yup, and we know it has a biological function as well. in some species it's used to strenghten bonds within the group. in other species homosexual couples take care of orphaned young.
That might just be an adaption to a mutation in the genes that would turn off hetero "norms." Which is neat. Biology is super complex, and social species (especially ourselves) are even more complex. The more we learn, the crazier things turn out, and the cooler you can put history and adaption into a new light.
What I wonder, and what gets me, is: even if sexuality doesn't come down to genes, and if it is on some (deeply psychological and almost subconscious) level discovered to be a choice, what is that supposed to mean for some of these nutters who think people should strive to be as 'normal' as possible - in spite of their own best interests?
Normalisation camps? Is everyone supposed to be forced into becoming straight? Would that be a good thing, to have less colour in the world, and for everything to become slightly more boring, at a tremendous expense to a small number of individuals?
It's likely not in genes but there is still a physiological basis. We know from Nazi experiments that women who experience stress during certain stages of pregnancy are more likely to give birth to gay sons or trans girls (this connection hasn't been made in biologically female children but could be because Nazis just weren't interested in that). This research wasn't touched for many decades because of the association with Nazis but when it was later picked up, was found to be supported by modern studies. The theory is that the stress hormones during pregnancy interfere with hormonal development of the fetus during certain stages of development.
There is also the gay uncle hypothesis (i.e. you're statistically more likely to be gay if you have a gay uncle/aunt) but I'm not sure how that's supposed to be causal in a genetic sense.
I saw a TedTalk about how it seems to have a lot to do with the actual chemical environment in the womb - and it related to the mother's stress levels as well as her age (which may be stress ultimately)
And it made really good evolutionary sense, as it meant more care in the family group and less procreation (the thinking being that stress has a likely correlation with a need for more care and also for less people getting added to the group), so it was obviously 'rewarded' by evolution by becoming prevalent as a system that enabled survival of the family group.
Some people have described a deep feeling of associating all women with their own mother - coupled with a deep horror of sexual relationships with their own mother - a chain of reasoning (whether somehow made chemically innate and thus being 'reasoning' only in the wider and much more metaphorical evolutionary sense - like when we say that spicy peppers "want" birds to eat them and not mammals) and it is almost a reverse Oedipus thing - putting women / girls well out of consideration from a very early stage.
I usually stay away from evolutionary psychology reasoning as it's not falsifiable, aka not scientific and often gets misused by incels for pseudoscience claims since if there is no way to test a scientific hypothesis, you can just make up whatever you want.
Not saying that's what you're doing in this case. I'm just saying, evolutionary psychology doesn't meet my standard for scientific
Sure, you could well be right there. Ultimately, none of this can or should ever be used to try and force people into living other peoples' dreams, and into following 'lifestyles' you are not comfortable with and just don't want to be part of.
The danger of that happening always runs high when people aren't given the educational opportunity to reflect as widely as possible on what it means to be a human, or a living being of any kind, at that...
How come we only see people bent out of shape about the sin of homosexuality, when the sins of pride and greed are right there on display while homosexuality stays hidden
There are so many sins we ignore. It's a sin to get a tattoo. And sins aren't even supposed to be ranked. One sin is supposed to be just as bad as another. It's so transparent, yet we're forced to play along because people are allowed to hide their bigotry behind religious beliefs.
"How a man gets attracted to another man
Beats me"
No, that is S&M and that's a specific subgroup of alternative sexual expression which can be heterosexual as well as homosexual.
So here’s the deal… homosexuality like any extreme is not the statistical norm, but as far as what is natural or orderly in nature it does make sense. Purely talking about the happenstance of it all, nothing more. We have a statistically norm and then you’ve got outliers. But it still all fits in the data.
Now for practical purposes of relationships and society, there’s still nothing fundamentally inhibiting two same sexed people from having a relationship. The specifics of their relationship of course are what’s of concern, devil in the details and all that. But I think everyone can kinda flow with that too.
