When did same-gender relations become "wrong"?

[loki09789]

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.)

And one of the things that contributes to what is acceptable and unacceptable in social settings is biology. It is not the only factor but it is one of them.

All I can do is draw parallels. It seems that this idea is a personal hot button for you so I won't push it any further but I have already stressed that I am working from Secondary/tirciary data...I don't think that any one here can really work from Empirical evidence on this particular point since Empirical means that you did the research, did the tests and recorded the results.

 

[raedyn]

I don't mean to say there couldn't be biological components to the causes of behaviours, but I think it's more complicated than that. And with the conjecture comment, I meant that even when there are studies that show correlation (show that the two things happen at the same time) they don't show CAUSEation. Hypothesizing about the CAUSE is just that - hypothesizing.

 

[loki09789]

I don't mean to say there couldn't be biological components to the causes of behaviours, but I think it's more complicated than that. And with the conjecture comment, I meant that even when there are studies that show correlation (show that the two things happen at the same time) they don't show CAUSEation. Hypothesizing about the CAUSE is just that - hypothesizing.

which is different from the rest of this thread or any info being contributed how?

 

[PeachMonkey]

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.

Your choice of the word "natural" is colloquial, rather than scientific; the discussion would be furthered if you instead used the term "nurtured" (which, in fact, the hatred of blacks kissing whites in a child of a Grand Dragon of the KKK has been), which would I think clarify the entire dispute.

 

[loki09789]

Your choice of the word "natural" is colloquial, rather than scientific; the discussion would be furthered if you instead used the term "nurtured" (which, in fact, the hatred of blacks kissing whites in a child of a Grand Dragon of the KKK has been), which would I think clarify the entire dispute.

I did preface the contextual (not colloquial because I was not intending to be 'informal' in my use) use of 'natural' to further the discussion when I wrote it.

There is, though it isn't a popular to discuss, science that supports the idea that 'nature/scientifically applied' based fear of 'different' is a partial contributor to racism/prejudice in the form of ethnocentrism. On a small scale it is 'my family/my tribe' all the way up to 'my nation/people/race/creed.....'

Actually, that point was brought up by UpNorth a long time ago if I remember correctly as a inhibitor to the development of a 'global community.'

 

[heretic888]

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'.

Unfortunately, your beliefs are not supported by science.

What little research has been done into this subject has demonstrated that children demonstrate an intrinsic revulsion or dislike of that which is "other". Meaning, the first time a child raised in a predominantly white community sees a black person --- he will think they are weird, strange, or "wrong".

Unless a child has been raised to view others of different racial backgrounds, religions, sexual preferences, or whatnot as being "okay" or part of "us", there will be the revulsion that was spoken of.

ALL humans will be racists and homophones, unless taught otherwise. And it is is natural, in the sense of inherited, primitive instincts. Rationality and compassion are not very 'natural'. They are uniquely learned human behaviors.

The notion that "no child is born a racist" is part of the illusory psychology developed by the emerging liberalism of the 18th and 19th century. It predominantly takes the form of the "blank slate" of human development, as well as the notions of the "noble savage" and the "noble chimp" (which Jane Goodall debunked).

None of this 19th century philosophy, of course, is actually supported by scientific research. And, in its extreme, justifies the use of brainwashing as a means of establishing a utopia.

Laterz.

 

[raedyn]

What little research has been done into this subject has demonstrated that children demonstrate an intrinsic revulsion or dislike of that which is "other". Meaning, the first time a child raised in a predominantly white community sees a black person --- he will think they are weird, strange, or "wrong".

But they are not inherently, intrinsicly, genetically BORN that way. Because if that SAME child was brought up in a predominantly black community, they would not have that reaction towards blacks. If gay people were able to be openly incorporated into the community, that "otherness" you speak of would greatly reduce. The secrecy that many pay people live in contributes to that perception of the "otherness". Because there are many people who claim "I don't know anyone who's gay" and that is rarely true.

 

[heretic888]

But they are not inherently, intrinsicly, genetically BORN that way.

Y'know, its funny.... I don't recall saying anything about "genetics".

Because if that SAME child was brought up in a predominantly black community, they would not have that reaction towards blacks.

Oh, really??

It depends on a lot of factors, including said child's treatment by the community as a whole during his/her upbringing.

