When did same-gender relations become "wrong"?

[Cruentus]

1. Most people are trying to avoid a "semantical" (Mom...I just used a new word! ) here by trying to agree with simple definitions. You're the one who I am seeing who doesn't want to agree with simple, generally accepted definitions, or even offer an alternate definition (if the agreed upon ones don't suffice) to simple words that pertain to the discussion.

2. On History: You, Upnorth, said, "as Kaith orginally pointed out, the entire sandbox of human sexuality was once accepted in a much different way." Well, I think there is a misconception going on here related to this. There seems to be this false idea going around that everyone was gay (to some degree according to you) and happy, and that lines between hetrosexuality and homosexuality didn't exist before Christianity. A fanciful idea, but with no historical basis that I have seen.

It seems that at different times and in different cultures, homosexuality has been both shunned, tolerated, and accepted to different degrees. These degrees varied depending on the worldview of the culture at the time. There was no time when everyone on the planet was gay "to different degrees" and happy, then along came Jesus-lovers (begin Darth Vader enterance music here) to end all the fun. This is a total misconception with no historical basis behind it.

3. If by saying "artificial line" you mean that in the bedroom, different strokes for different folks, then O.K., I'll agree. If your saying that there are no clear lines between homosexuals (those that prefer the same sex) hetrosexuals (those that prefer the opposite sex) and bisexuals (those that can go "both ways"), then I say "phoey." If that was true, then I could tell the next lesbian that I run into that she should date one of my guy friends because there are no real clear distinction her preference for women over men ya know, and I could also go tell my Mom next time she is having boyfriend trouble to go try dating chicks because there are no clear lines and... uh... "ya never know til ya try it." Hey, while I'm at it, I'll just offer up my rear end the next time one of my guy friends is feelin' randy, cause ya know, its reeely all the same anyhow ('specially in the dark with snorkling gear).

Again...I say phoey to that. Boys have "penises" and girls have "bagina's," and there are clearly those who would only prefer sexual relationships with the opposite sex, those who would only prefer the same sex, and those who could prefer either.

Gee...now I feel like a sex ed teacher. And no, you cannot get a girl pregnant through her belly button.... Any other questions kids? :idunno:

:ultracool
Paul

 

[Makalakumu]

1. Most people are trying to avoid a "semantical" (Mom...I just used a new word! ) here by trying to agree with simple definitions. You're the one who I am seeing who doesn't want to agree with simple, generally accepted definitions, or even offer an alternate definition (if the agreed upon ones don't suffice) to simple words that pertain to the discussion.

The sandbox is bigger then you think. Frued is a figure who jumps to mind who first saw an expanded picture...either way, this is an important aspect of this discussion. Simple definitions do not work in reality just as in the case of the Schroedinger Equation analogy I brought up before...the wave/particle duality predicted one dimensionally sometimes predicts reality, but there are alot of exceptions...

By the way, I'm not claiming that Frued had it right either...

2. On History: You, Upnorth, said, "as Kaith orginally pointed out, the entire sandbox of human sexuality was once accepted in a much different way." Well, I think there is a misconception going on here related to this. There seems to be this false idea going around that everyone was gay (to some degree according to you) and happy, and that lines between hetrosexuality and homosexuality didn't exist before Christianity. A fanciful idea, but with no historical basis that I have seen.

Oh please. You've read the bible. I've read 17 different bibles. Some of the passages in some of them are clearly discriminatory against homosexuals. Some of these passeges were written at various historical times in history. Why? Clearly, in the past, there were different rules.

It seems that at different times and in different cultures, homosexuality has been both shunned, tolerated, and accepted to different degrees. These degrees varied depending on the worldview of the culture at the time. There was no time when everyone on the planet was gay "to different degrees" and happy, then along came Jesus-lovers (begin Darth Vader enterance music here) to end all the fun. This is a total misconception with no historical basis behind it.

You totally contradict yourself here. And I think that you do this because you persist in using a one dimensional defninition of "gay". You clearly understand that the sandbox was different in the past and that it changed...this "gay and happy" is part of a cultural filter you are looking through.

