—His founding argument for a biological basis for this prejudice is however nothing but an attempt at rationalization in defense of the same. As such it is obviously irrational and fails to answer the question in a convincing way.—
I think it is at least plausible: that the majority is used to sticking penises into vaginas, and so finds anything else to be abnormal to their limited experience. Seems as good a basis to me for prejudice as anything could.
For the record, I don’t have a problem describing homosexuality as rare, uncommon or unusual (abnormal has connotations that I’d rather not see applied to gays, lefties, or redheads). Its the word statistically I have a problem with - because it means something very specific. Use the word statistically, and someone will ask you what your sample size was, how you chose your sample and what your confidence interval is - fair questions when you are working “statistically.” Statistically does not mean numerically.
From what I know, studies trying to establish the rate of homosexuality in the general population all have controversial results - often beginning with how homosexuality was defined in the study, moving through sample selection, survey technique, etc.
Its pretty obvious most of the population is not gay. Exactly how uncommon homosexuality is is up in the air.
Read the stuff about separating women after child birth. They have encountered (so to speak) the power of fertility, and lost some blood in the bargain. Therefore they need to be separated, because contact with this power has made them non-kosher and dangerous.
Which is not to deny that the focus of male sexuality in the OT is the penis. But that is true of most male sexuality all over the world.
The prohibition against male homosexuality seems to me to be more focussed on its transgression of boundaries (“thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind - it is a violation of kosher”) than of contamination of the penis. Thus male homosex is a dreadful thing because you are doing to a man what you should do only to a woman. Sex with women is part of the whole fertility thing - sex with men is sort of a transgression against fertiility.
FWIW. I mentioned this partly because much of Christian sexual morality also concerns itself with the idea of reserving sex for certain situations (marriage), and that use of sex for other reasons is considered a transgression.
Regards,
Shodan
If I understand the arguments presented so far by Scott and others, they are as follows:
Sex is a strong desire in humans
The tendency is to identify whatever I like sexually as moral and good, and whatever I don’t like sexually as evil and naughty
Most people are not gay
Therefore most people think of gay sex as evil and naughty and that is the basis for prejudice against gays.
I also don’t find this convincing.
There are several things in life that I don’t care for - tuna fish, skinny women, and professional football are examples. My dislike for these things does not translate into prejudice against them that would be classed as homophobia if it was directed against gay people. I would not class skinny women as an abomination against God, and I don’t think an interest in professional football is morally wrong, I just don’t care for these things myself.
There are even sexual practices for which I have no taste, either because I don’t “get” the attraction or because I find them actively distasteful. But I don’t classify these practices as a horrifying abomination or grievious sin. I am just not interested.
Homophobia, I think, seems to be different. If I am right, what we are referring to as homophobic prejudice goes considerably beyond simply shrugging our shoulders with the cliche “de gustibus non disputandum” and turning our attention elsewhere.
Homosexuality has historically been treated in a far more than dismissive way. We are talking about a practice punished by many cultures in multiple ways, up to and including death by torture. This goes considerably beyond simple disinterest. There has to be something, or several somethings, that go well beyond that.
And I think it is too facile to dismiss all anti-gay prejudice as the result of denied homosexual impulses in the homophobe. No doubt that is often the case, but not always, and homophobes seem to have too many sympathizers thru out history for this to be a complete explanation. They can’t all be closet gays.
I think there is clearly anti-gay prejudice embedded in our culture, perhaps in most cultures (ancient Greece notwithstanding). What I am interested in discussing is the origin of that prejudice.
Unfortunately, MrVisible’s objections to the validity of the prejudice don’t quite go to where they came from. Certainly, there are lots of things that argue against the idea of homosexuality as “unnatural” - homosexual behavior in animals, condoms, whatever. But unless such things were present and known at the point when anti-gay sentiment began to be included in the dominant moral code, it makes no difference whether they apply today or not. As I said, cultures do not turn on a dime, even if that dime is the invention of Astro-glide.
Unless Rhapsody is arguing that anti-gay prejudice appeared because homosexuality is inherently morally wrong. Perhaps, but simply arguing that whatever most people don’t care for is morally wrong is not exactly tautological, but it needs a bit more justification than majority vote.