But, the point remains --- unless one is taught to NOT be racist, to NOT be sexist, to NOT be homophobic, then that is exactly what one will be. The very process of integration into a racially diverse community is part of that "teaching to not be a racist" procedure. Rest assured, though, that that racially-integrated child will still find someone else to project as "other" --- to whom he/she will then proceed to vilify, demonize, and sometimes "hate".

This, of course, is all part of the liberal fantasy of the "natural goodness" or "hidden beach" of humanity. The idea is that the only possible reason that someone could be malevolent, spiteful, racist, homophobic, or mysoginistic is because some mean ol' person (or, as is usually the target, "society") put those mean ol' ideas into his/her head. The idea is that if you strip away all of that nasty socialization and "culture", get down to the root of the person, all you find is the yummy, benevolent center --- the "hidden beach" underneath the pavement.

This also has to do with the notion that one can create a utopian society simply be erecting external, societal changes --- since, the only reason society is not utopian is because of external (not internal) conditions. This is fundamental to liberal philosophy, along with the "blank slate" (there are no internal, inherited inclinations within people), "the noble savage" (take away social indoctrination and everybody becomes a Buddha), and a string of other un-scientific, nonsensical ideas.

My personal take that all of this is the result of a very factured, partial take on human "nature" and psychology.

 

[raedyn]

It depends on a lot of factors, including said child's treatment by the community as a whole during his/her upbringing.

Then that's still about 'teaching' the child. If it's their upbringing that determines it. Do you see what I'm saying?

You seem to be grouping my experiences and my understanding of the psychology reasearch I am familiar with as some sort of 'fantasy world'. I'm not so naieve as to think that all human behaviour is a direct result of your childhood or somesuchthing. But you even admit while arguing that children are going to feel revulsion to 'otherness' that if they develop that revulsion or not partially depends on their upbringing & environment. And of course it does. A good part of why I have no 'revulsion' towards gay people is that I was brought up 1/2 in the gay community, and 1/2 in a straight community that was gay-positive. I was exposed to gay people enough that they were not particularly 'other' and I was encouraged by the straight people around me to look upon them positively. My step-brother (through the gay parent) has been brought up 1/2 in a gay home and 1/2 in a straight home that has gone out of it's way to teach anti-gay things and that this gay parent is bad. He has a lot of negativity towards gay people (or maybe he's just 14 and rebelling *shurg*).

I'm not trying to argue that the research you speak of must be wrong. But I'm saying it's important that it's used in context. Just because a person might initally show resistance to something that's new, that doesn't mean it's OKay to avoid it and 'hate' it. If your infant spits out carrots the first time they taste them, you don't immediately accept that they don't ever have to eat carrots and it's okay to hate carrots, because they haven't given carrots a chance and most (but of course not all) kids will get over their original resistance to carrots, and often end up liking carrots. You're right, we can help teach our kids to accept and maybe like carrots errr... minorities.

 

[DeLamar.J]

I dont think its wrong, I just feel that they have a little bit of mental issues. I mean come on, its just not natural. But, as long as they are not hurting anyone, I guess there isnt a whole lot wrong with it. I still say there are severe mental issues with homosexuals and they need help dearly. I have nothing against them, I just personally find it disturbing.

 

[Bester]

If it wasn't natural, then there would be no 'gay' animals.
There are.

Let us look at 'gay' activities.
Gays hug.
So do straights.

Gays kiss.
So do straights.

Gays fondle.
So do straights.

Gay women, perform cuninglingus.
Aint nothing wrong when we guys do that to the ladies, it there?

Gay men perform felatio.
Aint nothings wrong when the ladies do that to us, right?

All that "fun" stuff above feels real good don't it? Thats why we do it right?

But, "Gays" can't have kids.
Neither can numerous "straight" couples.

"But those guys do each other in the butt"
Watch any porn lately? Seems nailing some chick in the backdoor is the popular rage today. If it's ok for the ladies to take it, then gee whiz guys, must be ok for you to take it too.

"Its against the Bible"
So what? That is ONE faith, on a planet containing THOUSANDS of faiths.
Many of which have no problem against it.

Sex, the pleasure we get from it, the build up, the act, the afterglow. All that IS! natural.

If it wasn't, then we wouldn't feel those sensations, or want it so bad!

