Logical Homophobia

[Threlizdun]

I suppose there must be an evolutionary benefit in having bigots in the population as well?

It provides us with idiots to laugh at.

[Sociobiology]

And I'm just That Fish Guy©.

from the Dino Guy, bio-nerds must stick together.
(I suck at fish, especially teleost fish {or whatever you guys are calling ray-finned these days})

[Unhealthy2]

oddly , perhaps sadly homosexuality has a built in stabilizer, if homosexuals have a greater risk for disease, this may be linked to why sex evolved in the first place. homosexuals make up 12-15% of every population ever studied, from bushmen to brits, because the benefits of homosexuality balance with the disease risks when homosexuals make up 15% of a population, cultural effects make up the rest of the variation.
Homophobia may have a evolutionary benefit as well, basically excluding competitors, this however has not been given much study.
remember natural does not equal moral, only humanity can decide what is moral, but knowledge is required.
personally I think whatever consenting individuals do is up to them, and that people have a right to be bigots, as long as they do not violate the consenting actions of others.

Careful, don't assume that a behavior is always evolutionarily beneficial, especially not always to the one exhibiting it.

[Sociobiology]

oddly , perhaps sadly homosexuality has a built in stabilizer, if homosexuals have a greater risk for disease, this may be linked to why sex evolved in the first place. homosexuals make up 12-15% of every population ever studied, from bushmen to brits, because the benefits of homosexuality balance with the disease risks when homosexuals make up 15% of a population, cultural effects make up the rest of the variation.
Homophobia may have a evolutionary benefit as well, basically excluding competitors, this however has not been given much study.
remember natural does not equal moral, only humanity can decide what is moral, but knowledge is required.
personally I think whatever consenting individuals do is up to them, and that people have a right to be bigots, as long as they do not violate the consenting actions of others.

I suppose there must be an evolutionary benefit in having bigots in the population as well?

the benefit is to the individual (of his genetic close kin)in both, indeed all, cases. Evolution could care less about populations or species as a whole. species improvement is always emergent if it happens.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Gay porn is better than normal porn.

Heterosexuals feel that the fab gays need to be punished.

That's a very rational reason for homophobia.

[Snot Sniper]

There's a problem with evolutionary arguments against homosexuality. Were it the complete Darwinian suicide that people claim it is, then humans would not be gay. Humans would have genes that would all but ensure that homosexuality never occurs. Yes, this would occur EVEN IF gayness is not genetic.

The fundamental flaw is that people assume two incorrect things:

1. One must, themselves, reproduce in order to be a Darwinian success. Due to kin selection, this is simply not true.

2. Homosexuals rarely have biological offspring. This seems to be false as well. Ironically, homophobia is probably the main reason WHY it's false. If homosexuality is partially genetic, homophobia is unwittingly helping it spread.

oddly , perhaps sadly homosexuality has a built in stabilizer, if homosexuals have a greater risk for disease, this may be linked to why sex evolved in the first place. homosexuals make up 12-15% of every population ever studied, from bushmen to brits, because the benefits of homosexuality balance with the disease risks when homosexuals make up 15% of a population, cultural effects make up the rest of the variation.

There are disease risks, now that YOU point it out.

Any kind of sexual contact involving mucus membranes is going to spread diseases. Sex which is not directly necessary for reproduction should therefore have been strongly selected against ... that it is present in humans and other animals shows that there is some other survival benefit to it. Perhaps it helps structure social groups in a way that makes the children of some of them more viable?

Homophobia may have a evolutionary benefit as well, basically excluding competitors, this however has not been given much study.

"Excluding competitors" I can't see. Isn't the case of the penguins an example of how these "competitors" could actually help to support kin for the homophobe?

[Sociobiology]

oddly , perhaps sadly homosexuality has a built in stabilizer, if homosexuals have a greater risk for disease, this may be linked to why sex evolved in the first place. homosexuals make up 12-15% of every population ever studied, from bushmen to brits, because the benefits of homosexuality balance with the disease risks when homosexuals make up 15% of a population, cultural effects make up the rest of the variation.
Homophobia may have a evolutionary benefit as well, basically excluding competitors, this however has not been given much study.
remember natural does not equal moral, only humanity can decide what is moral, but knowledge is required.
personally I think whatever consenting individuals do is up to them, and that people have a right to be bigots, as long as they do not violate the consenting actions of others.