Regards,
Shodan
I suddenly feel the urge to sing “You’ve Got To Be Carefully Taught” from South Pacific.
The discussion of where homophobia comes from is interesting and all, but let’s keep in mind that perpetuating it takes skill and practice - let’s make it a habit we all strive to break.
Esprix
Such as what, Shodan?
Keep in mind that there are quite a few other things which have been the objects of persecution in a number of cultures; women, for instance, or people of different skin color. These are pretty baseless prejudices, when analyzed rationally. Why would you think homophobia has any better rationale?
Well, for starters, Rhapsody hasn’t shown that homosexuality is morally wrong.
Nexters, an argument for beneficial bigotry: From the point of view of our genes, it makes sense to offer preferential treatment to those closest to us genetically. Assume that one is offered the choice between saving a total stranger with whom shares genetic material, and one who doesn’t. Someone who consistently saves the distant relative will reinforce their genes, and thus their behavior. It’s not much of an increase, statistically speaking, but its self-reinforcing.
Wow. Mother nature is a biotch.
This is an important point. We only have to look back a generation or so to find extreme and widespread prejudice towards and persecution of African-Americans. Just up the street from where I sit now is a park with a rectangular patch of grass where a swimming pool used to be – it was filled in back in the 1960s so the town wouldn’t have to integrate it. It’s a hot day today and it sure would be nice for the neighborhood if we could all go swimming, but just a few decades ago it was considered more important to keep white people from having to touch the same water as black people than to have a pool. Seems silly now, doesn’t it? Someday anti-gay prejudice will seem just as silly.
Well, hell, MrVisible, maybe my previous posts on arranged marriage give a rationale.
Keep in mind that I am not arguing in favor of the validity of these rationale, I am presenting some thoughts as to the OP.
But I think the prejudice against one race by another is tied to some of the same reasons as homophobia. They are different, and therefore members of the out-group, and therefore to be regarded with suspicion. Racial characteristics would here be a reflection of a marker of a different culture. “No Irish need apply” is based on the same prejudice as racial slavery.
Prejudice against women is a mixture of rationally based and irrational factors. Women had to produce a lot of children, therefore it made a sort of sense to confine their activities to staying pregnant, and not pursuing a career, to put an extreme example. Add to that the fact that most men are bigger than most women, and that it is biologically easy to separate the genders by role in a pre-industrial society, and you get the recipe for male chauvinism that characterizes most of the world before about 1800 and most of the Third World today. The liberation of women is a function of the Industrial Revolution.
Certainly prejudices persist past the point when their causes disappear. But as I keep trying to say, we are not arguing whether or not homophobia is right or wrong, just where it came from.
Regards,
Shodan
What’s being discussed here is not origins, it’s justifications.
History is replete with theories as to why one race is better than another, why men are better than women, why people from one religion are better than people from another, and they all look ridiculous in the light of history. Yet, at the time, these theories were respected, scientific works that held entire nations in thrall, that provoked or justified wars and executions.
It all comes down to “We don’t like the outsiders, let’s find a reason that they’re inferior to us. We can use that to make ourselves feel justified as we persecute them.” Once these justifications become entrenced in society, they’re passed down, unquestioned for the most part, until that faction of the population rises up and demands equality.
The origins of homophobia? Humans don’t like humans who aren’t like them.
Rhapsody:
[Moderator Hat ON]
Rhapsody, “Bite me” is not an appropriate phrase in this forum, nor does it impress anyone as being a particuarly brilliant argument. Do not do this again.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Gee, Rhapsody I just didn’t realise that we had a Doper who could speak for the entire straight population, and who could diagnose our complete lack of empathy and understanding so facilely.
This may come to a surprise to you, but projecting your opinions onto the entire straight population is neither logical nor an acceptable debating tactic.
Just to be clear, you don’t speak for this particular straight male on the topic of empathy an understanding, and I would ask that you not pretend to do so in the future.
In the Renaissance days, “male bonding” was considered a normal thing.