, other than common sense and humanism.

Other than those, yeah. :D

The humanistic philosophy is shallow, and empty optimism at best.

Ah, an expert, I see!

Do tell us more about your knowledge of humanism.

What is the reason for homophobia in atheists?

Find one and ask her.

A comment on Pakistani people in another thread



reminded me of this video on atheist homophobes I saw recently


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anvlms-Z_u0

What is the reason for homophobia in atheists?I have no problem with homosexuals. As a matter of fact there's a really good American Scientific of the Mind issue out last month about sex and the brain. I concider gender identification, genetic, phenotypic, and brain-sex all to be different aspects of sex and the brain. Anyway, The People of Lot was brought up by DH. IMO homosapian, like the other Apes and most other animals, is by nature bisexual. I've seen some Thai Ladyboys that were really quite cute :)

http://www.bangkokpicture.com/photos/poyladyboy1.jpg

There could be many...

Its too bad you aren't an atheist, she could ask you.

Of course the answer wouldn't be coherant.

Sexual relationships, marriage, partenrships, yes, romantic love? Not necessarily.
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/Q&A-800.html

OK, they are selling a book.

I have seen it argued that Elenor of Aquitaine and Marie de France and the other french bards of the 12th century invented romantic love and chivalry to try and tame the knights of the period.

I'm not so sure you can invent something like that. But they may have had a unique perspective and given that perspective a name where there wasn't a particular name before. But I don't think there is anything now that wasn't there before.

IMO homosapian, like the other Apes and most other animals, is by nature bisexual.

I started out holding that position, but the data doesn't back it up.

People argue about the exact numbers but it seems to be about (self identified) 90% hetero, 8% homo and 2% bi with little change once a person lands in a preference in theri twenties. Women seem to have a slightly higher bi rate. Some people do seem to re-evaluate their preferences after meno/andropause.

Ironically some homosexuals seem to evidence a similar prejudice against bisexuals that heteros have for them.

Also there is now a lot of evidence that mates are subconsciously evaluted by smell, taste, and fertility and once a particular mix is known, it is selected for with pretty good regularity. There is even some question about whether the pill is messing up mate selection by changing some of these markers and the ability to percieve them.

So far the only species that I know of that is regularly bisexual as a matter of course are bonobos, with the caveat that I'm by no means an expert in the field.

You are a homophobe. QED.

:roflmao:

Yea right ! :rolleyes:

We'll all pitch in and get you a Rascal. Or a forklift, depending on how dedicated you are.

Made me tear up with happiness. I would have had more than crackers with my morning pills if I knew this.

reminded me of this video on atheist homophobes I saw recently


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anvlms-Z_u0

What is the reason for homophobia in atheists?

The video is from a born again Christian, who is also gay. His opinions of atheists are the same as yours, unfounded, ignorant and bigoted.

The video is from a born again Christian, who is also gay. His opinions of atheists are the same as yours, unfounded, ignorant and bigoted.

http://atheistnexus.org/profile/ZJAntolak

There could be many.

Some ideas:

Atheism is stressful; prolonged stress can manifest in paranoia; fear (and/or hatred) of people can be part of that paranoia.

An even shorter path to paranoia is that atheism forces a person
1. to rely on a relatively small scope of experience and knowledge (since all traditional religious texts and the testimony of the religious are inadmissable for atheism),
and 2. to extrapolate on all life-important issues from that small scope of experience and knowledge.
This results in a kind of sheltering, a deliberate living in a small bunker in the midst of a huge universe - and who wouldn't get scared by that.

Also, atheism has no recourse to a source and justification of values, other than common sense and humanism.
Common sense is very variegated, contains even mutually exclusive propositions.
The humanistic philosophy is shallow, and empty optimism at best.
So neither are reliable. So relying on either leads to a fearful and hateful disposition toward people, and also oneself and life in general.


Lol....Atheism is stressful...too funny

http://atheistnexus.org/profile/ZJAntolak

The heart of the matter is that bigotry doesn't care if you're Muslim, black, white, queer, male, disabled, or whatever.

But, SAM, it gets really old hearing about how oppressed you feel. I like you and respect you, SAM, and I don't imagine it's easy being a Muslim Indian woman in the west. Not all Westerners are bad. Not all atheists are bad. We're not all here to oppress people, and most of us value diversity, or at least "me and mine" do.

