Homophobia, nature or nurture?

[Intoscience]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's the insidious nature of the innocent joke, not everyone gets it but we all feel the need to laugh, even if we find it distasteful (for a reason we're not entirely sure about).

That feeling only grows with the respect we give to the joker.

Well, the simple answer would be to keep my personal tastes to myself and don't express any opinion,hmm... how boring. 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Well, the simple answer would be to keep my personal tastes to myself and don't express any opinion,hmm... how boring. 

Quite, the other day I saw a women, who in both size and shape was the spitting image of Hagrid (seriously); my mate and I had a good laugh at her expense, but not with her knowledge. 

 

[TheCosmologist]

There are good arguments that everything  is determined by genetics. Therefore I would conjecture it being nature. Nurture, not so much, nurtured by environment, still woukd change the fundamental genetic construct that leads to sexual orientation.

[MigL]

We never learn, do we ?

40 years ago people were saying this about homosexuals and who they choose to love.
20 years ago they said it about gay marriage.

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Honestly I can't understand why my personal preferences have any bearing on anyone else.

Now, Intoscience has to say it in defense of his aversion to homosexual ( and other ) sex acts.

[StringJunky]

Why don't y'all shut yer mouth? Why the need to express ones distaste in the public sphere? The people have spoken at the ballot box - and they say it's ok. I never thought of my grandad on top of grandma. Just leave them to it.

[TheVat]

On 2/20/2023 at 6:39 AM, iNow said:

Nobody is asking you to abandon your own heterosexual preferences and become a practicing homosexual. The hope is only that you’ll work on discarding the visceral disgust you feel at the mere thought or mention of how two males engage intimately with one another. 

Why is that a hope?  Still don't see why anyone's personal tastes, especially about what happens in other people's sex lives, have to be discarded.  Why aren't you also hoping for the discard of other visceral disgusts and sharing them in other threads?  Haven't heard a peep from you on visceral disgust for SMBD, and yet there's plenty of that disgust out there.  

1 hour ago, TheCosmologist said:

There are good arguments that everything  is determined by genetics.

No there aren't.  

[TheCosmologist]

My goodness, people are very argumentative against me here yes... there are. I'll give you a respectable science site which explains this.

https://www.livescience.com/20350-successful-life-genes-study-suggests.html

I may just start ignoring people objecting to things here  if they are not willing to investigate the counterarguments. If someone challenged me on something, I'd double check. Asking Dr. Google gives multiple reports on genetic disposition.

"Nobody is asking you to abandon your own heterosexual preferences and become a practicing homosexual. "

 

im sorry, but this sounds like an argument of choice. The only way it could be a choice is that everyone is bisexual.

Tell me something... if someone identifies as straight, when did you choose to be straight? To have a choice means technically you are orientated both ways. This is implausible for people who are orientated one way and are not aroused by another.

Edited February 21, 2023 by TheCosmologist

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, TheCosmologist said:

There are good arguments that everything  is determined by genetics

You made this statement.  Everything.  Your linked article makes no such assertion, and suggests only that genes play a role.  That's quite a different thing.

5 minutes ago, TheCosmologist said:

I may just start ignoring people objecting to things here  if they are not willing to investigate the counterarguments. If someone challenged me on something, I'd double check.

Perhaps then you should double-check.  Ignoring objections to absolute statements you make is not good science, especially when you are clearly not trained in this field and can't seem to understand how profoundly erroneous is "everything is determined by genetics."

[TheCosmologist]

40 minutes ago, TheVat said:

You made this statement.  Everything.  Your linked article makes no such assertion, and suggests only that genes play a role.  That's quite a different thing.

Perhaps then you should double-check.  Ignoring objections to absolute statements you make is not good science, especially when you are clearly not trained in this field and can't seem to understand how profoundly erroneous is "everything is determined by genetics."

You are speaking about the human biological condition so I thought it would be a given that when I said "everything is determined by our genetics," would infer on the human condition.

[TheVat]

12 minutes ago, TheCosmologist said:

You are speaking about the human biological condition so I thought it would be a given that when I said "everything is determined by our genetics," would infer on the human condition.

I did infer that specificity and my reply was that the statement was wrong.  It is wrong in the domain of human genetics, and is wrong more broadly applied as well.  

