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: 1444

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I can pretty much garantee that whenever such a gene is found, even it were 'declared' to be illegal, parents with money and bigotry could easily find clinics to do remove that possibility.

In the field of genetic definitions of humanity, until the ethical codes are refined and genetic codes garanteed to belong to the person they come from instead of on the open market as now seems to be the trend, I would prefer we slow the knowledge process down. At this stage of our humanity and understanding of ethics and genetics, nothing good can come of it.

We are on the cusp of selecting offspring for such petty things as hair and eye color, when more important traits are gentically resolved, I see no social trend preventing abuse in this area.
{shortage of reply links syndrome again grrrr}

Well we did hold back to a degree from human genetic cloning, by simply not allowing it to be done back in the 80s, even tho more than a couple of labs did so anyway. I think human's inhability to show critical thinking to an area of knowledge and ethics and should progress at the same speed as scientific manipulation, they should go hand in hand, and if society's not ready, I don't say stop it, just limit the percentage of funding going in that direction. IMO science advancing too fast is the main reason science so often gets used in detrimental ways instead of the benefit of our life and livelihood.

But that's a whole other conversation, for another thread. :)
@doone How odd you think I said men are "conditioned" to find women beautiful, that was not my intent at all. And how even odder that you say "and not even white"... anyway my point is that in the past couple of millenia, women have been under the thumb of men, moreso than previously in history. Historically, as I'm sure you've read in these same forums, women exercised choice in mate selection, via penis size and visibility, in numerous anthopological studies. However, these past coupla of millenia, it is men who've had the 'choice' and women who've been conditioned to 'take care of themselves in order to look good for men' whereas men can get away with being complete degenerate slobs, as long as they have enough wealth to buy the female, then it's ok. Which is exactly why I stated the tables in the last decade or so seem to be on their way to change again as the younger generation of men are starting to feel the pressure to comply with beauty standards, as the younger generation of women are just starting to be pickyer. Female pickyness is just possibly making a comeback in historical terms...
I find it interesting that many people have ideas on this but base their ideas on what they think not what an actual bisexual thinks or a gay or lesbian thinks.

Perhaps you shouldn't dismiss a "straight's" thoughts on it so easily. After all, it is highly presumptuous to assume that their ideas have not been influenced by gays or lesbians.
I think I'm definitely qualified to have the two cents I did in this discussion. I've been aware of my bisexuality since I hit puberty. :) But I agree, it is presumptuous that straights would not be equally qualified; in fact, I would consider a straight being moreso anyway. We're discussing whether all humans are basically bisexual, so the most useful opinions would be from those who do not consider themselves bisexual, including straights and gays, because the attempt would be to include them in a group that already knows they are interested in both to some degree.
True but this statement was more for those who just guess at what its like not the actual topic in question. But because so many are brought up to think it is immoral many continue to have this thought and just say well biologically its wrong and is a defect. Which is basically the same thing as religious people claiming its a sin.

To say something like being homosexual is wrong by sin or by biological standards is what i am getting at. Everyone can have their own opinion on the matter and everyone should know if they have the tendencies or not but again it's all in the way you were taught about it, or choose to believe.
The idea that everyone is secretly gay or bisexual is a leftover from the early gay rights movement. It was the gays attempt at argument ad populum and it's just as silly now as it ever was.

Think about it. You could apply that same logic to ANY sexual attraction known to man. Oh you SAY you're not a zoophile, but if you woke up to find your dog licking your penis, you'd surely have a physical reaction to that which means you must actually BE a zoophile! Oh you SAY you're not a pedophile, but I bet if a cute 10yo gave you a lap dance you'd have a physical reaction so you MUST really be a pedophile!

That line of thinking is pure nonsense! Almost ANY stimulus to the genital area will cause a physical reaction of the sexual kind. That doesn't mean anything. Getting an erection (for example) can be a purely physical experience having nothing at all to do with one's emotional or mental attraction. I have personally been physically aroused by stimuli which I hold absolutely NO interest in sexually.

It's a completely line of bollocks and, frankly, I think the homosexuals of the world should be a little bit more secure with themselves nowadays and should've grown out of that silly shit.
Missed you, Galen.
Really? What did you throw at me?
What most primates fling, of course.
Dear me! so in your world, we need dual defintions for every act????????????

My mouth can eat meat but I'm really a vegatarian inside??? My eyes like horror movies but my mind prefers love stories... I could just go on and on!!!

The basis to life on earth is biological, and most of the language etymology that is used to describe sex IS BIOLOGICAL, because it's not just about humans, god humans are sooooo anthropocentric!, it's about all animals on earth. Frogs don't have sexual intercourse, they reproduce by amplexus, as many species do not reproduce via sexual intercourse. Now if people want to create a whole new set of defintions for the duality between their inner preferences and their biological exteriors/actions, then go ahead, but I get more than a little annoyed at people changing definitions to suit their personal experiences. If words don't have some sort of set meaning what's the point of a dialogue anyway?

To return to the food analogy... I would not say that liver grosses me out unless I had given it a try, or similarly I would not say that horror movies gross me out unless I'd given them an honest shot, same in music/song, same goes for sport, I would not say i am grossed out by roman grecco wrestling unless I had tried it, same thing for married women who've only ever seen their husbands' miniature penis saying they dont mind a small penis...

As atheists, I would think that one would require a certain degree of knowledge before expressing a any level of dislike for anything. Aren't we all supposed to be about knowledge????
Now if people want to create a whole new set of defintions for the duality between their inner preferences and their biological exteriors/actions, then go ahead, but I get more than a little annoyed at people changing definitions to suit their personal experiences.

Nobody is changing definitions. I'm not sure which definitions you feel are being changed.

Sexual orientation refers to sexual attraction. An erection or even an orgasm can be achieved without sexual attraction. That was all that was being said.

and most of the language etymology that is used to describe sex IS BIOLOGICAL, because it's not just about humans, god humans are sooooo anthropocentric!

We are talking about sex in a context which is specifically about humans. It's in the thread title. As you have pointed out, sexual reproduction (and sexual behavior) can vary considerably from one species to another. Because of that, I don't see the relevance of frog reproduction in a thread that is specifically about sexual orientation in humans.

You are also either bordering on, or have already committed an etymological fallacy.

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

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