However, no one likes a crybaby demanding "accommodation." No one likes someone who believes they are constantly under attack, and I think a lot of people get that impression from you. Everyone deserves judgment on an individual basis. You, me, everyone.

This ZJ is saying people shouldn't be lumped into a category based on belief.

But, SAM, it gets really old hearing about how oppressed you feel.

I don't feel oppressed at all. Wherever did you get that idea?

What accomodation do you imagine I am asking for, or receiving?

I have no problem with homosexuals. As a matter of fact there's a really good American Scientific of the Mind issue out last month about sex and the brain. I concider gender identification, genetic, phenotypic, and brain-sex all to be different aspects of sex and the brain. Anyway, The People of Lot was brought up by DH. IMO homosapian, like the other Apes and most other animals, is by nature bisexual. I've seen some Thai Ladyboys that were really quite cute :)

http://www.bangkokpicture.com/photos/poyladyboy1.jpg

Wait, that's a guy ?

I don't feel oppressed at all. Wherever did you get that idea?

What accomodation do you imagine I am asking for, or receiving?

People who tell me my gender, colour or religion is a decisive factor in whether they are willing to accomodate me do not have reason to expect me to be "fair" to their opinions. I am entirely dismissive of such rubbish.

:shrug:

I have NO idea why being Muslim, Indian/Asian/dark-skinned, or female requires special accommodation. You tell me. All three of those are common.

Re. oppression: You do complain a lot about how terrible Westerners are.

:shrug:

I have NO idea why being Muslim, Indian/Asian/dark-skinned, or female requires special accommodation. You tell me. All three of those are common.

Exactly. That was my point.

Re. oppression: You do complain a lot about how terrible Westerners are.

Well after two world wars, centuries of colonisation, nuclear bombing, economic policies that created the Third world and a never ending series of wars since WWII, thats pretty self evident I think. If we avoided all of that what would we discuss here?

Exactly. That was my point.

I think maybe we're not understanding each other. There's nothing really to accommodate.


Well after two world wars, centuries of colonisation, nuclear bombing, economic policies that created the Third world and a never ending series of wars since WWII, thats pretty self evident I think. If we avoided all of that what would we discuss here?

And Muslims are innocent good guys who just got kicked in the guts? Both sides have been notoriously violent jackasses since the dawn of time. It's not exactly like children could walk across the Middle East with a purse of gold before Western involvement, and I don't believe all non-Westerners are bad. Do you honestly think ALL the causes of evil in the world are rooted in the West?

I think maybe we're not understanding each other. There's nothing really to accommodate.

Let me give you an example. You walk into my store. I look at you, see that you're *cough* coloured *cough* and quickly walk over and tell you that I think you must have the wrong store. I feel that this is not a person I can accomodate.



And Muslims are innocent good guys who just got kicked in the guts? Both sides have been notoriously violent jackasses since the dawn of time. It's not exactly like children could walk across the Middle East with a purse of gold before Western involvement, and I don't believe all non-Westerners are bad. Do you honestly think ALL the causes of evil in the world are rooted in the West?


At present? Hmm lets see, weapons <check> wars <check> poverty <check> support for undemocratic regimes <check> occupation <check> torture <check>

Seems like it. Would you like to compare notes?;)

Let me give you an example. You walk into my store. I look at you, see that you're *cough* coloured *cough* and quickly walk over and tell you that I think you must have the wrong store. I feel that this is not a person I can accomodate.

As an American, I am going to call the Better Business Bureau, file a report, and go out of my way never to set foot in your stinky, racist store again. ;) (Just kidding, SAM. I'm sure the store smells fine.)



At present? Hmm lets see, weapons <check> wars <check> poverty <check> support for undemocratic regimes <check> occupation <check> torture <check>

Seems like it. Would you like to compare notes?;)

You're saying the West is responsible for all poverty and war and weapons usage and torture? Cut me a break. Both sides have had those issues and inflicted them on the world since Christ was a cowboy.

As an American, I am going to call the Better Business Bureau, file a report, and go out of my way never to set foot in your stinky, racist store again. ;) (Just kidding, SAM. I'm sure the store smells fine.)

Exactly. Hence my opinion of such people.

