I think homsexuality is usually a strong pre-disposition at birth, but probably not pre-determined. It appears from the writings of Plato, and other ancient Greeks, that homosexuality and bisexuality was much more prevalent in Greece. There are other cultures also where homosexuality is both more accepted and more prevalent. Either the genetic factors that determine homosexuality are more prevalent in certain areas and eras or nurture has a role.

Much of the aversion to homosexuality in, Western cultures, stems from the God of Abraham. Now the question is what caused this homosexual aversion to exist in the ancient Jews but not the ancient Greeks? One possibility ancient Isreal was never secure, even at it's zenith it was at a near constant state of war. Athens, though at the time of Plato it was soon to end, had a period of relative security. In ancient warfare the losers were often enslaved, the women forced into concubine status. Maybe a patriarchal society wished to insure males did not suffer the same fate, thus an aversion to homosexuality. Everyone likes sex, no one likes being raped.

Grendel72:
So you maintain that disapproval can only occur as a result of fear?

While I'm not going to say you're wrong, I don't think that yours is the only possible conclusion. It could be that in a society in which homosexuality is accepted wholly, it is more prevelant because fewer of those who are inherently gay will attempt to deny it. Of, course we don't know, but I wanted to put that out there - the prevelance of homosexuality among the Greeks could simply have been that because it was acceptable, more were willing to be "out," for lack of a better word...

To be honest the post you quoted of mine is purely hypothetical. I just believe there are root causes that make aversion to homosexuality more prevalent in certain cultures. I believe religion simply reflects previous prejudices, the reasons for aversion to homosexuality go deeper. Possibly an innate fear of rape?

Either way, the result is the same. I believe that is the root of most 'homophobia'. The reality is, if homosexuality is accepted completely and legitimized through marriage, there will most likely be more homosexual activity. We have direct examples today....Lesbianism is much more commonplace now than it was a decade ago. That is (I think) because it is more acceptable to the population. Women are more nurturing and physical with one another. It simply doesn't bother them the way male displays of affection bother men. I hug my girlfriends, and hold hands. I might kiss them briefly...My husband certainly wouldn't hold hands with, hug or kiss his male friends.

I might add...This wouldn't bother me at all. I simply believe that denying there will be an increase in homosexuality isn't exactly accurate. It is absolutely plausible.

Another hypothetical possibility for Old Testament prohibition of homosexuality is a virus that initially attacks homosexuals similar to the AIDS epidemic in the USA in the early 80's. Even in our modern society there were those calling it a curse from God (usually these individuals were predisposed toward the belief homosexuality was wrong). When you look at some of the OT prohibitions and proscribed practices you realize many of them actually may have offered some protections from disease. Is it not possible that a primitive society would view a virus that initially attacked homosexuals as a message from God?

In this instance, yes.
Not liking country music or people chewing gum is not "disapproval", at least not in the same way that disapproving of homosexuality is- people who don't like country music don't get worked up over the fact that I may listen to it. People who can say, "That's not for me" and wander on their merry way do not have a problem.
Being concerned about what people you don't know may be doing in private is irrational, and certainly seems to be based on fear. The chicken little argument that acceptance of gays will lead to abusers of children and animals being accepted is pure fear.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

A note I should have made yesterday:When the form that non-acceptance of gays has taken has been violence, arguing that homosexuality should not be "sanctioned" or "condoned" is arguing in favor of violence. Saying this:to someone who has had friends hospitalized for beatings administered by those who "disapprove" of homosexuality certainly sounds like, if not arguing in favor of violence at least excusing it.

I'm not concerned about it, except that I disagree with it and think that it is wrong. Beyond that position, I don't take any action nor have any inclination to bother myself with what other people do in their homes. So why would you label me a "homophobe"?


That doesn't logically follow. What you are saying is that someone who commits violence and who holds a certain view automatically invalidates people who hold similar views but do not condone violence. That's like saying that if you're against abortion (because you think it is the taking of human life) then you're arguing in favor of bombing and assassinating abortionists. Your "guilt by association" argument simply doesn't hold any water.


It seems to me that you are broad-brushing anyone who "disapproves" of homosexuality as being one and the same as those who hospitalized your friends. Is that not bigotry?