3. If by saying "artificial line" you mean that in the bedroom, different strokes for different folks, then O.K., I'll agree. If your saying that there are no clear lines between homosexuals (those that prefer the same sex) hetrosexuals (those that prefer the opposite sex) and bisexuals (those that can go "both ways"), then I say "phoey." If that was true, then I could tell the next lesbian that I run into that she should date one of my guy friends because there are no real clear distinction her preference for women over men ya know, and I could also go tell my Mom next time she is having boyfriend trouble to go try dating chicks because there are no clear lines and... uh... "ya never know til ya try it." Hey, while I'm at it, I'll just offer up my rear end the next time one of my guy friends is feelin' randy, cause ya know, its reeely all the same anyhow ('specially in the dark with snorkling gear)..

Here is where the logic behind my sandbox analogy fails, because depending on choice, you can play anywhere in the sandbox. And your analogies dramatically point this out. Yet, this is still just a one dimensional representation of reality. Choice, plays a part to some degree, but choice is influenced by your position in the "sandbox". That is the limitation of describing sexuality as a sandbox.

Here is hypothetical example what what I am talking about. A man is married, he has two kids. He's been in love with women twice in his life and has slept with both of those women. This man has also had more casual sexual relationships...some of them included more then one people and the sexual ratio was not always weighted in the female direction. This man has made friends with others who have formed same sex relationships. If they happen to be women, he is able to appraise other women sexually. If they happen to be men, he is able to appraise other men sexually. This man also has watched porn depicting same sex and opposite sex relationships. In movies, this man is moved by strong female roles. He is also moved by strong male roles attempted to emulate some of them at various times in his life...I could go on and on adding more statements that obviously are connected to human sexuality, but I think I've made my point. How do you label this man with our current language?

This is where the sandbox analogy is still usefull, though (more useful then the current definitions in my opinion). He has clearly played in once court most of his life, yet there are foot prints in different areas. He has never totally crossed the sandbox, though.

Perhaps this would make a better thread on its own. I think this discussion is interesting and its a shame to see it buried so deep in another thread...

Again...I say phoey to that. Boys have "penises" and girls have "bagina's," and there are clearly those who would only prefer sexual relationships with the opposite sex, those who would only prefer the same sex, and those who could prefer either.

As you can see from the above example, this is NOT so clear. If you take into account ALL of the sexual things we do, the picture gets incredibly grey. This is because the picture is beginning to reflect reality.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Cruentus]

1. This is not the Schroedinger Equation. We are talking, simply, about coming up with categories based on what gender someone prefers sexually. This is a very simple task, unless of course your just trying to cloud the issue.

2. On history, again: That's nice that you've read 17 bibles. It is rare to see a scientest, as you say you are, who reads bibles in their spare time. For someone so biblically well read, I am surprised that you didn't notice that the bible(s) are actually a compilation of different books by different authors (each with different intentions) that span over a large period of time. So, when an author in an old testiment scripture says something negative about homosexuality, guess what, that is a different culture (not american christian) in a different time period. Ya know, cause last time I checked, Falwell or Jones didn't write any part of the scripture, despite what they say.

However, I am not talking about the Bible. Oddly, not unlike a christian rightest, you totally went there, and I am shocked.

I am simply talking about human history in general; different cultures in different time periods. When you look at different cultures from different times, some shunned, some tolerated, and some accepted homosexuality. The idea that everyone was gay to a certian degree (again, this is what you claim not me) and no one drew "lines in the sand" until the christians came along is unfounded nonsense.

3. I do agree that human psychology plays a role in sexual behavior. There is no question about it. However, someone can very easily determine what they prefer, regardless of this behavior.

Example: some people want to be pooped on during a sexual act. Guess what, although this may surprise you, but I don't want to be pooped on during a sexual act. By your standard, if the circumstances were appropriate, then I would want to be pooped on because, ya know, things just aren't black and white like that.

Well, I again say this is ridicules. If one doesn't prefer to be pooped on, we can easily put them in the "I don't want to be pooped on" category. Similarly, we can put people in a category based on their gender preference.

Your making a very easy task into a complicated one to fit your worldview that everyone is really gay. Obsurd. I see that you have that other thread though, so I guess we can continue that topic there, if there is anything else to say on the matter...

Paul

 

[loki09789]

Terminology LUNCH SPECIAL:

Pick ONE definition from each word, move along, more customers behind. Free fortune cookie when you pay at the cash register!......Let's go, thank you for discussing at HARRY'S HOUSE OF RHETORIC.....Did you get your ticket punched? 11th discussion free if you do.

love n.