People who tell me my gender, colour or religion is a decisive factor in whether they are willing to accomodate me do not have reason to expect me to be "fair" to their opinions. I am entirely dismissive of such rubbish.




You're saying the West is responsible for all poverty and war and weapons usage and torture? Cut me a break. Both sides have had those issues and inflicted them on the world since Christ was a cowboy.

Sure, but I don't live in Nazareth circa 2 AD. I live in the here and now. I have lived and worked in Asia, the Middle East and the US. I think I am reasonably educated in politics and economics and its my opinion that at present, much of the misery in the world is completely avoidable, but will never be addressed because its much too profitable.

http://www.globalissues.org/

Exactly. Hence my opinion of such people.

:rolleyes:

Sure, but I don't live in Nazareth circa 2 AD. I live in the here and now. I have lived and worked in Asia, the Middle East and the US. I think I am reasonably educated in politics and economics and its my opinion that at present, much of the misery in the world is completely avoidable, but will never be addressed because its much too profitable.

http://www.globalissues.org/

I concur that a lot of issues are pushed aside for profit, but you know what? People in the Middle East have done bad things to people in the West, girl. Not that people in the West haven't done awful things, but it's not like anyone's innocent here.

The West has also done lots of outstanding and good things. If you view everything through a narrow tunnel, everything looks worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anvlms-Z_u0

What is the reason for homophobia in atheists?

I think the presumption that "religion is the sole source of homophobia" is wrong.

I can think of a few more sources.

First, the image of two guys having sex creeps me out a little bit. Women can do whatever they want and it won't bother me but guys can't.

My reaction to the idea of men having sex reminds me of my reaction to seeing maggots squirming about in a pile of shit. I have a little more revulsion to the maggots but not much more. I think the revulsion is instinctual.

People can learn to eat maggots so I gues that proves that my revulsion to maggots is either learned or these instincts can be overcome.

I also get a little creeped out at the idea of my parents having sex and it is my understanding that it is normal for people to be creeped out at the idea of their parents having sex. Maybe I should put a poll up on whether the idea of our parents having sex is creepy. I think this creepyness is just instincts trying to steer us towards the types of sex that helps propagate our DNA through future generations in a long term healthy way.

I have no problem with gay friends I just don't want to every think of them having sex.

The second nonreligious way in which I can see homophobia being created is as a reaction to the homosexual undermining of gender roles. Many people have only managed to be good at one thing and that is being very masculine or very feminine. They may have failed at everything else or not even tried anything else but if they can be a feminine woman or a masculine man they will feel they have succeeded and therefore will be able to cope with life when their mind starts comparing themselves to other people. But if gays are OK then what value do femininity and masculinity have? This valuing of femininity and masculinity is not compatible with gayness being OK so gays must be condemned.

The third nonreligious source of homophobia that I am aware of is confused traumatized ashamed bisexuals. Most if not all of us live in homophobic cultures. Idealism and logic can cause us to support gay rights but until kids are not afraid to come out as gay in junior high school (13-15) we can know that our cultures are basically homophobic. Some of the most aggressive homophobes have turned out to be bisexuals who were either trying to look manly to their friends by acting homophobic or who were filled with hatred towards themselves and gays because they could not handle their own bisexuality. I suppose religion does play a role in their not being able to handle their own bisexuality.

http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/96/l_8aa391715ac86058949504a0eb21f797.jpg

Above, 17 year old Gwen Araujo killed for being gay and fooling some men who had sex with her/him thinking that he was a woman. Gwen also known as Lida and Eddie.

It's hard to explain," Merel said in the Hayward, Calif., courtroom. "Your whole life you think you're a heterosexual. Then you get pleasure from a homosexual. It disgusted me." from http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid19195.asp

I am not saying the guys who had sex with Araujo were bisexual, they just failed to notice that she was a man.

The West has also done lots of outstanding and good things.

Of course they have. Rather difficult to appreciate through the lens of poverty, occupation and dictatorship, but outstanding nonetheless.

Of course they have. Rather difficult to appreciate through the lens of poverty, occupation and dictatorship, but outstanding nonetheless.

Hard to remember the good of the Middle East with issues like the subjugation of women and terrorism. And there's been some outstanding good, and I don't let bad seeds influence how I view the good of the whole.