The RESTRICTIONS! on same-gender relations is what is so unnatural.

"If it feels good, do it!"
Stop, you "Sinner"!



Unnatural sex is stuff outside of species, with belt sanders, or when you grab the jumper cables.
Unnatural sex is when they catch you masterbating in a dung pile, covered in feces.
Unnatural sex is when they catch you with Aunt Fritas cadaver, spade marks still fresh.
What Michael Jackson did to his face, that was Unnatural.
Anna Nicoles tits, those are unnatural.

But homosexuality is as natural as hetrosexuality.

There is nothing unnatural about loving another willing living person, and sharing pleasure and emotion with them.

Personally, I'm not attracted to men. Women yes, men no. If the right guy came along, who knows. VERY distant chance (hey, offer me a billion bucks, you never know). But there is nothing unnatural about the attraction. If it truely was unnatural, then there would be alot less gay and bi individuals.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Dude, your avatar has a guy standing there fully...flexed...in a tank top, trying to look like Jean-Claude Van Damme, (whose first film, "Amsterdam," was soft-core gay porn), and you're worried about the unnaturalness of gay people?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I dont think its wrong, I just feel that they have a little bit of mental issues. I mean come on, its just not natural. But, as long as they are not hurting anyone, I guess there isnt a whole lot wrong with it. I still say there are severe mental issues with homosexuals and they need help dearly. I have nothing against them, I just personally find it disturbing.

There is a growing body of research indicating that homosexual behavior is a developmental issue, DeLamar. If the formation of the hypothalamus of the brain isn't natural, what would you suggest it is?

Consider this:

In 1957 Karen Hooker conducted a study on homosexuals and heterosexuals wherein she determined that there was no socially deterministic factors regarding the development of homosexuality. She found zero correlation. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

In 1990 D.F. Schwab conducted a study where he found anatomical differences between the gay male brain and the straight male brain. The suprachiasmatic nucleus in the hypothalamus of gay males was twice the size of that of straight males. (Say THAT five times real fast)

That same year researcher Laura Anderson found other differences. She found the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals.

Simon LeVay did postmortems on a number of different males and found that within the hypothalamus, the third interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was two to three times smaller in gay men then in straight men.

The American Psychological Association (APA) removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders in 1973, publically stated it was not a mental disorder in 1975, and in 1994 stated "...homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality."

Note that every male on this forum would have been born female if it had not been for the influence of androgens on their development as a fetus during their mother's pregnancy. Among females testosterone levels can vary by a factor of 100. Note too that certain medications taken during pregnancy mimic the effects of testerone. I'll let you take all that in and jump to a speculative moment.

In a Stanford study female rats exposed to large doses of androgens during their early development showed male behavior and tried to mount other females. They were also aggressive. The flip side was also true with male rats underexposed to androgens during their early development. They became passive and allowed males to mount them. No report was mentioned whether straight rats bashed the gay rats.

A similar study was done at Cornell with birds. Female birds injected with testosterone began to sing like male birds. Fans of Tracy Chapman take note.

Studies of monogyzotic (identical) twins also strongly support the developmental theory, just as they support the suggestion that there are developmental causes of autism and schizophrenia.


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

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper2/Bodian2.html


Regards,


Steve

 

[Makalakumu]

Note too that certain medications taken during pregnancy mimic the effects of testerone. I'll let you take all that in and jump to a speculative moment.

Great post, Steve. This research is important for everyone to read. This quote struck me (in a speculative moment). It has some pretty staggering implications I think.

 

[DeLamar.J]

If it wasn't natural, then there would be no 'gay' animals.
There are.

Let us look at 'gay' activities.
Gays hug.
So do straights.

Gays kiss.
So do straights.

Gays fondle.
So do straights.

Gay women, perform cuninglingus.
Aint nothing wrong when we guys do that to the ladies, it there?

Gay men perform felatio.
Aint nothings wrong when the ladies do that to us, right?

All that "fun" stuff above feels real good don't it? Thats why we do it right?

But, "Gays" can't have kids.
Neither can numerous "straight" couples.

"But those guys do each other in the butt"
Watch any porn lately? Seems nailing some chick in the backdoor is the popular rage today. If it's ok for the ladies to take it, then gee whiz guys, must be ok for you to take it too.

