Technically I suppose this doesn’t belong in GD, since I am not taking a position or offering a proposition for debate. Anyway, does anyone care to hazard a supposition?
Mine is due to such people not fitting into familiar social roles, making it unclear what their expectations of behavior are, and making it unclear how they will behave in given situations. Also, the unfamiliar is often considered scary.
IANAAnthropologist
They are “different”. People are scared of “different”. All sorts of different to choose from and in many of those cases the different people were attacked/shunned/whatever.
Maybe. Except that homosexuality–or at least male bisexuality–seemsto have been acceptable in ancient Greece & Rome.
Well, different is only different if it is, well, different. :smack:
What I mean to say is different is what is unusual to a given person. If you are in a a gay nightclub being gay is not “different”, it is the norm and accepted.
I am also under the impression that it is acceptable in some Indian cultures.
This is an excellent question, IMO, and I’m curious if someone has tried to map out which cultures have more/less homophobia and tried to find some correlating factors.
To augment Whack-a-Mole’s answer: resources and power.
If you can find a convincing (to others) reason to oppress a minority, you can avail yourself of whatever they own or have access to.
If a minority is doing something significant but statistically out of the ordinary, one in power might consider it a threat to his authority (since, hey you lot, you should be like me, except not as rich or powerful).
Any kind of physiological or cultural characteristic will do.
But in the case of homosexuals (though not bisexuals), their open existence means you can avail yourself of something they have access to, that being members of the opposite sex. A more oppressed homosexual population are more likely to marry and so remove “access” to a certain amount of the opposite gender population. And on the other hand, the more open gay people can be, the less likely they’re going to be competition, either in the general population or even more effectively as friends or co-workers.
I’m not so much disagreeing with you as I am saying that those reasons for homophobia can’t just be greater than a neutral position, but those actually positive benefits for not holding such views.
Personally, I blame Christianity – especially the mad rantings of Paul (ie Romans ch.1) who, for some reason, is revered more than the words of Christ himself.
Historically speaking, homosexuality has been tolerated or even accepted in most ancient cultures. Today’s modern civilization – until the last few decades, at least – is actually an anomaly, and it’s my opinion that the prejudice against gays is entirely a result of our Judeo/Christian tradition.
Even pederasty was accepted in most classical civilizations (not only Greece) and still persists in various primitive tribes in New Guinea and Africa.
Many reasons I think. Some that occur to me :
Fear of the different.
The obsession with the idea that people MUST breed.
The creation of guilt in order to manipulate people.
Convenience for witch hunts/slander campaigns/spreading of panic. They can be anyone, they can be anywhere, and they look just like everyone else ( Dun dun DUUUUN ). This fits right in with Sentient Meat’s idea; since it means you can try to take away someone’s power/property/status/whatever with an accusation of homosexuality, true or not. Homophobia doesn’t just hurt homosexuals.
Some men’s fear/hate of “unmanly” men.
Some women’s fear/hate of men immune to female sexual manipulation.
Because they were told to hate them as children.
Well, you gotta remember with homophobia if you’re not one of the bashers in some circles you’re assumed to secretly be ‘one of them’… that can lead to malicious behavior even when there is no real ‘malice’ behind it. Of course, that’s puling cowardice, but come on, we’re talking about homophobia here…
It could be as simple as straight males being afraid of sexually aggressive gays and contemptuous of submissive gays. Certainly the majority of the vast number of jokes about homosexuality revolve around those two themes.
Gay sex spreads diseases, particularly in a society without condoms and antibiotics, and it isn’t needed for the survival of the species. Same reason why promiscuous, straight sex would be frowned on.
From a strictly biological standpoint I think anything involving the anus has been shunned and avoided by humankind, generally speaking.
To the extent that’s true ( not very, especially when sex is involved ), it just means that the people in question will avoid anything involving the anus in bed. Not that they will have any feelings about homosexuality.
Just to interject, about the Greeks: pederasty (sexual contact between older men and boys in their teens) was an accepted part of society, but homosexuality between adult men was frowned upon. Of course, having said this, someone with a PhD in classics will come along to correct me.
This may be off topic but this interesting article about homosexuality in modern Saudi Arabia mentions that men who “top” exclusively can get out of some of the shame of being gay or even deny that they are; the “gayness” falls on the men who allow themselves to be penetrated.
But isn’t it commonly assumed that homosexuality automatically equals anal sex, despite the fact that it does not?
(I ask this under no assumption that I actually understood your post. 
)
~S.P.I.~
The roots of homphobia go back further than that. We can blame it on the Jews. Unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary, the earliest homophobic writings are in the Torah which was written in the 6th century BCE or even earlier.
Straight people have anal sex too; and that theory doesn’t apply to lesbians at all.
And anal sex among straight people was also looked upon as a perverse act.
I think that ultimately it all relates to a fear of shit and bacteria.