Is Homophobia Natural?

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


I don't understand why people compare homosexual behaviour with murder, rape etc.

Yes those people have the urge to murder or rape but all people can see and accept that such behaviour causes harm to others.

You can say, homosesxual sex causes harm through std's but that can be said for heterosexual sex too.

Most people don't understand an alternate sexuality to their own. I don't understand transexualism. Yet I accept that there are people out there that do feel trapped in the wrong body. Having seen studies by far better qualified people than myself, I now understand that there are key differences in the brain of a transexual to that of a heterosexual of the same sex. Is it for me to say they are wrong how they feel or to judge them for doing no harm to others? No.

Is it natural? Well yes. It is nature taking its course after all.

Not necessarily wrong.
We as humans, fear what we don't understand. That is human nature.
Everyone has their right to their own opinion of what they think is right or wrong.

Originally posted by macman
Not necessarily wrong.
We as humans, fear what we don't understand. That is human nature.
Everyone has their right to their own opinion of what they think is right or wrong.

I agree, fear is natural, it keeps us alive.

However, an irrational fear is wrong and harmful not only to the people who have that irrational fear but to thse around them.

You won't believe how many times my girlfriend has freaked out at the sight of a small spider. One day she will give me a heart attack with her 'out of the blue' death curdling screams. God only knows what the neighbours must think.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


I can only agree with You.
It seems that they are totally impregnated to the arguments of the others. An old clichee but what new can you invent about a bipede species with highly...well sometimes developed brain ),it reminds me of the times of the so-called communism in that part of Europe where I live (part I know from personal experience, part from the elders of my family etc).

Somebody is pushing forward his scenario for the world, and the priority of it is to destroy the world ow the Traditional Values. Seems to have something to do with the descendants of the French Revolution...well among
the others They are pretty eficient with destroing of the Western Traditions if you like call it - White Man Culture It will not diminish its worth, because it has nothing to do, dear zealots, with your black-and-white, simplified vision of what is racist and what not) But alas there is not much more they invented. Since they have no plan what to do with the society after their "liberation" , what to do with the expansion of agressive islam, with China killing western world with its own weapon: the free market...
Actually as for the - Illuminati- they are quite dumb and simple minded (what you expect from the quasi-nation, or
rather tribe, mostly inbreed since thausands of years?

Firstly they have created their own jargon, based on the "scientific marxism-leninism"
(now its PC and pseudo-ideology around it)

They stop to listen to the arguments of the other side (now any opinion against official version can be baned without a problem Actually my post- earlier on this topic: trollike, ironic ranting that canibalism is better than Christianity was accepted by the Mods. I woder what will happen if Il post something like: homosexuals=morons...)

Actually if you give me enough of money I can find enough of so-called - "independent experts" not only to legalise pedophilia and zoophilia but even- canibalis (as the sanne, traditional livfestyle )
And easily I can make it legal...

And there comes:
the next stage we see from the posts of the Skyfloating (the Master of the controlled ignorance ) and another young zealots (so loved by Hitler and Lenin)

Because if "homophobia is an ilness" we need not only not to listen and take seriously the opinion of that horrible homophobes, but also we need to "cure " them...
In the sovietic Russia they even invented some new forms of shizophrenia "without symptoms" (only symptom: lack of faith in the Communism) So many dissidents ended up in the institutions...

But , from the same historic experience we remember that even isolating someone for live or puting him on the psychotrops is not enough- too many "ill " peoples in the society. So the best therapy tested in hitlers Germany, Russia, and till now in the country of your new friends: "capitalist"-communist China: the pill made of the few grams of lead, applicated directly to the brain...

Homophobia is a product of taboo and social and/or religeous upbringing.

Cut them do they not bleed............

To say homophobia is natural just shows narrow mindness, it's a biological thing, in a few cases its development < that statement agreed to by my gay brother and his partner.

It's not even just a human thing, there are gay animals too, it's called NATURAL urges.

Thank you all for your contributions, i have enjoyed reading them. A wide variety of opinions all contributing in a civil manner with no T&C violations, this is what makes ATS great!

Originally posted by woogleuk
Homophobia is a product of taboo and social and/or religeous upbringing.

Cut them do they not bleed............

To say homophobia is natural just shows narrow mindness, it's a biological thing, in a few cases its development < that statement agreed to by my gay brother and his partner.