Well after two world wars, centuries of colonisation, nuclear bombing, economic policies that created the Third world and a never ending series of wars since WWII, thats pretty self evident I think. If we avoided all of that what would we discuss here?
:bravo::cheers:
The shame of forum's like this one is that only people in nations that have benefited from said history are on these forums. There is no diversity on this forum, no one is represented from nations from anywhere else on the globe other than from the west. It seems that if they do come here, they quickly let their anger get the best of them, get ridiculed and get banned. The truth, or indeed, a different point of view, is not something the masses, or overwhelming majority likes to hear. The fact is, the corporate media is owned. The international system of finance is owned. The education system is therefor owned. As such, the way you think, and have been trained to think, can it be conceivable? Has been "programmed" in much the same way a computer has been. I don't know why NO ONE will consider this possibility for one moment. Just ask yourselves. . . who does it benefit? Certainly not the poor, starving, and those suffering from resource wars in the the third world.

The added shame? The same families of power that initiated said policies, are still in control, and are manipulating world events to keep things the way they are and to make things even worse for the poorer countries of the world. Don't believe me? Research the links between one Prescott Bush and one Adolf Hitler. The names have changed slightly, but the aim of the game is always the same.

Things will not become more equitable, and the people on this forum will continue to believe their media and blame it on the populations of those countries of the world that are the "victims" of these heinous policies.

But, there are no victims. These populations continue to allow their middle and upper classes to associate with the people and countries of the "First" world which are completely corrupt and keep this unfair system in place. They intentionally keep them under the boot of subservience and oppression. The IMF, the WHO, the world bank, the UN? Slave masters. No one has any motivation to change or to help those that need it. If the third world countries wanted a change? They should all pull out of the UN, and all international bodies, kick out all companies and all first world countries, and keep their resources to themselves. Non-compliance. These governments are just as corrupt and play along with the lies.

Hard to remember the good of the Middle East with issues like the subjugation of women and terrorism.

Besides the fact that you've never actually been there?:p


The shame of forum's like this one is that only people in nations that have benefited from said history are on these forums. There is no diversity on this forum, no one is represented from nations from anywhere else on the globe other than from the west. It seems that if they do come here, they quickly let their anger get the best of them, get ridiculed and get banned. The truth, or indeed, a different point of view, is not something the masses, or overwhelming majority likes to hear. The fact is, the corporate media is owned. The international system of finance is owned. The education system is therefor owned. As such, the way you think, and have been trained to think, can it be conceivable? Has been "programmed" in much the same way a computer has been. I don't know why NO ONE will consider this possibility for one moment. Just ask yourselves. . . who does it benefit? Certainly not the poor, starving, and those suffering from resource wars in the the third world.

Its hard to judge a society objectively when you participate in it. I remember once, I was in a bar with some Indian and American friends. My Indian friend is very passionate about these issues and she was in a heated debate with the American on the war in Iraq and the exploitative nature of American policy. He heard out her entire speech [she is waaay more eloquent and articulate than I] and at the end of it said, "now you live here and you are a part of that same exploitative society".

And he was right.

So the tragedy is that in order to be able to communicate our sense of injustice effectively, we cannot fight the system, so we become the system. Because if you are outside the system, your voice is irrelevant.

It was the second most depressing moment of my life.

Besides the fact that you've never actually been there?:p

Bold assumption there, SAMmy, but true.

Although my mother's family has been friends with an Iranian family for well over a century, so I fancy I know a little about Middle Eastern culture on a personal level, or at least I fancy to fancy I do. ;)


Its hard to judge a society objectively when you participate in it. I remember once, I was in a bar with some Indian and American friends. My Indian friend is very passionate about these issues and she was in a heated debate with the American on the war in Iraq and the exploitative nature of American policy. He heard out her entire speech [she is waaay more eloquent and articulate than I] and at the end of it said, "now you live here and you are a part of that same exploitative society".

And he was right.

So the tragedy is that in order to be able to communicate our sense of injustice effectively, we cannot fight the system, so we become the system. Because if you are outside the system, your voice is irrelevant.

It was the second most depressing moment of my life.

And that's poignant and lovely and holds some truth, but SAM, when you're telling us we're all knee deep in self-indulgent shit, I have to tell you that you're standing in the same mess. You have a bias, and I think probably more of one than I have. I don't default to blaming all problems on one culture and hold one that it is the perfect model of what humanity should be. ;)

Of course they have. Rather difficult to appreciate through the lens of poverty, occupation and dictatorship, but outstanding nonetheless.