You took the label on yourself. I haven't once called you a homophobe.
What form of "non-sanctioning" and "non-condoning" do you suggest then?
Interestingly enough, the pro-life camp make it a point to distance themselves from the violent nuts.
I'm saying that belittling the violence faced by gays by comparing it to schoolyard bullying is excusing the perpetrators.
I was referring to one statement that goes out of it's way to belittle anti-gay violence. I never said all anti-gay people excuse violence.

Good point. I support the cause of the Palestinians, for example, but do not by any stretch of the imagination condone violence. "Guilt by association" was best stated by our illustrious leader: you're either with us, or with the terrorists.

As for homosexuality, while I do believe that thinking it is "wrong" is irrational, I don't think that believing so makes one necessarily homophobic. Just... wrong.

I've been mulling this over quite a bit lately, and I think I missed a couple of factors in my earlier assessment. So allow me to add:

5. The "influence" factor. This is the belief or fear that associating with gay people increase the odds that someone will "turn gay" themselves. It includes an underlying belief that gay people will try to seduce others around them, even kids.

6. The "HIV" factor. I think there are still many who have a fear of contracting AIDS from association with gay people. There is such a high anxiety factor associated with this disease that I think some people are skeptical about the inability to transmit via casual contact. The penalty is so great that extreme caution seems advisable.

I am not arguing that either one is rational. Just that they exist. I don't think these were covered under my original 4.

Both also interesting points.
I should probably clarify my intention in asking this question. When I look at viewpoints I don't hold, I have to keep in mind that we all like to see ourselves as the "good guys". Most views that I disagree with I can understand how someone could feel that they were right to hold that view (without compromising my own views, of course). But when it comes to prejudice (I'll admit that I was just thinking of what effects me most personally) I just don't understand how someone could justify it to themselves.

I think it comes from the basic conceptions a society has as to what constitutes property. I say this because I think homophobia stems from competition and competition stems, I believe, from this. I think homophobia is all about the competitive standard and so it's all about the right to property.
You asked where it comes from. I think it comes from then, whatever fumdamentally necessitates the ownership and control of property - as a society defines it.

Obviously our society defines it in a manner which demands competitivness. Wether this competitivness is demanded by nature or not is another question. But that our society, either rightfully or wrongfully, makes this demand is fairly indisputable.
So look at it: how can men compete for control of resources which implies a quest for superiority in regard to others, and at the same time have a sexual relationship? A sexual relationship would imply someones failure to be competitive. Two men cannot have consenual sex without disegard for the rightfull (or wrongfull) competitive nature of their relationship.
A man can have sex with a woman, as long as the genders are unequal in regard to control over, basically, natures resources. Sex between a man and a woman does not work to balance that out, unless perhaps the woman rapes the man.
Heterosexuality is supportive of the competitive principle connected to a societites conception of rightful control of resources, i.e. "property". Homosexuality, on the other hand, I believe, comes from a need for what competition excludes, namely an open trust and honesty among people over the needs of life, who instead choose competitivness.
So it strikes at the heart of peoples sense of security, which is wrapped up in the notion of "property" because that is an issue of the basic needs of survival. In other words real security is competition (according to a version of what constitutes "property") and so real persomal security is heterosexuality. It's the standard for personal security.
Homophobia then is the fear of losing power and control over "property", the resources needed for actual survival.
So the hatred can be as bad as hatred gets.

Man, I've seen some contrived derivations in my time, but this just might take the cake. Trying to link so-called “homophobia” to the concept of property is about as convoluted as it gets. I see no connection between the two whatsoever. There are homosexual capitalists as well as heterosexual. And I also don’t see any logic in the idea that a sexual relationship somehow means someone is failing to be competitive. There’s just not a connection.

I will say, however, that sexual relations can, if anything, be likened unto free trade. That is, an exchange of value for mutual benefit. Both parties mutually agree to a certain exchange so that they both can benefit in some way. And this is just as much a result of the concept of property as competition. Think of courting as the competition (where suitors compete for affections), and the sexual consummation as the transaction.

I’m not trying to say that sex is some kind of argument for Capitalism, however, but I think it’s just as sensible (if not more so) of a contrivance than yours. It almost seems to me as though you’re trying as hard as you can to kill two ideological birds with one stone.

There is no correlation between competitiveness and sexuality. I don't think competitiveness and power tripping (which is what you seem to be really talking about) can exist in a loving relationship, but how does that make me any less "competitive". I wouldn't screw over the person I love to get ahead whether that person is a man or a woman.
What "natures resources"? Are you talking about reproduction? If so, I seriously doubt that has anything to do with it- you do realize that straight people use birth control, right?

