Uncovering the Truth: The Elusive History of Homosexuality

[drankin]

Is it a primal instinctive preference to insure the progression of the species? Or is it strictly a social/cultural bias?

 

[DanP]

Is it a primal instinctive preference to insure the progression of the species? Or is it strictly a social/cultural bias?

Social bias most likely.

 

[Andre]

Oviously there are libraries filled about this subject. Maybe google "homophobia"

Some reading material.

 

[Jack21222]

Is it a primal instinctive preference to insure the progression of the species? Or is it strictly a social/cultural bias?

Judging by the prevalence of homosexuality in the Roman empire, I'd say it's social/cultural.

 

[Evo]

Judging by the prevalence of homosexuality in the Roman empire, I'd say it's social/cultural.

It was also prevalent in Celtic societies.

 

[MJay82]

Interesting question. I'm sure there are many differing opinions concerning why most members of our species are so afraid of homosexuality.

One thing that everyone must agree upon, however, is that, biologically speaking, homosexuality is incapable of perpetuating the species.

Then the question I ask is - "Are we simply biological beings? Is our only directive to increase in number to the best of our ability - as a species? Or, are we something more?"

It seems to me that humans owe it to nothing but ourselves to continue to exist. If we we didn't exist as a species, it would obviously greatly affect biodiversity. Interestingly though, we are historically famous for our negative impact on biodiversity. What's certain is that from our perspective, humans not being around couldn't matter, because, well, there wouldn't be anyone to have a perspective concerning our un-existence. Life on Earth would go on, or it might stop. It WILL eventually stop - at least life dependent on this Universe as a home.

I say "Live and let live". There seem to be too many of our species as it stands anyway, so if some humans want to voluntarily remove themselves from the gene jungle - more power to them.

 

[arildno]

Judging by the prevalence of homosexuality in the Roman empire, I'd say it's social/cultural.

Eeh, no.
Homosexuality in general was not tolerated in Rome.

What was prevalent in Rome, and in Greece for that matter, was hyper-machismo, where to be the penitrator was infinitely better than being the penetrated.

In fact, the penetrator asserted his social superiority over the penetrated by penetrating him (or her).

Some of the same type of machismo can still be found in Middle Eastern countries, and Latin America, where "smooth boys" can work equally well as a female for male sexual gratification.

These patterns of behaviour can hardly be regarded as "tolerant" of homosexuality as such, although some genuine homosexuals can find here a culture more congenial to their appetites than within a generally homophobic culture.

Other homosexuals will be brutally repressed within such hyper-machismo cultures, for example the group of soft, effeminate "smooth boys" mentioned above, who must tolerate to be abused sexually in order to maintain a marginal position of toleration within their own society.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm sure there are many differing opinions concerning why most members of our species are so afraid of homosexuality.

Most?? Who said most? Reference please.

One thing that everyone must agree upon, however, is that, biologically speaking, homosexuality is incapable of perpetuating the species.

You miss the point. Perpetuating is not the only factor. Homosexuaility has been shown to arise in animal societies in over-populated conditions. It can be argued that keeping everyone from fighting each other to extinction over scarcity of mates is one way of perpetuating the species.

 

[MJay82]

Most?? Who said most? Reference please.

I'm sorry - after I wrote that I realized I should definitely have given it a "To the best of my approximation", which is based on my experience and observation only.

You miss the point. Perpetuating is not the only factor. Homosexuaility has been shown to arise in animal societies in over-populated conditions. It can be argued that keeping everyone from fighting each other to extinction over scarcity of mates is one way of perpetuating the species.

I thought I articulated this point as well - but apparently not well enough. Of course, I posed the issue of perpetuation of our species as a question left for thinking. I feel like we have similar thoughts on this subject, though. With respect, I feel that the idea of fighting "to extinction" over mates is in the realm of hyperbole. Scarcity of mates CAN act as a great biological limiting agent and reduction method. I personally don't find anything wrong with that thought, in the same vein as my "If we're not around, we can't be upset about not being around. Because we Are Not", or "we are naught." :)

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm sorry - after I wrote that I realized I should definitely have given it a "To the best of my approximation", which is based on my experience and observation only.

