Except that it seems to be very consistent across historical periods and groups.
If there were not some innate basis to it why is it that so many groups do go to the trouble of demonising homosexuality when as has already been pointed out, knowing that someone of your own sex is gay actually means that they are less of a competitor for any available partners.
This is, indeed, the main problem with this thread. I think a lot of people are getting very het up because talking about revulsion to homosexual activities is seen as being an attack on gays.
In fact it would be much better if we were to completely scrap that word, at least with regard to the hypothesised evolutionary trait because it’s barely relevant. Revulsion is just the extreme case of a trait that could overall be more accurately described as a disinclination to indulge in homosexual of sex. It is that disinclination that could be viewed as an assister in gene promulgation.
Certainly true, but then they don’t need to be in the same spectrum.
You could say the same thing about anything, though:
If there were not some innate basis to it why is it that so many groups do go to the trouble of demonising Jews?
Etcetera. “Homosexual” is a convenient discriminator in that it’s A) a small segment of the population, B) something you can accuse another of without any hope of proof (yay, scapegoating!), and C) involves activities most people are at best disinterested in and at worst disgusted by (generally with misinformation–witness the number of people who think male homosexuality NECESSARILY involves anal sex).
Fits my example above too: “Jew” is a convenient discriminator in that it’s A) a small segment of the population, B) something you can accuse another of without any hope of proof (yay, scapegoating!), and C) involves activities most people are at best disinterested in and at worst disgusted by (generally with misinformation–witness the number of people who think/thought that matzos were made with human sacrifice).
Bottom line is, you don’t need to specify a biological basis for revulsion towards homosexuality, when the perfectly bog-standard explanation of “human societies factionalize and create scapegoats” works perfectly well.
You can’t say that people have consistently demonised members of their society who were particularly tall, short, fat, thin, young, old, sang, recited poetry, played ball games, didn’t play ball games.
Because there is an innate tendency for people to victimise people who are not a part of their own ‘race’.
What is your claim and how does your link support or not support that claim?
If your claim is that “revulsion” against homosexuals is genetic, then a list of references to violence against homosexuals in “many” countries doesn’t prove that. It also doesn’t prove that it’s “consistent.”
Furthermore, if this proves what you say it does, what about misogyny? Or child abuse? Or discrimination against ethnic, racial, or religious minorities? Or what about crime in general?
Murder is a consistent characteristic of human history. So does that mean that we have evolved a “revulsion” towards other humans?
You made a vague claim about begging the question without suggesting which question was being begged. (Seems to be pretty standard for some people to be very vague ITT).
I was just guessing which question you were referring to and since the quoted line was (referring to persecution of homosexuals) “Except that it seems to be very consistent across historical periods and groups.”, the supplied wiki link looked as if it might be helpful to you.
I’ll ask again: What are you trying to prove with that link?
“It seems to be very consistent across historical periods and groups” is a very vague claim. Assuming that link supports this claim anyway, what have you proven then?
It was supplied to assist you if you believed that persecution of homosexuals was some unfortunate blip that had had just occurred recently in a couple of cultures.
Well, you can stop because I already told you I wasn’t making a point.
You made a vague statement underneath a quote and I provided you with a link, selected on the basis of what you quoted, that I thought might be of assistance to you.
Mating with close relatives creates the possibility of poor offspring with phenotypic expression of recessive diseases. Homosexual sex creates the possibility of *no *offspring whatsoever. From an evolutionary biology point of view poor offspring and no offspring are two wildly different things. Poor offspring use resources and will likely be unable to survive to adulthood or help to create or raise future generations. Individuals who have no offspring are not wasting resources on unhealthy offspring and can assist family members in raising children.
What’s more, an aversion to mating with close relatives (called inbreeding avoidance) is a well documented phenomenon that has been observed in numerous species and has several proposed genetic mechanisms (look up MHC mate selection if you’re interested). What you’re proposing has, to my knowledge, never been noted, certainly not in any species other than humans, and has no possible genetic mechanism.
So no, it does not make even more sense.
You were trying to make the argument that if interest in homosexual and heterosexual sex were for all intents and purposes equally valid, then we would begin to see a 50/50 ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals in the general population. I was pointing out that that isn’t true - the fact that a certain trait is rare is not proof positive that it is wrong or terrible in either a moral or a evolutionary sense. If a given trait is either positive in certain situations (eg. the gay uncle hypothesis) or neutral, it can remain in the population at a low but stable level.
