5 ms·

Homosexuality is disturbing to people because their brain cannot find relevant patterns that have to do with homosexuality-related experiences (sights, images e

Homosexuality is disturbing to people because their brain cannot find relevant patterns that have to do with homosexuality-related experiences (sights, images etc). And when the brain doesn't find good pattern matches, it alerts the person of something very strange and potentially dangerous going on. Morality systems come on top of this fundamental fact, because morality systems are just the conscious justifications we give to our feelings.

Delmania 8y ago
> Homosexuality is disturbing to people because their brain cannot find relevant patterns that have to do with homosexuality-related experiences (sights, images etc). I'd like to echo this. A while back, a coworker and friend of mine who is homosexual took me to a coffee shop that caters primarily to homosexual men. I had never been with him before in that social context, but his actions did fall within the stereotypes and I did feel myself uncomfortable with the situation. It wasn't that big of a deal, as I recognized my response. What was more "eye-opening" was that later, he has the same reaction to those situations when he's with his heterosexual friends. He even went so far as to say he finds the concept of heterosexual sex as digusting.
- dagw 8y ago
  I did feel myself uncomfortable with the situation But was that discomfort specifically related to homosexuality or just the general discomfort one feels when one finds oneself in an entirely alien social context? If you where to go with him to that coffee shop twice a week for a couple of month do you think you'd still find it uncomfortable?
woodruffw 8y ago
> Morality systems come on top of this fundamental fact, because morality systems are just the conscious justifications we give to our feelings. This is a serious claim, one that moral philosophers (even those inclined towards moral fictionalism/nonrealism) have issues with. Just two of them: * This account fails to distinguish between moral beliefs and cultural taboos. Individuals tend to think that they can justify both, but challenging taboos is more likely to result in confabulation -- individuals are willing to concede hypothetical concerns in their moral beliefs, but remain committed to their taboos even in the face of good evidence against them. * Moral philosophy, as it exists today, doesn't seek to provide justification to homophobia, gender discrimination, &c. The dominant metaethical views don't give any consideration at all to these particulars, but rather accept as conclusions (via utilitarian calculus, via a supreme principle, &c) that homophobia and the rest are all morally unjustified. Where does this fit into the pattern matching to feelings to confabulated justifications pipeline?
- DonHopkins 8y ago
  At first I thought you wrote "uterine calculus", so I looked it up. That's a thing! TIL that there are a many different kinds of biological calculus. https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/uterine+calculus https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/uterine+cal...
tallanvor 8y ago
Homosexuality is generally only disturbing to people who have been taught that it's supposed to be disturbing. Just looking at same-sex marriage allows you to clearly see correlations in approval of same-sex marriage based on religious beliefs: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-same-sex-marriage/ http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-abou... Beyond the differences between a number of the religions, You can look at the results for "Sources of guidance on right and wrong by views about same-sex marriage". The clear majority of those who oppose it do so based on religion.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "Homosexuality is generally only disturbing to people who have been taught that it's supposed to be disturbing." I believe it's much deeper than that, it's evolutionary. Some codified 'teachings' i.e. religious or otherwise may push our instincts in one way or another. FYI there would have been ancient religions very much in favour of 'same sex' though probably not same sex marriage. I suggest that a little more than 1/2 of men are repulsed by the notion of gay sex (totally different for women though) and that it's instinctive. More complicated issues like 'hate' or systematic social shame etc. are obviously culture. But my bet for the impetus of it all is on evolution, not just some arbitrary moral systems.
  - foldr 8y ago
    Just about every objectionable 'ism' and 'ary' has been given an alleged evolutionary justification at some point since the publication of The Origin of Species. Could you possibly refrain from speculating along these lines unless you have actual evidence that there is an evolutionary basis for laws that criminalize gay sex? Because otherwise, even if this isn't your intention, you're giving people who favor this kind of legislation the support of sciency-sounding justifications which some people could easily mistake for actual science.
    - sudhirj 8y ago
      I think the appeal to evolution helps more than it harms, because it serves to point out the feelings against homosexuality can be classified as a reaction to anything that used to hamper your ability to reproduce, like a lack of physical strength, hunting skills, slow running speed, lower environment sensitivity, etc. If a society has moved beyond the ‘natural’ impulse to shun members with some evolutionary disadvantages, it must consider that it cannot shun members with any of them. Homosexuality is always a subconscious threat, because until recently if you were homosexual your bloodline died with you. If your child was homosexual that’s one possible family tree gone, and if it was an only child that’s your bloodline gone again. So if feels like there’s always going to be some opposition as long it’s still connected to reproduction.

