Homophobia in atheists
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Eros/ agape.
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'.
Not at all. It is perfectly acceptable in the vast realms of Asian love to fall in love with the notion of love.
source
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.
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.
We'll all pitch in and get you a Rascal. Or a forklift, depending on how dedicated you are.
beats me,
Im an atheist and have no fear of homos
really..are YOU an atheist,
if not then how could you know?
that would be funny if it wasnt so idiotic
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.
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.
Comedy, well done.
Usually either fear of the unknown, or not knowing how to cope with one's own homosexuality.
Same as in Muslims.
Life is stressful.
Most of science is inadmissible for theists, and there's more of that than there are religious texts. Agree?
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?
Other than those, yeah.
Ah, an expert, I see!
Do tell us more about your knowledge of humanism.
Find one and ask her.
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
Its too bad you aren't an atheist, she could ask you.
Of course the answer wouldn't be coherant.
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.
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.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Made me tear up with happiness. I would have had more than crackers with my morning pills if I knew this.
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.