Keep It Real wrote:

Keep It Real wrote: Would not a Darwinian organism wish to avoid exposure to possibly transmissible homosexuality memes?

fuck. Homophobia was a feature of my psychosis in the past; but I can't fault the reasoning of the above statement. HELP!

Reasoning can indeed result in theory, hypothesis respectively. In accordance with scientific method, evidence needs to confirm theory to validate it. What kind of evidence could validate your hypothesis? Will save you time and energy, the answer is: none. Your hypothesis cannot be falsified.

That you cant fault the (your) reasoning only means it makes sense to you. It other words, reasoning means shit to reality. Keep this in mind and keep it real :)

Does it make sense to you too tuco?

It is irrelevant, to reality, whether or not it makes sense to me, you and whoever else. Oh now I only rephrased previous. Fair enough, I think I know what and why you are asking.

If homosexuality would spread like HIV flue for example it would make sense to avoid it yes. However, a quick look at homophobia in wiki tells me that your hypothesis is not based on correct nor complete assumptions.

Remember the Expanding Earth thread? There was a video showing how continents "winding up" and question was asked: Do the continents ("look as") wind back to a sphere? In the video they do but the question is: How it relates to reality?

---
edit: strike

tuco wrote:

If homosexuality would spread like HIV flue for example it would make sense to avoid it yes.

Only if you haven't transcended the biological prerogative to propagate.

Keep It Real wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
They don't.The jury is still out on that.

There's only something like a 20% concordance for monozygotic twins and homosexuality. The jury is not out.

First, that's only one possible way how genetics can influence homosexuality.
Two, to quote your own words back at you.

I'm yet to see any evidence to support either of the above statements. Post some please?

Keep It Real wrote:

In 2000 Bailey, Dunne and Martin studied a larger sample of 4,901 Australian twins but reported less than half the level of concordance.[5] They found 20% concordance in the male identical or MZ twins and 24% concordance for the female identical or MZ twins. Self reported zygosity, sexual attraction, fantasy and behaviours were assessed by questionnaire and zygosity was serologically checked when in doubt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/78/3/524/ - Abstract.

Now you need to present evidence that this settles the discussion in favor homosexuality being all or largely caused by environmental causes.

No I don't; the statistic says it all. 20%

Haven't caught up yet. GOT for instance is difficult for me to watch sometimes due to what I consider my innate homophobic response. Oddly males kissing or being more romantic than sexual hits me hardest. Something visceral is going on that I can't control. I sat alone in a theater watching Brokeback and I must admit, I closed my eyes on the tent scene. I fucking had to close them! Loved the movie though.

More recently Sense8 changed me a bit. It widened my sense and quelled my visceral response. So that may mean that is was culturally acquired and can be fixed.

Now consider. It is obvious as hell that our biological nature is going to have most of us repelled by same sex contact and anything else that changes the probability of offspring. It's a no-brainer. Reproduction most certainly does not depend upon a rational mind or culture. I'm an old dude. Young people are repelled by me in the same way for the very same reasons. I do not 'smell old' and I am quite capable but I am increasingly treated as a pariah in my community simple because I am not a good reproductive bet. I went bald at 24 so I lived through that whole thing as well for the very same reasons.

The point is, if it is an innate visceral response and we stop denying the obvious then we can apply some reason here and quit hurting other humans simply because we 'have a feeling'.

Keep It Real wrote:

tuco wrote:

If homosexuality would spread like HIV flue for example it would make sense to avoid it yes.

Only if you haven't transcended the biological prerogative to propagate.

What panacea are you seeking?

Keep It Real wrote::eh:

Keep It Real wrote:Would not a Darwinian organism wish to avoid exposure to possibly transmissible homosexuality memes?

Oh, right. That one.

You might be laboring under the delusion that wibbling transcends biology. If you're still looking for something to transcend biology, go back to church.

Keep It Real wrote:aaah but not experience procreative intercourse - the act of intercourse is excluded.

Actually, you're wandering more than I first thought. Gay men are perfectly capable of having sex with women. They might not relish it, but copulation can be reduced to just rubbing two things together. It doesn't transcend biology, does it?

The "transmissible homosexuality memes" are available in this thread.

Spinozasgalt wrote:The "transmissible homosexuality memes" are available in this thread.

Where's the homosexual meme receptivity thread? We could make puns about receptivity and 'succumbing'.

Cito di Pense wrote:Gay men are perfectly capable of having sex with women.

The accepted wisdom is that if you don't fancy a cookie; you don't eat a cookie. If your mouth is watering (phallus) the chances are you do fancy a cookie, and it would be incorrect to define yourself as one who doesn't fancy cookies.

