Any Gay, Liberal, Atheist Pre-Meds Out There?

[MahlerROCKS]

Since everyone else is doing this, I don't see why we shouldn't as well

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[noonday]

Since everyone else is doing this, I don't see why we shouldn't as well

well, i'm a liberal athiest buddhist queer identified straight girl (*** hag). does that count? i don't think a thread of my own would have anyone but me in it...

 

[seadizzle]

atheist

but very tolerant of religion

 

[Mr. Itchy]

I am a conservative athiest who respects religion and respects the fact that religious ideology should not run the government. Needless to say conservatives and liberals hate me.

"Too blue for the black and to black for the blue," as a famous poet once said.

 

[HelenaP]

Do you guys define atheist as "doesn't believe in an god" or as "believes there is no god"? I'm confused by the labels in this area, so I don't really call myself anything. Though as a student of anthropology I do find religion to be a fascinating part of culture, and occasionally attend different religious ceremonies when invited. I think they are lovely from an aesthetic and academic perspective.

 

[MarzMD]

Do you guys define atheist as "doesn't believe in an god" or as "believes there is no god"? I'm confused by the labels in this area, so I don't really call myself anything. Though as a student of anthropology I do find religion to be a fascinating part of culture, and occasionally attend different religious ceremonies when invited. I think they are lovely from an aesthetic and academic perspective.

Not sure I see the difference between those 2 definitions. Seems like you were trying to distinguish between agnostic and athiest. Anyway, I am some sort of agnostic I guess. I def. dont believe in organized religion.

Edit: not gay

 

[Addb]

This is what I've gathered from my life

Agnostics - Unsure, or believe that it is impossible for man to know divinity.
Atheists - Believe there is no God, supreme being, etc.
Deists - Beileve in a supreme deity that created the natural world (evolution?) and said "have fun"

 

[MarzMD]

This is what I've gathered from my life

Agnostics - Unsure, or believe that it is impossible for man to know divinity.
Atheists - Believe there is no God, supreme being, etc.
Deists - Beileve in a supreme deity that created the natural world (evolution?) and said "have fun"

I think that definition of agnostic is a little too simplified. I technically dont believe in God, but I say I am agnostic because there is no way to scientifically prove it one way or the other. Because of this, the possibility is still open. There are many different types of agnostics, so it gets pretty confusing.

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

 

[lombardoz]

I think that definition of agnostic is a little too simplified. I technically dont believe in God, but I say I am agnostic because there is no way to scientifically prove it one way or the other. Because of this, the possibility is still open. There are many different types of agnostics, so it gets pretty confusing.

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

MarzMD....there also no way to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster either.
See you all on "the other side".

 

[ADeadLois]

This is what I've gathered from my life

Agnostics - Unsure, or believe that it is impossible for man to know divinity.
Atheists - Believe there is no God, supreme being, etc.
Deists - Beileve in a supreme deity that created the natural world (evolution?) and said "have fun"

FYI...the Founding Fathers were all Deists. I learned that in a religion class this past quarter.

 

[71263]

FYI...the Founding Fathers were all Deists. I learned that in a religion class this past quarter.

And libertarian.

 

[lobster M.D.]

this thread makes me happy, noonday, your avatar is pleasing

 

[HelenaP]

All right, at least Wikipedia showed me I was right to be confused. I think I'm an implicit atheist then. In fact, I don't really like to think about it at all, it hurts my brain. Like contemplating the size of the universe. I hate that.

Oh, and I'm not gay, but our country's treatment of gay rights embarrasses me more than anything else about being American. It's completely, totally, ridiculous. What year are we in again? Are women allowed to vote yet?

 

[noonday]

this thread makes me happy, noonday, your avatar is pleasing

henry and i thank you for the compliment!

 

[71263]

All right, at least Wikipedia showed me I was right to be confused. I think I'm an implicit atheist then. In fact, I don't really like to think about it at all, it hurts my brain. Like contemplating the size of the universe. I hate that.

Oh, and I'm not gay, but our country's treatment of gay rights embarrasses me more than anything else about being American. It's completely, totally, ridiculous. What year are we in again? Are women allowed to vote yet?

Amen. I completely agree.

 

[odrade1]

Since everyone else is doing this, I don't see why we shouldn't as well

I'm gay, an athiest, and left-of-center, but not exactly a die-hard liberal. I assumed that there were probably a couple of similar folks around here.