The field of study, behavioral genetics, studies the role of genes in behavior and psychological traits, and has no theoretic models in which everything is determined by genetics.  Such a theory would be viewed as ridiculous, given the role that environmental influences play, and the way environment and epigenetics overlap with gene expression, and the way complex behaviors (particularly in humans and higher mammals) can emerge especially in novel situations. 

Also:  A lot of this behavioral genetics material was covered earlier in the thread.  @CharonY in particular took some time to cover this.  Not reading the thread is a path to getting completely lost.

[TheCosmologist]

3 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I did infer that specificity and my reply was that the statement was wrong.  It is wrong in the domain of human genetics, and is wrong more broadly applied as well.  

The field of study, behavioral genetics, studies the role of genes in behavior and psychological traits, and has no theoretic models in which everything is determined by genetics.  Such a theory would be viewed as ridiculous, given the role that environmental influences play, and the way environment and epigenetics overlap with gene expression, and the way complex behaviors (particularly in humans and higher mammals) can emerge especially in novel situations. 

I don't agree, it is not wrong in the human domain. We are made from genetic materials, we can even alter our genetics to create babies that are born with advantages. We do the same thing with cattle.

 

So give me some concrete examples as to why you do not think genetics do not play at the very most, the larger contributions, to looks, gender, orientation and intellect? Because I cannot follow your objections, objectively.

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, TheCosmologist said:

So give me some concrete examples as to why you do not think genetics do not play at the very most, the larger contributions, to looks, gender, orientation and intellect? Because I cannot follow your objections, objectively.

Can you tell me how you link racism to genetics? 

[CharonY]

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I have never ever used the word disgust. I have just been honest and open about my personal sexual preferences. I never  commented on people who engage in sexual acts that I find distasteful, i.e. I have no desire to watch, imagine or engage in. The only point I made was that I have gay friends who I care dearly for, and that I respect them no differently than I would anyone else.  

Well, we can use distaste or aversion, if you prefer. I was just using disgust as these mechanisms are better characterized in behavioural sciences and there is a foundation of an innate response there. However, as I mentioned, I was not criticizing your reaction, but I was discussing your argument (and that of OP) that those reactions are necessarily or likely innate. 

A lot of folks (including myself) have an aversion on public display of affection. However, I do realize that those (at least in my case) are based on upbringing, and that plenty of folks are OK with it. This helps me to adjust my reaction, for example.

In other words, just because a behavior is learned vs innate, it does not mean that there is a moral dimension to it (nor are innate behvariours inherently moral). And again, sexual orientation does not fall under this category, nor the perceived asymmetry in hetero vs homosexual acceptance, which really seems very constructed.

 

 

[iNow]

Ignoring the cosmologists off topic nonsense and returning to the actual discussion at hand...

 

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I never used the word disgust, I used the word distaste

From the Oxford dictionary:

Distaste - mild dislike or aversion.

Disgust - a feeling of revulsion or strong disapproval aroused by something unpleasant or offensive.

And in all honesty I probably sit somewhere in between the 2 definitions. - A mild feeling of revulsion towards the act of gay sex.  

It's a distinction without a difference, especially in context of my own points encouraging acceptance. 

 

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

It is you who is conflating between my dislike for the act and dislike towards the people who engage in such. Thus accusing me of "borderline bigot" for the latter,  something I'm not. 

Your comments suggest otherwise. If it walks like a duck...

For decades, people felt distaste or disgust at couples of different faiths.

For decades, people felt distaste or disgust at couples of different nationalities.

For decades, people felt distaste or disgust at couples of same gender.

 

Now, you say the couples themselves aren't the source of your distaste / "mild feelings of revulsion," but there's no distinction. You may as well be saying you don't feel distaste for the couple, just the way they breath or drive or exist in other parts of the world.

They're one and the same. You don't have "mild feelings of revulsion" toward heterosexual acts, ergo the dependent variable here is the fact that they're gay males.

The words distaste, and revulsion, and disgust all stem from a deeper idea that there is something rotten, diseased, unhealthy, contagious, and detrimental in the act.

It suggests that male gay sex in your view is about the spread of pathogens and parasites... the underlying evolutionary pressures that causes animals to feel disgust in the first place... to avoid illness. It means you think male gay sex is a type of illness, even though you've compartmentalized your mind so much that you can with a straight face claim to accept homosexuals "as they are." This is a majorly important part of who they are, though, and yes. 

