Funny how such an evolutionarily advantageous trait seems to be so culture-specific.
Not necessarily, sam. I evolution led to a species that consistently produced a small percentage of homosexuals, say 2% to 5%, depending on who you’re reading at the moment, the extent to which their not reproducing would be nonadaptive might very well be offset by their benefit to the species; otherwise you’d suggest that a species such as a honeybee, that produces a MAJORITY of non-reproductive females, would be nonadaptive, and of course we know differently.
must perview: that’s "Not necessarily, sam. If evolution . . . "
Another aspect of homophobia is the cultural fear of feminization.
Many men in today’s culture hold a self-image the depends upon the Male’s superiority to the Female. Often they have lived in culture in which this has never been challenged, and they believe it as a kind of law of nature: a god-given truth.
When they encounter a male who manifests a more feminine personality, the concept that this illustrates–that gender roles are cultural constructs, and open to variation, and are NOT god-given absolutes–this casts an eroding doubt on their previously immutable and unquestioned self-image. The resulting self-doubt, while not necessarily latent homosexuality, leads a very similar fear, which is projected outward in much the same way.
But how do you know it’s culture-specific? In societies where homosexuality is acceptable homophobia may be completely internalised. Perhaps homophobia in our society is so evident because of the norms set in place by religion?
Yeah, I haven’t read the original Trivers article, but I’ve read an overview of it in Sociobiology. What I’m suggesting is the possibility of two types of homosexual: one arising from random variation and one arising from a lineage of ancestors with homosexual tendencies. For this second sub-group of homosexuals, homophobia would be a clear evolutionary advantage.
Two things seem obvious to me here:
- Both “subgroups” are likely to be present in any population.
- The small percentage of these “subgroups” that manifest should be enough to satisfy those who posit that homosexuality is nonadaptive; duh, maybe that’s why it’s so rare.
But you see- dudes should NOT use the term “homophobia” when what they are talking about is just a lack of 100% support.
Let us say som Minister says gay sex is a sin- but he also says all sex outside marriage is a sin, drunkeness is a sin, greed is a sin, failure to respect your parents is a sin, etc. Is he a “homophobe”? I don’t think so. (Not that I’d agree with him, just that he is not a “homophobe”)
Now, if he railed on about homosexuality being a “abomination”, and made it sound like the worst sin in the Bible- then yes- he could be a homophobe.
Or let’s say some politico wanted to allow gay partners certain domestic partner rights, but balked at calling it “marriage”- he is also not a “homophobe”. If he wanted to make “sodomy” a crime- then yes, he sounds like a homophobe.
However, I notice amoung the radical gay dudes, a tendency to call anyone who isn’t 100% in favor of their “agenda” = a “homophobe”. In fact, one time I was asked to sign a petition making “gay marriage” legal in CA (a drive for a Proposition). I did so. I was then solicted for a donation also- and when I demured, I was called a “homophobe” for not dishing out my hard earned $$. :rolleyes: :dubious: This went a bit … no a LOT … too far- eh?
Dr, it’s not about railing; it’s about making a distinction between extramarital STRAIGHT sex and extramarital GAY sex. If the minister’s objection is that the sex is extramarital and not that it’s gay, then he’s not a homophobe.
The politico in your example is a homophobe, because he justifies distinct treatment for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Consider if he wanted to allow domestic partnerships for mixed race couples, as long as they didn’t call it marriage: wouldn’t he be a racist?
And just because some idiot with a clipboard called you a homophobe doesn’t invalidate the term: anyone who is not as offended by different treatment for homosexuals as we’d expect them to be by, for example, different treatment for various races, is a homophobe, because their justification for the distinction is based on irrational fear, whether consciously acknowledged or not.
There are different degrees of active homophobia, just like racism, but it’s all homophobia: conniving at unequal treatment. I’ll say it again: when the status quo is wrong, if you’re not a part of the solution you’re part of the problem.
Lissener- he could be a racist, and he could be a bigot. But likely he isn’t a victim of an “irrational fear”. Just because someone is not 100% on your side, does not nessesily make them a “bigot”. I know dudes who are against the “ERA”- not because they are haters of women, or bigots- but becuase they feel the ERA is not nessesary.
And just because I am not “part of the solution”, just because I don’t whip out my checkbook on demand to your desires- does not mean I am a “homophobe”. You’re going to lose the dudes like me who are willing to “go along with” Gay rights, but not willing to start writing checks. You can get my vote, but not my cash. But you are in danger of losing my vote- becuase if I am a hated “homophobe” unless I write a check- why bother to help at all?
Don’t use the term “homophobe”- which indicate a hetred & fear of homosexuality for someone who is basicly only a lukewarm supporter- or that “lukewarm” will turn cold mighty damn fast. I really wanted to withdraw my signature after that comment.
I never claimed it to be a particularly adaptive trait. What I was getting at was that it is more adaptive than the alternative which is being openly homosexual. Up until recently, it has been impossible to have a child without heterosexual sex. Thus there are two important potentials for the genetic aspect of homosexuality, which I tried to explain above. To expand on that idea:
-
Homosexuals whose genetic aspect arises from chance will most likely lack the defence mechanism of homophobia, as there will have been no reason for their ancestors with this trait to be favoured by natural selection.
-
Homosexuals with homosexual lineage. Some form of homophobic defence mechanism is passed down along with some or all of the genetic aspect of homosexuality. Homophobes are favoured slightly by natural selection.
