Does the Bible forbid homosexuality and abortion?

[Politesse]

Interesting qualifiers. Did you know that not all cultures consider the same features beautiful, and that fertility in humans (unlike in most animals) is neither visible to the naked eye nor predictably associated with beauty? Your culture has taught you to look for certain features and respond to them in a certain way, while treating men and "ugly" women stand-offishly. Those aren't your instincts, they are a reflection of your society.

I'll grant you that culture offers some level of flexibility (maybe a lot of flexibility), but it's absolutely not true that fertility is invisible to the naked eye. I think what you're going for is that ovulation is invisible, but fertility isn't.

In a religious society, people seek to justify their social systems by imagining that gods have endorsed them. In a secular society, it is "evolution" that must play this legitimizing role, whether or not it makes any more sense to attribute agency and purpose to the gradual shifts and turns of a gene pool than it did to attribute it to the thunder or the eclipse. It has the added benefit of making other cultures seem inhuman for falling to answer their "natural" calling, just as they used to ignore the directives of the gods.

I'm afraid you're overstating social causes and understating biological ones. I'll grant you social causes play a major factor in human societies, but you're really not doing biology justice.

We're social animals. Society and biology are synonyms.

 

[James Brown]

Why is there not the same phobia toward heterosexual individuals who are sterile?

 

[rousseau]

I'll grant you that culture offers some level of flexibility (maybe a lot of flexibility), but it's absolutely not true that fertility is invisible to the naked eye. I think what you're going for is that ovulation is invisible, but fertility isn't.



I'm afraid you're overstating social causes and understating biological ones. I'll grant you social causes play a major factor in human societies, but you're really not doing biology justice.

We're social animals. Society and biology are synonyms.

This doesn't tell me much about what your beliefs are. I might come across as a bit uninformed as a non-academic, but I can tell you I know a lot about this topic. Let me address your post more closely:

Interesting qualifiers. Did you know that not all cultures consider the same features beautiful, and that fertility in humans (unlike in most animals) is neither visible to the naked eye nor predictably associated with beauty? Your culture has taught you to look for certain features and respond to them in a certain way, while treating men and "ugly" women stand-offishly. Those aren't your instincts, they are a reflection of your society.

Can you answer these questions:

- what do you mean by fertility not being predictably associated with beauty

- cultures don't find the same features beautiful - agreed - but can we class features from different cultures together in a way that points to ability to rear/raise children

- you claim we're 'taught' to respond to beautiful/ugly people in a certain way. Can you explain how this process works? And why are we 'taught' to respond to fecund women in particular, and not any other configuration? If culture has flexibility beyond what we would expect in an evolving species, that's not constrained by biology, why don't young men, for example, learn to pursue senior women? Why do all cultures direct their young toward producing children?

I'll add a bit more. Yes culture has a major influence, and yes teaching is done, but I would argue that culture reflects and reinforces what is already there, it doesn't have primacy over biological causes.

 

[Rhea]

And a big part of my answer is how differently people, even in weird taboo-ey societies, treat mle homosexuals versus female homosexuals. They are treated differently. And it’s clear to me that one is treated like a threat and the other isn’t.

So... why? What in our brains makes us react like that. I’m exploring why. Making my suggestions to the discussion.

To me this argument is a bit too complicated. All we really need for homophobia to arise in any given community is reproductive value. If people have a strong, negative visceral response to intimacy with the same sex, and this helps them reproduce more, the trait will become amplified across a community. It doesn't have to be full blown homophobia, it can just be a tendency to want to be with women, and not men. To me this is the simpler explanation.

Simpler, but it doesn’t address the evidence on the table. People do NOT react the same way to FF homosexuality that they do to MM homosexuality. Nor, As James Madison points out, to infertile/post-fertile people. So the argument is simpler, but does not match the data.

 

[rousseau]

And a big part of my answer is how differently people, even in weird taboo-ey societies, treat mle homosexuals versus female homosexuals. They are treated differently. And it’s clear to me that one is treated like a threat and the other isn’t.

So... why? What in our brains makes us react like that. I’m exploring why. Making my suggestions to the discussion.

To me this argument is a bit too complicated. All we really need for homophobia to arise in any given community is reproductive value. If people have a strong, negative visceral response to intimacy with the same sex, and this helps them reproduce more, the trait will become amplified across a community. It doesn't have to be full blown homophobia, it can just be a tendency to want to be with women, and not men. To me this is the simpler explanation.

