So when I was working today my openly gay boss came back while doing some back of the house work, and naturally we engaged in some conversation. I just found out he was gay the other day, and I just couldn't believe until he told me.  A matter of fact, he even called himself a "fagot" never ever thought I'd hear that.  I have theory onto where the word fagot came from.  Possibly humorous in nature or offensive, but that's a different story for a different day.

Anyways, I am a new born Agnostic I guess you could say, still kinda fence sitting betweem Atheism and Christianity, but I feel more drawn to Atheism every day...and Gary's case only solidifies it.  Gary was once married, had kids, and in fact married to this woman longer than he was openly gay.  He says always kinda knew he was, but just kinda ignored...but his mid life crisis rolled around and thats when he told her what was up.  I can't really imagine what it would be like to go through all that, on his wife, kids, and even Gary. It'd be difficult situation, especially considering they were married for 15 years.  

Anyways so me and Gary got into the topic about Gay marriage...and we both agree it's not so much the word married that grinds our gears, but rather the "rights" part of it.  Why shouldn't a partner be beside each other when one is about to pass?  Especially after 30 years of partnership, these kinda things came from Gary, and I heartfully agree with him.  Because marriage is a religious thing, and chances are even in East Tennessee, a homosexual person isn't going to be super religious (however with the slight growing acceptance of homosexuality among some denominations, that could change).  So therefore the word marriage is meaningless, it's simply the rights part of it.  He said he could care less about a tax deduction. Love is love.  Agreeable.

Anyways I'm getting off topic, so I told him I'm accepting of gay, lesbian people in my community, however I can't quite wrap my head around the bisexual thing...and he said that's good but disagreed about the bisexual thing and stated "Lot's of creatures are homosexual, take the mental part out of it...what are we Nathan?" I just looked at him, confused as if he was insinuating something "Animals!"
So true so I reply "Yeah but the difference between us and dog is the ability to reason..."
then this truly was an interesting " I guarantee you evolution wouldn't fail on this one, if I go out there grab...well your an employee, if i go out there and grab a male customer by the balls, he's going to get an erection...so were technically bisexual by nature" By the way this mainly came up because I asked him if he enjoyed sleeping with a woman...apparently he did, because as far as I'm concerned, pressure is pressure. be it being a woman's part, male's buttocks. or your own holy hand.

But the notion that we are all born bisexual kinda left a note on my mind. I'm in fact a heterosexual male, and gary stated while we may not like mentally, our body most likely would not be able resist such actions, and reactions...what do you guys think? and sorry I know this is a mouthful.

Views: 1426

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I have heard you talk about the tramatic effects of people and how you think the word choice us a wrong one to use. You may be right about the word choice, but I think you are thinking of my use for the word to small. When i say choice i should say that the brain makes choices for you sometimes. Your subconcience can control the overall outcome of your view on life. While i agree that some people that experience traumas in their life and later decide to be a certain way based on that trauma, essentially it is still a choice to continue on that path.

When you talk about how you were growing up compared to how feminine you were your talking about a choice your brain made for you. It has nothing to do with biology but more to do with outside influence in the people you see. many men that act feminine act so based on how they perceive the world, It does make them gay no more than a girl being a tom boy.
Funny you scream Asperger Syndrome and say i am attacking you. frankly at this point i dont care if you bow out dont read this or never comment on anything i write again. Your childish rants and raves over things you know nothing about along with your passive aggressive attacks on me with your friend doone have long since caused me to shut off my sympathetic mind.

I never claimed to know you better then you know yourself, its everyone that doesn't know themselves. We all fall prey to that. Our over programed minds are full of useless misconceptions and ideas of how life should be. I am no different and neither is anyone else.

Overly sensitiveness, i know a few people with Aspergers and they have a much higher tolerance than you. They also dont show the rudeness you dish out. But that's fine bow out after making the type of comments you have made I'm fine with it, didn't hurt my feelings. But to say i am sorry would be a lie if i at all hurt your feelings.

i am a nice guy most of the time, but unfortunately i am human and suffer from extreme bouts of anger. lucky i know how to control it and haven't gotten mad over your childish antics. sucks when someone doesn't bow down to you in arguments doesn't it.
Hey Fred, I'm with you. I don't see anything mean-spirited or judgmental in what you say. However, I am getting tired of MJA's insults and judgmental attitude. Perhaps I should read some of his other posts before I decide.
Personally, I find MJA's slighty short fuse less infuriating than Fred's shortness of vision.
I'm probably over-generalizing with anecdotal evidence, but I've noticed a lot of hetero and bi sexuals commenting a lot about hetero and bi behavior in terms of "how human sexual behavior should be". I.e., I've seen them take more moralistic stances than others, conveniently in favor of their own, preferred kind of behavior. (Please don't take this personally, as I'm mostly talking about what I've read in other forums besides ThinkAtheist.)