The number of my classmates who worked 'Christian,' 'the Bible,' 'Church,' their marriage, or their children into their student profiles has me more than a little worried about finding like-minded people when school starts this fall.

 

[Nasrudin]

I'm for equal rights of gays and agree that they are being treated like second class citizens by American courts.....nevermind the conservative religious front that attacks them for sport it would seem. Strange the idea methinks that holding up a book as "proof" that "you people" are unnatural...see...its right here in this book I have.

However I don't find reason to reject god just because a propnderance of fools tout the name of god as they would banners at a football game or worse. I wish that not so many of our intelligent and rebellious ones rejected our religious heritage as humans due to the excessive foolishness of others.

And as far as the word "liberal" goes I think such highly political and trampled language loses its meaning altogether. I think people use it to mean "good" if they like it or agree with it and "bad" if they don't.

 

[prana_md]

I usually totally ignore these threads, but I had to chime in this time. SDN has been a total wake-up call for me, living in the sheltered Bay Area. Every time abortion comes up, or someone starts a thread about drug testing, I'm reminded ... it's a different world out there. I'm kind of like noonday. In a het relationship but not really straight, giving props to some higher power because biology/nature/science is so freakin' cool, trying to be buddhist to stay sane.

Things I'm gonna do when I get to med school:
1) Find a yoga studio
2) Register to vote
3) Join medical students for choice
4) Find, read the independent weekly newspaper and hang on for dear life.

 

[lilmissfickle]

I'm definitely a hard-core atheist and liberal....as for gay...uh, I'm extremely bi-curious when I'm drunk...does that count?

Also, I'd be interested to know how/when people firmly rejected the idea of God...were you raised an atheist, did you waiver, etc.

I was raised an atheist and tried really hard to believe in some kind of higher being (my best friend was a Catholic), but some time around the age of nine I gave up and just accepted the fact that I can't make myself believe something just because I want to.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

I'm gay, an athiest, and left-of-center, but not exactly a die-hard liberal. I assumed that there were probably a couple of similar folks around here.

The number of my classmates who worked 'Christian,' 'the Bible,' 'Church,' their marriage, or their children into their student profiles has me more than a little worried about finding like-minded people when school starts this fall.

don't worry there are plenty of out of the closet and extremely open gays around

 

[tomorrowgirl99]

All right, at least Wikipedia showed me I was right to be confused. I think I'm an implicit atheist then. In fact, I don't really like to think about it at all, it hurts my brain. Like contemplating the size of the universe. I hate that.

Oh, and I'm not gay, but our country's treatment of gay rights embarrasses me more than anything else about being American. It's completely, totally, ridiculous. What year are we in again? Are women allowed to vote yet?

Completely on the same wavelength. There is supposed to be separation of church and state, but what other reason would there be to not let two ADULTS form a marriage?

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Completely on the same wavelength. There is supposed to be separation of church and state, but what other reason would there be to not let two ADULTS form a marriage?

b/c marriage is defined as a union between one man and one women??

why not allow two men and one woman to marry? how about 2 women and one man, or a dog and his master? let's start down the slippery slope and allow anything and everything to go...

 

[trustwomen]

Since everyone else is doing this, I don't see why we shouldn't as well

Agnostic with atheist tendencies, liberal by Canadian standards (which I understand to mean "raving marxist loony" by American standards), and bisexual.

Guess that counts as 2 outta 3.

I LOVE this thread, it's so easy to feel all alone on oh-so-conservative SDN...

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Agnostic with atheist tendencies, liberal by Canadian standards (which I understand to mean "raving marxist loony" by American standards), and bisexual.

Guess that counts as 2 outta 3.

I LOVE this thread, it's so easy to feel all alone on oh-so-conservative SDN...

SDN is not conservative for the most part

 

[trustwomen]

SDN is not conservative for the most part

Maybe by your standards

 

[Vincir]

Guess that counts as 2 outta 3.

I guess I qualify as 2 or 1.5 out of 3, as I am gay, left-leaning, and Christian - oh yeah, interviewers love that last little quandary ... sometimes I can even see them inwardly squirming or rolling their eyes when they manage to ask about it.

 

[2010MD]

b/c marriage is defined as a union between one man and one women??

why not allow two men and one woman to marry? how about 2 women and one man, or a dog and his master? let's start down the slippery slope and allow anything and everything to go...

