As I said before, I don't have that much of a good knowledge regarding the theory of Evolution. However, I did learn some of the headlines you might say during Introduction to Psychology class. The professor said that according to the theory, our primary purpose is to reproduce, they went (gender neutral pronoun) as far as to claim that nature tricks us into thinking we're in love, but the primary purpose is just to reproduce.
 
From that point of view, and as a gay man myself, could the theory of Evolution based on that interpretation be used to justify homophobia? After all, this is basically what the Roman Catholic Church says about marriage and sex.
 
What do you think? And while we're on the subject of homophobia, do you think homophobia would still exist even religion didn't? What about China, Soviet Russia, and also Estonia which is predominantly irreligious but LGBTQ people have had tough times.

(October 22, 2017 at 3:29 am)RayOfLight Wrote: From that point of view, and as a gay man myself, could the theory of Evolution based on that interpretation be used to justify homophobia?

Nah. Social Darwinism is always a non-sequitur and Social Darwinism as a moral theory is an even bigger non-sequitur.

(October 22, 2017 at 3:29 am)RayOfLight Wrote: As I said before, I don't have that much of a good knowledge regarding the theory of Evolution. However, I did learn some of the headlines you might say during Introduction to Psychology class. The professor said that according to the theory, our primary purpose is to reproduce, they went (gender neutral pronoun) as far as to claim that nature tricks us into thinking we're in love, but the primary purpose is just to reproduce.
 
From that point of view, and as a gay man myself, could the theory of Evolution based on that interpretation be used to justify homophobia? After all, this is basically what the Roman Catholic Church says about marriage and sex.
 
What do you think? And while we're on the subject of homophobia, do you think homophobia would still exist even religion didn't? What about China, Soviet Russia, and also Estonia which is predominantly irreligious but LGBTQ people have had tough times.

Practically anything seems to be used to justify homophobia so I wouldn't single out evolution. 

anyhoo heres what two seconds googling brought me.

Quote:Scientists have long pondered this and have struggled to come to any consensus. Although there are a few different ideas, two prevailing hypotheses that resulted from theoretical work suggest that same-sex sexual behaviors (SSB) could persist for two reasons: overdominance and sexual antagonism. The former proposes that SSB could persist in the population if genes for this behavior confer a harmonizing reproductive advantage in individuals only possessing one copy of the gene, or heterozygotes, as opposed to those in possession of two (homozygotes). The latter suggests that a gene that is detrimental to fitness in one sex could be maintained so long as it is beneficial to the other sex.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-ani...exual-sex/

Homophobia, like xenophobia, is rooted primarily in fear of the 'different', dislike for the unlike. Humans being a pack species by nature, and predatory to boot, anything seen as outside the norm, not of the herd, will be viewed with distrust leading to hatred if unchecked. Throw in a few self-appointed leaders to foment that hatred for their own aggrandising ends and you have a very volatile mix. There's nothing about evolution, properly taught and understood, that leads to anything like that, which is probably why those leaders and similar parasites need to distort it to give themselves a veneer of justification.

When I was in high school in the late '60s "a homosexual can be identified by the fact he wears pink and green together."

That's the kind of logic they use.

Evolution is not a valid justification for fear/hate. But people that fear/hate will use anything to rationalize their emotions.

And yes, homophobia would more than likely exist without religion.

(October 22, 2017 at 5:51 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: When I was in high school in the late '60s "a homosexual can be identified by the fact he wears pink and green together."

That's the kind of logic they use.

I just flashed on some bit of word of mouth wisdom regarding how to distinguish gay vs straight individuals which I heard growing up around the same time. Apparently, in checking your nails, if you turn your hand palm up and roll your fingers up to inspect your nails, you're straight. But if you hold the back of your hands up and out while tilting the hands up to inspect your nails, gay. So odd isn't it.

(October 22, 2017 at 7:21 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(October 22, 2017 at 5:51 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: When I was in high school in the late '60s "a homosexual can be identified by the fact he wears pink and green together."

That's the kind of logic they use.

I just flashed on some bit of word of mouth wisdom regarding how to distinguish gay vs straight individuals which I heard growing up around the same time.  Apparently, in checking your nails, if you turn your hand palm up and roll your fingers up to inspect your nails, you're straight.  But if you hold the back of your hands up and out while tilting the hands up to inspect your nails, gay.  So odd isn't it.

When I was in high school it was how guys carried their books. One arm and off to the side - straight, Two arms and across your chest - questionable. 

For girls it was a tougher call.

(October 22, 2017 at 7:32 am)mh.brewer Wrote:

(October 22, 2017 at 7:21 am)Whateverist Wrote: I just flashed on some bit of word of mouth wisdom regarding how to distinguish gay vs straight individuals which I heard growing up around the same time.  Apparently, in checking your nails, if you turn your hand palm up and roll your fingers up to inspect your nails, you're straight.  But if you hold the back of your hands up and out while tilting the hands up to inspect your nails, gay.  So odd isn't it.

When I was in high school it was how guys carried their books. One arm and off to the side - straight, Two arms and across your chest - questionable. 

For girls it was a tougher call.

Yeah, I remember that one too now.  Interesting.  Both of these were passed along wisdom as opposed to pattern noticing things we came up with ourselves.

Of those patterns we picked up on ourselves, I used to think gays in general were less inhibited in their spoken expression and generally more articulate.  Then again when I was really young I didn't know many openly gay individuals, even living in the bay area.  Not sure if I believe that any longer though, having known too many well spoken known straights and less fluid speaking gays later on.  Stereotypes are rarely reliable are they?  Like I always assumed conservatives were simply self congratulatory, silver spoon born individuals with a need to justify their pigs at the trough approach to life.  But then I met Corwin in RL and yourself online.  Stupid stereotypes.

I went to school in a small town in Indiana. If someone called you "queer" and you didn't fight them it was "case closed".