Btw at this point I'm also pretty much equating "behavior" with "preference", even for bisexuals. I.e., even if bisexuals have a "choice" in their sexual behavior, I still prefer to postulate that it's more of a preference than a choice. Does that make sense? What I mean is that--just like a lot of heterosexuals--I've seen a lot of bisexuals try to present *all* sexuality, including that of others, as a "choice" more than as a built-in preference. But I'm saying that I prefer to see the "choice" that bisexuals have as really existing in a larger context of "bisexual preference" more ingrained in their bisexuality. (Duh, I must be exposing a deficiency of standard terms in my supposedly scientific thinking, here.)

Perhaps I tend to misinterpret those who explain sexual behavior in the most moralistic or amoralistic light, because of my own, intentionally "limited" perspective. I try to understand sexual behavior not on the basis of what should or shouldn't be, but from a scientific perspective. E.g. it's a natural fact that hetero rather than homo behavior is more "natural", except in cases of (say) Benobos. This is obviously necessary for procreation of the species. Sexual behavior beyond purely heterosexual behavior has to exist for other than procreative reasons, e.g. for bonding purposes in the species. There's also no doubt that even practicers of heterosexual behavior draw a line of sexual behavior that no one crosses, e.g. we're not even discussing beastiality here, because it is so rare. (Ha, I think?)

So what I'm getting at (which is probably not at all obvious until now) is that even we humans trying to act as "scientists" are STILL stuck, often letting emotional preconceptions filter our objectiveness wrt sexual behavior. Is it even possible for everyone who calls themself "scientific" to take a completely objective, emotionless and non-judgmental view of sexual behavior in their own species?
(Shoot, typo I couldn't fix only seconds after my 15 minute edit window expired. Should be "non-heterosexual" instead of "heterosexual" in the next-to-last paragraph. And I probably would have thought of better wording for that sentence.) I is not a greatly errorless spontaneous writer.
The biological fact, in fact, is: same-sex sex is a NORMAL biological component of a great many mammals and other species. It has been fairly constant troughout history. This indicates to my scientific mind that our sexual genetic makeup does not exclude same sex activity.

Life throws much varied experiences at us, and as we progress through the years, we develop preferences, not only as individuals, but as societies. But these preferences are not 'choices' per se, as our brains become programmed to certain preferences. As an occasional bisexual, on most days I feel I'm more attracted to the male body, but more attracted to the female mind, on most days. But there are many days when I feel the opposite pattern... Since I was never taught to dislike or disavow either pattern, I am free to explore both, to whichever degree I see fit. I can not say with certainty what lies in my future in this regard.

From a scientific perspective, babies come from traditional sexual intercourse, our bodies generally pulsate to that rythm, but sexual activity outside reproduction has no limits or confines. Non reproductive sexual activity is also a biological reality which our bodies may pulsate to.
In the animal kingdom at large I have seen no evidence that same-sex sex requires a separate genetic makeup. When I say 100%, I mean same-sex sex is a biological possibility for all of us, not requiring a unique genetic makeup.

You argue about the action, my 100% is not about the action but about the biological potential. Well ok, maybe 99.9% of humanity as the biological potential for same-sex sex.
This is the type of research I think homosexuals should have a "be careful what you wish for" attitude that I mentioned to Vern in another post. Because if one day we confirm a 'homosexuality' gene, or even worse, erroneously confirm a homosexuality gene... homosexuals can be sure to experience accrued social hardship as the number of parents acting on selecting against those genes would rise. I like my lesbian sister's approach better, tho she has only come to this conclusion in recent years. Tho from her most distant memory, she was always a lesbian, which at first led her to believe it was genetically programmed, through much introspection, she came to the conclusion that our totalitarian/authoritarian father was probably the dominant factor.
I think a important think that many people pass up is the past. All one has to do is look back in time and you will see an increased number in gays before religions like Christianity and Judaism became mainstays in society. This gene theory can not hold water when people in those times didn't know the difference and had no moral compass to say this is wrong. It wasn't wrong to them and was freely practiced in nearly every society. We strive to explain this psychological choice our brain makes for us without taking into consideration how we lived as a society in the past. Do some research on the subject and the numbers are completely one sided toward there being no sexual preference of anyone. Sure there where those who didn't participate but this will go on until the end of time. Its all in the choice.
I'm so sad I joined this thread in it's late stages where the visual ease of following responses has become nearly impossible! I wish we could modify Ning preferences to accomodated page settings with more responses per page. These discussions get artificially arrested by the idiot technological limits!

Sigh :(
what's this??? ;P

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service