You're right! I sure love my pet dog, but I also love my pet girlfriend of 3+ years with whom I have a mature and loving adult relationship! I want to get married someday, but they are such comprable relationships, I don't know which one to choose.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

You're right! I sure love my pet dog, but I also love my pet girlfriend of 3+ years with whom I have a mature and loving adult relationship! I want to get married someday, but they are such comprable relationships, I don't know which one to choose.

well i think the answer is obvious; and you have no need to start on that slippery slope

 

[Psycho Doctor]

I guess I qualify as 2 or 1.5 out of 3, as I am gay, left-leaning, and Christian - oh yeah, interviewers love that last little quandary ... sometimes I can even see them inwardly squirming or rolling their eyes when they manage to ask about it.

yea well those original qualities don't go hand in hand with Christianity but i can not believe an interviewer would ask about them

you might want to check this out: http://www.sbministries.org/

 

[Compass]

Hey, let's not switch to a polygamy talk here

 

[Gut Shot]

why not allow two men and one woman to marry? how about 2 women and one man, or a dog and his master? let's start down the slippery slope and allow anything and everything to go...

William Saletan wrote a nice little piece entitled Don't Do Unto Others addressing the big difference between paired marriages (straight or gay) and polygamy.

Excerpts:

My friend Charles Krauthammer makes the argument succinctly in the Washington Post. "Traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender," he observes. "If, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices," then "on what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?"

Here's the answer. The number isn't two. It's one. You commit to one person, and that person commits wholly to you. Second, the number isn't arbitrary. It's based on human nature. Specifically, on jealousy.

...and...

Krauthammer finds the gay/poly divergence perplexing. "Polygamy was sanctioned, indeed common" for ages, he observes. "What is historically odd is that as gay marriage is gaining acceptance, the resistance to polygamy is much more powerful." But when you factor in jealousy, the oddity disappears. Women shared husbands because they had to. The alternative was poverty. As women gained power, they began to choose what they really wanted. And what they really wanted was the same fidelity that men expected from them.

Gays who seek to marry want the same thing. They're not looking for the right to sleep around. They already have that. It's called dating. A friend once explained to me why gay men have sex on the first date: Nobody says no. Your partner, being of the same sex, is as eager as you are to get it on. But he's also as eager as you are to get it on with somebody else. And if you really like him, you don't want that. You want him all to yourself. That's why marriage, not polygamy, is in your nature, and in our future.

 

[trustwomen]

Hey, let's not switch to a polygamy talk here

No kidding. (Although I know I, personally, wouldn't post on a thread titled "are there any heterosexist, conservative, christian pre-meds out there?" because I would consider it trolling.)

 

[QofQuimica]

b/c marriage is defined as a union between one man and one women??

why not allow two men and one woman to marry? how about 2 women and one man, or a dog and his master? let's start down the slippery slope and allow anything and everything to go...

This argument is ridiculous to the point that it's downright disingenuous. The reason why animals like dogs, children, or any other non-adult, non-conscious human cannot be part of a marriage is because they are not deemed capable of giving CONSENT. This is not a question of "anything goes." There is an actual moral principle here: if the person is a consenting adult, s/he should be free to have relationships (and/or marry) with any other consenting adult. It's fine if you don't agree with that principle, but at least have the intellectual honesty to recognize that the principle exists. As for polygamy or polyandry, as long as the relationship is among consenting adults, I think the gov. should butt out. There are plenty of religious and cultural practices engaged in by adults that disgust me equally if not more than multiple marriages, but that doesn't mean that the gov. ought to ban them, either. People ought to have the right to self-determination as much as possible if they are not interfering with other people's exercise of this right, even if that leads to them doing things that many of us think are disgusting, immoral, or annoying.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

William Saletan wrote a nice little piece entitled Don't Do Unto Others addressing the big difference between paired marriages (straight or gay) and polygamy.

Excerpts:

My friend Charles Krauthammer makes the argument succinctly in the Washington Post. "Traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender," he observes. "If, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices," then "on what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?"

Here's the answer. The number isn't two. It's one. You commit to one person, and that person commits wholly to you. Second, the number isn't arbitrary. It's based on human nature. Specifically, on jealousy.

...and...

Krauthammer finds the gay/poly divergence perplexing. "Polygamy was sanctioned, indeed common" for ages, he observes. "What is historically odd is that as gay marriage is gaining acceptance, the resistance to polygamy is much more powerful." But when you factor in jealousy, the oddity disappears. Women shared husbands because they had to. The alternative was poverty. As women gained power, they began to choose what they really wanted. And what they really wanted was the same fidelity that men expected from them.

