Thread: Are you Homophobic?

Represent!

...looks like a short parade...

...exactly...

Originally Posted by Troy

All primates have complex social structures and I think you are incorrectly associating sex solely with reproduction and ignoring its function in social bonding.

Yes, there are tactical reasons seen in primates for occasional homosexual behaviour as part of a broader heterosexual strategy. But there are no primates in the wild who engage in same sex pair bonding to the exclusion of the opposite sex in the way that humans do.

Originally Posted by Troy

This love can easily be formed between same sex individuals and lead to physical bonding

Love is the evolutionary implementation of the genetic theory of kin selection.

We generally love people to the degree that those people have the ability to benefit the genes that are inside our own bodies in terms of those genes' quest to reproduce. (of course this is not a conscious calculation but simply the rationale behind the behaviour towards which our our genes drive us - selfish genes give rise to genuinely loving humans).

A bloke falling in love with other blokes and sexually ignoring women entirely is most likely a cross-wiring of the above 2 behaviours. Why is Occam's razor so difficult to swallow in this particular case?

People who get politically squeamish at the idea that gay blokes chasing each other could be a developmental error are engaging in the naturalistic phallusy. The idea that in order for something to be afforded social acceptance it needs to be natural.

Gayness does not need to be natural in order to be afforded social acceptance.

If we base our acceptance of gay people on the simple fact that they exist and their well being is our concern as morally sophisticated apes then our acceptance has a firm basis.

If on the other hand our acceptance is predicated on a tenuous assertion of naturalness then we are on shakier moral ground.

Neuroscience is almost certain to unravel the mysteries of gayness in the coming decades and why it occurs. If it turns out that it is developmental error then that undermines the naturalistic basis for our acceptance of gays. Whereas any such revelation would have no effect on an acceptance based simply on on our shared humanity and a rational moral framework unencumbered by naturalistic requirements.

...^we need some weed killer here...

Originally Posted by tomcat

time to recalibrate your thinking: everyone who's gay "cares"...if we stopped caring we might as well return to the closet

Why were gays in the closet anyway. HAHAHA

Originally Posted by tomcat

who is this "they"?...and how do you know what they need

Originally Posted by tomcat

who is this "they" you're complaining about? What stuff

Come on man, You are not that thick. I find you to be an intelligent person.
[

Originally Posted by tomcat

...^we need some weed killer here...

Looper talks about genetics and evolution like virgins talk about sex. With ignorance and enthusiasm.

Originally Posted by Looper

But there are no primates in the wild who engage in same sex pair bonding to the exclusion of the opposite sex in the way that humans do.

And the import of that is...?

Originally Posted by Looper

A bloke falling in love with other blokes and sexually ignoring women entirely is most likely a cross-wiring

Not "most likely", possibly. Either way, so what, it's still natural because it happens.

Originally Posted by Looper

Why is Occam's razor so difficult to swallow in this particular case?

Here we have the crux of YOUR problem. You see homosexuality as a problem. There's no need to employ the concept of Occams Razor to a situation that is not a problem.

Originally Posted by Looper

Gayness does not need to be natural in order to be afforded social acceptance.

Hmm, true, but this is an example of non-sequitural reverse psychology (I just made that up but it sounds about right ) to emphasise your belief that living beings that have real feelings are unnatural. Tut tut.

Originally Posted by Looper

If we base our acceptance of gay people on the simple fact that they exist and their well being is our concern as morally sophisticated apes then our acceptance has a firm basis.

Indeed. And you may as well say the same about women and black people. Heck, say the same about dwarves and bald guys. Why not?

Originally Posted by Looper

Neuroscience is almost certain to unravel the mysteries of irrational bigotry in the coming decades and why it occurs

FTFY. Can't wait

Originally Posted by Looper

If it turns out that it is developmental error then that undermines the naturalistic basis for our acceptance of gays.

Indeed. We should consign all Aspergers kids to the fertiliser factory. Waste not, want not.

Originally Posted by Looper

Whereas any such revelation would have no effect on an acceptance based simply on on our shared humanity and a rational moral framework unencumbered by naturalistic requirements.

Blah blah blah....say what?

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Here we have the crux of YOUR problem. You see homosexuality as a problem.