These type 2 homophobes could be quite few in number. But in a similar fashion to the way female sex preferences and the genes for those preferable male characteristics propogate together exponentially, once these traits meet they will be very favourable for the production of further type 2 homosexuals. Although the proportion of type 2 homosexuals could initially be very low, once the genes for homophobia spread across the homosexual population they would increase exponentially.
That is my guess at how homophobia came about. Then history gives homophobia a helping hand. Homophobia gets into certain religious texts. Presuming homophobia is made up of a complex set of factors like homosexuality, this now greatly increases the chances of homophobia occurring, as now there are both genetic and environmental reasons for homophobia.
Homophobia is not a particularly adaptive trait. But the above reasoning with type 2 homosexuals is the only reasoning I can come up with off the top of my head to explain why homosexuality and homophobia have a correlation, as demonstrated in my cite. What other explanation do you offer for homophobes finding gay porn more arousing than the normals, and yet another group of homosexuals exists in which there is no internal conflict with regard to their homosexual desire? I believe the idea of group 1 and 2 homosexuals answers this question.
And another question. Many of you are quick to point out societal norms as a cause of homophobia. But where did these norms originate? Religion, I hear a million voices shout at me. Well then, why did religion adopt those views? What caused the first homophobe, and why did it then spread? We are closely related to the primates, yet our sociobiology is unique in this regard. Why? I have a theory I believe can answer all these questions to a reasonable extent, and I have a modern psychological study consistent with the results. Could someone please offer a viable alternative?
And also, might I point out that the Homophobia Index used in the study is on a scale, and participants were picked from either extreme.
You mentioned evolution WRT survival. Evolution WRT survival acts on genes. I figured if you wanted to bring up evolution, you wanted to bring up genes. Now you don’t want to mention “gay genes” so I guess you mean “anti-gay genes”.
What exactly do you mean?
I would say both the minister and the politician are homophobes. The minister’s homophobia at least doesn’t involve interfering with anyone’s life, so I wouldn’t find him as offensive–but he’s still offensive to me.
The politician is definitely biased. He’s being discriminatory. He’s a homophobe.
Julie
From a site debunking the gay gene.
I’m arguing that while homosexuality is not 100% inherited, the genetic component to the “multiple factors” means that the application of evolutionary psychology to the situation is appropriate, even if the genetic aspect accounts for under 50% of the variability in heritability it is enough to allow for natural selection to come into effect.
No reason to get so defensive, DD (or is there ?); if you signed the petition, you’re more likely part of the solution than part of the problem.
If you believe that homosexuals should have fewer rights than do heterosexuals, then you feel that homosexuals are “lesser” than heterosexuals. This is false, and can only be arrived at irrationally. I.e., there’s a level of denial; i.e., something has made it necessary for you to override reality with your abstract prejudice. I maintain, as do many others, that ultimately the driving force of this conscious or unconscious divorce from reality is a fear of that reality.
So even at the most benign end of the spectrum, I will continue to use the term “homophobia.” I will acknowledge that there are different degrees of homophobia, and I’m willing to distinguish those, but it’s still homophobia.
>This is false, and can only be arrived at irrationally. I.e., there’s
>a level of denial; i.e., something has made it necessary for you
>to override reality with your abstract prejudice.
So anyone that disagrees with your basic assumption is an EvilHomophobe™? Hmph.
sighs
Why oh why does this debate arise every few months? I’m getting tired of stating cases here…
All right, in defense of evolution in action re: homosexuality…
Genes can be passed on by brothers and sisters who are simply carriers. It happens with a lot of recessive genetic defects which kill or hamper kids when young. Those individuals in which it becomes apparent never get the chance to reproduce, but the genes themselves carry on inactive in their siblings and relatives. They may slowly get weeded out over time in a wild environ because dealing with one ineffective mouth might disadvantage the group enough… or they might just leave the child to starve.
As others have attempted to point out, though, the fact of a homosexual sibling might be an advantage to your family as a whole. They can be effective hunters just like their heterosexual siblings and worthwhile members of the group, but do not produce more mouths to feed. All of their excess would go to the group as a whole, making them stronger. So long as the number of such animals in a group remains sufficiently small, they endanger their indirect genetic survival not at all. The only time when it would become disadvantageous would be if it became a dominant trait in a group.
It’s not “my” basic assumption; if you need to attribute to a single person in order to deny its validity, you’ll have to look further back than just me, hon. (Strawman AND ad hominem, in one swell foop! you’re good!)
Now all you have to do is explain how homosexuality was an advantage to individuals in the gazillian generations before a culture of cooperation existed.
No, he has to explain why homosexuality wasn’t a sufficiently detrimental disadvantage to have been weeded out.
If homosexuals nonetheless mated heterosexually often enough, a ‘gay gene’ could have hung around. Or, it could have been a recessive gene, so that all sorts of heteros were carriers. Or, the gay gene could also have been linked to something that provides a survival advantage. Or, as is suspected with Adelie penguins, male homosexuality might be passed down in the female line, and the gene, in females, might not cause homosexuality, but instead be linked to traits which hetero males find attractive. (Simply put: the pretty girls give birth to gay boys. And pretty girls are popular, so, gay boys keep popping up.)
So, there are a few mechanisms by which homosexuality can persist in a gene pool.
Dayum. wolfstu beat me to it.
Bottom line: evolution is largely a negative process that works by DEMOTING the unsuccessful rather than PROMOTING the successful: winners win only be default in evolution, so no trait needs to proven adaptive in order to survive.