1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
3. 1. Sexual passion.
   2. Sexual intercourse.
   3. A love affair.
4. An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
5. A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
6. An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.
7. 1. A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
   2. The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
8. Love Mythology. Eros or Cupid.
9. often Love Christianity. Charity.
10. Sports. A zero score in tennis.

sex (s ks)
n.

1. The property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions.
2. Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, of this classification.
3. Females or males considered as a group.
4. The condition or character of being female or male; the physiological, functional, and psychological differences that distinguish the female and the male.
5. The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior.
6. Sexual intercourse.

homosexual

adj : sexually attracted to members of your own sex [ant: bisexual, heterosexual] n : someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex [syn: homo, gay]

lust

n 1: a strong sexual desire [syn: lecherousness, lustfulness] 2: self-indulgent sexual desire (personified as one of the deadly sins) [syn: luxuria] v : have a craving, appetite, or great desire for [syn: crave, hunger, thirst, starve]

horn·y



Having horns or hornlike projections.

1. Made of horn or a similar substance.
2. Tough and calloused: horny skin.
3. Vulgar Slang.
   1. Desirous of sexual activity.
   2. Sexually aroused.

I understand where UpNorth is going, but the assumption that all sexual intercourse fits into two major categories defined as 'love' or 'violence' is a bit unscientific to me. It, by the very nature of the term, denies the biological, scientifically provable aspects of our 'animal' make up IMO.

"Love making" or "love" as a description of sex, the desire for sex regardless of gender preference is a Judeo/Christian euphemism that imposes a cultural perspective on a biological function/chemical reaction and basic urge of all animals.

We just happen to be complicated enough to have to torture ourselves trying to figure out/justify/apologize for being 'human animals' with these urges....

 

[loki09789]

I must respectfully disagree with your first comments. I think it depends upon the church. For instance, as a non-Catholic, I am not allowed to take mass (communion) in a Catholic church. My argument is and has always been that Jesus ate with known sinners, tax collectors, and prostitutes. Why am I less worthy than they, because I don't follow Catholic teachings?

Peace,
Melissa

I understand your frustration, for years, I basically was a heiretic because I was not confirmed, had first communion or anything other than a Baptism (non Catholic) and during my military service days I attended and took communion regularly because, though it wasn't 'right' in the eyes of the 'body politic' of Christ (Canon law), it was personally 'right' to me and I chose to do it anyway because I considered it an important gesture for me between myself and God.

By no means does your lack of acceptance as elligible to recieve communion make you 'less' in the eyes of catholics. If that is the impression that you have been left with, I am sorry becuase it is wrong on those persons parts. You are basically scene as a member of the 'family' just not this particular 'marriage' and therefore are not on the 'in' when it comes to the family traditions. Part of being Catholic (larger at times than being personally involved with 'God') is being educated on the rites and practices that make up the community.

It is no different than when I was attending Baptist church and was told that meditation, of any kind other than God/Jesus focused prayer, was not part of the practice of that church.

 

[raedyn]

IMHO, you are never going to mandate "acceptance".There are probably just as many racist bigots today as there were in the 60's. We didnt make people "accept" other races, we just removed institutionalized practices.

Yes. We cannot mandate acceptance. But we can remove institutionalized discrimination, we can mandate tolerance, we can forbid attacks. Like another controversial topic: abortion. We can't force everybody to accept it, but we can provide access to it, we can forbid people from harrassing women trying to get an abortion and the doctors who provide abortions, we can still have abortion without everyone accepting abortion. We can still have gay marriage without everyone accepting gay marriage, you know?

re: semantics
1) I think UpNorth has a point. Research shows that most people have at least some attraction and/or experience towards both genders (experiementing, people who 'come out' after being married, fatasies, etc). Even if they have never acted on those attractions.
2) Respectfully, I think UpNorth may be hammering on the point a little too hard. There is a spectrum of attraction and of behaviour. But most people would say they lean more to one side than the other - if they don't infact say that they are exclusively binary in their attractions. (And I've discussed this at great length with people who identify themselves at every point on Kinsey's scale).
I will discuss this more in the newer thread.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

A digression from what others are posting, and some thoughts along the lines of the title of the thread.

There are several things in the past that might have spurred the notion that homosexuality is wrong.

First is the natural revulsion that many heterosexuals will have for the behavior. This is perfectly normal. Heterosexuality's drive is towards pro-creation and away from that which doesn't accomplish this. Revulsion towards same sex interaction has a biological benefit in that it steers sexual energy towards the maintenance of the species.