Careful, don't assume that a behavior is always evolutionarily beneficial, especially not always to the one exhibiting it.

Never do, behavior is a soup of conflicting factor, culture, evolution, individual thought, even cross linking (not beneficial but attached to something that is)
humans are unique in that we analyse our own (as individuals) thought process, It makes everything messy but makes us improve at record rates. if only we could focus on only improving the good things we do.

[Ceannairceach]

Did we scare Moon Cows away? >_>

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Did we scare Moon Cows away? >_>

Where will we get our conservative Christian opponent now?

[Episarta]

Did we scare Moon Cows away? >_>

Probably, he doesn't care. Remember?

[Unhealthy2]

There are disease risks, now that YOU point it out.

Any kind of sexual contact involving mucus membranes is going to spread diseases. Sex which is not directly necessary for reproduction should therefore have been strongly selected against ... that it is present in humans and other animals shows that there is some other survival benefit to it. Perhaps it helps structure social groups in a way that makes the children of some of them more viable?

Vaginas are mucus membranes too, if I'm not mistaken. Besides, AIDS in Africa prefers vag to ass. The kind of AIDS in America prefers ass.

[Flat Beats]

Chatechism... 2357-2359. Yar. Oh, their whole marriage thing starting on 1601

[Sociobiology]

oddly , perhaps sadly homosexuality has a built in stabilizer, if homosexuals have a greater risk for disease, this may be linked to why sex evolved in the first place. homosexuals make up 12-15% of every population ever studied, from bushmen to brits, because the benefits of homosexuality balance with the disease risks when homosexuals make up 15% of a population, cultural effects make up the rest of the variation.

There are disease risks, now that YOU point it out.

Any kind of sexual contact involving mucus membranes is going to spread diseases. Sex which is not directly necessary for reproduction should therefore have been strongly selected against ... that it is present in humans and other animals shows that there is some other survival benefit to it. Perhaps it helps structure social groups in a way that makes the children of some of them more viable?

Homophobia may have a evolutionary benefit as well, basically excluding competitors, this however has not been given much study.

"Excluding competitors" I can't see. Isn't the case of the penguins an example of how these "competitors" could actually help to support kin for the homophobe?

in humans sex is for reproduction or is practice for reproduction, we are a very sex intensive species (but not as much as bonobos, who do use it for social structure) and even unknowingly vary our ovulation and sperm content based on the pleasure of sex. (it is a kind of IQ test, get me off or no kids for you) of course this a gross simplification of a very complex suite of behaviors.

if you can prevent an unrelated individual from using a winning strategy it is beneficial to your own( and kins) reproductive success. that is excluding competitors.

[Snot Sniper]

There are disease risks, now that YOU point it out.

Any kind of sexual contact involving mucus membranes is going to spread diseases. Sex which is not directly necessary for reproduction should therefore have been strongly selected against ... that it is present in humans and other animals shows that there is some other survival benefit to it. Perhaps it helps structure social groups in a way that makes the children of some of them more viable?

Vaginas are mucus membranes too, if I'm not mistaken. Besides, AIDS in Africa prefers vag to ass. The kind of AIDS in America prefers ass.

Sure. Apply the same thinking to vaginas and penises then. If disease and reproduction were the only factors, you'd expect there to be mechanisms in humans to avoid sex which is unlikely to lead to reproduction. For instance, for men not to be attracted to women unless they where at that moment fertile. That's not the case, pointing to some other benefit to people having sex.

[Kazomal]

There are disease risks, now that YOU point it out.

Any kind of sexual contact involving mucus membranes is going to spread diseases. Sex which is not directly necessary for reproduction should therefore have been strongly selected against ... that it is present in humans and other animals shows that there is some other survival benefit to it. Perhaps it helps structure social groups in a way that makes the children of some of them more viable?

Vaginas are mucus membranes too, if I'm not mistaken. Besides, AIDS in Africa prefers vag to ass. The kind of AIDS in America prefers ass.

It's juvenile, but the discussion of ass or vag preference made me giggle.

[Unhealthy2]

Sure. Apply the same thinking to vaginas and penises then. If disease and reproduction were the only factors, you'd expect there to be mechanisms in humans to avoid sex which is unlikely to lead to reproduction. For instance, for men not to be attracted to women unless they where at that moment fertile. That's not the case, pointing to some other benefit to people having sex.