So we understand you’ve got fringe cases and even in fringe circumstances people can make things work. Right? So here’s the meat of it all now…
Most people point back to religious texts as the source of moral truth and passages that mark intimate same sex relationships as bad. I understand they exist, but I need to ask you why they exist. I know they’re in there and as the source of truth that is expected* to be enough. But I still must press you to ask why.
My thought or theory or whatever is simply if your goal is to enforce societal order, bring value to the family unit as means of production of children, to be fruitful and multiply as to become the dominant group that supports this belief in an area, it is advantageous to ensure that only that strategy is promoted. You put a branding on what love is truly, you seek to define what is meant to be infinite and all pervasive, and by manipulating the perspective of the truth to be only one thing you enforce conformity of behavior. Moreover, you now set expectations of what that conformity implies or necessitates: children - who are then going to be taught the same thing, dot he same dance, and be obedient members of our society as they’re told by… well whenever is in charge: your rabbis, priests, imams, who are collecting their tithes and trying to live like kings (or the earthy representations”earthly representations” of the Lord as it is).
While I can still collect tithes from a homosexual couple as I can an infertile couple, they may not beget children, which is a bad business model for any religious leader looking to keep living that good life if I’m looking to keep this shin dig going.
That’s sort of what’s the ancient Hebrews really hated about Josh Christ back in the day - it wasn’t just that he was flipping tables to share the wealth, it’s that he threatened the business model for Jewish society that included slavery and treating non-Jews differently and lesser, except of course for the Romans who had absolute military superiority that the Jews couldn’t enforce their double standards upon.
And it’s existed in other societies and before the Hebrews so like don’t get your antisemitism torches out just yet. It’s continued as tradition into Christianity and Islam as well. These are the prevailing religious cultures we live in is all. But it’s what’s loaded in the statement of OPs post because in order for it to be “beyond” for this guy he needs absolute certainty of this belief not just of himself and his place in the world but for the truth of the world itself - and when you think about what goes into getting people to think that way it’s pretty apparent it’s no longer about love and much more about control.
I don't know if it's that deep. Gender, sexuality, and sexual orientation are extremely important to people because they are part of who we are at our core. They're essential building blocks, things we just are or aren't naturally, with mounting evidence that those things are what we are at a cellular level.
I can see men living thousands of years ago being repulsed by the idea of two men having sex because there are still men like that today. It's gross to them at a very primal level, feels very wrong to them, so God must not like it, either.
I think that's all there is to it. I don't think declaring homosexuality a sin had anything to do with forcing the masses to procreate. People are going to procreate whether or not some gay people are thrown in the mix and I'm sure they popped 'em out left and right back then in numbers we don't even come close to today. Sexuality just triggers something in us and the unevolved can't deal with it.
Im pretty sure homosexuality exists in a lot of species as well so it is natural
More than 1500 animal species iirc
yup, and we know it has a biological function as well. in some species it's used to strenghten bonds within the group. in other species homosexual couples take care of orphaned young.
That might just be an adaption to a mutation in the genes that would turn off hetero "norms." Which is neat. Biology is super complex, and social species (especially ourselves) are even more complex. The more we learn, the crazier things turn out, and the cooler you can put history and adaption into a new light.
What I wonder, and what gets me, is: even if sexuality doesn't come down to genes, and if it is on some (deeply psychological and almost subconscious) level discovered to be a choice, what is that supposed to mean for some of these nutters who think people should strive to be as 'normal' as possible - in spite of their own best interests?
Normalisation camps? Is everyone supposed to be forced into becoming straight? Would that be a good thing, to have less colour in the world, and for everything to become slightly more boring, at a tremendous expense to a small number of individuals?