Secondly are relgious restrictions based on this natural homo-revulsion. Prime examples of this are found in the Torah--such as Levitical proscriptions against homosexuality. The notion of homosexuality's inability to bear children is anathema to ancient Jewish thought. Heterosexual onanism (withdrawal prior to ejaculation) was a sin and indicative of the level of disgust the Jews had for any sexual behavior that didn't induce pregnancy.

These relgious proscriptions were followed up by New Testament asceticism that denied the pleasures of the flesh.

Thirdly is the notion that homosexuals are iffeminate and less than manly. This stereotype is reinforced by openly Gay men who affect this behavior or come to it to some small degree naturally. Not all Gays do this, of course--to the confusion of many heterosexuals who understand only the stereotype.

Throughout history homosexual behavior has been accepted among certain heterosexual groups. In Greece pederasty was taken for granted, but homosexuality as an exclusive preference was looked at as odd. In the American prison system (and prison systems elsewhere) homsexual behavior is practiced as an act of dominance through forced rape and coercion, but most of the participants don't identify themselves as Gay and indeed are not.

It's interesting how large numbers of adolescent males will have homsexual interactions with their peers and then move on to exclusively heterosexual behaviors as a preference. While there might be a large degree of guilt stemming from these encounters, the participants dismiss they're Gay (and they aren't), yet possibly generate great vitriol for Gays as a means of compensating for their feelings of shame. For many of these youngsters, like the prison population, the notion of homosexuality as an orientation is abhorrent for the reasons cited above.

The question "when did it become bad" can become "when does it become bad" when looking at these institutional and developmental timelines. The behavior becomes bad once social pressures to participate in the behavior are removed and heterosexual options are available. Then there is no excuse for homosexual behavior. Except one.

The person is Gay.

It seems inconceivable to many here that a developmental glitch (or more than one) exists that could cause a person to be Gay or bi-sexual. They can accept that identical twins of children with autism will, only 60% of the time, have autism themselves. The notion of an in-utero stressor that triggers the autism in only one of the monozygotic twins is perfectly acceptable. The notion of allele penentrance affecting only one of the twins, if they understand what allele penentrance is, is also acceptable.

But they can't accept that identical twins of Gays will be Gay themselves only fifty-two percent of the time. The notion of stressors affecting sexual development suddenly doesn't wash, and it becomes an issue of morality and choice, rather than biology and natural inclination. The explanation of allele penetrance leads to vulgar jokes. More than likely it is ignored in favor of a simplistic grasp of genetics.

Here's some helpful argumentative ammunition for the more tolerant among us here on Martialtalk. For those that are less tolerant, it might prove to be illumination--should you but point and click. I would hope you do, for it is fascinating reading. But for some of you my hope is stretched thin. For others, less so.


http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

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


Regards,


Steve

 

[Makalakumu]

Awesome post, Steve! :asian:

 

[The Prof]

You can really open a can of worms with that question. I don't think that anyone can say when same gendered relations became wrong. It's the same with interracial couples.

Society has it's own set of standards that they believe everyone should follow. I am and have almost always believed that in so many cases society should really mind its own business.

Not everyone likes Pizza, not everyone like Matzoh Ball Soup. Some guys like gals, some guys like guys or guys and gals. Same with the ladies. But the question is who cares, if a person is a good person that is all that should really matter. Unfortunately we have too many people that are too busy minding everyone elses business.

Live and let live, life is too short.

 

[Cruentus]

Steve,

Very well done post, with good links as well! :asian:

This is an interesting point for discussion:

It seems inconceivable to many here that a developmental glitch (or more than one) exists that could cause a person to be Gay or bi-sexual. They can accept that identical twins of children with autism will, only 60% of the time, have autism themselves. The notion of an in-utero stressor that triggers the autism in only one of the monozygotic twins is perfectly acceptable. The notion of allele penentrance affecting only one of the twins, if they understand what allele penentrance is, is also acceptable.

I am baffled by this as well. I think that there is pretty strong evidence to support the possibility that many people are simply born with the biological make-up to be homosexual.

Yet, what baffles me, is that many people on both sides of the arguement do not want to explore this option. Strong rightwinged Christian extremests don't want to buy this because it takes away the basis that homosexuality is as severe of a sin as they would like to make it. Strong leftwinged gay rights activists don't want to explore this because they believe that "Homosexuality isn't something that should be treated as a correctable anamoly." If homosexuality is proven to be a biological phenomenom in many cases, Christian extremests can't rightfully demonize homosexuals the way that they would like, and gay rights activists don't like the idea that it might be a correctable biological phenomenom.