I believe that researchers are saying that humans evolved to use sex for recreation and bonding on top of just reproduction.

[Unhealthy2]

It's juvenile, but the discussion of ass or vag preference made me giggle.

pee-pee

[Sociobiology]

Vaginas are mucus membranes too, if I'm not mistaken. Besides, AIDS in Africa prefers vag to ass. The kind of AIDS in America prefers ass.

Sure. Apply the same thinking to vaginas and penises then. If disease and reproduction were the only factors, you'd expect there to be mechanisms in humans to avoid sex which is unlikely to lead to reproduction. For instance, for men not to be attracted to women unless they where at that moment fertile. That's not the case, pointing to some other benefit to people having sex.

practice is the other factor, humans who have more practice at sex (even non-reproductive) preform better and have more offspring, this is the reason for homosexuality in males.
in females it is about pair bonding.
and in humans it is not possible for a male to know when the woman is fertile. human females have cryptic ovulation unlike many other primates which advertise it, even counting does not improve accuracy more than few percent. I forces the male to stay around all the time, so you get serial monogamy. It is also the reason that humans have many types of sperm including soldier sperm (I shit you not) that has no other purpose but to find the sperm from another male and kill it with a toxic barb.
really read the book Sperm Wars by Robert Baker it will tell you everything you ever wanted to know about human sexual behavior. we are one weird species.

[Snot Sniper]

Sure. Apply the same thinking to vaginas and penises then. If disease and reproduction were the only factors, you'd expect there to be mechanisms in humans to avoid sex which is unlikely to lead to reproduction. For instance, for men not to be attracted to women unless they where at that moment fertile. That's not the case, pointing to some other benefit to people having sex.

practice is the other factor, humans who have more practice at sex (even non-reproductive) preform better and have more offspring, this is the reason for homosexuality in males.
in females it is about pair bonding.
and in humans it is not possible for a male to know when the woman is fertile. human females have cryptic ovulation unlike many other primates which advertise it, even counting does not improve accuracy more than few percent. I forces the male to stay around all the time, so you get serial monogamy. It is also the reason that humans have many types of sperm including soldier sperm (I shit you not) that has no other purpose but to find the sperm from another male and kill it with a toxic barb.
really read the book Sperm Wars it will tell you everything you ever wanted to know about human sexual behavior. we are one weird species.

I'll check my library for that, thanks.

[-St George]

God says so.

You will, I hope, be providing relevant biblical quotations to back this up?

[Siorafrica]

Homophobia ain't logical. I can understand why fundamentalists would hate gay people but it doesn't excuse it.

[Rumbria]

The gays are stealin' all the wimminz!

Don't believe me? Then why do all straight women always complain that the only decent guys are gay guys?

[Norstal]

The gays are stealin' all the wimminz!

Don't believe me? Then why do all straight women always complain that the only decent guys are gay guys?

Pfft, not like they can sleep with them. So they're stuck WITH US! MUAAHAHAHAHHA

[New Kilballyowen]

Er, no. Just because you people flock to the internet at sites such as deviantArt and NationStates, does NOT mean that your views are universal, correct, logical, or agreed with by the rest of the world.

Then debate, or are you a coward?

Oh, good. Because it's not a logical or rational debate without accusations of cowardice.

[Sovereign Spirits]

The important thing is not to be caught up in the tides of your current generation simply because it means you don't have to swim. It's become quite "PC" and also the general consensus is that human homosexuality is acceptable at the minimum and preferred at the maximum. I think this is a good thing and it's the right thing.

However, could you also say the same if you lived your entire life in a period where the opposite was in effect? In a predominately homophobic society (as opposed to a neutral or accepting society) where homosexuals and homosexuality were the butt of jokes at the minimum (as they still are today) and the victims of targeted violence at the maximum (more than today)?

Remember that, in times past, the proponents for the acceptance of homosexuality were few. Today, there are many. So not all of you could say that you would be as you are now in the past. It wouldn't quite match up statistically and, adjusting for population, perhaps not proportionally either.

As such, demonstrate here your reasoning and how you expect it to stand the test of time regardless of the tides. It is erroneous to believe that the extension of time automatically begets your kind of progress as opposed to occasional or total regress by your standards.