"Its against the Bible"
So what? That is ONE faith, on a planet containing THOUSANDS of faiths.
Many of which have no problem against it.

Sex, the pleasure we get from it, the build up, the act, the afterglow. All that IS! natural.

If it wasn't, then we wouldn't feel those sensations, or want it so bad!

The RESTRICTIONS! on same-gender relations is what is so unnatural.

"If it feels good, do it!"
Stop, you "Sinner"!



Unnatural sex is stuff outside of species, with belt sanders, or when you grab the jumper cables.
Unnatural sex is when they catch you masterbating in a dung pile, covered in feces.
Unnatural sex is when they catch you with Aunt Fritas cadaver, spade marks still fresh.
What Michael Jackson did to his face, that was Unnatural.
Anna Nicoles tits, those are unnatural.

But homosexuality is as natural as hetrosexuality.

There is nothing unnatural about loving another willing living person, and sharing pleasure and emotion with them.

Personally, I'm not attracted to men. Women yes, men no. If the right guy came along, who knows. VERY distant chance (hey, offer me a billion bucks, you never know). But there is nothing unnatural about the attraction. If it truely was unnatural, then there would be alot less gay and bi individuals.

I just can not imagine being with another man sexually, I have no attraction to men AT ALL. I love my best friend and all my other guy friends, but never , ever, have I felt sexually attracted to them. I had a buddy who I am very close with, and alot of people think he is gay, and you know, alot of things point to the fact. He seems like the in the closet kind of one, but I still love him, and he will always be my bud, even if he is gay.
I dont have a problem with gays personally, I just find it very wierd for a man to want a man. I would never disrespect a gay person because they were gay, I would be there friend no matter what. I do have to say I would feel wierd if I had to bend over or something in front of them, I would think they might be checking me out or something. But I still wouldnt make that apparent out of respect, and to not make them feel Im judging them.
I think they need mental help, I think there is a sexual problem metally for them. Men were made to be with women, and women with men.

 

[DeLamar.J]

Dude, your avatar has a guy standing there fully...flexed...in a tank top, trying to look like Jean-Claude Van Damme, (whose first film, "Amsterdam," was soft-core gay porn), and you're worried about the unnaturalness of gay people?

:lol: I did not know that! But I still like Van Damme anyway, even if he is a little gay, he is still an enjoyable actor to watch, and I would love meet him. And if he was gay, I would have nothing wrong with it.

 

[Makalakumu]

Men were made to be with women, and women with men.

Then how come men can have sex with men and women can have sex with women?

I bet it even feels pretty natural when they are doing it.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Thanks, Upnorth.

Apparently the U.S. Air Force agrees that sexual behavior is plastic and can be induced chemically. They considered making a weapon that would have caused homosexual behavior in enemy forces:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=101&e=15&u=/po/airforceproposalsoughtgaysexweapon

Now THAT is interesting. A "gay bomb."

I think we should "gay bomb" Congress, just to see what happens. This assuming, of course, that the effects were temporary and done only for the purpose of illuminating the minds of our leaders.

Do you think John Kerry would make Trent Lott his *****? If we "gay bombed" the White House, who do you think would be pitching versus catching? George Bush or Karl Rove? And what of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz? Ugly visuals, all.

But I digress.

Other studies of the etiology of sexual preference show that the ratio of index finger length to ring finger length is different between heterosexual women and lesbians. In men the index finger is typically shorter than the ring finger. In hetero women the ring finger is as long or shorter than the index finger. Lesbian women's fingers tend to be like that of a heterosexual male.

Now...how many of you (in a moment of panic) looked at your hands?



http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/29/gay.fingers/

The abstract:

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaP...al/v404/n6777/abs/404455a0_r.html&dynoptions=

Researcher's web site:

http://www.marcbreedlove.com/


And an interesting article on Simon LeVay, one of the researchers previously cited. This article was originally printed in Discover magazine, I believe.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human Nature S 1999/sex_and_the_brain_by_david_nimmo.htm


Regards,


Steve

 

[Simon Curran]

Well if I understod the second link correctly, it would appear that I may be gay (big surprise to me...) since I have quite obviously been exposed to very high male hormone levels judging by the fact that my ring fingers are roughly a knuckle longer than my index fingers on both hands...

Either that or I am just "hypermasculinised"

 

[Bob Hubbard]

What they Fear.