And yet, put that person in prison and they may manifest same sex sexual behavior. It’s a situational thing, once outside they likely won’t continue to manifest that behavior, but it’s clear that human sexuality is a maliable concept. This would tend to conflict with your hard-wired theory.
I hear this sort of argument a lot, and I think some people, mostly those who are quick to attach personal preferences to an inborn origin, are under the impression that you have to be part of Reverend Phelp’s immediate family to be socially pressured towards heterosexuality. It isn’t so. The small things count, especially when it’s a whole lifetime of small things.
Perhaps your parents, teachers and peers never told you that gay men and women will rot in hell, but how many times, growing up, have you heard ‘ewwww’ or ‘that is gross’, childish as it may be, towards homosexual behaviour? Maybe as a child you also thought girls had cooties, but at the same time you were bombarded by idealized or at the very least, normalized, images of heterosexual couplings. Couldn’t these have worked toward erasing any aversion you might have had to heterosexual acts, and actually strengthen them, while reinforcing your aversion towards homosexuality?
The truth is, our culture continually broadcasts heterosexual-positive messages, and wether you like it or not, even in a modestly liberal small town, negative portrayals of homosexual behaviour are still all too common. Kids are influenced by this. They are.
You know what? I am physically repulsed by the idea of eating larvae. It’s disgusting. Watching someone eat a nice handful of squirmy little critters makes me want to throw up. I wasn’t actually taught in school that larvae eaters were going to hell, but it’s just nasty. Yet I am almost positive that if I was born and raised within a culture in which larvae were a common dietary staple, this seemingly instinctive and natural repulsion of mine would more than likely not exist. Yum. Larvae. I might be the odd freak who hates larvae, much as I am the odd freak who hates cheese where I live, but statistically speaking, I’d probably think larvae were finger-lickin’ good.
See where I’m getting at? I think a lot of our gut reactions are learned. They aren’t taught explicitly, but they are nevertheless learned as we interact with the world around us. Just because you feel something as a gut reaction and can’t quite pinpoint the moment in which you developped that feeling does not necessarily mean you were born with it. It just means it was a gradual process, for the most part unconscious, much as I have learned to think larvae are gross.
I used to be disgusted by homosexual behaviour. I didn’t really think about it, but the sight of two men kissing used to trigger my ‘gross’ reaction of repulsion. Since then, I’ve started to think about it, I’ve been exposed to homosexual behaviour, both real and fictional depictions, and I’ve realized what a dumb reaction that was.
I recall, as a foolish youngster, letting my mind slip beyond the initial revulsion, and discovering that I wasn’t really grossed out. Moments later, I was typically shutting myself to the idea, more or less unconsciously, because while I had nothing against gays, it was just sort of gross and I “just don’t swing that way, not that there’s anything wrong with that.” I actually reinforced my revulsion, because it suited the idea I had of myself at the time. We do this every day without thinking about it, particularly where memories are concerned.
Intellectually, thinking about it, it was never gross, and I’ve learned to ignore my initial gut reactions and let my mind open to other things. I don’t think I’ll be eating larvae any time soon, but I’ve been known to experiment with a culinary delight here and there that would have thoroughly grossed me out if I hadn’t stopped to think how irrational I was being. I’m still not a fan of cheese, and much like larvae, I don’t think I’ll be having a homosexual encounter any time soon, but I’ve conquered the revulsion I had learned to feel and am now sailing in the calm waters of mild bisexuality.
It’s just an example of how gut reactions are…well…what they are, and hardly evidence for anything. YMMV. IANAEBASOTI.
Well, since my girlfriend would say Im girly but straight I’ll pipe in:
Homoeroticism doesn’t bother me (aside from bearish stuff which I cant help having a revulsion to) and in fact I find two beautiful men kissing and fondling and what not to be asthetically pleasing.
They could have, but it’s possible (and at least as likely, IMO) that they didn’t.
Mmm…two cute guys kissing-what’s not to love? 
(I’m just being silly, I know).
My reaction, when I was younger, wouldn’t be EEEEWWW, but more like, “Oh my god-they’re kissing! HAHAHEHEEHEHEHE…”
Which is pretty immature.
An intersting point. It does make me wonder, though, why in some patriarchal cultures, the social stigma of male homosexuality is only attached to the passive partner, whereas in ours it’s attached to both?
Cultural evidence suggest otherwise. If an aversion to homosexuality was natural, then most cultures would be averse to homosexuals correct? However, this is not the case.
I think the scientific proof is in studying other cultures’ view of homosexuality. I have been studying this for a while now, and I have found that most cultures felt there was nothing wrong with homosexual behavior and that a lot of males in said cultures engaged in it.
An interesting example is some of the tribes in Malaysia. Males were thought not to have semen in them naturally, so they would have semen implanted in them by older males from the tribe through oral or anal sex. In order to become a man, each boy had to go through this. I do not see why such a practice would arise if natural human thought were against homosexual behavior.
Well, lesbians are beaten and killed, and are sometimes raped.
Actually, during the time of Mollys (1950s? Correct me if I am wrong…) only the passive partners were looked down upon. I am trying to find information on this online, as I don’t have any of my books with me, but there was a huge sting involving a bunch of army or navy soldiers who were engaged in homosexual acts. In order to avoid being convicted, a lot of people claimed they were only involved as active partners.
True. I was just making the point (after MEBuckner’s point) that if human beings were automatically revolted by any activity that discouraged reproduction, then one should have an automatic disgust of monks.
I think because the “active” or “dominant” partner may be seen as a threat to heterosexual men – they fear he may want to make them into his “passive” or “submissive” partners!