Simpler, but it doesn’t address the evidence on the table. People do NOT react the same way to FF homosexuality that they do to MM homosexuality. Nor, As James Madison points out, to infertile/post-fertile people. So the argument is simpler, but does not match the data.

Actually, it does address that evidence. If men are primarily repulsed by intimacy with other men, then they'd have a stronger response to intimacy between men, than they would between women. Any sexuality in women provides a positive response. Evidence also shows that women are generally more accepting of homosexuality than men, which likely suggests a different type of equilibrium for them - female/female intimacy has increased reproductive value.

 

[Rhea]

I guess I still don’t see you connecting why this results in hate and rage against homosexuals, rather than indifference. Indeed for the repoductive pressure, the elimination of rivals is a positive thing. A male would want to be (and indeed is, in animal cultures) surrounded by subservient, non-sexually competing males.

So I don’t see the connection for this theory.

 

[Politesse]

Again, prejudice against homosexuality is not a human universal, but a learned behavior. It makes no sense to posit biologically deterministic responses as explanation for culturally specific phenomena. Just because you feel something very strongly doesn't make it a "biological instinct".

 

[rousseau]

I guess I still don’t see you connecting why this results in hate and rage against homosexuals, rather than indifference. Indeed for the repoductive pressure, the elimination of rivals is a positive thing. A male would want to be (and indeed is, in animal cultures) surrounded by subservient, non-sexually competing males.

So I don’t see the connection for this theory.

Likely partly culture, partly because the trait isn't uniform across our species. You're assuming that hate/rage is the norm and universal, which I'd argue isn't the case. Many men may be disinclined to be intimate with other men, but they're absolutely not homophobic - it's the same process, but a different phenotypic expression.

We can't really equivocate one man with all men - cognitively we're a diverse species, and some cultures might reinforce a higher degree of homophobia than others. Some men might be extremely repulsed by same-sex intimacy, while other men have no inclination to be intimate with other men, but are otherwise accepting. It depends on the type of reproduction that their culture facilitates and where the trait has been amplified. Like any other human trait it should be a spectrum.

 

[rousseau]

Again, prejudice against homosexuality is not a human universal, but a learned behavior. It makes no sense to posit biologically deterministic responses as explanation for culturally specific phenomena. Just because you feel something very strongly doesn't make it a "biological instinct".

Why can't it be a product of both causes?

 

[Politesse]

Again, prejudice against homosexuality is not a human universal, but a learned behavior. It makes no sense to posit biologically deterministic responses as explanation for culturally specific phenomena. Just because you feel something very strongly doesn't make it a "biological instinct".

Why can't it be a product of both causes?

Well, to some extent it is. Culture-formation and primary socialization are very obviously, in and of themselves, biological phenomena. But the instinctive part of the equation here is "I must agree with other members of my social network, and will feel endangered on a fundamental level if I do not", not "I must hate the color pink, enjoy working on cars, and freak the fuck out when I see two men kiss."

 

[rousseau]

Again, prejudice against homosexuality is not a human universal, but a learned behavior. It makes no sense to posit biologically deterministic responses as explanation for culturally specific phenomena. Just because you feel something very strongly doesn't make it a "biological instinct".

Why can't it be a product of both causes?

Well, to some extent it is. Culture-formation and primary socialization are very obviously, in and of themselves, biological phenomena. But the instinctive part of the equation here is "I must agree with other members of my social network, and will feel endangered on a fundamental level if I do not", not "I must hate the color pink, enjoy working on cars, and freak the fuck out when I see two men kiss."

I agree that culture reinforces and likely even amplifies norms, and I'd also argue that instinct itself is flexible as we see between different cultures. I'm in no way arguing that there is a monolithic 'homophobia' trait in people, just some level of antipathy toward same sex, and some level of attraction toward opposite sex. In it's worst manifestation we get extremely homophobic cultures, in it's best manifestation we get indifferent men who would just rather have sex with women.

 

[Rhea]

I guess I still don’t see you connecting why this results in hate and rage against homosexuals, rather than indifference. Indeed for the repoductive pressure, the elimination of rivals is a positive thing. A male would want to be (and indeed is, in animal cultures) surrounded by subservient, non-sexually competing males.

So I don’t see the connection for this theory.

Likely partly culture, partly because the trait isn't uniform across our species. You're assuming that hate/rage is the norm and universal, which I'd argue isn't the case. Many men may be disinclined to be intimate with other men, but they're absolutely not homophobic - it's the same process, but a different phenotypic expression.

