Are Atheists less Homophobic?

[KichigaiNeko]

Question is ...do Atheist give a fuck about sexual orientation??


NAH...

[kılıç_mehmet]

I don't understand how anyone slightly rational could think that it's okay to think that something is wrong with two people being in love and living life/raising a family together, just because they have the same genitalia. What the fuck kind of world do we live in, where people can't see beyond their own way of life, and realize that their way of life isn't for everyone?

Well, simply because the generic way that humanity managed to survive to this century is because two humans with different genitalia have mated to bring for another human. So it's more rational to think that a male and a woman should raise a child rather than two males who are being intimate the same way as a man and a woman are. I think this produces a lot of difficulties for society as a whole. They may live together, however, I'd rather suggest that people who are considered to be deviants to their own sex and society should mostly keep to themselves.

You know what I have? Homophobicphobia. I think people who hate things they don't have the insight to understand are freaks of fucking nature. They should be jailed and/or shunned from society. They shouldn't be allowed to raise children or get married. Being a spouse and a parent requires compassion, understanding and tolerance. Homophobes don't have that. They have no concept of a world outside of their own insecure, selfish ideals and shouldn't be welcomed by any individual with a shred of decency.

What really is there to be understood about homosexuality further than what it is?
Besides, *tolerance*, *understanding*, *compassion* are all words that can be stretched by some to unbelievable imaginations. Some people do not have the same amount of the above mentioned, and if they did, there would be no disagreements in the world, would there.

Question is ...do Atheist give a fuck about sexual orientation??

When it really matters?
Or when you just don't meet them?

[NoMoreFaith]

Well, simply because the generic way that humanity managed to survive to this century is because two humans with different genitalia have mated to bring for another human. So it's more rational to think that a male and a woman should raise a child rather than two males who are being intimate the same way as a man and a woman are.

Utterly fallacy. I will have to demand you substantiate that paragraph with something not based on personal discomfort.

Every study I have come across says the opposite, the most recent, being a study of planned lesbian or gay families, as opposed to children born heterosexually before a parent comes out as gay.

....children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression. - Gartrell & Bos (2010)

So what is more rational about it? Because its the "traditional" family? So what? Who does it harm. Apparently not the children.. so who gives a fuck? Seriously?

I think this produces a lot of difficulties for society as a whole. They may live together, however, I'd rather suggest that people who are considered to be deviants to their own sex and society should mostly keep to themselves.

Considered deviants by what measure? Certainly not scientific, that is certain. Sure, the popular consensus in your country might be such, but that doesn't make it correct does it? Can you name any valid reasons, or is it just externalisations of your own upbringing and insecurities?

Besides, *tolerance*, *understanding*, *compassion* are all words that can be stretched by some to unbelievable imaginations.

True only if you can correctly identify a reasonable basis for intolerance, or a lack of compassion. In regards to homosexuality, I do not believe you can justify either.
Nobody can make you feel comfortable about it, but you can at least admit its irrational.. and frankly, a little bit silly.

I am uncomfortable around people who are transgendered, I freely admit it and its irrational and silly. So I ignore it and make sure it never affects a rational opinion of them as people, because that's all we are, and the best we can do not to cause harm.

[KichigaiNeko]

Oh fuck...trust a sexually unidentified/ repressed(?) Turk to stuff up a simple question.

[passionatefool]

I love how mehmet cant stay away from any thread concerning homosexuality, he just cant help but have such deep interest for homosexuals.


From experience, yes, atheists tend to be much more open minded and accepting of homosexuity because they really do not have a reason to be opposing it. Most atheists are atheists through a intellectual process so they are well educated on both science and psychology which would mean they understand the nature of homosexuality much more than religious people who tends to disregard science, encouraged religious bias psychology, and of course religious scripture condemning it. however there are homophobic atheists, sometimes it has more to do with a cultural influence and honestly I rather deal with religious homophobes than an atheist one.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Utterly fallacy. I will have to demand you substantiate that paragraph with something not based on personal discomfort.

Every study I have come across says the opposite, the most recent, being a study of planned lesbian or gay families, as opposed to children born heterosexually before a parent comes out as gay.

....children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression. - Gartrell & Bos (2010)

So what is more rational about it? Because its the "traditional" family? So what? Who does it harm. Apparently not the children.. so who gives a fuck? Seriously?

It takes two people to bring forth a child. A man, and a woman.
If nature would have wanted it the other way, it'd have made it the other way. Who does it harm? I think it mostly harms the children, who do not have a certain grasp of what constitutes couple that can have children, and is actually the CORE STRUCTURE of society itself.
Lesbian and gay couples do not constitute the core structure of any society, as they cannot procreate with eachother, and are deviants to how things were supposed to work, see.
The harm is here. The kids will be confused, and will probably ask questions. If the child would be raised by a single(gay) parent, it wouldn't be much of a problem. But if it were raised by two fathers or two mothers, it does constitute a problem. It goes against the core structure of society itself. The child cannot yet comprehend what really goes on, and as he/she meets or sees the parents of his/her peers, will eventually ask which "family" is actually the family that was supposed to be?