Well, this is a situation where it would behoove one to get the facts before drawing a conclusion; otherwise one is just blowin' smoke.

I thought I articulated this point as well - but apparently not well enough. Of course, I posed the issue of perpetuation of our species as a question left for thinking. I feel like we have similar thoughts on this subject, though. With respect, I feel that the idea of fighting "to extinction" over mates is in the realm of hyperbole. Scarcity of mates CAN act as a great biological limiting agent and reduction method. I personally don't find anything wrong with that thought, in the same vein as my "If we're not around, we can't be upset about not being around. Because we Are Not", or "we are naught." :)

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me.

I'm simply making the point that 'breeding as much as possible' is a simplistic view of stability in a species. There are multiple roles to be played in species survival; one role involves members not producing offspring (though they may still need mates and a sexual outlet).

Another (less contentious) role for example is family members too old to breed. They help the species survive whether or not they have (or had) their own offspring.

 

[Researcher X]

Almost all cultures have been patriarchal. Cultures in general tend to have a "sissyphobia", and this could possibly stem from drives in men that would be useful during fathering; encouraging their sons to live up to masculine ideals that are not only useful for attracting women, but in learning skill and training strength to defend their societies, and thus their genes and their relatives genes. Many cultures of the past, and many tribes today practice very macho rites of passage for their male youths, hypothetically due to this effect.

I made another thread on this specifically focusing on gender norms. Homophobia may just be a small part of our larger fear of effeminacy in males (and masculinity to a seemingly lesser extent in females). I don't think this fear or drive can be confined as cultural, because culture is predicated on biology to begin with. Perhaps hard to unravel webs of different interacting factors, but the sheer continuity of these ideals across cultures with little or no contact suggests a biological origin, perhaps, unfortunately due to the success of the strategy.

Again, my hypothesis is this: men require their sons to live up to successful ideals, and women also require their daughters to live up to successful ideals that economically balance against the male specializations (in pre-modern societies), so many of us contain natural prejudices against breaking gender norms (which exhibit emergent cultural specifics from a set of cross-cultural bases - the example of Rome is a good one).

I'm not sure of the best way to test this hypothesis, but one way I can think of is to observe what brain areas light up when people view images of cross-gender and gender non-conformist people. It would be interesting to see how even the most socially liberal person's brain reacts.

Fear over gender normality and possibly as a consequence, homosexuality, is so widespread and irrational that it superficially seems clear to be biological in origin. However, certain cultures are exceptions, having third genders, such as Thai perception of their existing a "second kind of woman". It would be interesting to see how these fit in, and there certainly needs to be more concrete data on the way the brain perceives gender, before there is an explanatory theory.

 

[DaveC426913]

Almost all cultures have been patriarchal.

Well the African/black culture is traditionally matriarchical, so your hypotheses should be pretty testable/falsifiable...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is it a primal instinctive preference to insure the progression of the species? Or is it strictly a social/cultural bias?

Just as I believe some people are born with homosexual desires, I believe the majority of us are born without them.

I don't see how anyone can argue that people are born gay but not straight. Assuming that sexual preference is biological, the rejection of the minority is generally to be expected - biological.

 

[Phrak]

"Why are humans anti-gay?"

The premise is false. Humans are pro-gay, explaining how a non-procreative niche has been a viable subset.

 

[arildno]

Well the African/black culture is traditionally matriarchical

No, it is not.

Where did you get that idea from?

 

[DaveC426913]

No, it is not.

Where did you get that idea from?

Hm. There are other references to it but as one example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_matriarchy" "This ideology depicted traditional black American households as being dominated and controlled by outspoken and emasculating women."

It seems it have been a popular belief in earlier decades but has apparently been debunked as a myth.

But I thought it was more than just a personality thing; I thought ownership of property was actually via the woman.

I withdraw my assertion until such time as I can gather some more substantial facts to back it up.

 

[arildno]

Hi, Dave!
Considering the importance of tribal structures in Africa in organizing society, I expect there will a strong variability in the many cultures that comprise it.

I vaguely recall something about matrilineal descent-reckoning being quite widespread in Africa, but that hardly shows any predilection towards matriarchy.