If there is no possible genetic mechanism you must be able to instantly point to some unarguable flaw in my reasoning that there possibly is.
You really need to learn how to conduct a rational argument.
Begging the question by saying that some genetic mechanism is impossible because that genetic mechanism is impossible is fatuous in the extreme.
More problems with reading comprehension on your part.
I said if they were both equally normal, not equally valid.
That is: if the levels of inclination and disinclination to have sex were the same for both homo and hetro then (up to the point where a species gained sufficient intelligence to realise that one type produced offspring and the other didn’t - and further assuming the actually wanted offspring), you would expect to see 50/50. Why on earth wouldn’t you?
Well, the biggest flaw that I can see is that revulsion of any sort is not known in any other animals. If it were genetic, we would expect that primates, especially great apes, would be repulsed by homosexual activity. But they’re not, and they have been observed indulging in it many times. Yet still their species persists.
Here’s what you said before:
‘Normal’ does not mean the same thing as ‘commonplace’. This is what I was trying to get across. For people who are attracted to members of their own sex and partake in homosexual relationships, that is normal. The fact that homosexuals make up only a small portion of society does not make their sexuality ‘abnormal’. Someone who says they want homosexuality to be accepted in society wants homosexual relationships to be recognized as equally valid, not that they want to see those relationships become equally common.
You are saying that revulsion is the only thing keeping us from having both homosexual and heterosexual sex. But many people in this thread have pointed out that it is the enjoyment of heterosexual sex that makes them want to have it, not the grossness of the alternatives. I don’t think that you’ll find many people who would argue that the pleasureful feeling of sex with a partner that you are attracted to *is *a product of evolution. With that pleasure in place, why do we need the revulsion to stop us from doing something else? What makes you think that half the population *wants *to have homosexual sex, but is only stopped by the ‘ick’ factor?
FWIW, I don’t have sex with women because I’m not sexually attracted to women, not because the thought of sex with a woman grosses me out; it doesn’t. Just like I don’t have to be grossed out at the thought of skateboarding or collecting superhero comics not to be particularly interested in doing so.
Firstly, I know you want to keep using the term ‘revulsion’ because it makes it look as if I’m trying to present some sort of extremist view when I’ve already said on more than one occasion that it’s unfortunate that the OP used the term ‘revulsion’ as that is almost an outlier on a continuum that runs from nothing, through mild disinclination, distaste, and on to actual revulsion. Plus it’s in the title of the thread. Nonetheless, continuing to use that term as if that outlier is being touted as the standard level of the response is dishonest.
Can you cite anything that says that under no circumstances are other animals repulsed (to whatever degree and distinct to scared) by anything?
If not then that objection is dishonest because if no one has tried to detect the effect that has nothing whatever to say on the topic. I bet you can’t provide a citation to demonstrate that teenage girls have a disinclination to banging their head hard against a wall. Similarly, that is in no way evidence that they have no such disinclination.
OK, let’s have a citation.
No shit?
And, guess what?
Humans have been observed indulging in it many times. Yet still our species persists.
Couldn’t even you see the complete irrelevance of that last quote? :rolleyes:
Now it seems you need a lesson in basic English.
Do you see the two words in front of ‘normal’ in your quote?
If it were ‘just as’ normal. Ten percent may qualify as normal but it’s not as normal as 50%. Normality is not like pregnancy - it comes in degrees.
Massive straw man. I’ve never even suggested that homosexuality could or should be considered abnormal.
More straw man stuff. Who said they did?
If you actually read what was posted you’d know that I’ve stated that the only situation where this has any relevance is for bisexuals.
Bisexuals, being attracted to both male and female might remove themselves from the gene pool for periods of their lives (because, notwithstanding you assertion that there’s no real evidence that humans are intended to pair bond for life there is a massive amount of evidence that they do, very much, pair bond for short and medium periods).
Thus any inherited disinclination to same sex sex (and hence disinclination to pair bond with someone of the same sex) will tend to ensure that they remain in the gene pool for a greater proportion of their lives.
From discussions with gay friends over the years the reaction of gay people to sex with the other sex runs over exactly the same range as the reactions of hetro’s to gay sex:
Some have done it and found it not unpleasant.
Some have done it and found it unpleasant.
Some have done it once and would never do it again.
Some would rather gouge their own eyes out than try it.
