Homophobia is so gay

[Moss]

can you detail that ?

LoL, that sounded rather ambiguous, did it?
It's not what I think you think.

 

[Marduk]

LoL, that sounded rather ambiguous, did it?
It's not what I think you think.

ahh, so its not what you think I think, but think you think, I think, I do!

 

[angrysoba]

As no genetic test for homosexuality has been found, it seems likely that homosexuality is socially/environmentally derived. People not wanting to contract homosexuality (ie. people who have an interest in sexual reproduction (ie. nearly everybody)) should avoid and dismiss homosexuals and homosexuality. So homophobia is logical. Call it irationalstupidityhomophobia; it would still be logical.

It's linguistically/semantically blurry because bisexuality sort of includes homosexuality and sort of doesn't. I usually don't refer to bisexuality as homosexuality if I can help it just as the participants aren't homosexuals.

I guess the word biphobia isn't prevalent because bisexuals aren't impotent (ie. there's nothing to fear).

Are you seriously arguing that homosexuality is contagious and that prejudice against it is some kind of rational determination to prevent humans dying out as a species?

It sounds almost like the plot of a zombie film rather than anything that resembles real life. But just out of interest, why do you think it is that the contagion doesn't work the other way and that all would-be gays would catch straight?

Also, do you propose that the sterile and the impotent also be shunned as relationships with such people removes another set of reproductive organs from productive procreation?

 

[angrysoba]

I do agree with you that the claim is compelte BS.

But if you ask why people still go for it, it's most likely because of individual anecdotes such as Ted Hagert and his ilk.

Although there is probably some wishful thinking here. By that I mean that if homophobia is based on something basic such as that, it would be easily "cured".

I think it is BS to equate the two and to say that all homophobia reduces to suppressed homosexuality. For one thing, if it were true then the homophobes would have nothing to fear at all because, as you say, the whole phenomenon of homophobia could be dissolved completely.

Having said that, maybe some people who are homophobic are overcompensating for the fact that they themselves are homosexual. So, as with lots of theories, there is probably some truth to the weak form of the theory while the strong form is completely absurd.

 

[crimresearch]

I propose a double blind test...

 

[Tatyana]

A strong piece of evidence which leads me to conclude that it is the environment which overwhelmingly directs sexual orientation is that there is only a 20% concordance for monozygotic twins and homosexuality. The study was conducted in 2000 using the Australian twins registry, in order to avoid selection bias. No surprises that this study is not detailed on the primary researcher's wikipedia page as it is not compatible with the prevailing, politically motivated zeitgeist that homosexuality is not determined through environmental forces. An earlier, biased study which found a 50% concordance is detailed on the wikipedia page instead. Disgraceful really.

~Bailey, Michael J., Michael P. Dunne and Nicholas G. Martin (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 3, 524-536.

Disgraceful?

Only if you have an agenda.

The two studies were done by the same scientist.

He also points out that there is a heritable component of homosexuality.

Again, it is never just the environment or the genes, it is always a combination of the two, and the only time it is only one of them, it is genetics.


http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html

Dr. Collins succinctly reviewed the research on homosexuality and offers the following: "An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality.

Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."

Perhaps the best example of this media misrepresentation was the two studies conducted by J. Michael Bailey. In Bailey's first study, he reported a concordance rate of 52%. In a second study, Bailey reported a concordance of 20-37.5%, depending on how loosely you define homosexuality. The first study received a great deal of press. The second study received almost no media attention.

Bailey himself acknowledged probable selection bias in his first study---he recruited in venues where "participants considered the sexual orientation of their co-twins before agreeing to participate." The second study, using the Australian Twin Registry with its anonymous response format, made such bias unlikely.

 

[Beerina]

The researchers said quicker reaction time for "me" and "gay," and a slower association of "me" with "straight" would indicate said an implicit gay orientation.

I assume they arrived at this empirically on a previous study, and didn't just sit their and rub their chins like idiots and declare "common sense" fact.

 

[Pup]

So, people "contract" homosexuality by being around them? Nevermind the straight allies who have been members of LGBT organizations like PFLAG for years and years without ever "contracting" homosexual tendencies.

And heterosexuals become less capable of reproducing simply by being around gay people or supporting their rights? Nevermind that belief being so completely asinine and ridiculous it hardly merits refutation.

And it's logical for people with an interest in sexual reproduction to be prejudiced against those who don't or can't? Nevermind the implications that childfree people have an equally logical basis for being prejudiced against people who want to have children.

The logic is irrefutable. It applies to other things too, like old-people sex, which we all know is gross.

1) Old-people sex doesn't cause reproduction.

2) If you're around old people long enough (say 30-40 years), you'll catch the urge to have old-people sex too.

3) Therefore old-people sex is gross.

Clearly the same logic applies to gay-people sex.

 

[Stereolab]

So, people "contract" homosexuality by being around them? Nevermind the straight allies who have been members of LGBT organizations like PFLAG for years and years without ever "contracting" homosexual tendencies.

