3 ms·
> In the case of gay-shaming, the obvious common cause is evolutionary: It's people trying to have more grandkids. If this were the case, we'd have 'bred out'
by Jedd 8y ago
> In the case of gay-shaming, the obvious common cause is evolutionary: It's people trying to have more grandkids.
If this were the case, we'd have 'bred out' the gay, surely?
Acceptance of difference, including different sexual orientation, is higher in secular societies.
Religion seems to be a much more obvious, much more common, correlation to intolerance of homosexuality -- in no small part because the most popular written texts that form the basis of the bigger religions dictate an intolerance. The fact that reflects and feeds an innate distrust of different I think is important in the sense of maintenance of these beliefs, but can too easily conflate causality.
- jm__87 8y ago> If this were the case, we'd have 'bred out' the gay, surely? This assumes that there is a gene that determines whether someone is gay or not. I was under the impression that gay and trans are an epigenetic phenomenon that occurs during early development. In the womb, a male brain develops too much along the female trajectory or female too much along the male trajectory, either due to presence of hormones that should not be there or the lack of hormones that should be there.
- Jedd 8y ago> This assumes that there is a gene that determines whether someone is gay or not. This was evidently parent's assumption, per the claim that gay-shaming was evolutionary. I've taken some liberty by inverting the former and conflating the latter (evolutionary / genetics) but my point is that there's no evidence for (and quite a bit against) the claim that any of this is 'evolutionary'.
- jm__87 8y agoYeah, looks like I replied to the wrong one. Sorry about that.