Instead, it seems to be just an eminently rational principle for kinship accounting, since we are more certain of who our fore-mothers were than forefathers..

 

[arildno]

The following article, by Martin Sjöstedt at the university at Gothenburg might be of interest concerning property rights in sub-saharan africa.
"Land Policies and Property Rights in sub-Saharan Africa":
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/8/7/9/pages178796/p178796-1.php

 

[Loremaster]

Just as I believe some people are born with homosexual desires, I believe the majority of us are born without them.

I don't see how anyone can argue that people are born gay but not straight. Assuming that sexual preference is biological, the rejection of the minority is generally to be expected - biological.

Assuming this, would that exclude any possibility of social/cultural/psychological influences on an individual's sexual preferences?

 

[G037H3]

Because people have a greater responsibility than their own selves.
Actions, habits, lives, have a personal and interpersonal cost, but they also have a societal cost.
Homosexuality causes a bit of friction by challenging norms, and also, if a good specimen is gay, they're less likely to pass on their genes, which is bad for the gene pool/society.

 

[DaveC426913]

Because people have a greater responsibility than their own selves.
Actions, habits, lives, have a personal and interpersonal cost, but they also have a societal cost.
Homosexuality causes a bit of friction by challenging norms,

Again, an overly-simplistic view of social species. There is more to a species' success than merely breeding like rabbits.

and also, if a good specimen is gay, they're less likely to pass on their genes, which is bad for the gene pool/society.

Note that this is an argument for the case of homosexuality as a viable trait, not against.

As you say, logically, since homosexuals do not pass on their genes as directly as heteros, the trait should be quite quickly bred out. Yet empirical evidence shows it is not.

That means, ipso facto, that it is a trait that is serving some evolutionary advantage - for the good of the species.

 

[DanP]

As you say, logically, since homosexuals do not pass on their genes as directly as heteros, the trait should be quite quickly bred out. Yet empirical evidence shows it is not.

That means, ipso facto, that it is a trait that is serving some evolutionary advantage - for the good of the species.

1. It is not uncommon for homosexuals to sire offspring. their reproductive function works just fine. I believe that many will agree that homosexuality is a misnomer in the animal kingdom, and rather bisexuality is the correct term (i.e mounting everything that moves and looks your species for sex). Humans are a different, but even with humans, a great deal of homosexuals will still procreate.

2. You have to consider that even grossly maladaptive alleles (read: deadly) still survive in the human gene pool. Sickle cell anemia, Huntington disease, whatever. A maladaptive trait is not guaranteed to be weed out in the time frame we had so far.

 

[DaveC426913]

I believe that many will agree that homosexuality is a misnomer in the animal kingdom, and rather bisexuality is the correct term (i.e mounting everything that moves and looks your species for sex). Humans are a different,

Nope. Don't agree.

It's not humans; it's social animals. eg. Rats will engage in homosexual behaviour as a way of getting along in a overpopulated environment. It's not about being horny and jumping on anything; it's about getting their sexual needs met without having the community kill itself competing for females.

1. It is not uncommon for homosexuals to sire offspring. their reproductive function works just fine.
...a great deal of homosexuals will still procreate.

Regardless, it is a trait (if we look at it simplistically) that is highly counterproductive to propogating itself. It should have been bred out long ago, if it were a simple case.

2. You have to consider that even grossly maladaptive alleles (read: deadly) still survive in the human gene pool. Sickle cell anemia, Huntington disease, whatever.

A maladaptive trait is not guaranteed to be weed out in the time frame we had so far.

What "time frame we had so far"? The dawn of sexual reproduction was, like, a billion years ago.

 

[DanP]

What "time frame we had so far"? Since the dawn of sexual reproduction? That's, like, a billion years.

Only if you claim that in animal kingdom homosexual animals do not reproduce. As I said, in fact THEY DO. They engage in bisexual relations, not homosexual alone.

Humans homosexual reproduce too many times, so they pass genes directly.

Regardless, it is a trait (if we look at it simplistically) that is highly counterproductive to propogating itself. It should have been bred out long ago, if it were a simple case.