Now, why this is a concern in our culture and not some others I don’t know. It may have something to do with differences in stereotypical gender roles. For instance, in the US it seems to be pretty commonly accepted that men, regardless of sexual orientation, are real horndogs who will sleep with practically anyone of the right sex who’s willing – and maybe even some who aren’t willing. But as I mentioned before, in Ancient Greece the common opinion was that men (unlike those foolish, overemotional women) had the intelligence and willpower to control their sexual urges. That might be why there’s a stigma against macho gay men in the US while the Ancient Greeks tended to look down only on effeminate gay men – guys in Ancient Greece didn’t think it was likely that a macho gay man would be overcome with violent lust at the sight of them even if he did think they were cute, but American guys figure such things happen all the time.
Just a few really small historical nitpicks – though I realize you were giving an overview, and so you probably weren’t trying to be too specific.
Was this ever the custom outside of Thebes, though? I thought it was specific to one city-state.
I think it depends on which philosopher. Just a few details gleaned from Plato’s Symposium:
[ul][li]Plato seems to think lust between anyone was less evolved. [/li][li]One of the guests at the party does suggest that there is a “high love” and a “low love,” and that women can only experience the latter. Can’t remember the man’s name, though. [/li][li]Plato’s Aristophanes didn’t seem to have any problem with heterosexuality or lesbianism (one of the few mentions of lesbianism in Ancient Athens is in Aristophanes’ speech in The Symposium).[/li][/ul]
Other than that, I agree with the post.
Incorrect. An aversion to homosexuality does not necessarily translate to an aversion to homosexuals. Also, just because a trait is natural, doesn’t mean it is dominant. Left handedness is natural, but most people are right handed.
There’s a problem with your analogy.
If your graduate diploma becomes useless, it’s not just your social status that’s compromised, but your survival. If you have the education but not the work experience, and then your education becomes useless, you haven’t just lost a certain amount of self-image – you might not be able to find a job, might not be able to pay for things rent and food…
Another person’s homosexuality presents no such direct threat. I do understand fears surrounding “social irrelevancy,” and I’ve seen examples of it, but I’ve never seen it turn into violence – just disgust, and a snobbish sense of superiority.
Many of my goals are different from the people around me. I don’t want to be rich, I don’t own a TV, I don’t want a house or a car. Most people accept these. A few try to convince me I’m missing out on something, that I’m lying to myself, or that my tastes will change as I get older. I think their need to convince me probably speaks to their fear of “social irrelevancy” – that what they’ve worked hard for will cease to earn the respec tof others.
However, I have no reason to be afraid my life from these people. So, to return to my OP – the question is not why some people dislike homosexuality or think it’s wrong, but why is the raction so much more extreme than for other things people dislike or think are wrong.
People without work experience can find work – it’s not all that unusual, you just have to start at the bottom.
Yes, but reproductive status is second only to power in the social order.
Imagine if you wore your subversion of the social order on your sleeve – say you live simply, as you say, like a Buddhist, maybe you pitch a tent somewhere. You walk around your small town, no problem.
Now suppose you had a visual signifier, in our case, the appropriate bright orange robes. And it can’t be just “you” to have a social order competition. One person can’t affect a group status – you need a competing group, so imagine that a Buddhist sect was growing in popularity, and maybe 1 our of 10 people you see on the street was wearing these bright orange robes, staring at you as you drive to your CEO job in your H2, accusing your capitalist values, the way you were raised, as being worthless.
That’s a social threat – not an individual one. Any invading cultural value can cause this feeling and the outcome you describe, whether it’s American McCoropate values propogating in France, or the Chinese leadership panicking and banning FalunGong.
The reason I brought them up, and tried to differentiate them from meatheads who would just go out looking for anyone to beat up, is because it’s these sorts of people who are the key to the question that Hamish is asking … in other words, why is it just homosexuality that gets people so violently disturbed. It wasn’t to give a justification of them, saying that they are really good people so you should forgive them for their hatred. I really had the opposite intention - to wonder why people who aren’t otherwise full of hatred do hate gay people.
I suppose we all choose who we stay friends with, and we don’t always have a moral ten point plan to follow when choosing friends. We all have our limits. This is your limit, and I have my own limit.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean by this.
It wasn’t to give a justification of them, saying that they are really good people so you should forgive them for their hatred. I really had the opposite intention - to wonder why people who aren’t otherwise full of hatred do hate gay people.
I suppose we all choose who we stay friends with, and we don’t always have a moral ten point plan to follow when choosing friends. We all have our limits. This is your limit, and I have my own limit.
I do apologize if I have misintrepreted your previous post…Being a member of a specific group who has faced at least humiliation, and at worst life threats, I do get a little irrational when it seems someone is calling for the understanding and forgivness for the purveyors of the abuse. I can’t tell you how many times the good folks who did nothing in concert with these bullies, but still did nothing, would tell me not to fret about it, they’re really good boys at heart.
I also appologise for the redundency comment…As you stated, to consider these darlings assholes, is a tautology…and I mistakenly thought you were sayin enough of the overkill, they’re really good boys at heart.
Sorry about all that…Rand
No worries, ranwashingt - I suppose there’s another discussion about how tolerant we should be of our friends or acquaintances if they hold particular views, but it doesn’t belong here.
**
If a culture finds behavior X to be disgusting, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the culture would deem the people who participate in behavior X to be disgusting as well? “Love the sinner, hate the sin,” doesn’t seem to apply with homosexuality: people seem to see them as “tainted” by their sexual preference.
**
Perhaps you should make an effort to meet more people.
I still believe that your so-called “instinct” is a learned reaction. Some people are disgusted by inter-racial dating, and have the same “instinctual” reaction to it. An automatic predjudice does not an instinct make.
And most people like ice cream and cake, but I don’t. What does it matter? Because a trait is not dominant, then it must be somehow wrong, or corrected?
Not necessarily.
You lost me here.