It's not even just a human thing, there are gay animals too, it's called NATURAL urges.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please put it more clearly, because I cant see logic in whatyou write:
if its -biological- thing it means that its - NATURAL- too. So what then?
Is NATURAL- something diffrent than BIOLOGICAL??
Are there, for you, some things good in the Nature like "NATURAL urges", and bad things like homophobia?? which is on the same time: "a product of taboo (what you mean by taboo?) and social and/or religious upbringing"

I think its the same with -homosexuality (small part of - biological origin and the overwhelming maiority: "a product of (...) social (...) upbringing"

Then: who gives you right to judge whats good or bad in Nature and Culture?

So more logic please.

And last but not least:
What is your definition of homophobia???

reply to post by ZenOnKwalsky


I was referring to homosexuality being biological, not homophobia, you misread my post.

In my opinion homophobia is a fear of homosexuals because they don't conform to your ideas of sexuality, and make you uncomfortable. That is mostly down to upbringing and social life, not a natural response.

There is no place for homophobia in the 21st century, in my opinion.

EDIT:

Let me edit my post so you understand:

Homophobia is a product of taboo and social and/or religeous upbringing.

Cut them (homosexuals) do they not bleed............

To say homophobia is natural just shows narrow mindness, [with homosexuality] it's a biological thing, in a few cases its development < that statement agreed to by my gay brother and his partner.

It's not even just a human thing [homosexuality], there are gay animals too, it's called NATURAL urges.

'Natural' Doesn't Mean 'Right'

reply to post by tothetenthpower

I highly doubt that (homophobia is) a natural thing.

I wonder. Certainly your reasons for doubting it are not very convincing.

For instance, take racism. When you were 5 did you see Doug the black kid as black? No you saw him as Doug.

I am a native of a multiracial and multilingual country, a former British colony in Asia, and yes, I can clearly remember my five-year-old self, just starting school, making value distinctions among my fellow-pupils based on how they looked and dressed, and what language they spoke. Race may be an illusion, but racism is real and visceral.

Ethologists tell us that animals are generally hostile to genetically distant individuals of the same species, but behave in a friendly, even altruistic manner towards kin. I am in fact observing this at the moment, since I am trying to introduce a third cat into my household (the incumbent duo are brother and sister).

Anthropologists tell us the same behaviour is found among hunter-gatherers and primitive tribespeople. An encounter between two primitive humans who are not closely related almost always ends with the death of one or both of them.

Evolutionary biology explains why this is so: competition for survival and reproduction takes place at the level of the gene, certain groups of genes have come together to cooperate for survival in genomes and local gene pools, and conspecific gene pools occupying the same geographical region must compete with one another for environmental resources. The stakes in this competition are not just life and death, but also posterity.

The injunction to 'love thy neighbour as thyself' acknowledges this biological truth and urges us to transcend it. It demands that we treat unrelated conspecifics as close kin -- indeed, as our own identical twins.

Racism, bigotry and all other forms of ridiculous behaviours/beliefs are learned from your environment.

Untrue, though there may be an environmental component.

Please do not conclude from the above that I am sympathetic towards racism or any other kind of bigotry. Only a fool believes that what is natural to us is always good and right. Anyway, nothing a human being does can possibly be unnatural. We are part of nature, inseparable from it.

Everybody is born with a clean slate.

The tabula rasa is a hopeful humanitarian fantasy rather than a statement of fact. The Christian concept of original sin is far closer to the truth. But it is up to each of us to clean his own slate; no Saviour is going to come along and magic our antisocial instincts away.

Concerning homophobia, I am coming around to the idea that it probably has an instinctive component. This may have nothing to do with reproduction per se, but instead be connected to the fact that penis display and homosexual mounting in social primates are forms of dominance behaviour among males. Individuals who display such behaviour without being licensed to do so by their position in the social hierarchy may trigger an urge to punish in other males. You'll notice that lesbians are far less likely to suffer from homophobic threats and attacks than male homosexuals are. But this is just a hypothesis, unfounded (as far as I know) in research.