That never occurred to me. It's not very (if at all ) maladaptive. You are still perfectly able to reproduce.

 

[g33kski11z]

I believe that many will agree that homosexuality is a misnomer in the animal kingdom, and rather bisexuality is the correct term.

I wouldn't agree to that either..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior (not a great source, but a starting point)

 

[DanP]

I wouldn't agree to that either..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior (not a great source, but a starting point)

I suggest you dig a bit deeper. Look for behavior of animals involved in same sex: sex, pair bonding, or parenting. Literature is extensive. Parenting behaviour with same sex couples is relevant. In animal kingdom, many of them will sire offspring (with an arbitrary 3rd party) , which will be later brought up in a bonded homosexual pair, with same sex parenting.

Not very different by what some homosexuals couples today tend to do.

You simply cannot dismiss homosexuals from the gene pool, for they do reproduce. Doing the same sex as a sexual preference in humans DOES NOT exclude direct propagation of genetic material.

 

[g33kski11z]

I suggest you dig a bit deeper..

wait, I'm agreeing with DaveC426913 that homosexuality exists in animals. ..am I missing something?

..are we in disagreement?

 

[Researcher X]

You are still perfectly able to reproduce.

Yes, but on average it is going to be less common for someone to have sex with the gender they aren't attracted to, and if more people with the gay gene aren't reproducing than are, then the population will shrink over time. The number of homosexual people who reproduce in an already small minority is likely to be small itself.

It's more likely that if there is such a gene, or a set of genes like that, that they confer some advantage in the other gender; the gay gene for men making women more promiscuous, and presumably vice versa, for example. IIRC, there is even a small amount of evidence for this in the form of studies showing that gay men tend to have larger extended families, but that's a little tenuous to be sure.

Of course, it's even easier to resolve if you assume that there is no gay gene, and that instead homosexuality is a result of hormones in the womb. We'll find out eventually, I'm sure, and then the question will be whether the in-born nature combats anti-gay attitudes. I'm betting it won't, and that homophobia is as in-born in some as homosexuality is in others, but again, we'll see once the proof is there.

 

[Duude]

Is it a primal instinctive preference to insure the progression of the species? Or is it strictly a social/cultural bias?

Why do white people hate black people?
Why do black people hate white people?
Why do Christians hate atheists?
Why do atheists hate Christians?
Why do Democrats hate Republicans?
Why do Republicans hate Democrats?Why do people ask loaded questions as if they are truly seeking answers when they are really just trying to make a statement?
Why are so many people so gullible as to ponder such a ridiculous statement as if it was a real question?

 

[Evo]

Why do people ask loaded questions as if they are truly seeking answers when they are really just trying to make a statement?
Why are so many people so gullible as to ponder such a ridiculous statement as if it was a real question?

Actually the OP's question was well put.

 

[Dremmer]

Because gay people are a minority. 97% of the population is straight. And not all nongay humans are anti-gay.

 

[DaveC426913]

Because gay people are a minority. 97% of the population is straight. And not all nongay humans are anti-gay.

OK, I grant those facts. But they do not actually provide an answer to the question.

 

[Evo]

Because gay people are a minority. 97% of the population is straight. And not all nongay humans are anti-gay.

Some polls have numbers up to 20% of the US population is gay. Although more people are willing to officially go on record as being gay, I think it would be safe to assume that we could easily double or triple the number of gay people that do publicly admit to it.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003432940_gays16m.html

 

[Pinu7]

Some polls have numbers up to 20% of the US population is gay.

A "study" and a poll are nonequivalent. I doubt 20% of the populace would identify themselves as gay. In addition, "homosexuality" is often used subjectively; Alfred Kinsey believed that there is a spectrum of sexuality. No one is fully gay nor strait.

 

[Evo]

A "study" and a poll are nonequivalent. I doubt 20% of the populace would identify themselves as gay. In addition, "homosexuality" is often used subjectively; Alfred Kinsey believed that there is a spectrum of sexuality. No one is fully gay nor strait.

A poll is the only way to get a feel for what percent of the population would consider themselves gay, you can't do a "study" to find that out, not without "polling" your study group.