We can't really equivocate one man with all men - cognitively we're a diverse species, and some cultures might reinforce a higher degree of homophobia than others. Some men might be extremely repulsed by same-sex intimacy, while other men have no inclination to be intimate with other men, but are otherwise accepting. It depends on the type of reproduction that their culture facilitates and where the trait has been amplified. Like any other human trait it should be a spectrum.

I said “for those those inclined to be Alpha”. Which is not all men. But it is often those who set Taboo.

 

[rousseau]

I guess I still don’t see you connecting why this results in hate and rage against homosexuals, rather than indifference. Indeed for the repoductive pressure, the elimination of rivals is a positive thing. A male would want to be (and indeed is, in animal cultures) surrounded by subservient, non-sexually competing males.

So I don’t see the connection for this theory.

Likely partly culture, partly because the trait isn't uniform across our species. You're assuming that hate/rage is the norm and universal, which I'd argue isn't the case. Many men may be disinclined to be intimate with other men, but they're absolutely not homophobic - it's the same process, but a different phenotypic expression.

We can't really equivocate one man with all men - cognitively we're a diverse species, and some cultures might reinforce a higher degree of homophobia than others. Some men might be extremely repulsed by same-sex intimacy, while other men have no inclination to be intimate with other men, but are otherwise accepting. It depends on the type of reproduction that their culture facilitates and where the trait has been amplified. Like any other human trait it should be a spectrum.

I said “for those those inclined to be Alpha”. Which is not all men. But it is often those who set Taboo.

You're putting the cart before the horse - you've proposed a trait in Alpha men which results in taboo - fair, but you haven't explained how the trait has propagated to them, or why it's exclusive to them. Even if it is exclusive to them.

You're a fan of Sudoku so maybe that can be a fun puzzle for you - what specific mechanism resulted in this configuration?

 

[Rhea]

I said “for those those inclined to be Alpha”. Which is not all men. But it is often those who set Taboo.

You're putting the cart before the horse - you've proposed a trait in Alpha men which results in taboo - fair, but you haven't explained how the trait has propagated to them, or why it's exclusive to them. Even if it is exclusive to them.

You're a fan of Sudoku so maybe that can be a fun puzzle for you - what specific mechanism resulted in this configuration?

No I did explain that. It was my initial point. That Alpha males will react much more aggressively to homosexual men because Alpha Males who constantly assess rivals and react to them will tend to stay alpha, while those who turn their backs on potential rivals by underestimating them will perish. Not always, but often enough to select for tha trait.

Hence, the type of men who tend toward alpha behavior will be more fearful, suspicious and aggressive toward homosexual men (and especially bisexual men) because gay men represent an ambiguity in rivals and will feel to the alpha like they are deceiving in their beta behavior. And these same alpha-type men will not react that way to lesbians.

That’s the cause. Men (animals) who are agressive to homosexuals are less likely t be taken in by a rival masqueraing as an ally. The distrustful alpha leads an anxiety-filled life, but reproduces a lot and prevents reproduction by beta or deceitful males (homosexuals are an unintended casualty of this pressure)

 

[OLDMAN]

I said “for those those inclined to be Alpha”. Which is not all men. But it is often those who set Taboo.

You're putting the cart before the horse - you've proposed a trait in Alpha men which results in taboo - fair, but you haven't explained how the trait has propagated to them, or why it's exclusive to them. Even if it is exclusive to them.

You're a fan of Sudoku so maybe that can be a fun puzzle for you - what specific mechanism resulted in this configuration?

No I did explain that. It was my initial point. That Alpha males will react much more aggressively to homosexual men because Alpha Males who constantly assess rivals and react to them will tend to stay alpha, while those who turn their backs on potential rivals by underestimating them will perish. Not always, but often enough to select for tha trait.

Hence, the type of men who tend toward alpha behavior will be more fearful, suspicious and aggressive toward homosexual men (and especially bisexual men) because gay men represent an ambiguity in rivals and will feel to the alpha like they are deceiving in their beta behavior. And these same alpha-type men will not react that way to lesbians.

That’s the cause. Men (animals) who are agressive to homosexuals are less likely t be taken in by a rival masqueraing as an ally. The distrustful alpha leads an anxiety-filled life, but reproduces a lot and prevents reproduction by beta or deceitful males (homosexuals are an unintended casualty of this pressure)

As a straight male, I have to say that the first time I saw two men kiss, it was a bit shocking, unlike the first time I saw two women kiss. But now that it is more accepted, on different media, I am getting used to it. But I would not classify myself as an alpha male.