Everybody should bash away at the USA because the USA deserves bashing, but everybody should remember one thing: If their nation had the USA's power in all probability their nation would behave significantly worse with that power than the USA has. The USA has repeatedly failed to act morally but given that it is human nature to be greedy and self deceptive the USA has displayed remarkable restraint compared to what the dominant nations of the past used to do.

The US era of dominance is almost over now anyway because the USA is midway through a process of unintentionally committing economic suicide and the USA shows no sign that it will wake up to what it is doing to itself before the process is complete. The US taxpayers will not be willing to pay for this dominant military process after the economy has died.

The next phase will have many powers but no dominant powers. This could be an opportunity for the creation of world government and world peace but it is more likely that the World War 3 will break out as the many powers compete without having the overwhelming threat of the USA restraining them.

And that's poignant and lovely and holds some truth, but SAM, when you're telling us we're all knee deep in self-indulgent shit, I have to tell you that you're standing in the same mess. You have a bias, and I think probably more of one than I have. I don't default to blaming all problems on one culture and hold one that it is the perfect model of what humanity should be. ;)

I don't ever recall doing that. I doubt I've spared anything I've examined too closely and I'm a harsh self critic too. So you'll have to excuse me if I say horsepuckey to you. :p

The West has also done lots of outstanding and good things. If you view everything through a narrow tunnel, everything looks worse.

Plenty. War, genocide, colonialism, and occupation to name a few. Wait.......



At any rate, as I've already said there's no connection between being an atheist and magically liking homosexuals

Hard to remember the good of the Middle East with issues like the subjugation of women and terrorism. And there's been some outstanding good, and I don't let bad seeds influence how I view the good of the whole.

It's is the people that are good but it is not something that makes good newspaper content.

Their music and food also are good.

The sincerity, inquisitiveness, intensity and humbleness with which some Middle-Easterners approach religion appeals to me as well but I can say the same for some American Christians and I have to remember that the narrow minded, arrogant, loudmouth, hate versions of Christianity and Islam are just a small step away from the beautiful intense humble versions of Christianity and Islam.

I don't ever recall doing that. I doubt I've spared anything I've examined too closely and I'm a harsh self critic too. So you'll have to excuse me if I say horsepuckey to you. :p

*GASP* Horsepuckey? :eek: SAM!!! *Faints*

Well, okay, but I don't think all Westerners are self-deluding snots. (I'm just a regular snot.) As long as we can agree both cultures have their failings. I would certainly like to see a more stable Middle East with less Western interference, and we both can agree to that.

*Shakes her head.* Horsepuckey. Potty mouth! :p

nirakar:

Re: your on topic interruption on the previous page.

Is Gwen Araujo the character played by Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry?

I wonder how much part social repression plays in hate crimes.

I would certainly like to see a more stable Middle East with less Western interference, and we both can agree to that.


Amen. ;)

"The West" is a vague and meaningless term. What is "the West' and what is "western culture"? It's diverse.

Gayness naturally grosses people out, they (if they are male, for example) imagine themselves kissing a dude, perhaps stroking his nuts, or ravenously motorboating his masculine buns, and yeah it makes them feel physically ill. Most people are innately homophobic, some strive hard to correct this flaw in themself.
Mostly atheists, because religious types have scripture backing up their natural feelings and affirming them, they believe god hates gayness and that suits them fine since they already instinctually hate gayness, there's no reason to change. Atheists are more likely to try and understand, but this doesn't mean every atheist will succeed. I for one can't get past the motorboating.

Gayness naturally grosses people out, they (if they are male, for example) imagine themselves kissing a dude, perhaps stroking his nuts, or ravenously motorboating his masculine buns, and yeah it makes them feel physically ill. Most people are innately homophobic, some strive hard to correct this flaw in themself.
Mostly atheists, because religious types have scripture backing up their natural feelings and affirming them, they believe god hates gayness and that suits them fine since they already instinctually hate gayness, there's no reason to change. Atheists are more likely to try and understand, but this doesn't mean every atheist will succeed. I for one can't get past the motorboating.


Have you considered the possibility that you might be a latent homosexual?