Here's another hypothesis, more closely connected with reproduction: perhaps hostility to male homosexuals is triggered by the fact that they compete with fertile females for sperm, yet are sterile; the sperm they 'consume' is therefore, from its owners' point of view, wasted -- a reproductive opportunity lost. Thus male homosexuals may be considered sexual cheats, exploiting the mating instinct of other males for their own benefit (just as cuckoos, for instance, are parasites on the parental instincts of other birds). They thereby represent a (small) threat to the survival of those other males' genes into the next generation.

If this were true, then a gene for homophobia would confer protection against such wastage. This might just be enough to cause it to spread through a population, since such a gene would make its male carriers averse to mating with other males.

To repeat myself, these are just-so stories I made up. There is no scientific evidence to support them, and I would be frankly delighted to see someone refute them with solid science. But on the subject of homosexuality, there is very little solid science available; we do not even understand how sexual orientation emerges in the process of organic development, or how, if it has a genetic component, this can be inherited. The scientific community has some ideas about these things, but nothing has yet been established with any degree of confidence.

What is clear, nevertheless, is that sexuality is innate and not acquired. Gay people can no more help being gay than some of us can help being straight. But coming into one's sexuality is not a linear process; many teenagers go through a period of confusion and experimentation before their true proclivity asserts itself, usually in early adulthood. This is also the time when most homophobes develop their proclivities -- which suggests what many scientists and experienced lay folk believe to be true, namely that the bitterest homophobes are actually warring against their own unacknowledged homosexual yearnings.

For sexuality, you see, is not either/or, cut and dried. There exists a broad spectrum of behaviour between the purely heterosexual and the purely homosexual. Indeed, it is debatable that such ideal types exist in real life. The existence of a spectrum does not mean, however, that anyone can change his place on it, any more than the red light coming through a prism can change places with the blue.

*

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Why is it that a man is NOT repulsed by two women together - to the contrary, it's quite a turn-on to many - but two men together makes them want to retch?? Here's my husband's theory (and I must agree).

Whenever a man watches other people having sexual relations (or thinks about it), the thought of the possibility of his participation in the act is a natural occurrence in his brain. In other words, he puts himself in the scenario.

More simply, two women represent two mating opportunities. Another man would be a competitor for the opportunity. Or even a sexual parasite depriving him of the opportunity twice over: see my reply to tothetenthpower above.

*

reply to post by FarArcher

Homo - man

Yes. In Latin.

In Greek, it means 'same', and that's where we get the word 'homosexual'. The word has no Latin roots. 'Sex' in Latin means 'six'.

Learn something new every day, eh?

*

reply to post by woogleuk

To say homophobia is natural just shows narrow mindness.

I've just said it, but I hope you won't go calling me narrowminded.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by lestweforget
WARNING! HIGHLY CONTRAVERCIAL CONTENT!!!

I would like to generate discussion on a topic considered taboo in most media.

To be considered a homophobe is totally unacceptable in todays societies outside of some religions anyway. The same can be said for racial bigotry, whilst there are those that espouse that being racist is an inbuilt self defence mechanism, an instinct that goes back to primal existance.

Could homophobia be another natural inbuilt mechanism for the continuation of our species and not just an indoctrinated form of intollerance?

Brave topic, OP. I would ask a better question; is there even such a thing as "homophobia", or is it simply an invented term to label with a bad name all that oppose homosexual behavior? I will put forth that one doesn't have to fear or loath a thing to disagree with it, and that it is perfectly natural to dislike, and disagree with, something that does, as you propose, go against basic survival instincts. I will further propose that there are those who would tear down the moral fabric of society, for various reasons, and who would seek to label as "intolerant", "bigoted", etc, any and all that oppose them.

To be totally on topic, yes, such a thing would be completely natural and normal. Crazy world we live in, eh?

Before anyone goes off on this, note that I don't advocate violence against anyone, or anything like that, and I have, in fact, had friends that were practicing homosexuals. Didn't have to approve of their every action to call them friend.

What do you define as a "practicing homosexual"?

reply to post by lestweforget


Hi LWF,

First of all great topic, something I have thought about for many years. Firstly I grew up and Country Vic/ Australia where homophobia was very common, and still is (Although fair to say it has come a long way)... I was your typical teenager , I played football for around 8 years, was involved with many sports, boxing, cricket, etc... Homophobia was VERY common, Looking back I was also guilty taking part in the acts of nastiness, which was only ever verbal garbage, I guess in a place like this no one would dare to admit they were gay...... Fair to say, if my environment were different my perspective at that time would have been different. You could say i was also easily influenced....Now I am far from homophobic

I guess the thing is, when you think of homoSEXUAL the first thing that pop's in your mind is 2 guys having sex, and thats mainly because people don't fully understand that homosexuality is a LOT more than that, there is substance, its about companionship, friendship... LOVE (and that may be hard for some people to comprehend)

I have both gay and straight friends but at the end of the day we don't look at each other as a sexuality, we look at each other as humans, regardless of sexually.