Do you believe adopted children of homosexual parents, and children of heterosexual couples, are equally likely to be homosexual themselves?

I don't.

(And I certainly don't believe homosexuality is a "disease" or any such thing)

 

[Bill Thompson]

Why, as the title of the OP states, is homophobia carefree and happy and excited?

 

[angrysoba]

Why, as the title of the OP states, is homophobia carefree and happy and excited?

Colonel Blimp, I presume?

 

[Jono]

its been suggested in academia that a tribal group has more chance of survival if it has male members that the leader can trust to protect the women without impregnating them. Genetically of course this means that homosexuals won't breed as well as heterosexuals, so if there is a genetic component, its not a large one. So that just leaves environmental factors

Well hmm, not so sure. Of course, there's a difference between linear 'hereditary' traits, mutations et al and with 'genetic'. Something can, hypothetically, have a statistical chance of poppin' up at an over-all rate amongst human groups, expected to be found here and there... without the ones in which it is noticable breeding on themselves.

As a curiosa, speaking from recollection. It's been noted on in other studies (forgot which but I could probably dig one up if needed) that the straight siblings of homosexuals have often had an above-average virility/birth-rate.

Furthermore, as a somewhat seperate note, the issue of concordance of genetic variation = the hereditary/genetic value is problematic. Something can be shown through twin studies to have a given level of genetic variation, but the genetic or hereditary importance of the given trait or such can be smaller or greater still. The twin who is not him/herself homosexual can, as we do not know exactly what causes it initially, carry onward certain qualities that increases the possibility/frequency of homosexuality in for the continued family line. We don't know so we can't really state it with any probability, but these are all factors that are biologically possible.

And lets not forget that, at least when I briefed through them, several of the formentioned studies on genetic and enviromental variation/concordance of sexual orientation all seem to echo that the shared enviroment plays the least role (a bit similar to what Pinker claimed about personality traits; 40-50% of the variation was genetic, 0-10% was the shared [reared] enviroment, the rest was Factor X; culture, traumas etc).

 

[Jono]

Do you believe adopted children of homosexual parents, and children of heterosexual couples, are equally likely to be homosexual themselves?

I don't.

As it is, all we can assume is that the genetic component is a necessary one. The necessary enviromental ones are tougher to conclude as it obviously has nothing to do with upbringing, growing up with different or same-gender siblings, the existence of certain laws etc. And I haven't seen anyone yet to bring up that same-gender preferences acting as a sexual orientation exists in the animal kingdom, in varying degrees, at large. But usually, when dealing with the genetic arguments it rarely gets as controversial, fuzzied, awkward or problematic as when it is applied to humans.

 

[Skepticemea]

I put on over 5kgs in a month when I lived with a fat person so I think you can catch lifestyles.

 

[bluesjnr]

I put on over 5kgs in a month when I lived with a fat person so I think you can catch lifestyles.

They must have been from Germany 'cos you've caught metric too.

 

[Skepticemea]

They must have been from Germany 'cos you've caught metric too.

I caught that from my Aussie wife.

 

[Stereolab]

The necessary enviromental ones are tougher to conclude as it obviously has nothing to do with upbringing, growing up with different or same-gender siblings, the existence of certain laws etc.

I think it can most certainly have to do with such things.

 

[TragicMonkey]

If you accept that there is no moral valuation in sexual preference, that's it's "okay to be gay", then does the cause of it matter? Apart from scientific interest, it shouldn't be any more important to find the cause of homosexuality than it is to find the cause of left-handedness. I believe one of the motivations to assign the cause of homosexuality to genetics is to try to "prove" that it's okay, because the underlying assumption is that it'd be unfair to assign blame for a bad thing if it weren't a choice. But if you accept that there's nothing wrong with being gay to begin with, then the cause of it doesn't matter at all--there's no need to discover the cause to mount a defense.

It's like someone being accused of liking coconut, and a team of intellectuals and lawyers and doctors leaps into action to do years of argument and research and lab tests to prove that taste buds and nerves and areas of the brain in some people react differently to coconut. Interesting, sure, but hardly necessary if you don't start from the notion that liking coconut even needs defending.

 

[Ocelot]

The Gay Homophobe cliché exists for good reason.
I suspect it works something like this:

• There are people who think their society will judge them badly if they display any sign of homosexuality.
• Some of these will target homosexuals as vehemently as they repress their own homosexual inclinations.
• The stronger those inclinations the stronger both their self repression and their external displays of homophobia.

Yet the idea that this is the sole reason for homophobia is quite suspect. I'll believe that no-one is simply picking on the outgroup when I see evidence that all racists are secretly Black.

(For the purposes of pith I have assumed that all racists are white and and that the targets of their opprobrium are always black - yes even liberals play to stereotypes occasionally. I hereby spare you the time take to point this out which you can now spend in a more productive manner. Like stapling marmalade to your shoes)

 

[Skepticemea]

If you accept that there is no moral valuation in sexual preference

The "do you eat oysters and snails" pov.