You can test it:

A theory that homophobia is a result of latent homosexuality was put forth in the late 20th century. A 1996 study conducted at the University of Georgia by Henry Adams, Lester Wright Jr., and Bethany Lohr[1] indicates that a number of "homophobic" males exhibit latent homosexuality. The research was done on 64 heterosexual men, 35 of whom exhibited "homophobic" traits and 29 who did not. Three tests were conducted using penile plethysmography. While there was no difference in response when the men were exposed to heterosexual and lesbian pornography, there was a major difference in response when the men were exposed to male homosexual pornography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_homosexuality

nirakar:


Is Gwen Araujo the character played by Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry?

)

No, Boys Don't Cry was a similar true story based on a different boy. There was a movie made about Gwen Araujo as well but it was less well known and has no movie stars. Gwen Araujo's case was from my metro area so I remembered her/his name when I saw this thread.

Have you considered the possibility that you might be a latent homosexual?

You can test it:



[

My guess is that Lou Natic does not own a penile plethysmography device or gay porn.

I have the same revulsion as Lou and i am quite sure I am not gay or bi. I think the repressed bisexuality is probably more an issue with those who actually Gay bash than it is with those who are merely uncomfortable with the idea of gay sex.

Does it bother you if a guy holds your hand or kisses you on the cheek?

It's is the people that are good but it is not something that makes good newspaper content.

Their music and food also are good.

The sincerity, inquisitiveness, intensity and humbleness with which some Middle-Easterners approach religion appeals to me as well but I can say the same for some American Christians and I have to remember that the narrow minded, arrogant, loudmouth, hate versions of Christianity and Islam are just a small step away from the beautiful intense humble versions of Christianity and Islam.

Well said.

Gayness naturally grosses people out, they (if they are male, for example) imagine themselves kissing a dude, perhaps stroking his nuts, or ravenously motorboating his masculine buns, and yeah it makes them feel physically ill. Most people are innately homophobic, some strive hard to correct this flaw in themself.
Mostly atheists, because religious types have scripture backing up their natural feelings and affirming them, they believe god hates gayness and that suits them fine since they already instinctually hate gayness, there's no reason to change. Atheists are more likely to try and understand, but this doesn't mean every atheist will succeed. I for one can't get past the motorboating.

I agree with SAMmy; you might be a latent homosexual. Most straight men I know don't think about gay men kissing that much because they don't find it interesting. I really only desire to be in relationships with men and therefore am considered heterosexual by most people, but it doesn't gross me out to think about sex with a woman.

My guess is that Lou Natic does not own a penile plethysmography device or gay porn.

I have the same revulsion as Lou and i am quite sure I am not gay or bi. I think the repressed bisexuality is probably more an issue with those who actually Gay bash than it is with those who are merely uncomfortable with the idea of gay sex.

But you don't feel this need to talk about how natural it is to be revolted or really, seriously, you find it sooo gross.

How can you be that disgusted? You have the same equipment. :p

I don't even watch heterosexual porn because dude parts are involved. Lesbian or solo-female all the way.

But you don't feel this need to talk about how natural it is to be revolted or really, seriously, you find it sooo gross.

How can you be that disgusted? You have the same equipment. :p

Not "sooo gross" just "so gross". Maybe revulsion was to strong of a word; but the image of male gay sex makes me a little queasy as does the image of squirming maggots or the image of my parents having sex. Normally I don't think about this uneasiness I have with gay sex but I think my uneasiness with gay sex is relevant to this topic because if my uneasiness is normal and instinctual for men then maybe it should not be a surprise that atheists are almost as homophobic as religious people are.

I have the same equipment but ewe gross, let it touch a guy, that's disgusting.

Not "sooo gross" just "so gross". Maybe revulsion was to strong of a word; but the image of male gay sex makes me a little queasy as does the image of squirming maggots or the image of my parents having sex. Normally I don't think about this uneasiness I have with gay sex but I think my uneasiness with gay sex is relevant to this topic because if my uneasiness is normal and instinctual for men then maybe it should not be a surprise that atheists are almost as homophobic as religious people are.

I have the same equipment but ewe gross, let it touch a guy, that's disgusting.

Well, who wouldn't like chicks with women like SAM, LucySnow, VI, Orly, Shorty, Liebs, Mrow, and me around? :p

I understand the queasy, just not Lou's extreme distaste for it.