Delmania 8y ago

> Homosexuality is disturbing to people because their brain cannot find relevant patterns that have to do with homosexuality-related experiences (sights, images etc). I'd like to echo this. A while back, a coworker and friend of mine who is homosexual took me to a coffee shop that caters primarily to homosexual men. I had never been with him before in that social context, but his actions did fall within the stereotypes and I did feel myself uncomfortable with the situation. It wasn't that big of a deal, as I recognized my response. What was more "eye-opening" was that later, he has the same reaction to those situations when he's with his heterosexual friends. He even went so far as to say he finds the concept of heterosexual sex as digusting.

dagw 8y ago
I did feel myself uncomfortable with the situation But was that discomfort specifically related to homosexuality or just the general discomfort one feels when one finds oneself in an entirely alien social context? If you where to go with him to that coffee shop twice a week for a couple of month do you think you'd still find it uncomfortable?

woodruffw 8y ago

> Morality systems come on top of this fundamental fact, because morality systems are just the conscious justifications we give to our feelings. This is a serious claim, one that moral philosophers (even those inclined towards moral fictionalism/nonrealism) have issues with. Just two of them: * This account fails to distinguish between moral beliefs and cultural taboos. Individuals tend to think that they can justify both, but challenging taboos is more likely to result in confabulation -- individuals are willing to concede hypothetical concerns in their moral beliefs, but remain committed to their taboos even in the face of good evidence against them. * Moral philosophy, as it exists today, doesn't seek to provide justification to homophobia, gender discrimination, &c. The dominant metaethical views don't give any consideration at all to these particulars, but rather accept as conclusions (via utilitarian calculus, via a supreme principle, &c) that homophobia and the rest are all morally unjustified. Where does this fit into the pattern matching to feelings to confabulated justifications pipeline?

DonHopkins 8y ago
At first I thought you wrote "uterine calculus", so I looked it up. That's a thing! TIL that there are a many different kinds of biological calculus. https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/uterine+calculus https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/uterine+cal...

tallanvor 8y ago

Homosexuality is generally only disturbing to people who have been taught that it's supposed to be disturbing. Just looking at same-sex marriage allows you to clearly see correlations in approval of same-sex marriage based on religious beliefs: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-same-sex-marriage/ http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-abou... Beyond the differences between a number of the religions, You can look at the results for "Sources of guidance on right and wrong by views about same-sex marriage". The clear majority of those who oppose it do so based on religion.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"Homosexuality is generally only disturbing to people who have been taught that it's supposed to be disturbing." I believe it's much deeper than that, it's evolutionary. Some codified 'teachings' i.e. religious or otherwise may push our instincts in one way or another. FYI there would have been ancient religions very much in favour of 'same sex' though probably not same sex marriage. I suggest that a little more than 1/2 of men are repulsed by the notion of gay sex (totally different for women though) and that it's instinctive. More complicated issues like 'hate' or systematic social shame etc. are obviously culture. But my bet for the impetus of it all is on evolution, not just some arbitrary moral systems.
- foldr 8y ago
  Just about every objectionable 'ism' and 'ary' has been given an alleged evolutionary justification at some point since the publication of The Origin of Species. Could you possibly refrain from speculating along these lines unless you have actual evidence that there is an evolutionary basis for laws that criminalize gay sex? Because otherwise, even if this isn't your intention, you're giving people who favor this kind of legislation the support of sciency-sounding justifications which some people could easily mistake for actual science.
  - sudhirj 8y ago
    I think the appeal to evolution helps more than it harms, because it serves to point out the feelings against homosexuality can be classified as a reaction to anything that used to hamper your ability to reproduce, like a lack of physical strength, hunting skills, slow running speed, lower environment sensitivity, etc. If a society has moved beyond the ‘natural’ impulse to shun members with some evolutionary disadvantages, it must consider that it cannot shun members with any of them. Homosexuality is always a subconscious threat, because until recently if you were homosexual your bloodline died with you. If your child was homosexual that’s one possible family tree gone, and if it was an only child that’s your bloodline gone again. So if feels like there’s always going to be some opposition as long it’s still connected to reproduction.