The difference is homosexual "capitalists" suffer discrimination.
However I believe the issue is actually broader than "capitialism", which is why I didn't use that term, and I don't confine myself to it.

Your argument that there are homosexual capitalists, argues against nothing. Who's denying that homosexuals exist and have sex? They don't however without some social repercussions heterosexuals don't face. I don't think there is any homosexual who would not admit to internalized ones too.

You can deny there is a connection between between how a society regards property and social conflict all you want, but a perfect example of the connection is the debate over marriage rights. Aren't heterosexuals granted certain priviledges regarding property? Aren't legal rights for same-sex marriage to a large exent about money? Hows that for a connection?
Even such problems of hospitals not acknowledging someones "lover" as equal to someones "wife" of "husband" or "family", has money or property implications. A non-legal relationship can mean no property ties which can be a signifigant consideration for a hospital providing services for someone.



But how a claim to any value is justified has to be established before this. A conception of property is still basic to how trade proceeeds. Terms of trade have to be set on some foundation of "property". That foundation will determine what is considered "mutually beneficial".



Between men and women they are not failing to be competitive. Women have legal rights in a heterosexual relationship, even outside of marriage, like a right to child support. The social terms ensure that the relationship is competitive, like the competition over property in a divorce which is another good example of a connection.
With two men, they are outside of specific rights for their relationship, so they more or less have to trust each other freely. Heterosexual couples are absolved of this amount of reliance on mutual trust, because of the legal recourses they each have.
So the homosexual relationship invloves a degree of risk, that is trust, which in itself can explain alot of fear and contempt for it people have.


So. I can throw the same stone at all the birds I want, as long as it kills them. Property is fundamental to survival, so it is connected to our whole "flock" of birds. The "stone" you are referring to I take is "property", and I see nothing "contrived" about killing alot of birds with it if necessary. After all there is nothing it doesn't touch upon in our lives.

A "contrivance"? Perhaps things are simply contrived pretty much to your satisfaction. They are for most people, at least in regard to the predominant stone throwing that goes on. You seem to think "homophobia" itself is a contrived complaint: . You've never heard the words "faggot, pansy, or queer" before? The contrivance would be to attribute the emotion behind those words, and how it feels on the recieving end, to anything less than the paramount issues in life.

Not very good actually. What your new argument (and it is new as it has nothing to do with your original argument) actually suggests is that it is homosexuals who want to persue property -- not heterosexuals. Because heterosexuals wouldn't lose any property if homosexuals were allowed to be considered legally married. So the only possible conclusion from your example is that homosexuals are motivated to be married by property rights. I still don't see how that would have anything to do with what you're arguing.

What you said in your first post was that homophobia somehow resulted from the competitiveness brought on by property ownership (and Capitalism, BTW, is simply a system where capital [or property] is privately owned). The fact that there are homosexual Capitalists tends to break any connection you would be wanting to make to say that homosexual relationships are non-competitive and therefore disallow property.


Do you not believe that individuals own themselves? If an individual owns him/her self, then each individual can "trade" with others for mutual benefit (sex/love/whatever).


Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. Why would a non-involved 3rd party "fear" someone else's relationship based upon trust? Why would I "fear" a relationship between my 2 neighbors just because of the fact it was based upon trust? That doesn't make sense.


My point was that instead of having a reasonable argument, you are merely trying to tie two unrelated things together hoping to make two points at once.

First I realize my post is a very broad stroke. I began to respond to your query and realized how involved the issue is and how much time it would take to draw all the connections accounting for everything. I don't believe a forum like this is the place for any broad treatise. So I did my best to abridge my viewpoint as much as possible. So I realize it leaves a great deal unaccounted for. I only hoped to offer an area to look in for some answers and to offer some reasons to look there.
It may seem very untenable at first, but I believe this is because the connections between 'homophobia" and property rights is a connection between a vast aspect of society and a lesser one. The connection is a broad one, but I believe it's there. This is in the nature however of looking for an ultimate cause.
I feel that your opening ridicule (emoticon) of my POV was uncalled for BTW. The only reason I responded in the first place was because I sympathized with you feeling hated. I was trying to help. I didn't mean in any way to belittle your intelligence. I'm sorry if anything I said came across that way.



