Why do people disapprove of homosexuality?

Post Reply New Topic

People dissaprove of homosexuality because they've been conditioned to disapprove of it, much in the same way a 10 year old may be conditioned to believe mankind was doomed because Eve ate an apple, or a soldier that becomes a serial killer because that's what he was conditioned to do. We shouldn't ignore our environmental and cultural influences as reasons for much of the problems our society has today, I think a lot of people are victims of culture and their environment, and not necessarily did they have free choice in the beliefs that were imposed upon them. I know how hard it is to get over longtime cultural beliefs and prejudices, people that were conditioned to hate homosexuals need help.

I have not read all 21 pages of posts so I may not be the first to suggest this, but allow me to suggest that it is perhaps neither a rational or irrational decision at all and not even a decision. Plausibly it may be a deeply ingrained instinct. If you have read anything about Gentic Sexual Attraction (AKA GSA) you know that GSA is an hypothesized, some say proven, sexual attraction for others with largely common genes. It is counterbalanced with the Incest aversion for children raised together. GSA is the reason for simpler more primitive unrelated populations to show a prevalence of cousin marriages and GSA gives rise to formation of Clans and Tribes and eventually nations. Those populations with similar genetic traits tend to gather together and compete with those with les similar genetic traits. The larger the group possessing moderate genetic similarity the more competitive and survivable it is. It is claimed to give a survival advantage for groups, (as opposed to survival of individuals).

If we compare this phenomennon with wide spread rejection of homosexuality we can see that heterosexual predomenance within a group allows it to out-breed competitive groups. Not all that much is known about genetics and instinct but too much diversity can weaken a group, and groups especially those that can act in unity are more survivable!

I will risk proposing a hypothesis. I propose that it is a survival mechanism for the clan or tribe. I presume that it will be regarded as reasonable that if neither side has a massive advantage in technology or numbers that in combat, maleness has a survival advantage over femalness not ignoring that in hard times environmentally Femaleness can have inherent advantage over maleness. E.G. they tend to have proportionate a larger body fat reserve and the clan or tribe tends to afford them greater protection as they are necessary to produce future generations etc. In harsh inter-clan rivalry competition for limited resources men who sexually prefer men may be perceived as women when it comes to inclination to engage in combat and hence less likely to function effectively in combat over resources and be less able to have "the back" of their fellow wariors" Having lots of women who can reproduce is also advantageous to the clan. But having "women" who are functioning as women grants no such survival advantage to the clan. Accordingly a clan with lots of male homosexuals is plausibly at a survival disadvantage. arguments of a similar nature can also be plausible where the number of members who take on the male roles don't make the best wariors. The famous anthropologist Margret Mead who studied semi-isolated tribes in the south seas islands saw some trends along these lines. Perhaps her observations of the Arapesh (aka the "Gentle Arapesh" Suggested themes along these lines in that The Arapesh males were rather mild (one might say effeminate) were pushed off the good land to poorer and remote territories were a dwindling tribe compared to their neigboring tribes and clans. Such a cultural based difference led to a clan survival disadvantage and more "aggressive male dominated" better fighters giving them an advantage over their neighbors and the result was a cultural evolution effect that favored cultures that ganed an advantage where "Men were men, and stole the best resources and the women produced the next generation. In other words not regarding how much we seek a peaceful society, depending on resource availability a culture with homosexual tendencies may not have the best competitive edge and survivability. It would be a cultural norm to favor heterosexuality and suppress homosexuality for simple survivability. Effeminancy of males may be a culturally based survival disadvantage and societies that suppress non reproductive unions may reap an advantage and simply out populate their rivalsl. by breeding a more survable society.

If that is the case..... A technological society where survival is less phisiologically based and more intellectually based might just reverse that trend. If one wished to examine where such a thing might go, I can suggest that as a starter one who likes science fiction might examine the book The Left Hand of Darkness By Ursala LaGuin (not sure of the spelling there) I found it to be a good read. It has been a few decades since I was reading Margaretn Mead's research (not sure about the name spelling there either.


So then the question arises what would we title such a theory of cause???

It should be noted that since this thread was created (in 2011), many countries, including the U.S., have legalized same-sex marriage or civil unions.

I am ok with this, though I don’t think verses in the Bible and Quran that condemn homosexuality should be considered hate speech.

I feel religion is the main reason for it (For me it is), but NOT for why it is seen as such a major thing in comparison to other things. I think that the modern split on it, with most people having very strong opinions on it is due to politics.

I feel it's many of these factors----it's really according to the individual.

I have nothing against homosexuality. I don't like actually seeing two guys kiss, though.

I can't begrudge 2 people finding love in this unloving world we humans have made for ourselves.