It's likely not in genes but there is still a physiological basis. We know from Nazi experiments that women who experience stress during certain stages of pregnancy are more likely to give birth to gay sons or trans girls (this connection hasn't been made in biologically female children but could be because Nazis just weren't interested in that). This research wasn't touched for many decades because of the association with Nazis but when it was later picked up, was found to be supported by modern studies. The theory is that the stress hormones during pregnancy interfere with hormonal development of the fetus during certain stages of development.
There is also the gay uncle hypothesis (i.e. you're statistically more likely to be gay if you have a gay uncle/aunt) but I'm not sure how that's supposed to be causal in a genetic sense.
I saw a TedTalk about how it seems to have a lot to do with the actual chemical environment in the womb - and it related to the mother's stress levels as well as her age (which may be stress ultimately)
And it made really good evolutionary sense, as it meant more care in the family group and less procreation (the thinking being that stress has a likely correlation with a need for more care and also for less people getting added to the group), so it was obviously 'rewarded' by evolution by becoming prevalent as a system that enabled survival of the family group.
Some people have described a deep feeling of associating all women with their own mother - coupled with a deep horror of sexual relationships with their own mother - a chain of reasoning (whether somehow made chemically innate and thus being 'reasoning' only in the wider and much more metaphorical evolutionary sense - like when we say that spicy peppers "want" birds to eat them and not mammals) and it is almost a reverse Oedipus thing - putting women / girls well out of consideration from a very early stage.
I usually stay away from evolutionary psychology reasoning as it's not falsifiable, aka not scientific and often gets misused by incels for pseudoscience claims since if there is no way to test a scientific hypothesis, you can just make up whatever you want.
Not saying that's what you're doing in this case. I'm just saying, evolutionary psychology doesn't meet my standard for scientific
Sure, you could well be right there. Ultimately, none of this can or should ever be used to try and force people into living other peoples' dreams, and into following 'lifestyles' you are not comfortable with and just don't want to be part of.
The danger of that happening always runs high when people aren't given the educational opportunity to reflect as widely as possible on what it means to be a human, or a living being of any kind, at that...
No, I understand that it's all hypothetical. I get you.
And then there’s giraffes, who fuck everyone without caring at all, for some reason, I think like 97% of them or smth like that did it
Nearly every species of primate we know of has recorded instances of homosexuality
It is pretty amazing that people are attracted to people
And it is not normal that there will be someone who is attracted to all human beings. But not impossible
The thing is that when your male dog humps another male dog, you don't call him a homosexual. You call him a silly goose.
How come we only see people bent out of shape about the sin of homosexuality, when the sins of pride and greed are right there on display while homosexuality stays hidden
Sh sh sh little one. It was never about actual sin
There are so many sins we ignore. It's a sin to get a tattoo. And sins aren't even supposed to be ranked. One sin is supposed to be just as bad as another. It's so transparent, yet we're forced to play along because people are allowed to hide their bigotry behind religious beliefs.
Pride and greed of the "seven deadly sins" aren't actually sins but thought to be traits that cause people to sin
Now, eating shrimp or wearing polyester -- now THAT'S a sin.
Yeah well sucking dick ain't even on the list
He sounds like a man that no person, man or woman, ever found attractive.
Being aroace, I don't get how anyone can be attracted to anyone. Therefore, heterosexuality is not normal
So all sex is disgusting! Therefore everyone should stop immediately!!!
I think you (and we) can and should have fun with that.
The high horse to end all high horses
I mean, "sex should only ever be for procreation between a man and his wife(s)" is something that has historically been a thing in Christianity
Which is funny, as it probably ended up meaning either not enough sex, or too many children
Which is even more funny when you know that Newton was gay.
He was known not to be interested in women, and much of his writings to and with men was destroyed.
Why did he capitalize beats? Freudian slip?
fucking magnets how do they work
Mf never been to a visual kei show.
Gravity is woke and thermodynamics are sinful
If you have a nice backside, I can easily show ya
He said beats me lol!
"How a man gets attracted to another man
Beats me"
No, that is S&M and that's a specific subgroup of alternative sexual expression which can be heterosexual as well as homosexual.
