Is Aversion to Homosexuality Adaptive?

[AJ Dual]

How does one define homophobia when I don't think people know what "homosexual" means. I don't think homosexual people know what "homosexual" means.

Are men and women in prison "homosexual" who are arguably straight heterosexual, and may never have had a homosexual thought/fantasy in their life, then have homosexual sex in prison, then go back to being exclusively heterosexual once released, and may never have had any homosexual tendencies if they never had been incarcerated?

I think there are people who definitely didn't "choose" to be homosexual, clues were there from early childhood from the time they could walk, talk, or play. However, I think it's naive to think there aren't people who did "choose" it, or life circumstances did lead them in that direction.

Then what about cases that might be gender identity problems. Is a woman who feels/believes herself to be a man, and as such has relationships with women, really a "lesbian"?

Are effeminate homosexuals even the "same" kind of homosexual as butch homosexuals?

Ultimately, there are obviously plenty of people who are pretty stereotypically gay or straight, it's like the concept of race, lots of gray areas, but "you know it when you see it" etc. However, there are LOTS of people who don't fit into the neat classifications either.

Are you homophobic when presented with the "idea" of homosexuality, like say some rural fundamentalist Christian might be expected to react?

Are you only homophobic when they hook you up to body monitors that monitor for stress symptoms, then put you in a room with homosexual people, and they record sufficient results?

Are you still homophobic when you only react in a room full of leather daddies and drag queens, and butch lesbian bikers, but don't react when it's a room of people in business suits having a business lunch that you're told are homosexual?

What if there are homosexual people who freak out around the extreme examples of their "culture"? Are they homophobic too? 

[BlueStarLizzard]

AJ, one problem is the confusion of gender identity and sexual orentation.

They are two VERY diffrent things.

the vast majority of people are technically bisexual, in terms of orientation. Under any given set of circumstances a person can have a "homosexual" experiance (or for those who identify as homosexual, a hetrosexual experiance)

Like I said, I think having a small portion of the society primarly wired to go the other way, is for the benift of the whole, since almost anyone can do it, and if they can, they will.

[grislyatoms]

Adaptive" in the Darwinian sense, as in "aversion to homosexuality makes a creature more fit to survive and have progeny."

The progenerative drive can be satisfied in a multitude of ways.

Only one is actually useful to the gene pool, though. Yet, the "multitude" are greeted with different levels of aversion/attraction.

That leads me to believe it is cultural, for if it was strictly biologic/evolutionary then there would be extreme instinctual aversions to the parts of "the multitude" that do not benefit the gene pool.

[roo_ster]

AJ & BSL:

The linked articles in the OP are very enlightening WRT some of y'all's questions. 

[Chuck Dye]

The one thing that bothers me the most is the over and misuse of the term homophobia.  A phobia is a fear, yet the word is used as an accusatory perjorative.  It is a shame how words are misused in this way.  That particular misuse cause divisiveness and oddly those doing a good deal of the the dividing now a days call themselves progressives.

As I have always had it, "homo" in this usage means sameness, and phobia is not just a fear but an irrational or pathological fear.  Thus, homophobia, properly parsed, is an irrational or pathological fear of things or people like yourself.  Now that is one hell of a condition, sort of a pathological zenophilia.

[AJ Dual]

AJ & BSL:

The linked articles in the OP are very enlightening WRT some of y'all's questions.  

I have been reading them, and I see all sorts of "chicken and egg" problems though. (Not that I fault the author, or Gallup, how do you get a handle on something as elusive and slippery as sexual orientation data? You have to start somewhere..)

Gallup points to data showing that boys whose first masturbation experiences are around other boys are more likely to be homosexual as adults than are those who are alone.

There's tons of these things that can be countered with "Correlation does not equal causation". Perhaps boys with homosexual tendencies are more likely to have a group experience than a solitary one.

Same for the links between child molestation and homosexuality. Icky as it might be to think about it, there could be a self-selecting mechanism involved between homosexual children and molesters. More receptive to the same-sex "grooming" activities and attention, etc...
 

AJ, one problem is the confusion of gender identity and sexual orentation.

They are two VERY diffrent things.

Oh I agree. I probably just put it badly. However, I was trying to say even some of the people suffering from gender identity issues may not know it, trying to decide if they're gay, straight, or gender mis-identified. Someone in my own family is going through this. Young woman in her twenties, always was a "tomboy", buzz cut, dresses male, trying to to work out the "Lesbian thing" but it's not working for her.

On top of it, she's deaf, so it's a double-whammy to try and find your way in life with. Bright side, family is very accepting, but that only helps her not be miserable. It's not enough to make her happy I fear. I really hope she can find what's going to work for her.

[Perd Hapley]

That treating deafness as a disability "sends a message to the Deaf that they are of lesser worth." Of course you could only have that opinion if you believed that the disable are of lesser worth. Who's the bigot now?

Wow. Just. Wow. 

Really?

I don't suppose it would occur to you that people might wish to guard against a specific message being sent because it, um, IS, rather than because they hold it deeply themselves?

It seems you misunderstand me, and the view I was rebutting. The latter being that, if x is acknowledged to be a disability, then people afflicted by x will be regarded as having less worth; thus x should not be regarded as a disability.

Obviously, people with disabilities are sometimes seen as being less worthy. The proposed solution (to which I took issue) was to deny that x is a problem, and simply leave people struggling with x, instead of curing or treating them.