I agree. There is no correlation between competitivness and sexuality. There is a correlation between a view of property and competitivness, not the only view but a view. If however this view is the accepted one, then it connects peoples sex lives to it.



I think you are missing the broader picture I'm trying to paint. I think you are vastly oversimplifying it. You seem to be refferring to individual relationships apart from broad social principles.



Again, you say "to get ahead" which implies the scope of, say, an individuals career or something. The truth is wether that person you love is "screwed over" by a class or social group you belong to, and so are part responsible for is largely not up to you, just as your membership in the group is not. You may be born "ahead" of them. You are born in it. Inequality may be part of a system you had no hand in making, but can't help contributing to once you're here. You're a part of it, and so is the one you love, so it's a part of your relationship.
For instance the truth is the male gender controls the bulk of the worlds resources. Take a more microcosmic example, say that of a blatently male dominated culture, like a muslim one. Of course husbands love their wives there. If they really didn't, I doubt they'd last a generation. But does that take away from the fact the women are so supressed too? Of course there is love. I'm sure women love their husbands too, but because of the cultural conditions in which their relationships take place, there must be a great deal of emotional conflict between them. Women must engage in alot of supression to protect themselves. Of course, however, human nature and love is still a part of life. I'm not denying human nature is better than these problems.



"Natures resources" means land, food, water, minerals, all the stuff of what humans produce things from, the sustenence of the earth.



More importantly they have children. Birt control doesn't mean deciding to never have kids. That would be a cause for some social isolation for them.

It was uncalled for, I apologize.
From my perspective, your response seems to come from out of left field. I'll try to explain where I don't follow your logic.
This is true, however we also must realise that our own point of view comes into play when drawing such connections.
This is a definite point of disconnect. How do people's sex lives have anything to do with property?
I don't think I'm grasping the broad social principals. Partly because, to me, sexuality is a very personal thing; as far as I'm concerned, politics doesn't enter the picture. (as an aside, one reason that although I strongly argue in favor of same sex marriages while remaining ambiguous on the issue personally is that it is so politicised. Politics is a sure way to kill romance.)
I'm not following this. Certainly we, as a society don't have a level playing field (although I happen to think focussing on "class" tends to overstate the differences between people), but I fail to see any relation with interpersonal relationships.
Correct, but you seem to be saying that such an inequality is necessary- or at least that the assumption that such a power inequality is necessary is what leads to homophobia. I'm not sure I buy that.
Right, but I don't see how sexuality interferes with competing for resources. If anything, conservatives tend to argue that we get more than our fair share of resources (ever hear the term DINK, double income no kids).Oh, but lack of children doesn't lead to social isolation- some form social groups unrelated to the "family" (mostly when the family turns against them), but an awful lot of us wind up being defacto caregivers for the family. "Well you don't have kids of your own, you can watch your niece while we go out."

I don't think we need to see any treatis or quibble about details. I think Sasquach pretty much summed up the concept he/she is promoting and where the "connection" supposedly occurs: that heterosexual "homophobes" fear homosexuality because it is based upon trust.

I simply cannot see how this makes any sense.

Thank you, yes. That sums up quite a bit. The connection is that society is not built on trust.

Hmmm... I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one.
Relationship dynamics vary, while I think you may have a point as far as why some people are homophobic (which also seems to tie into how some straight men view the act of penetrative sex as one of "domination") I don't really think it applies across the board.

First, I don't see how two people having a relationship based on trust can in any way evoke fear in another group of people. I just don't see how that's possible.

Second, I take issue with your assertion that homosexual relationships are based more on trust than heterosexual. The examples you provide actually support the opposite point of view. Heterosexual marriages must often be based upon trust since often one of the partners contributes far less materially to the relationship and yet if there is a divorce, they will receive half of the property. A wealthy man, for instance, can marry a poor woman and (without a pre-nup) must trust that she will not divorce him because if she does, she'll get half of everything he owns even though she had little to do with its acquisition.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, if unmarried, get to retain individual ownership of whatever property they own. Their individual property is secure even when they split up.

So it would seem to me that there's just as much, if not more, trust required in a heterosexual relationship than a homosexual one. Clearly, circumstances change from case to case, but the fact is that you cannot make a blanket statement that heterosexual relationships require less trust than homosexual ones. There are just too many possible situations to the contrary.