I don't understand this argument of "I don't understand it so it's bad". You don't have to understand it to support it.
It's always about men/men. Barely a problem when it's two (or more) women. Homophobia always rooted in misogyny/centering heteronormative patriarchy.
And interesting choice of words and capitalization. Hrrmm
once you break down what for example makes women attractive to men, you realize the whole thing is silly.
Well as a woman, if I could choose wouldn’t be attracted to men either, but here we are…being attracted y’all is a massive pain in my ass.
So here’s the deal… homosexuality like any extreme is not the statistical norm, but as far as what is natural or orderly in nature it does make sense. Purely talking about the happenstance of it all, nothing more. We have a statistically norm and then you’ve got outliers. But it still all fits in the data.
Now for practical purposes of relationships and society, there’s still nothing fundamentally inhibiting two same sexed people from having a relationship. The specifics of their relationship of course are what’s of concern, devil in the details and all that. But I think everyone can kinda flow with that too.
So we understand you’ve got fringe cases and even in fringe circumstances people can make things work. Right? So here’s the meat of it all now…
Most people point back to religious texts as the source of moral truth and passages that mark intimate same sex relationships as bad. I understand they exist, but I need to ask you why they exist. I know they’re in there and as the source of truth that is expected* to be enough. But I still must press you to ask why.
My thought or theory or whatever is simply if your goal is to enforce societal order, bring value to the family unit as means of production of children, to be fruitful and multiply as to become the dominant group that supports this belief in an area, it is advantageous to ensure that only that strategy is promoted. You put a branding on what love is truly, you seek to define what is meant to be infinite and all pervasive, and by manipulating the perspective of the truth to be only one thing you enforce conformity of behavior. Moreover, you now set expectations of what that conformity implies or necessitates: children - who are then going to be taught the same thing, dot he same dance, and be obedient members of our society as they’re told by… well whenever is in charge: your rabbis, priests, imams, who are collecting their tithes and trying to live like kings (or the earthy representations”earthly representations” of the Lord as it is).
While I can still collect tithes from a homosexual couple as I can an infertile couple, they may not beget children, which is a bad business model for any religious leader looking to keep living that good life if I’m looking to keep this shin dig going.
That’s sort of what’s the ancient Hebrews really hated about Josh Christ back in the day - it wasn’t just that he was flipping tables to share the wealth, it’s that he threatened the business model for Jewish society that included slavery and treating non-Jews differently and lesser, except of course for the Romans who had absolute military superiority that the Jews couldn’t enforce their double standards upon.
And it’s existed in other societies and before the Hebrews so like don’t get your antisemitism torches out just yet. It’s continued as tradition into Christianity and Islam as well. These are the prevailing religious cultures we live in is all. But it’s what’s loaded in the statement of OPs post because in order for it to be “beyond” for this guy he needs absolute certainty of this belief not just of himself and his place in the world but for the truth of the world itself - and when you think about what goes into getting people to think that way it’s pretty apparent it’s no longer about love and much more about control.
I don't know if it's that deep. Gender, sexuality, and sexual orientation are extremely important to people because they are part of who we are at our core. They're essential building blocks, things we just are or aren't naturally, with mounting evidence that those things are what we are at a cellular level.
I can see men living thousands of years ago being repulsed by the idea of two men having sex because there are still men like that today. It's gross to them at a very primal level, feels very wrong to them, so God must not like it, either.
I think that's all there is to it. I don't think declaring homosexuality a sin had anything to do with forcing the masses to procreate. People are going to procreate whether or not some gay people are thrown in the mix and I'm sure they popped 'em out left and right back then in numbers we don't even come close to today. Sexuality just triggers something in us and the unevolved can't deal with it.
Gay men/women are a real thing. Can't declare it isn't true no Ostridge here.
It's not the majority, it's a minority. No need to demonize or give them a greater voice... nor do bad to them.