I don't see it as a problem. I see it as a puzzle.

Nidhogg has rightly pointed out that the female sibling fertility argument is possibly the best bet for an explanation although it is quite tenuous. (the benevolent uncle theory on the other hand has been pretty much discredited).

But even if this fertility theory is correct it still puts gayness itself in the position of being a cost tangentially associated with a benefit. The gene has benefits by making females more fertile and it has costs in making fellas gay. There is a trade off and the gene succeeds on the terms of net selfish gene benefit. The gayness caused in fellas is still a malfunction of operation at the level of the organism but its cost is outweighed by benefits in females at the level of the gene.

The problem with gayness as a subject of discussion is that it is vastly over-politicised and any debate devolves into a flame war. It is just sexual behaviour. I may have a rationale. It may be a miswiring error. It does not matter which of these is true when it comes to our democratically agreed moral and social frameworks.

The nature and origins of gayness is simply a matter of academic curiosity not moral angst.

I accept that there is a possibility that gayness may not be a miswiring of the sexual function in some humans but may have an evolutionary rationale.

Do you accept that there is a possibility that gayness may not have an evolutionary rationale but may simply be a miswiring of the sexual function?

Originally Posted by JPPR2

Back to the float nonsense and the parades that gay people have annually in SF. Why is that? Most people in SF are sick of it

Fair comment that.

It's not just SF though, those dirty promiscuous shitstabbers have been jumping up and down at Gay Prides across the globe singing we're here we're queer we take it up the rear since the first AIDS adverts came out. They've changed it to simply Pride now in the UK.
If I went around bragging about teabagging birds i'd probably get locked up.

Originally Posted by JPPR2

Why were gays in the closet anyway?

Originally Posted by JPPR2

Come on man, You are not that thick

...asked and answered...

Originally Posted by Dillinger

Fair comment that.

It's not just SF though, those dirty promiscuous shitstabbers have been jumping up and down at Gay Prides across the globe singing we're here we're queer we take it up the rear since the first AIDS adverts came out. They've changed it to simply Pride now in the UK.
If I went around bragging about teabagging birds i'd probably get locked up.

Hilarious post Dil. I was just about to Sip some Whistle Pig Rye Whiskey and held off or I would have likely spit it out and lost some good stuff

Shit Stabbers

Originally Posted by Dillinger

Fair comment that.

It's not just SF though, those dirty promiscuous shitstabbers have been jumping up and down at Gay Prides across the globe singing we're here we're queer we take it up the rear since the first AIDS adverts came out. They've changed it to simply Pride now in the UK.
If I went around bragging about teabagging birds i'd probably get locked up.

Let them be. They are just fighting for their rights and what they believe in. If society had been open-minded and had accepted them in the first place, they wouldn't be screaming in the streets or on people's faces just to get respect.

Originally Posted by GracelessFawn

Let them be

...it doesn't appear to be in the nature of many folks to let "the other" just be...the need to put others down and keep them outside the pale while smugly insisting on one's own superiority is ingrained in those born with the social advantage of being straight...it takes a bit of insight to understand this...

Tomcat , do its right that primary school children should be taught about buggery?

Originally Posted by Chittychangchang

Tomcat , do its right that primary school children should be taught about buggery?

In Catholic schools, definitely yes. So they know it's not something they are required to do.

Ok I'll rephrase the question. ..Tomcat

Do you believe it's acceptable to teach children aged 5-11 about homosexual sex?

It's all gone suspiciously quite.

Tom's entertaining another straight man at the moment. He'll return to this in due course...

Please form an orderly queue while you're waiting.

Quite.

Originally Posted by Dillinger

If I went around bragging about teabagging birds i'd probably get locked up.

Hear hear.

Sexuality really is not a suitable subject for street demonstrations.

The liberation of gays is substantially achieved in the west now with gay marriage.

In return the shifters could maybe think about putting a lid on the in-yer-face pride demos and mardi-gras parades and dial it all down a notch.

Originally Posted by SKkin

Tom's entertaining another straight man at the moment.

Tom converted all them blokes to straightness. That is how mediocre at backdoor-burgling he is!

Wonder if tomcat hangs with any fag hags