h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

Interesting point, from a totally scientific point of view.

From a social point of view I still wonder how it came to be that homosexuals were deemed somehow 'wrong' and 'unacceptable'.


az

One theory that has been suggested, is the 'gay sibling theory'. If a mother has a several chlidren, one of whom is gay, they can then help care for the other children enabling more of the other children to survive and pass on their genes.

Firstly I can't remember where I read this theory and it was certainly about five years ago, I think in New Scientist.

But it seems ot make sense to me anyway.

I really honestly think that it's far too complex for us to ever understand, for one thing who you fancy and your sexual orientation aren't always matched. Who you fancy is a very fluid thing, some people are 100% hetrosexual or 100% homosexual, but I do think a lot of people are in the middle.

But being 'gay' or 'straight' or 'bisexual' is a cultural identity rather than an orientation, it's about joining gay culture, for instance there's nothing about shagging men that makes you any better at interior design or fashion. But gay (male) culture in my experience puts a higher value on fashion that straight male culture, so more gay men take an interest in fashion.

But just because you are a man who sleeps with men, doesn't mean that you have to take an active interest in fashion, or any other element of gay culture.

<>

My take is that most people are by nature 'bi-sexual' (for want of a better term) or would be without social constraints. I've never personally had a sexual encounter with another woman but I've never thought this was outside the realm of possibility. I certainly don't find this idea threatening in any way.

<>



Tis true. One can have all sorts of personal sexual experiences without having to 'buy into' any of the various social cultures going on.

Perhaps this is what makes people uncertain about exploring other elements of their own sexuality - for fear of being labelled?


az

>>"From a social point of view I still wonder how it came to be that homosexuals were deemed somehow 'wrong' and 'unacceptable'."

Just being obviously different is enough to make any minority group a potential target, whether it's from
a) Someone who needs an 'other' to to build hate round in order to bolster their own power and/or increase cohesion in the majority group (often in larger grup contexts/politics, etc.)
b) Someone on an individual basis who actually finds one of the easiest ways to feel good about themselves is feeling superior to someone else, and goes on to express those feelings in a discriminatory way. This is actually a pretty universal human feeling, and doesn't necessarily cause any harm unless it's expressed as actual discrimination. However, when the recognising of differences and possible feelings of superiority proceed to actual discrimination, that's when the trouble starts.

Sadly, all your points are quite true, Potholer.


az

Hope nobody minds me buting in:

I sometimes wonder whether a number of passages in religious books like the Bible or the Qur'an that discriminate against a particular race or sexuality. Were not written because God/Allah/etc or Jesus/Mohammad/etc said so, but because so priest wanted to gain power.

For example:
Imagine there are two bishops, both are rivals to be next pope.
Now one of the bishops is known to be homosexual, so the other bishop thinks 'I know if make a slight alteration to the scriptures, i can make it seem that God thinks that homosexuals are sinners. My rival will be thrown out the church and i'll become Pope.' This happens, he then becomes Pope and burns anyone who wonders where this new passage in the sriptures came from.

A rather far-fetched theory I admit, but it is a scary thought, that all the homophobia in Christian based countries could stem from one guy's lust for power.

"One theory that has been suggested, is the 'gay sibling theory'. If a mother has a several chlidren, one of whom is gay, they can then help care for the other children enabling more of the other children to survive and pass on their genes."

This sounds very plausible, as 'survival of the fittest' isn't about the individuals best adapted for survival, but the best genes. It sounds very likely that (assuming, and I know it's a big assumption and also wrong, that there is a strict divide between hetero- and homosexuality) there was a biological need for a certain percentage of the populationto be gay. On the face of it, yes, the idea of a male/male or female/female couple does seem to be a genetic 'dead-end'. But think of bees.
(Note - this is NOT a direct comparison. I realise this could be read as offensive, I hope it's not. I'm an ignorant het, please bear with me.)

You have a hive, with one queen, male drones, and female workers. These workers do not reproduce, and so could be seen at first glance to be a 'dead-end' in terms of evolution - but what matters is the survival of the genes, not the individual. So the other bees will defend the queen to the death, because their genes are 'programmed' to act in this manner. They are not a 'dead-end' - they are, in fact, vital to the survival of the genes.

Scientific research can be viewed in different ways, skewed by policy-makers and academics to mean something that isn't the case. Edward O Wilson's theory of 'Sociobiology' was used by some to defend the idea of a class system as 'natural', simply because ants and some other 'societal' insects were 'programmed' to take on certain jobs, which is obviously rot, as no matter what sociology generalises about different groups, we're not automotons enslaved by our genes. Richard Dawkins was criticised for describing people as 'robots designed to carry out the tasks of genes' - which is true, up to a point. But then, he's also said that life is most fun when we rebel against our genes. We can do this, it's something vital that seperated ourselves from ants.