Gays who seek to marry want the same thing. They're not looking for the right to sleep around. They already have that. It's called dating. A friend once explained to me why gay men have sex on the first date: Nobody says no. Your partner, being of the same sex, is as eager as you are to get it on. But he's also as eager as you are to get it on with somebody else. And if you really like him, you don't want that. You want him all to yourself. That's why marriage, not polygamy, is in your nature, and in our future.

And Stephen Bennett speaks and writes on same-sex attraction and believes you can overcome it.

"SBM (Stephen Bennett Ministries) encourages men and women to successfully and permanently overcome their unwanted same-sex attraction (SSA.) SBM firmly believes no one is born homosexual; that inmost cases, unnatural homosexual attractions tragically develop early on in the childhood; and by biblically dealing with the root cause(s) of one's same-sex attraction, homosexuality can be completely overcome - just as drug addiction, alcoholism or any other sinful behavior. Men and women can then effectively move on to healthy heterosexuality - as part of God's natural, perfect design and plan for man and woman.


Stephen Bennett struggled with homosexuality (or same-sex attraction, SSA) until he was 28 years old. Alcoholic, bulimic and a drug addict, his destructive life style nearly killed him. Over 11 years active as a promiscuous homosexual man with numerous male partners, many of Stephen's homosexual partners and friends are tragically dead from AIDS. Finally, one day while happily involved in a long term, committed relationship with a man he was in love with, Stephen was confronted by a Christian woman knocking at his door with a Bible in her hand – and the gospel of Jesus Christ. He would never be the same again."

 

[OrganLibrarian]

.

 

[2010MD]

well i think the answer is obvious; and you have no need to start on that slippery slope

I thought it was obvious too, but then you made the really very compelling argument that since person = dog, gay marriage = dog marriage... I got confused.

...

I am now done contributing to throwing this thread off topic. Noonday is right: quit trolling.

 

[Gut Shot]

And Stephen Bennett speaks and writes on same-sex attraction and believes you can overcome it.

"SBM (Stephen Bennett Ministries) encourages men and women to successfully and permanently overcome their unwanted same-sex attraction (SSA.) SBM firmly believes no one is born homosexual; that inmost cases, unnatural homosexual attractions tragically develop early on in the childhood; and by biblically dealing with the root cause(s) of one's same-sex attraction, homosexuality can be completely overcome - just as drug addiction, alcoholism or any other sinful behavior. Men and women can then effectively move on to healthy heterosexuality - as part of God's natural, perfect design and plan for man and woman.


Stephen Bennett struggled with homosexuality (or same-sex attraction, SSA) until he was 28 years old. Alcoholic, bulimic and a drug addict, his destructive life style nearly killed him. Over 11 years active as a promiscuous homosexual man with numerous male partners, many of Stephen's homosexual partners and friends are tragically dead from AIDS. Finally, one day while happily involved in a long term, committed relationship with a man he was in love with, Stephen was confronted by a Christian woman knocking at his door with a Bible in her hand – and the gospel of Jesus Christ. He would never be the same again."

That's a whole 'nother topic. Please get back on the one at hand.

 

[Vincir]

yea well those original qualities don't go hand in hand with Christianity but i can not believe an interviewer would ask about them

you might want to check this out: http://www.sbministries.org/

Hmm, well at least you didn't provide me with the requisite links to reparative therapy or Exodus International ... yet. The interviewers rarely interrogate you about your sexuality, but they do tend to want to know about things like theses you may have written on the subject.

As christians can be left- or right-leaning, I assume the "original qualities" you refer to have to deal with the third item, so you might want to check out http://www.gaychristian.net/ or you could think about the issue in terms of that little blurb you sometimes put at the bottom of your posts

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

 

[trustwomen]

That's a whole 'nother topic. Please get back on the one at hand.

I'll start: when did everyone realize they were atheist/agnostic? Did you ever have a religious faith and lose it? I'm a preacher's kid who simply outgrew and outlearned my childhood "faith" (actually reading the entire Bible sped up the process). I think I knew I was bisexual at 13 when I first got the hots for a girl but realized I still liked boys too (of course, I couldn't "confirm" it till university). And being a liberal, well, that just came with life experience.

So?

 

[trustwomen]

I am now done contributing to throwing this thread off topic. Noonday is right: quit trolling.