It baffles me because I think that studying the theory that homosexuality could be biologically motivated is imperitive to our understanding of homosexuality. Yet, I am searching for understanding rather then an excuse to demonize, glorify, 'correct,' or to simply only accept evidence that fit into my worldview. Hmmm....perhaps I am the 'anamoly' here... :idunno:

:supcool:

 

[Tgace]

How would a "gay" gene be passed along? It would seem counter to evolutionary theory...a preference for non-reproductive behavior would dead end pretty quick wouldnt it?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

How would a "gay" gene be passed along? It would seem counter to evolutionary theory...a preference for non-reproductive behavior would dead end pretty quick wouldnt it?

Only if it were a single-allele (only one location in the species' entire genetic code), and dominant.

There are a number of traits that we have - and other animals have - that remain in a species 1) just because (we don't know why), 2) because there is no detriment to it, 3) because there is some direct or indirect benefit to it.

Classic example: sickle-cell anemia in populations in Africa. "Why" have this disease that remains strong in the population? The explanation: being heterozygous for this (one parent gives you the gene for sickle-cell, one gives you the normal, non-disease code) allows the individual to better fight off or be unaffected by malaria, a common illness.

So some in the population are unfortunate, and get the two recessive alleles for sickle-cell anemia, and get sick. Some are homozygous for the non-anemia alleles, and are well, but are more prone to catching malaria. The rest - who have one of each - are not anemic, and are resistant to malaria.

Certain genes do not have to benefit every individual who has them - just most of the population.

I'm not saying that if sexual orientation is genetic, it works in this way exactly. Other people (EO Wilson, who I think has some brilliant ideas, and one or two I have issues with) have proposed that homosexuality is adaptive, because having gay folks in your family - i.e., a gay uncle - means that that person won't have kids of his own, but help out the rest of the family with the other kids.

Of course, most genetics underlying behavior is a lot more complex. But it's interesting to think about.

ETA: I went back and read severl previous posts, including HHJH's, which was very nice, and Tulisan's.

Tulisan - there does seem to be a biological component to homosexualisty. Whether it completely determines sexuality - whether it is entirely genetically determined (I doubt it; few things are) or some is environmentally induced, as Steve mentioned.

I have noted that ultra right-wing folks prefer to talk about homosexuality as a choice (although, as others previously mentioned, when has any of us who is heterosexual thought of their sexuality - that is, sexual preferece - as a choice?), some gay rights activists also downplay the biological-influence standpoint. I am a bit baffled about this, but I think there are some reasons. Possibly they are trying to prevent the biological "screening" or "therapy" for children targeted as "maybe gay". Or they simply want to own their sexual preferences, and not have others study what is natural to them as "abberrant" or "developmentally skewed".

 

[Cruentus]

Fiesty...Yup, that's what I'm sayin... :ultracool

An interesting read:

http://www.pflagphoenix.org/education/homosexuality_cause.html

So it doesn't need to be a "gay gene" per say; it could be just a way in which the brain "hard wires" prenatal (or even postnatal during some phase of a childs development). Autism is a good example of this. No one know really "why" children become autistic, and very little is known about "what" autism actually is. But, they have determined that autism occurs in everyones brain during developmental stages, usually before the child begins speaking, but that some childrens brains "hardwire" that way, and the child remains autistic. I am not suggesting that everyone goes through a period of "gayness" like autism, but it is reasonable to suggest that sexual attraction is hardwired in the brain, and that some people just hardwire differently pre- or postnatal.

 

[raedyn]

First is the natural revulsion that many heterosexuals will have for the behavior. This is perfectly normal.

I disagree. You know the saying 'no child is born a racist'? I believe this is true. And equally I believe that 'no child is born a homophobe'. Because I grew up in a non-homophobic home and I didn't even know that people felt that way until I got to school and heard cat-calls of "fag" and "lezzie" and "homo". I knew what those words meant, but I didn't know they could be insults.

Infact, I grew up with divorced parents who shared custody. Since before I could remember both my mom and my dad lived in loving relationships with women. I saw how relationships could be good and bad, and I saw no difference between my dad with his wife and my mom with hers. Mom has said I am the least homophobic person she has ever met - including all the gay people she knows. To me there's never been any question about it if it's normal or healthy or whatever. I haven't had to learn to accept anything, excpet the abuse that I would take from other people because of it. To me it's always been obvious.

