Theory of Homosexuality

[Slammr (imported)]

Touché!

Is homophobia innate?

So, since we are born with homosexual tendencies - to whatever degree - are we also born with homophobia to some degree?

I would think it's a learned behavior, probably influenced by religion.

Throughout history, Ancient Greece for instance, there have been cultures where the practice of homosexuality was accepted. Persian kings had eunuch boys they used for sex. Tiberius supposedly had his 'little minnows.' Alexander the Great had male lovers. Hadrian had Antinous.

"Of the first fifteen Roman emperors, Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct." (footnote: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire).

If the kings were doing it, I suppose the rest were, too.

[transward (imported)]

Touché!

Is homophobia innate?

So, since we are born with homosexual tendencies - to whatever degree - are we also born with homophobia to some degree? Most men find the idea of fucking another man absolutely disgusting and repulsive, but they don't feel that way about fucking women. Same with many women, but vice versa. So is that homophobia and are we born with it?

There is, I think, an inborn fear of the archetypical "Boogie Man" in newborn children. But it as at their mothers' knee that they learn who in the real world is the "Boogie Man" that they should fear and hate. Many human cultures regard sexual behavior as more dependent on situation than orientation. A normal male is considered one who will screw anything who can be induced, seduced, or coerced into bending over and holding still. Roman armies had as many male as female camp-followers. And for most of history, so long as you fulfilled your Biblical injunction to "be fruitful and multiply," anything else you did was just behavior, and ,"hey, boys will be boys." In medieval romances I remember noble ladies complaining that they were not getting their proper "attention" because their lords were spending all their time with "pretty pages." And plenty of right wing evangelical Christian anti-gays have fallen off the wagon with rent boys, that I think you have to take their natural gay disgust with a large crystal of salt.

Transward

[A-1 (imported)]

Oh hell,

...just hit them in the head with a large licking block of salt from a cow pasture and laugh when they drop in the bullshit...

[A-1 (imported)]

You have that backwards. The scientific method is to take all of the data that you currently have on the subject and try to formulate the simplest and most logical way to explain ALL of it. This is then called a “theory.” Any proper theory, by nature of its formulation, will clearly indicate the k

inds of NEW data that would prove it wrong.

Scientists then begin searching for ways to disprove the theory. You can NEVER prove a theory correct, as that would require collecting 100% of every possible piece of data that could possibly exist concerning it. You can prove it wrong with only a single observation of a properly documented fact that doesn’t fit it.

Scientists never prove anything to be true, they only tentatively hold logical explanations that have not yet been proven false. The longer the search for contrary data has turned up nothing, the more they are willing to accept the theory as probably (but never absolutely) correct.

The “theory of gravity” for example, is still being tested, but without much enthusiasm as it’s difficult to think of new lines of inquiry that might disprove it that haven’t already been tried. The “theory of relativity” gets more attention from physicists and there are continuing attempts to find holes in it, including some fairly interesting ones. The “theory of evolution” gets most of its attention from religious fundamentalists, not from scientists, though the continuing collection of data has resulted in slight modifications of the theory over time. For example, Darwin knew nothing of genes, but their discovery added a mechanism to his theory, rather than proving it false. The new work on epigenetics is extending it yet again in promising directions.

.

1. Postulate

2. Data

3. Theory

4. Duplication of results via experimental data from additional studies

...O.K.?

[jemagirl (imported)]

I'm still waiting for the onslaught of theories that explain the need to explain the phenomena homosexuality AS IF... it needs explaining any more than does the phenomena of heterosexuality.

Sorry for the run on sentence... I'll catch my breath soon.

OK, so how about just a theory of sexuality then? After all, NOT ALL species even mate!!!

[sensenbender (imported)]

I'm still waiting for the onslaught of theories that explain the need to explain the phenomena homosexuality AS IF... it needs explaining any more than does the phenomena of heterosexuality.

Sorry for the run on sentence... I'll catch my breath soon.

OK, so how about just a theory of sexuality then? After all, NOT ALL species even mate!!!

Good point! Nothing really needs explaining. Not with sexuality anyway. But a whole lotta cultural and social stuff centers on homosexual attraction, like gay marriage, gays in the military, gay bashing, assassination of Harvey Milk, pederasty, and on and on. So if we had a credible, widely accepted, theory of homosexuality that explained why it (maybe) occurs naturally in the species it occurs in, then maybe the gay nay sayers would shut the fuck up!

[sensenbender (imported)]

1. Postulate

2. Data

3. Theory

4. Duplication of results via experimental data from additional studies

...O.K.?

No.K. Why then did Gallileo drop his balls from the Tower of Pizza? I get 'Postulate' followed by 'Theory' in that case, but the data gathering came third. Don't know who duplicated his results later or whether anybody postulated that it only works from the leaning tower, but don't matter because the point is that the sequence of steps in the scientific method is not fixed.

[kristoff]

No.K. Why then did Gallileo drop his balls from the Tower of Pizza? I get 'Postulate' followed by 'Theory' in that case, but the data gathering came third. Don't know who duplicated his results later or whether anybody postulated that it only works from the leaning tower, but don't matter because the point is that the sequence of steps in the scientific method is not fixed.

You're confusing postulate with theory.

[nullorchis (imported)]

Fact: The vast majority of people become hetrosexual.

Fact: Throughout history a small number of people become homosexual.

Race, religion, geographical location, culture, the period of time in which a person was born seems to have little impact on the approximate percentages. It does impact how many people hide, repress, suppress their true feelings.

Being hetrosexual is nature's way of ensuring continuation and evolution of a sexual species.

Being homosexual is nature's way of ________________________________.

experimenting with variety? helping to minimize overpopulation?

There really must be a definable REASON that we have not yet determined, thus we delve into theories. But nature "knows why", even if we don't. There IS a reason or it would not have been going on since the beginning of human time.

[sensenbender (imported)]

You're confusing postulate with theory.

Disagree. Gallileo's postulate was that his balls would land together regardless of unequal size. His theory was that gravitational force was a constant for bodies of all sizes. His data, which followed his formulation of his theory was gathered from his experiment of dropping his balls. You can have a theory X that postulates results Y, proven (or strongly supported) by data Z gathered from experiment A.

While it's true that data already observed often leads to a theory that attempts to 'explain' or 'unify' the observed data, it is equally and perhaps more often true, that a theory is first formulated according to mere observations, not data points, that lead to experiments that produce data that support or refute the theory.

So I still say, first the theory than the data, and in any case, do not 'have it backwards'. So there!