Might I add that I am honoured to have been mistaken for noonday.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Hmm, well at least you didn't provide me with the requisite links to reparative therapy or Exodus International ... yet. The interviewers rarely interrogate you about your sexuality, but they do tend to want to know about things like theses you may have written on the subject.

As christians can be left- or right-leaning, I assume the "original qualities" you refer to have to deal with the third item, so you might want to check out http://www.gaychristian.net/ or you could think about the issue in terms of that little blurb you sometimes put at the bottom of your posts

anyone can call themselves Christians and any church can call itself a Christian church but only God evaluates the hearts and knows for sure.

I sincerely posted that website to help you or any other homosexual who believes in Christianity because here was a homosexual WHO COULD AND DID CHANGE (something you think is not possible) and he encourages that others can too. I heard the testimony of another man who also turned away from his homosexuality and accepted Christianity. From the bottom of my heart, i mean no ill-will and just want to encourage you to read it and contact him if you want to see how it is possible.

 

[Gut Shot]

I think the gov. should butt out.

That raises an interesting point. From what I've seen, proponents of gay marriage don't want the government to butt out, they want it to butt in. In other words, they already feel they can get married in the eyes of God (I've met many gay couples who feel this way and refer to each other as husband/wife). What they're after is the same legal standing that is afforded straight couples. I thought the concept of a civil union was a nice way to end run the most contentious (and in a way most meaningless) aspect of this debate and make everyone reasonably happy.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

That raises an interesting point. From what I've seen, proponents of gay marriage don't want the government to butt out, they want it to butt in. In other words, they already feel they can get married in the eyes of God (I've met many gay couples who feel this way and refer to each other as husband/wife). What they're after is the same legal standing that is afforded straight couples. I thought the concept of a civil union was a nice way to end run the most contentious (and in a way most meaningless) aspect of this debate and make everyone reasonably happy.

serious question: how do they decide who is the wife? interesting that even they use the terms husband and wife.

 

[2010MD]

Might I add that I am honoured to have been mistaken for noonday.

oops, sorry! (or, you're welcome?)

 

[2010MD]

serious question: how do they decide who is the wife? interesting that even they use the terms husband and wife.

Um, I think Havarti meant gay males refer to their married partners as "husbands," and gay females refer to their married partners as "wives." I don't know of any lesbian couples where one partner is refered to as "husband."

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Um, I think Havarti meant gay males refer to their married partners as "husbands," and gay females refer to their married partners as "wives." I don't know of any lesbian couples where one partner is refered to as "husband."

oh ok, that makes more sense then....

 

[trustwomen]

That raises an interesting point. From what I've seen, proponents of gay marriage don't want the government to butt out, they want it to butt in. In other words, they already feel they can get married in the eyes of God (I've met many gay couples who feel this way and refer to each other as husband/wife). What they're after is the same legal standing that is afforded straight couples. I thought the concept of a civil union was a nice way to end run the most contentious (and in a way most meaningless) aspect of this debate and make everyone reasonably happy.

Personally, I'd like to see the government and legal system only have one kind of legally recognized union between two consenting adults (call it a civil union, preferably), and religious groups can then tack on whatever they want (call it marriage, have a ceremony, whatever) but their version would have no legal teeth. I won't get "married" 'cause as a liberated woman, I abhor the tradition and the history of marriage. (But if my BF really wanted to, I'd probably consent to a civil union - it's been 6 years, we know it's for good.)

 

[LifetimeDoc]

That raises an interesting point. From what I've seen, proponents of gay marriage don't want the government to butt out, they want it to butt in. In other words, they already feel they can get married in the eyes of God (I've met many gay couples who feel this way and refer to each other as husband/wife). What they're after is the same legal standing that is afforded straight couples. I thought the concept of a civil union was a nice way to end run the most contentious (and in a way most meaningless) aspect of this debate and make everyone reasonably happy.

Yeah, "separate but equal" worked out so well for african americans.

 

[trustwomen]

Yeah, "separate but equal" worked out so well for african americans.

That's the problem with calling one legal union "marriage" and another one "civil union". I say call them all civil unions, have the same forms and legalities for everybody, and leave marriage to the churches.

 

[kirexhana]

b/c marriage is defined as a union between one man and one women??

why not allow two men and one woman to marry? how about 2 women and one man, or a dog and his master? let's start down the slippery slope and allow anything and everything to go...

ugh, w/e this is not worth hashing out.....

<------ gay, libertarian and agnostic