I do believe we still have a fair way to go though.

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
As for me, I don't discriminate against gays or anything, but I do think they tend to be afew fries short of a happy meal.

Hmm what makes you think that ? Fact is most I know are actually incredibly intelligent.

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
That said, almost everyone can be described that way through their various individual shortcomings. I accept gayness but do not approve.

Interesting comment, seems a bit contradictive... How can you not approve, yet accept?

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
As far as female on female vs. male on male it is easy to understand why one is more accepted. The issue is penetration and exchange of bodily fluids. Female gay sex is much cleaner in most eyes.

Well thats your opinion, I don't believe one is more accepted than the other, matter of perspective...
I'm not going to touch on the bodily fluid comment....

Great topic, Homophobes are phobic so they are scared, the same as arachnophobiacs, but which one is frowned upon? but fears don't always have roots and the scared aren't always evil i don't see it as normal at all we are animals and our purpose until we became conscious was to procreate so there can be no natural explanation for homosexuality other than population control. Some things do not make sense to some people and dont want an explanation i dont wish any harm to these people and hope they have a good life but YES according to science and evolution it is wrong.

reply to post by Astyanax


Humans started out as pack/tribal animals so to be suspicious of outsiders is perfectly natural. The same as a male lion wont let a competitor anywhere near his pride unless he gets beat WE ARE AND ALWAYS WILL BE ANIMALS.

reply to post by nonetruegod

to be suspicious of outsiders is perfectly natural.

Yes, it is natural. What is natural is not always the same as what is right. Did you not read the headline of my earlier post?

WE ARE AND ALWAYS WILL BE ANIMALS.

Yes, indeed we are. And homosexual behaviour is very common among wild animals, lions included.

reply to post by Astyanax


EVOLUTIONARY DEAD END !!!!

Until men can breed together I think we should leave nature out of it.

Not to be the fly in the ointment here but it seems a little too convenient.

You can't get ten posts on a thread here without two members insulting each other and slinging mud but somehow we've got 3 pages of "Homophobes are evil." without one dissenting vote.

It's just a big ole happy family of homophobe haters.

We've all finally found something we can agree on. We have an absolute that cannot be contradicted?

I think there is more to it than what is being said here but not being a homophobe myself I don't have a frame of reference.

I just think it's way to convenient how a sizable portion of our society has been tried and convicted by the very group that claims to be open minded and understanding about sex.

No problem. You've all got it figured out.
No need to think any further.

reply to post by badgerprints


The way i think about it is if I fancied your mum and made the odd comment = horny teen
I fancy your dad and made the odd comment =Jebus has left the building

reply to post by nonetruegod


I'm not really worried about who people fancy. Each person has his or her standards of what sexual attraction is.

I'm just curious about the landslide condemnation of "Homophobes" without anyone asking why? Or trying to get the other side of the story. It's just "Oh yeah. They are evil and do it because they want to." "It's a choice." "It's not natural."

If you want to do away with homophobia, don't attack homophobes as a matter of course. Homosexuals are widely accepted in society now so the reaction is to attack homophobes like they attacked homosexuals? Because they were different? Because they weren't understood?

Well, here we go again.

Hey, I'm not defending homophobes but if you want to keep the hatred and animosity going then this is the way to do it.

reply to post by badgerprints

Hmm...

I think you may have skipped reading my first post. I don't blame you; it was a very long post.

It's true I don't like homophobia. In fact, I have just received a warning and had a couple of posts removed on another thread for taking issue with a poster whose contributions I considered homophobic. Still, my posts above support the contention that homophobia is, for some people, a natural bias they have to overcome.

So I really don't think opinion on this thread is unanimous. Even if it were, though, there are plenty of homophobes who are all too ready to defend their dislike of gay people on ATS. I'm sure one or more of them will turn up on this thread sooner or later.

You can substitute for them in the meantime, if you like.