4 ms·

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

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.
    - foldr 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. It could be classified this way if there's scientific evidence to support that hypothesis. But throwing it out there as a speculation isn't helpful. >like a lack of physical strength Surely this shows how silly the argument is. Where are the cultures that criminalize having a lack of physical strength? >Homosexuality is always a subconscious threat, because until recently if you were homosexual your bloodline died with you No, because there's only a rough connection between sexuality and who you actually have sex with. Being gay doesn't stop you having sex with women, and you don't have to have sex many times in order to reproduce.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    "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?" I'm not remotely justifying laws that criminalizing anything. Moreover, evolution and social evolution are very grey subjects wherein we have a great deal of difficulty proving things one way or another. I don't think it's offensive, or even 'a stretch' to suggest that attitudes towards some kinds of behaviour are evolutionarily derived, at least partly. It's just an opinion, and maybe it's not super perfect position ... but it's not unreasonable or objectively offensive either. And for the record, I'm glad that they've changed this law.
- tallanvor 8y ago
  You have not provided a single piece of evidence that supports your theory, rather you are doubling down on what you "believe" as opposed to what research and polling shows.
- DonHopkins 8y ago
  >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. So men evolve, but women don't, huh? Just because your own personal experience propositioning men for gay sex instinctively repulses 50% of them doesn't mean your anecdotal suggestion means anything about the rest of humanity. Maybe you just need to take a shower.
  - EForEndeavour 8y ago
    Not to assume too much about the commenter you replied to, but it's fairly common knowledge that women are more sexually fluid than men (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fluidity#Males_versus_females https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fluidity#Males_versus_f...). I read "different for women" to mean "women are less repulsed by the notion of gay sex than men," which is borne out by evidence.
    - DonHopkins 8y ago
      He's making this sweeping generalization about evolution by conveniently disregarding half of the population. Sounds like he's pre-disposed to believe his own conclusions that he thinks scientifically justify his own repulsive feelings, and wants to disregard the half of the evidence that contradicts his theory.
sizzle 8y ago
Great explanation, a sort of innate Bayesian inference for the uncanny valley of attributes that a person associates to being a normal human being (much like themselves). This filter applies to trans people as well as people with full face tattoos or piercings. Great discussion, thanks.

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.
  - foldr 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. It could be classified this way if there's scientific evidence to support that hypothesis. But throwing it out there as a speculation isn't helpful. >like a lack of physical strength Surely this shows how silly the argument is. Where are the cultures that criminalize having a lack of physical strength? >Homosexuality is always a subconscious threat, because until recently if you were homosexual your bloodline died with you No, because there's only a rough connection between sexuality and who you actually have sex with. Being gay doesn't stop you having sex with women, and you don't have to have sex many times in order to reproduce.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "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?" I'm not remotely justifying laws that criminalizing anything. Moreover, evolution and social evolution are very grey subjects wherein we have a great deal of difficulty proving things one way or another. I don't think it's offensive, or even 'a stretch' to suggest that attitudes towards some kinds of behaviour are evolutionarily derived, at least partly. It's just an opinion, and maybe it's not super perfect position ... but it's not unreasonable or objectively offensive either. And for the record, I'm glad that they've changed this law.
tallanvor 8y ago
You have not provided a single piece of evidence that supports your theory, rather you are doubling down on what you "believe" as opposed to what research and polling shows.
DonHopkins 8y ago
>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. So men evolve, but women don't, huh? Just because your own personal experience propositioning men for gay sex instinctively repulses 50% of them doesn't mean your anecdotal suggestion means anything about the rest of humanity. Maybe you just need to take a shower.
- EForEndeavour 8y ago
  Not to assume too much about the commenter you replied to, but it's fairly common knowledge that women are more sexually fluid than men (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fluidity#Males_versus_females https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fluidity#Males_versus_f...). I read "different for women" to mean "women are less repulsed by the notion of gay sex than men," which is borne out by evidence.
  - DonHopkins 8y ago
    He's making this sweeping generalization about evolution by conveniently disregarding half of the population. Sounds like he's pre-disposed to believe his own conclusions that he thinks scientifically justify his own repulsive feelings, and wants to disregard the half of the evidence that contradicts his theory.

sizzle 8y ago

Great explanation, a sort of innate Bayesian inference for the uncanny valley of attributes that a person associates to being a normal human being (much like themselves). This filter applies to trans people as well as people with full face tattoos or piercings. Great discussion, thanks.