 

[loki09789]

I disagree. You know the saying 'no child is born a racist'? I believe this is true. And equally I believe that 'no child is born a homophobe'. Because I grew up in a non-homophobic home and I didn't even know that people felt that way until I got to school and heard cat-calls of "fag" and "lezzie" and "homo". I knew what those words meant, but I didn't know they could be insults.

.

Much like the social disapproval of incest, some behavioralists have argued that the 'social revulsion' to homosexual tendencies/expressions is a way of encouraging reproductive mating/sexual behavior and is programmed/driven by the biological urge to mate/continue the species.

I don't know much about that, but I have heard this point made.

 

[raedyn]

some behavioralists have argued that the 'social revulsion' to homosexual tendencies/expressions is a way of encouraging reproductive mating/sexual behavior and is programmed/driven by the biological urge to mate/continue the species.

And that makes some sense to me, but I don't buy the arguement that it's "perfectly natural" to feel a "revultion" towards homosexuality. No. It isn't.

 

[loki09789]

And that makes some sense to me, but I don't buy the arguement that it's "perfectly natural" to feel a "revultion" towards homosexuality. No. It isn't.

I can see where it might be offensive and that it might be something that you disagree with but let me get a little 'upnorth' on you:

I can see it as 'perfectly natural' that a child raised by the Grand Dragon of the KKK would feel revulsion at the sight of a black man kissing a white woman. NOT that it is purely genetic/natural or that a culture that is intolerant is 'right' but only that based on the 'nature' of the upbringing, that would be an unsurprising reaction.

 

[raedyn]

I can see it as 'perfectly natural' that a child raised by the Grand Dragon of the KKK would feel revulsion at the sight of a black man kissing a white woman. NOT that it is purely genetic/natural or that a culture that is intolerant is 'right' but only that based on the 'nature' of the upbringing, that would be an unsurprising reaction.

I guess the problem is with the word "natural".
Yes it is 'natural(to be expected)' that someone growing up in a homophobic home and a homophobic society would have homophobic thoughts. Gay people struggle with this in themselves. But it not 'natural' as in a biological imperative. Because guess what, I have no 'revulsion' towards homosexuals or homosexual behaviours etc etc and yet I am still reproducing!

 

[loki09789]

I guess the problem is with the word "natural".
Yes it is 'natural(to be expected)' that someone growing up in a homophobic home and a homophobic society would have homophobic thoughts. Gay people struggle with this in themselves. But it not 'natural' as in a biological imperative. Because guess what, I have no 'revulsion' towards homosexuals or homosexual behaviours etc etc and yet I am still reproducing!

THis idea isn't something that is applied to an individual thing it is across the the whole homo sapien thing.

It is sort of like the idea that there are two different colors that a certain fish can be born as. Red or Blue. Hypothetically, red is better because it hides the fish better during the day because they blend in with the bright coral AND at night because it isn't as easy to see by night predators.

More blue fish will be eaten and more red fish will survive and breed.

If the majority of homo sapiens 'prefer' heterosexual sex (or at least are willing to engage in it) AND happen to have a natural 'revulsion' (or expession of resistence to a thing) then they will continue to produce children at a higher rate.

There are some studies that, at least in men, that link a high sex drive to 'revulsion' to homosexual behavior. THerefore they are predisposed to seek, breed and reproduce highly 'hetero' (and therefore homo 'revulsive') offspring...

I don't all the science about it honestly, I caught a few Discovery Channel/Science channel special about this stuff in conjunction to Child development and Social interaction that I thought might help me deal with students/my son.

I am sure there are others that can be more precise with the study/science support for certain theories though.

 

[raedyn]

And I can see the 'biological benefit' you describe, how it might help propel people towards heterosexual behaviours. Many gay people I know have only 'come out' after having been married and had kids, and many of them say they knew they were gay previous to ever doing all that, but societal pressures compelled them to try and pursue a "normal(heterosexual)" life. So if the biological 'purpose' of homophobia is to help people go forth and multiply, then it's working. But this is a social pressure, not an inherent biological one. (And it's all conjecture anyways. Although the arguement makes sense, show me ONE shred of emperical evidence that there is a biological reason for homophobic thoughts or behaviours.)