Considered deviants by what measure? Certainly not scientific, that is certain. Sure, the popular consensus in your country might be such, but that doesn't make it correct does it? Can you name any valid reasons, or is it just externalisations of your own upbringing and insecurities?

Every measure. Else they wouldn't have been under such repression for centuries. For scientific measures, it's known that such deviant behavior is present elsewhere in the animal kingdom, however, this does not mean that this is anywhere near normal. I think that it's closer to being a kind of a defect, an abnormality, as it certainly goes against the nature of the person itself.

True only if you can correctly identify a reasonable basis for intolerance, or a lack of compassion. In regards to homosexuality, I do not believe you can justify either.
Nobody can make you feel comfortable about it, but you can at least admit its irrational.. and frankly, a little bit silly.

I am uncomfortable around people who are transgendered, I freely admit it and its irrational and silly. So I ignore it and make sure it never affects a rational opinion of them as people, because that's all we are, and the best we can do not to cause harm.

Well, I do tolerate homosexuals as long as they are respectful to the laws of the society they live in. However, if they try to do something like a pride parade that I saw in Germany, which I saw and was very, very frightened by the whole range of depraved fetishes I've seen there, I certainly do not want such a thing to be glorified in my own country.
Here, they can go about their own business, as long as they do not trespass against the business of others. And they manage to do so, certainly.

[Gooders1002]

The only Reason why I ask it because I am one.

Atheist or gay?

To answer our question: both.

[NoMoreFaith]

If nature would have wanted it the other way, it'd have made it the other way.

Nature seriously don't give a flying F. You should know that.

Who does it harm? I think it mostly harms the children, who do not have a certain grasp of what constitutes couple that can have children, and is actually the CORE STRUCTURE of society itself.

Yet when studied, as above, shows children are normal, and in some cases actually outperform in terms of confidence and self-esteem. So within reason, I can comfortably say, you're full of it.

Lesbian and gay couples do not constitute the core structure of any society, as they cannot procreate with eachother, and are deviants to how things were supposed to work, see.

Maybe not yet, but we can hope. Equality. If you don't hurt anyone, theres no reason not to have it.

The harm is here. The kids will be confused, and will probably ask questions.

Once again, look at the studies, you're full of shit.

I think that it's closer to being a kind of a defect, an abnormality, as it certainly goes against the nature of the person itself.

On that reasoning, does that mean that anyone with a "defect" should be denied the same rights as any other human?

[kılıç_mehmet]

Nature seriously don't give a flying F. You should know that.

How do you know that it doesn't?

Yet when studied, as above, shows children are normal, and in some cases actually outperform in terms of confidence and self-esteem. So within reason, I can comfortably say, you're full of it.

I did not say that they'd be "abnormal". However I'm perfectly sure that they will obviously question the nature of why they have such abnormal parents.
Outperforming in terms of confidence and self-esteem is probably not due to their parents being gay, or straight.
Besides, I said that it harms children, the fact that they have confidence or self-esteem is not really a sign that they will be spared the confusion of what constitutes real parenthood.

Maybe not yet, but we can hope. Equality. If you don't hurt anyone, theres no reason not to have it.

We can hope for what? For gays to procreate with eachother? I don't even want to think of such an abomination of nature, and frankly, I don't think that it'll be possible either.
The best chances for them is for surrogacy to become a major industry, where they employ poor women to produce children for gays to adopt(for money, of course). If they don't hurt anyone, let's turn this into a trade.
That's where this is going if you ask me.

Once again, look at the studies, you're full of shit.

Look at the studies? With how many children at which ages did these people have to work with?
Give me your sources, and I'll tell you what I think of it.

On that reasoning, does that mean that anyone with a "defect" should be denied the same rights as any other human?

Which rights? You mean privilages? Like marriage and having children?
I think these should only be exclusive to normal couples and even single parents, but gay and lesbians should stay out of parenting.
They do this only to feel more normal about themselves, to think that they can ever be a normal part of society with their abnormal behavior.

[NoMoreFaith]

Assert Assert Assert
Fail to Produce contrary evidence
Assert.
Assert a bit more.
Assert Evidence must be wrong.
Fail to produce evidence why it must be wrong.
Dribble.

I have no interest in debating someone who simply refuses to read the study already quoted.

You can assert that "its an abomination against nature", but I don't see Nature sticking its hand up and tells us that it loathes anything.

You want to anthropomorphise nature and speak for it, why don't you call on a God instead. That way you can feel like you have a reason, even a fake one.

Seriously.. your entire point is about children is that they might ask questions? So what? They ask, its answered, problem solved.

Every child should know that it is normal and has been for the entirety of mammal history, and acceptable as long as no harm is done to another person. Those children who are gay, can grow up in a more loving and accepting culture.

Fortunately, the real abomination, are those who still claw feebly to dark age prejudice, causing fear and emotional pain to other people on a irrational basis. I would say the more love in the world the better, and I would say that a gay family is better for a child than another bed in an orphanage.