Yes, that's borderline bigoted, no matter how many times thou dost too much protest. 

 

x-posted with Charon who touches on the same point re: disgust as a well studied mechanism to increase group health

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Why is that a hope? 

For the same reason it became unacceptable to say nigger, or retard, or faggot, or ad infinitum. As long as these problems have plagued us, IMO it's not enough merely to not same them. We need to encourage being against them... anti-racist. Anti-bigoted. Anti-finding perfectly normal acts "repulsive."

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

For the same reason it became unacceptable to say nigger, or retard, or faggot, or ad infinitum. As long as these problems have plagued us, IMO it's not enough merely to not same them. We need to encourage being against them... anti-racist. Anti-bigoted. Anti-finding perfectly normal acts "repulsive."

You are reframing my question.  I was asking why personal tastes, not shared and not fueling bigoted conduct, should be discarded in this case.  I didn't form the impression from @Intoscience that his distaste was driving epithets, prejudicial behavior, or advocacy of discrimination towards anyone.  How does distaste, in this restricted sense, harm others?  Why hope to eliminate it, especially when it's unclear that such a retrofit of personal tastes is achievable?  Can I be made to like gangsta rap, and is that needed so that members of some hip-hop subculture won't feel bad?  What about SMBD play?  Should I discard all sentiments I might have regarding those practices lest someone somewhere feel oppressed?  (it helps me if you can quote the entire paragraph here, btw, so context of questions is clear)

[MigL]

Bullcrap, INow.
You have a dislike for the guns that plague your society, and you want to get rid of those guns.
Yet you don't want to get rid of, or incarcerate, all the people who use guns, as you'd have to double the number of jails you have.

So it is possible to distinguish something from the person doing, or using, it.

[iNow]

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

it's unclear that such a retrofit of personal tastes is achievable

Nonsense. Unfamiliar with cognitive behavioral therapy?

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

Should I discard all sentiments I might have regarding those practices lest someone somewhere feel oppressed? 

Why wouldn’t you if you could?

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Bullcrap, INow.
You have a dislike for the guns that plague your society, and you want to get rid of those guns.

You seem to have conflated me with someone else. I have several guns in my home, safely locked, and I will teach my children to respect and use them safely when they’re old enough. 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

or incarcerate, all the people who use guns, as you'd have to double the number of jails you have.

I’ve actually posted multiple times about the deep problems with a punishment / incarcerate first mentality and now critical it is we reform to focus more on rehab and reintegration into society.

Edited February 22, 2023 by iNow

[Intoscience]

16 hours ago, MigL said:

We never learn, do we ?

40 years ago people were saying this about homosexuals and who they choose to love.
20 years ago they said it about gay marriage.

Now, Intoscience has to say it in defense of his aversion to homosexual ( and other ) sex acts.

As you have pointed out, its all about trends. I find it quite sad really, that people get dragged into trends because they are scared to admit their own personal feelings in case it offends others and makes them look bad.

My partner has a nice saying in the face of this type of adversity "smile and wave" basically on the face of it be seen that you agree or like something just to maintain the status quo.    

13 hours ago, iNow said:

It's a distinction without a difference, especially in context of my own points encouraging acceptance. 

No, its very different. I don't like spending time with my Aunt, but I'm not disgusted to do so. Either way I respect her no more or less than anyone else. 

13 hours ago, iNow said:

Your comments suggest otherwise. If it walks like a duck...

For decades, people felt distaste or disgust at couples of different faiths.

For decades, people felt distaste or disgust at couples of different nationalities.

For decades, people felt distaste or disgust at couples of same gender

My comment do no such thing. I have been very clear - I don't like the act of gay sex male or female regardless. Persons who chose to do such and enjoy such have nothing to do with my personal sexual preferences. 

I find Chinese food distasteful, does this make me racist?

13 hours ago, iNow said:

Now, you say the couples themselves aren't the source of your distaste / "mild feelings of revulsion," but there's no distinction. You may as well be saying you don't feel distaste for the couple, just the way they breath or drive or exist in other parts of the world

What a crock of crap. Do you really honestly believe this?

I don't like the way my sister drives, I find it distasteful, I don't like being in the car with her, her driving makes me nauseous. I refuse to be a passenger with her at the wheel. Yet I still like my sister, I love and respect her as a person. 