So you think that homosexuals need to be straightened out, is that your premise?

That is the traditional (possibly still the majority) view, and it is well-founded.

[Matthew Carberry]

Basically, my theory would be that historically, cultures don't really like sexual deviance, but must accept it to a certain degree, so they keep it controlled on the fringes of society.

I'm not an idealist. I know a lot of things that people do are awful low, but that's between them and God. Do you believe in God? I believe in God, son. ....... I will tolerate *one* gang, because that is the nature of things. A certain amount of corruption is inevitable.  You boys work it out. I don't give a damn ...

[Antibubba]

I hereby submit a WAG that may be tangential to these articles: A culture's acceptance of homosexuality is inversely proportional to its birth rate. IOW, high birth rate, homosexuality less acceptable. Lower birth rate, more acceptable. No idea why, but it seems to correlate.

And I'd argue it the other way around.  But let me approach the question from a different angle.  What happens to a species that is too successful in its niche?  As birthrates skyrocket the species overruns its ecosystem.  Competitors are crowded out.  Food resources become scarce.  But it isn't common that any species completely destroys the habitat, because some other pressure is exerted to thin out the population: Disease, less available food, and lower fertility and birthrates.  Humans have done pretty well against disease, and we're producing more food than ever before (albeit with looming long-term consequences).  And the birthrate, while lower per person than in years past, is still skyrocketing because there are so many people. 

Could the increase we see in homosexuality be a result of population pressures?  Same-sex relationships have always existed, in humans and other animals, so one can hypothesize that there is a genetic component to it.  With that, might environmental pressures trigger an increase in animals exhibiting same sex behaviors as part of an effort to slow or stop population increase?  This idea does draw on the Gaea Hypothesis, which posits that the planet as a whole is a self-regulating organism.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I'm not an idealist. I know a lot of things that people do are awful low, but that's between them and God. Do you believe in God? I believe in God, son. ....... I will tolerate *one* gang, because that is the nature of things. A certain amount of corruption is inevitable.  You boys work it out. I don't give a damn ...

Deviance in this context does not indicate something bad, but rather just something outside the given cultures accepted norms.

Which, in our culture pretty much covers anything but hetrosexual vanillia sex.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

The proposed solution (to which I took issue) was to deny that x is a problem, and simply leave people struggling with x, instead of curing or treating them.

they don't want to be treated or "cured" . they ask to be left alone. they consider themselves normal and think you/i am the odd one.( a theory with some support)

it is very common for folks to treat deaf folk like they have a mental disability and that gets old. there is a tendancy to socialize amongst themselves

[Matthew Carberry]

Deviance in this context does not indicate something bad, but rather just something outside the given cultures accepted norms.

Which, in our culture pretty much covers anything but hetrosexual vanillia sex.

What part of my APS history leads you to think I will have any intent to stay on topic when I can instead try to shoehorn in a movie quote?

 

[BlueStarLizzard]

What part of my APS history leads you to think I will have any intent to stay on topic when I can instead try to shoehorn in a movie quote?

 

I know, but your movie quote didn't quite fit 

[Matthew Carberry]

I know, but your movie quote didn't quite fit 

All the guys say I have a big shoehorn...

[BlueStarLizzard]

All the guys say I have a big shoehorn...

Now your in the wrong thread... 

But, since jamis closed that one, I guess you have nowhere else to go... 

[Perd Hapley]

The proposed solution (to which I took issue) was to deny that x is a problem, and simply leave people struggling with x, instead of curing or treating them.

they don't want to be treated or "cured" . they ask to be left alone. they consider themselves normal and think you/i am the odd one.( a theory with some support)

   I don't see anyone forcing the deaf (or homosexuals for that matter) to be cured. At least not the adults. What we DO see is a post-modern fringe which tries to pretend that obvious problems are not problems. This is harmful to those with the aforementioned problems, besides being a lot of hogwash.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Fistful, its not a minority fringe group that thinks homosexuality is not a problem anymore.

Because, despite your beleifs, its really not a problem.

and yes, it offends me that you would use the word 'cure'.

[Perd Hapley]

And your view offends me. I was thinking of the deafness issue when I said "fringe." I am well aware that your point of view is the new, official orthodoxy.

Because, despite your beleifs, its really it being emotionally and physically unhealthy, we can pretend it's not a problem.

FTFY

[MillCreek]

And your view offends me. I was thinking of the deafness issue when I said "fringe." I am well aware that your point of view is the new, official orthodoxy.

FTFY

And perhaps what you call the new official orthodoxy are the deeply held beliefs of people who have given the matter thoughtful consideration based on their own moral and religious values.  As you clearly have.

[Perd Hapley]

And perhaps what you call the new official orthodoxy are the deeply held beliefs of people who have given the matter thoughtful consideration based on their own moral and religious values.  As you clearly have.

Yes, perhaps. Did I say otherwise?

[BlueStarLizzard]

Fistful

Never 'fix' stuff for me again.
 

[Perd Hapley]

Fistful

Never 'fix' stuff for me again.
 

Fine. If you will refrain from any response to/comment on any of my future posts, I will return the favor. If you wish to keep the lines of communication open, then we should treat one another the same as any other forum member. That would include occasional "fixings."

[mtnbkr]

So much for this one.

Chris