Let's say that they're hanging on for dear life on a cliff. You are the only person who will reach them in time to save their life. Would you save them as quickly as a straight person? Would you save them at all?
Oh come on seriously?
How do you know their orientation.. is there a scarlet F on their head or something?
Just run with it. This is bound to get some insane individual to give a hilariously bigotted answer.Oh come on seriously?
How do you know their orientation.. is there a scarlet F on their head or something?
Let's say that they're hanging on for dear life on a cliff. You are the only person who will reach them in time to save their life. Would you save them as quickly as a straight person? Would you save them at all?
Let's say that they're hanging on for dear life on a cliff. You are the only person who will reach them in time to save their life. Would you save them as quickly as a straight person? Would you save them at all?
Let's say that they're hanging on for dear life on a cliff. You are the only person who will reach them in time to save their life. Would you save them as quickly as a straight person? Would you save them at all?
Let's say that they're hanging on for dear life on a cliff. You are the only person who will reach them in time to save their life. Would you save them as quickly as a straight person? Would you save them at all?
Based on studies I've read, I would hypothesize that while most people would say no, in actuality they would take significantly longer to save a gay person than a straight one. This is especially true among religious people.
Diffusion of responsibility is a psychological theory that postulates that you are less likely to save someone from harm if there are other people who could possibly save them. The more people, the less likely.
The classic study that is set up is that a group of people are set up in seperate rooms, but communicate over intercoms. One person in the group (an associate) starts complaining of chest pains, and then for all intents and purposes has a heart attack. If each listener knows that there are 4 other people listening in, it will take them longer to respond with help than if there was only 1. It takes even longer if they each know that there are 8.
However, other studies have shown that if the victim has identified themselves as being part of an ingroup, reaction time decreases substantially, and the opposite if the victim has identified themselves as a part of an outgroup. Also, reaction time increases significantly from the norm if the victim is a member of an outgroup for which the rescuer has formed an affluent prejudice against (ie, they don't like them).
Obviously, what's important is that it takes a single person longer to come to the rescue of someone of an outgroup of which the rescuer has a prejudice against, than a neutral person.
There happens to be a very significant correlation between religiosity, and affluent negative prejudice toward homosexuals.
The hypothesis writes itself.
One major difference here:
We have someone on a cliff about to die, or it is known for a fact that they are in grave peril.
In the other one it is the issue of someone who is having chest pains.
Perhaps it is something like anxiety that is causing it? Who knows.
Furthermore, could we not also postulate that if a Christian fundamentalist was having chest pains and surrounded by homosexuals, they would also be slower to help them?
Or does some how, some way, being gay make them more inclined to defy the principles you have outlined here?
Most swords cut both ways, good sir.
Second: isn't it also true that most atheists are huge discriminators against homosexuals?
Historically, more legalized discrimination against gays has occurred in the 20th century by atheists than by Christians.
That is: Vietnam, China, North Korea, Laos, Cuba, the former USSR, etc.
The first societies to be this accepting of homosexuals in modern times are the ones of Christian background.
I guess we could have the debate:
Who would be more likely to help the gay?
A Christian from France or an atheist from China.
sure. I'm not sure I'd take time to find out first anyway - lol. Not to mention, life is more important than religious differences or disagreement of practices.Let's say that they're hanging on for dear life on a cliff. You are the only person who will reach them in time to save their life. Would you save them as quickly as a straight person? Would you save them at all?
Save them as I would anyone....including my enemy. As payback...they can help me pick out some new clothes....I need help!!!