Anyway, I've rambled enough. My main point is this - if a gay gene is discovered, then maybe that's a good thing, as coupled with something akin to the 'gay sibling' theory, the idea that homosexuality is 'unnatural' can be filed alongside the idea that the earth is flat.

if a 'gay' gene was discovered would Christians (or at least those of them who are homophobic) then accept it was there for a reason and that gay people must be part of Gods plan
sadly I think not we've seen with Creationism that Fundamentalists will if the evidence doesn't suit them just ignore it or interpret it in a way that defys logic

I'm pretty sure that the Pope - who I know doesn't speak for everyone - has said that he believes evolution is correct. Maybe it's a long process, but rational thought will get there in the end.

We can't change whether or not their is a gay gene, if there is it already exists, and we probably can't stop it being discovered.

If there is it won't really change anything, it will mean that gay people can say 'it proves we are natural' and homophobes can say 'well this proves it's a genetic disorder'.

Here's an article I came across awhile ago and started a thread on it called 'The Spiteful Gene'. Didn't get many takers, though. Anyhow, seems to fit in with this discussion somehow. . .

The last bit of the article is the best.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1296284,00.html



az

I haven't read all of that link yet az, because I can't get past how people can't seem to understand that the use of the term "spiteful" is so loaded with value judgement and perceptual bias, and what the f*ck is it doing being used by scientists

If you have the link to the thread on this please post it so I can go have a rant there

I just read the last bit, az

>>I sometimes wonder whether a number of passages in religious books like the Bible or the Qur'an that discriminate against a particular race or sexuality. Were not written because God/Allah/etc or Jesus/Mohammad/etc said so, but because so priest wanted to gain power.<< (Ged)

Oh absolutely. The Bible is the most politically constructed book there is.

I was thinking along the lines of the sexual repression that happened in Christian Europe/UK in the Middle Ages. I'm more familiar with how this impacted on women (who came to be seen as agents of the devil if they had any kind of sexuality beyond procreation). This is all about political power and control. I'm still curious as to how an essentially peaceful movement like Christianity became such a force for wrongdoing.

I'd be interested if anyone has insight into how homosexuality was seen in Europe/UK at that time.

Thank you Snailrind!

<<<>>>

Yeah, well, that *is* true, you have to admit. What is the purpose of the play other than to cause offence?

Imagine the all-hell-breaking-loose that might result if a play was shown say, depicting George amd Martha Washington or Disraeli as sado-masochists, or a living person as a poisoner, or something. (Not that I am saying, pleasee note, that sado-masochism or murder are the equivalent of homosexuality - though I am afraid that someone *will* claim that's what I am saying...

Why not ask one?
It's simple - some parts are "real" (true) on a literal level, others on a metaphorical one. It's not hard to understand...

<>

It's sad, but not surprising on h2g2, which is a pretty hostile place for spiritual people (unless they're Buddhist or pagan) - that this has turned into a Christian-bashing thread.
Define homophobic! That's a serious question. Have any of you ever heard of gangs of Christians with pitchforks and flaming torches going out and dragging homosexuals from their houses and killing them?
Oh, and liquidindian, you're perfectly correct about the Pope. As I am seriously sick of pointing out, most Christians accept evolution quite happily, as do many Muslims, especially when the lack of conflict with the Bible and the Qu'ran is pointed out to them,peacefully, rather than random insults being dished out instead...

"Imagine the all-hell-breaking-loose that might result if a play was shown say, depicting George amd Martha Washington or Disraeli as sado-masochists, or a living person as a poisoner, or something."

The first thing is that you can't defame the dead, so depicting a living person as a criminal would be out for legal reasons, unless the person was a convicted criminal. Secondly, historical figures are fictionally reinterpreted all the time, not just Jesus, so this play is nothing new. There was something similar at the Edinburgh Festival either this year or last. The only example that's coming to mind at the moment is Alan Moore's From Hell, a retelling of the story of Jack The Ripper, which points to a conspiracy from the monarchy down - real people fictionalised for dramatic purposes.

With your point about "gangs of Christians with pitchforks and flaming torches going out and dragging homosexuals from their houses and killing them?", well, no, this doesn't happen, but the organised religion does try and marginalise certain groups of people by damning them as 'other', as 'sinners' etc, including homosexuals. That's dicriminatory behaviour, whether you see it as the correct way to behave or not. There's not really much doubt that Christianity, taken as a whole, is anti-gay. This isn't to say that there are Christians who aren't. Prejudice can be passive - you don't have to daub houses with slogans to hold a certain viewpoint.

<>

I, or anyone else holding a certain viewpoint hurts no one - unless that person is concerned with what I, or others think - not that I am saying what my viewpoint on gays, is, and it can't necessarily be inferred from anything I've said here, btw.
Regarding the play - it's just seems spiteful to me. If I were to write or put on a play depicted Jews, or conservationists, or black people in as negative a light as this play reportedly depicts Jesus and the early Christians, there would in fact be hell to pay and that's the point of the protestors in the news story. Between that and the Christian-and-Muslim bashing on hootoo, it'd be easy for a person to get a bit of paranoia going...