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Why wouldn’t you if you could

Why should you?

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Quite, the other day I saw a women, who in both size and shape was the spitting image of Hagrid (seriously); my mate and I had a good laugh at her expense, but not with her knowledge. 

 

I'm sure people have done the same about you. How did it make you feel in hindsight? 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

... I find it quite sad really, that people get dragged into trends because they are scared to admit their own personal feelings in case it offends others and makes them look bad.

If society has democratically decided for the legitimacy of a group and their habits, is it not counter to their feeling of acceptance and integration to then openly denigrate what they do? On a public forum, such as this, that is what one is doing. 

Edited February 22, 2023 by StringJunky

[Intoscience]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

If society has democratically decided for the legitimacy of a group and their habits, is it not counter to their feeling of acceptance and integration to then openly denigrate what they do? On a public forum, such as this, that is what one is doing. 

Fair point,

Though it's to what extent and to what purpose (context dependent of course). One should also remain conscious of potential conflation, especially so when someone is expressing a personal feeling. In my mind I have expressed a very clear distinction between my feelings towards an act and/or the persons engaging in that act. I see no difference than any other personal pleasures and displeasures. 

[StringJunky]

30 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Fair point,

Though it's to what extent and to what purpose (context dependent of course). One should also remain conscious of potential conflation, especially so when someone is expressing a personal feeling. In my mind I have expressed a very clear distinction between my feelings towards an act and/or the persons engaging in that act. I see no difference than any other personal pleasures and displeasures. 

The thing is, who one wishes to make a nest with is intrinsic to the person, to any organism actually, i.e. it's not a choice. Wouldn't you say it was unfair/counter-productive to openly criticise something they are hard-wired to feel and do, if it causes no tangible harms to how a society functions?

Edited February 22, 2023 by StringJunky

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

The thing is, who one wishes to make a nest with is intrinsic to the person, to any organism actually, i.e. it's not a choice. Wouldn't you say it was unfair/counter-productive to openly criticise something they are hard-wired to feel and do, if it causes no tangible harms to how a society functions?

Yes, agreed.

But the argument and actually the purpose of this thread was to discuss whether certain feelings if you may are nature (genetic programming) or nurture (learned behaviour). I was arguing that my personal feelings or rather in this case tastes whether be nature or nurture have no bearing on my feelings towards the person/s engaging in activities to which I personally have no desire to watch or engage in. 

It also appears that some are arguing that my personal tastes are learned and I should change my tastes inline with cultural trends. I'm interested in whether they are learned or innate and I'm open to explore the possibilities around this. However I see no valid reason why I should change (even if I could) my personal tastes and why I should not be free to express this. My personal tastes, in this context, causes no tangible harm to anyone. The only argument provided so far is that my tastes are archaic, outdated, out of trend and somehow offensive in that my attitude towards people who I don't share tastes within is skewed so such that it automatically makes me negatively bias towards them.

I find this all rather absurd and don't see the logic behind it, other than they are conflating my feelings towards a person with my feelings towards an act they may engage in.     

[dimreepr]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm sure people have done the same about you. How did it make you feel in hindsight? 

The "Lord of the flies" require a monster.

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

I was arguing that my personal feelings or rather in this case tastes whether be nature or nurture have no bearing on my feelings towards the person/s engaging in activities to which I personally have no desire to watch or engage in. 

Then why pick up the conch?

[zapatos]

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

If society has democratically decided for the legitimacy of a group and their habits, is it not counter to their feeling of acceptance and integration to then openly denigrate what they do? On a public forum, such as this, that is what one is doing. 

 

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The thing is, who one wishes to make a nest with is intrinsic to the person, to any organism actually, i.e. it's not a choice. Wouldn't you say it was unfair/counter-productive to openly criticise something they are hard-wired to feel and do, if it causes no tangible harms to how a society functions?

Maybe I'm misreading this, but I don't think anyone here is "denigrating"  or "criticizing".

[TheVat]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

Maybe I'm misreading this, but I don't think anyone here is "denigrating"  or "criticizing".

I keep seeing comments from IntoSci et al mischaracterized this way, and am still puzzled.  

 I think people are especially sensitized to the real issues of homophobic oppression, so that even harmless distaste comes under the lens of what-must-be-fixed.  In a few years hopefully things will reach some normality where personal differences of taste and preference can be laughed about and not taken as a threat.