I hope that doesn't mean all of the bullies will win out and we will revert back to cave men
To add to your argument.
I would like to state that we should not make assumptions about who is more fit for survival. Lest you find yourself(zach) on the chopping block.
Bravo , well said and good for the two family's that choose their children over their , idiot religions ...... My cousin always told me I was( unfit)
because I had so many gay friends, then later when he was in his 40's , he came out himself. he even got married once to a women, and it lasted a few weeks , He was a psych major and now a psychologist and never did apologize to me, I pity his poor patients today . Not because he is gay but because he is a hypocrite......
Whether it's from the parents, friends, community or the Bible, homophobia is none-the-less a learned behavior and as such can be unlearned. I see it as no different than smoking in that respect and as such, like smoking, can be unlearned if the person in question desires to break that behavior.
The only reason one would be uncomfortable with it is because its been ingrained in them that it was wrong. As Rich mentioned, it's occurs in many other animal species besides ours, so that says to me its a natural thing.
Now, since some religions are about suppression of physical desires while at the same time encouraging their followers to be fruitful and multiply, it then stands to reason they'd be against behaviors which wouldn't encourage that. Behaviors such as homosexuality.. So basically the answer to W.E's question would be ..
Yes, religion would be the reason in most cases for homophobia and discrimination against the GLBT community.
The worst things about ( religion ) is that it always excludes people ..... in the worst ways
I think that is a relatively ignorant, and inaccurate view. Many species practice homosexuality, not merely for dominance, as noted above, but for 'fun.' In fact many species of mammals practice homosexuality among both genders, even when mated to the opposite sex. Besides, by your logic, if the evolutionary drive is to reproduce one's own genetics material, the homosexual should represent a welcome lack of competition for available mates.
However, the idea that we reject social norms on evolutionary grounds (and I won't even get into the dubious use of 'unfit' in that context) I think misunderstands the roles or both evolution and social functioning. I think it far more likely that we view things different from ourselves with some suspicion in general.
After all, if the idea of eating raw fish is distasteful to you, you may well feel uncomfortable sitting next to someone eating sushi. While it is not always the case that attraction to one sex does not mean 'anti-attraction' to the other, for many of us I suspect that the notion of attraction to our own sex is just too different to be naturally palatable. However, it seems that a general feeling of unease can be either overcome by rationality and reason, or exacerbated into loathing when the difference is transformed into a threat.
And it seems that the principle discourses which render the homosexual as a threat are, in fact, religious in nature. I would therefore answer that while not the reason discrimination exists, religion is why it persists.
Mith, just curious, how do you know they do it for "fun?" How do they communicate that to you? Also can you be more specific to name those animals who practice "homosexuality?" (which is a human concept and may have a different meaning for animals)
Secondly, do you think humans have contributed to the behavior of animals by tampering with their natural environment?
I tend to agree with your last statement that religion causes the discrimination to persist, but in ways it also promotes it. Do you think the human brain and the brain of our nearest primate share the same anthropological concepts? If not how does homosexuality relate to both species?
Lastly, are you a "homosexual?" Which would make your view bias at best and wrong at worst.
"How do they communicate that to you?!" Don't be ridiculous, or snarky, please. There is naturally some interpretation required in deducing the motivations behind animal behavior, which is why I put it in quotes. I'm not sure how homosexuality could have different meanings for different species (it's a pretty simple term: homo=same, sex=well, I hope I needn't clarify that one). Nevertheless, to be clear, I mean behavior which is normally associated with mating, bonding, sex, or sexual contact occurring between individuals of the same sex.
That said, these topics have been the subject of study by animal behaviorists and zoologists for some time. There are instances where species seem to use sex or sexual activity for dominance, and some where they seem to do so for pleasure. or even engage in bonding/mating behavior. This is especially notable in primates, but has been observed in birds.
I doubt you'll take my word for it, but a short list of species known to behave in an array of same-sex sexual behavior include primates like macaques, bonobos, baboons, and chimps; as well as dolphins, giraffes, elephants, swans, penguins, and even some insects.
It may be that in some cases, human encroachment on territory may have led to many changes in behavior, but I am not aware of any evidence linking human contact to changes in specifically homosexual behavior. Much of what has been documented and documented has been, as far as I can see, has been observed in the wild, which would tend to work against such an assertion.
No, I don't think that other species share our 'anthropological concepts;' why would you think I would? Homosexuality seems to be a naturally occurring behavior in many species, our own included. It seems to be only in our species that feel the need to attach values of 'rightness' or 'wrongness' to the selection of sexual partners, and then, as I said before, it seems to take a social discourse (such as religion) to turn it into a question of morality or ethics.
Lastly, my sexual preference has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of my answer. Do you really think one has to BE a certain orientation to understand it, or to find discrimination against it repugnant? Furthermore, it's none of your business, and I find the manner in which you have asked to be rude at best, downright offensive at worst.
Would seem you missed this in the news when it happened..
Or this from the Audubon society..
Then there's this to wrap things up..