If all it takes is being in a minority regardless of what the nature of the minority is, then where is all the hatred for left-handers, the green-eyed, and redheads in societies like the US where these are all minorities?
That actually helps resolve the circularity I always saw in “homophobes are all closeted” (in particular, homophobia drives people into the closet, being in the closet makes people homophobic, so they spread homophobia, driving people into the closet…) If the original homophobia were merely legislation, it makes sense.
Some women too.
And I’d argue it’s not all that irrational: it’s just a matter of generalizing, something which people do instinctively, and only recently do we consider it unfair to do so.
Lord Feldon, your link is about teachers, who often considered it their responsibility to train children to be right-handed. Being left-handed has some practical issues, such as smudging text because of our left-to-right writing convention.
Generally though, I’m not sure it was that stigmatized (yes, I’m aware “sinister” means left-handed). I haven’t heard anyone suggest we stone left-handers.
I remember reading some articles about homosexuality and the Bible and this was more or less the main theory they were putting forth. Thousands of years ago, when infant mortality was high, warring with other tribes was common, and things like disease or famine could wipe out huge numbers in a tribe, promoting population growth was vital to the survival of the tribe.
Land also would have played a vital role even within an individual family. Having male heirs to inherit land was vital, and having daughters for procreation and for the social parts of marriage was also vital. If a land owner died with no children, it could be lost to a neighboring family, or even a neighboring enemy tribe. And in these times land meant wealth, or at least survival.
I’m not sure how much of this was actually a conscious thought, but certainly a big part of what made men respected and powerful was having many sons, and part of what made women respected was having many children.
Of course, this motivation doesn’t have any impact today because modern medicine, technology, laws, and just generally large populations already make these all non-issues.
I’d say sort of. Really, I think the “icky” factor comes from the existing cultural taboos. As in, it’s icky to eat insects here in the US, but it’s common in other parts of the world. Rather, I don’t think there’s inherently anything icky about it, after all, plenty of early culturals engaged in homosexuality, pedophilia, orgies, etc. Hell, there were religions based around fertility that involved sexual rites.
Instead, I think it was precisely that that cause some early people to reject it. That is, if you have a group like the tribal Jews who were trying to create an identity, they would reject aspects of other cultures. So, having their own religion, and seeing other culturals engaging in these things, both as a cultural aspect and as part of their religions, then it goes a step beyond being about promoting population growth, and it starts to create that cultural “icky” factor. As in, these are things they do and we don’t, they’re bad, therefore those things are bad.
This obviously applies with the Jews and groups like the Philistines, Greeks, and Romans, and it continued with Christians inheriting it and also differentiating themselves from the Roman pagans.
Again, this means a lot less today because many of these sorts of barriers are either completely gone, disappearing, or need to disappear. I do suppose that if the “icky” stuff is still a part of at he larger culture as others assimilate it will take time for it to go away, but it will.
I just don’t see this as a real cause. I think gender identity just wouldn’t have been much of an issue thousands of years ago. In a time where men worked the field, hunted, and went to war and women cooked, sewed, and made babies, I just don’t see more nuanced stuff like sexual attraction being an issue. If for no other reason, because of the priorities akin to Maslow’s Hierarchy. Back then societies would have been much more focused just on basic survival and growing wealth and power in the lower couple levels, and gender identity is somewhere higher like the third or fourth level.
I’m sure there were some people who were like this, but in general, I suspect the above reasons vastly overwhelm this one, because those have to do with survival, tribal identity and power, and property, and this one just doesn’t hit those base survival motivations.
Right, and cultures that didn’t consider homosexuality icky generally didn’t ostracize homosexuals either (although of course many cultures didn’t even appreciate that there was such a thing).
I do think icky is at the root cause of this. But now we come to the question of whether homosexuality is instinctively icky to straight men or not.
I would say clearly not, however the following things I think are instinctive, and I think it’s pretty obvious how they can lead to homosexuals being ostracized in many societies:
- Being desired sexually by someone that you have no attraction for is unsettling.
- Sex in general has a level of icky, because it involves going so far beyond our normal comfort zone for things like personal space. Of course, when it is someone we’re attracted to, it far overrides that.
- Icky things seem to trigger similar feelings of disgust as immoral things.
Not rape, but an assumption like “That gay guy is probably thinking about me in the same dehumanizing and objectifying way that I view women! Rather than re-evaluating the way I think about other people I’ll just flip out and be a huge shithead forever”
It’s a truism but every homophobic person I have ever known has been insecure as well as inclined to be hyper-judgmental about other things people do that really don’t affect others. I think it’s mostly a reflection of the person’s fears that he or she may not be quite “normal” and/or real doubt about his or her own sexual identity.
It’s a reflection of the US (majority) vs. THEM (minority) idea. The majority is always better than the minority, so we can morality do what we with them. Like slavery and Native American genocide.
In the patrilineal societies of the time I imagine your son turning out to like the boys, or at least not like girls enough to enter into a sham marriage, might keep you up at night with thoughts of what would happen to your inheritance. Their whole society was built on male inheritance rules
We’re talking about people so far removed from modern people in culture and values it probably would be hard to understand them, I mean I’m not the only atheist that has read the Bible right? If you don’t go WTF at cause and effect two times well…you’re leading an interesting life.