Its hard to judge a society objectively when you participate in it. I remember once, I was in a bar with some Indian and American friends. My Indian friend is very passionate about these issues and she was in a heated debate with the American on the war in Iraq and the exploitative nature of American policy. He heard out her entire speech [she is waaay more eloquent and articulate than I] and at the end of it said, "now you live here and you are a part of that same exploitative society". The first sentence is somewhat contradicted by the illustrative incident.

So the tragedy is that in order to be able to communicate our sense of injustice effectively, we cannot fight the system, so we become the system. Because if you are outside the system, your voice is irrelevant.

It was the second most depressing moment of my life. You appear to be confusing comparative capability with comparative virtue. Western societies and their (multiple) systems are not more evil than Eastern - they are more capable, in certain significant ways. Their evils, whatever they are, are amplified and made visible by these capabilities.

So are their virtues (that capability possibly among them). In other threads you have, for example, put forth the burgeoning populations of Muslims as evidence of the success of that religion - but that religion has been around for centuries, with no such influence for most of that time. What has changed, for Muslims, is contact with, and (selective) adoption of, Western capability - better diets, medicine, education, sewer systems, roads, gadgets, etc.

Including, for example, a setup that enables you, or anyone willing to use it, to communicate your sense of injustice. Or claim that atheistic homophobia is somehow a coherent category of bigotry, which can be sensibly discussed.

Why would that be any more depressing than, say, getting a shot of Novocain at the dentist?

Of course they have. Rather difficult to appreciate through the lens of poverty, occupation and dictatorship, Poverty and dictatorship have been norms of human life in the Middle East and southern Asia since the invention of irrigation agriculture. They are not a special new lens for viewing the world.

Well, who wouldn't like chicks with women like SAM, LucySnow, VI, Orly, Shorty, Liebs, Mrow, and me around? :p


Exactly!

The first sentence is somewhat contradicted by the illustrative incident.

You appear to be confusing comparative capability with comparative virtue.


Not at all, I am simply pointing out that sitting in a bar in the United States paying taxes into a system that sends troops into the homes of people halfway around the world, makes you culpable for what those troops do. Even if that home they broke into was yours.

Poverty and dictatorship have been norms of human life in the Middle East and southern Asia since the invention of irrigation agriculture. They are not a special new lens for viewing the world.


But there is a difference between say, a Mongol king establishing a court and using the people as labour and a democracy espousing human rights using dictators to maintain their hegemony. Perhaps its the overt hypocrisy that makes the notion of suggested admirable qualities unpalatable.

...
...
...
What is the reason for homophobia in atheists?

I've never met an atheist whom appeared homophobic, but I suspect the answer (whatever it may be) is common to all humans. There seems to be a trend of you trying to associate "bad things" with people who don't accept the assertion "god exists" as truth. There are only two ways to convince an atheist "God exists". Provide evidence for it or manipulate their minds to the point where they value the psychological satiation of fantasy above truth.

Reg: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, not just from us, from our fathers and from our fathers' fathers.
Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.
Reg: Yes.
Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.
Reg: All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?
Xerxes: The aqueduct.
Reg: Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.
Masked Activist: And the sanitation!
Stan: Oh yes... sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.
Reg: All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done...
Matthias: And the roads...
Reg: (sharply) Well yes obviously the roads... the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads...
Another Masked Activist: Irrigation...
Other Masked Voices: Medicine... Education... Health...
Reg: Yes... all right, fair enough...
Activist Near Front: And the wine...
Omnes: Oh yes! True!
Francis: Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if the Romans left, Reg.
Masked Activist at Back: Public baths!
Stan: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.
Francis: Yes, they certainly know how to keep order... (general nodding)... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this.

(more general murmurs of agreement)
Reg: All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
Xerxes: Brought peace!
Reg: (very angry, he's not having a good meeting at all) What!? Oh... (scornfully) Peace, yes... shut up!

<looks around for the Romans>

I don't feel oppressed at all. Wherever did you get that idea?

Why would you feel oppressed? You're living the in the US.

Now, go back to your home country of India and that feeling should come to light rather quickly, be amplified and follow you around the rest of your life.

<looks around for the Romans>

You are typing with their letters. Using their grammer.

I'm not sure how the core of homophobia is connected with atheism. People fear what they don't know or can't relate to regardless of whether they believe in God or not.