If a non-human animal has sex with both genders we call them bisexual. We don't do this with humans because it would stop people from being able to label themselves how they like. You'll be telling me next that I'm perfectly capable of fucking a sheep.

SpeedOfSound wrote:Haven't caught up yet. GOT for instance is difficult for me to watch sometimes due to what I consider my innate homophobic response. Oddly males kissing or being more romantic than sexual hits me hardest. Something visceral is going on that I can't control. I sat alone in a theater watching Brokeback and I must admit, I closed my eyes on the tent scene. I fucking had to close them! Loved the movie though.

More recently Sense8 changed me a bit. It widened my sense and quelled my visceral response. So that may mean that is was culturally acquired and can be fixed.

Now consider. It is obvious as hell that our biological nature is going to have most of us repelled by same sex contact and anything else that changes the probability of offspring. It's a no-brainer. Reproduction most certainly does not depend upon a rational mind or culture. I'm an old dude. Young people are repelled by me in the same way for the very same reasons. I do not 'smell old' and I am quite capable but I am increasingly treated as a pariah in my community simple because I am not a good reproductive bet. I went bald at 24 so I lived through that whole thing as well for the very same reasons.

The point is, if it is an innate visceral response and we stop denying the obvious then we can apply some reason here and quit hurting other humans simply because we 'have a feeling'.

Indeed, the point is: Who the fuck cares what you felt watching Brokeback Mountain? I certainly do not.

However, it is possibly also in human nature to signal virtues, to celebrate trends and to try to fit in.

tuco wrote: However, a quick look at homophobia in wiki tells me that your hypothesis is not based on correct nor complete assumptions.

That wiki page has more holes than a kilogram of swiss cheese. My homophobia was neither internalised nor institutional and yet there is no mention of it. Methinks there is an agenda at play on that page.

tuco wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Haven't caught up yet. GOT for instance is difficult for me to watch sometimes due to what I consider my innate homophobic response. Oddly males kissing or being more romantic than sexual hits me hardest. Something visceral is going on that I can't control. I sat alone in a theater watching Brokeback and I must admit, I closed my eyes on the tent scene. I fucking had to close them! Loved the movie though.

More recently Sense8 changed me a bit. It widened my sense and quelled my visceral response. So that may mean that is was culturally acquired and can be fixed.

Now consider. It is obvious as hell that our biological nature is going to have most of us repelled by same sex contact and anything else that changes the probability of offspring. It's a no-brainer. Reproduction most certainly does not depend upon a rational mind or culture. I'm an old dude. Young people are repelled by me in the same way for the very same reasons. I do not 'smell old' and I am quite capable but I am increasingly treated as a pariah in my community simple because I am not a good reproductive bet. I went bald at 24 so I lived through that whole thing as well for the very same reasons.

The point is, if it is an innate visceral response and we stop denying the obvious then we can apply some reason here and quit hurting other humans simply because we 'have a feeling'.

Indeed, the point is: Who the fuck cares what you felt watching Brokeback Mountain? I certainly do not.

However, it is possibly also in human nature to signal virtues, to celebrate trends and to try to fit in.

I care. I has a feeling. The import of my feeling is another matter and no one has asked anyone to care about my has a feeling. I am simply pointing out that my feeling is in opposition to what I reason, hence innate homophobia. Now sense8 taught me that I can modify the mechanism behind the feeling at least somewhat. I suppose I could get used to sleeping on sandpaper sheets too.

You care about your feelings? Now, that is interesting ;)

btw why would you want to modify the mechanism behind the feeling? What you feel when watching Brokeback Mountain is irrelevant to anything really, and I cant see how it could hurt someone else which I suspect could be reason for modification.

Keep It Real wrote:No I don't; the statistic says it all. 20%

No, what you've just demonstrated is that you don't know how genetics (can) work.

Please enlighten me then.

Keep It Real wrote:

tuco wrote: However, a quick look at homophobia in wiki tells me that your hypothesis is not based on correct nor complete assumptions.

That wiki page has more holes than a kilogram of swiss cheese. My homophobia was neither internalised nor institutional and yet there is no mention of it. Methinks there is an agenda at play on that page.

I agree. The agenda baffles me though. Why and the fuck can't we get used to the idea that we are organisms with structure and that structure is behind some of the modern issues we face? I'm afraid to say but violence and rape are in the same condition.

The agenda seems to be to damn anyone who has the feeling and somehow imply that they have sat down and been either cultured or reasoned toward having this feeling. Therefore they be bad and should be damned to hellfire. For those of us who are honest about this that seems fucking ridiculous. I have never had a reasoned issue with homosexuals and nothing in my upbringing cultured me thus. I never heard the word homosexual until i was probably 16 years old. I had gay friends but did not have the means to classify them as such. I rather classified them as my more interesting and less bullying friends.