Phi for All

The orientation may be hardwired, but I think the behavior surrounding it is mostly learned. Male heterosexuality in particular is a pretty fragile thing, where men learn even one mistake can label you for life. Women's orientation is a bit more forgiving, as if men don't understand lesbians and don't see their homosexuality as a threat.

I don't think it's a "fact" that what you're referring to is innate. We don't start out with many fears, we learn them. We tend to shy away from loud noises, we instinctively duck from things that come at us too fast, and spiders/snakes seem to be hereditary dangers for most. Homophobia certainly doesn't make the list of natural fears for humans. The closest instinctual fear would be predators in general, so why are some hetero males afraid of homosexuals as predators? Predators triggering innate fears usually exhibit obviously dangerous behavior, like growling and baring of teeth. Some people learn to fear predation from people they don't want to have sex with, yet we all have a strong urge to appear desirable and fit to everyone we encounter. Ask a homophobic what they fear about LGBTQ people and it's fairly easy to see they learned every bit of it. Studies show that homophobes are less likely to have had any kind of contact with gays or lesbians, more likely to be religious, less well educated, resided in areas where homophobia was the norm (small towns, rural areas), and tend towards authoritarian views and the personality traits that come with that perspective. Homophobia isn't natural, otherwise we'd see it in nature, right? Name another species with homophobia, please. What are some examples of things humans like innately?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy#Gestational_surrogacy

No, as if there's no reason for them to be involved emotionally. I was going to ask you the same thing, is this new logic? I think you have a different definition of "closet gay" than I do. I don't consider someone who desperately identifies as straight because they're afraid of being homosexual "in the closet". I call it being "in denial". Someone who is forced to identify as straight out of fear of being oppressed for their homosexuality is hiding in the closet. The first one is homophobic, the second one is afraid of repercussions.

CEngelbrecht has been banned for substituting uncivil comments, fallacious arguments, and soapboxing for scientific discussion.

! Moderator Note If you listened to anyone, it would signal that you can reason. If you didn't soapbox every argument while failing to support them, it would tell us you can discuss a subject meaningfully. We can even handle your attempts to drive home weak points with shocking language, but we won't put up with this kind of uncivil comments. You ran out of intelligent things to say quite some time ago, but now your abuse is personal. Good luck elsewhere.

! Moderator Note Can you give us a quote or even a comment about how you want this document handled as part of the discussion, please? You aren't supposed to simply post links or videos or anything that has to be opened without giving the membership a reason why.

Straight people shouldn't have any feelings one way or the other, so if they do, perhaps they aren't as straight as they thought. If attraction is a spectrum, isn't someone who claims to be 100% straight an extremist?

"I'm not going to explain why I think this way, but it's a given that I'm correct." Um, no thanks. Science discussion forum.

I wish someone who calls their whole selves "conservative" could explain what's conservative about not paying your credit debt? This debt ceiling fiasco is just another way to undermine representative voting.

Does it make any predictions that can be tested? Is there a way to make the concept falsifiable? Mc2509 has bad definitions of "theory", "reality", and "proof", but I still don't think the multiverse concept qualifies as scientific. It may be a hypothetical consequence of physics as we understand it, but we can't test it, measure it, observe it.

I disagree. It seems like a pretty standard "Vividly misleading headline" followed by a bogus argument that for a theory to work it has to explain everything. It seems designed to lure the misinformed into clicking on the link and wasting precious minutes of their lives.

So you've apparently read a LOT about endless meetings and discussions, but you haven't read about global efforts to address global issues? That's weird, something seems wrong with that. Where do you get your news from?

VibeTribeScribe has been banned as a sockpuppet of IndySage.

! Moderator Note I'm not sure what you wish to discuss on this science discussion forum, but you've just given us a bullet list of assertions like this one that can't stand as an argument until you support it with some evidence or reasoning. So far, this just looks like you don't understand the science, so you've determined it's wrong. This isn't a blog, it's supposed to be a discussion, and you have far too many concepts listed for a coherent conversation about any of them. To keep this discussion from being complete chaos, I'm going to close this thread, and ask that you pick one of your research points to start a new thread about. We can discuss that before moving on to another. It's the only way your ideas are going to get a meaningful treatment. Thanks for understanding.

! Moderator Note This is just for your first day, to prevent spamming from bots. There is no limit for you now.

They should, they look good in tails. But they tend to shy away from poles.

How would that work? Are you placing them in different dimensions, or are you talking about multiple duplicate Earths in the observable universe where slightly different versions of the planet's history exist?

! Moderator Note I don't know what riled you up today, but you need to be more clear about what you want to discuss. This just seems like a biased rant based on your personal incredulity, and I can't see any meaningful conversation being generated by your obviously inflexible stance. This reads like you're standing on a soapbox yelling at us, and that's not a discussion. Thread closed.

What does this even mean? Are you suggesting the technology available at the time was insufficient? Are you so gullible that you ignore the fact that the major powers at the time were closely watching the space race? Are you saying the technology was so bad that we couldn't do go to the moon, but it was so good that it fooled everyone at the time?! This is why conspiracy is for idiots. You can't even put together a reasonable argument, let alone support your crackpot ideas with evidence.

! Moderator Note Please explain what this has to do with the topic being discussed, or what your point in posting these statistics is. If you don't, I'm going to toss it in the Trash for being off-topic.

Indeed. We learn to shun the things our group/family/community thinks are unattractive. Many heterosexual males equate homosexuality with weakness, the biggest masculine sin. I remember a kid in elementary school who used to rag on kids who wore glasses (I got mine in 5th grade). He shows up bespectacled on the first day of 6th grade, absolutely devastated that he's now a hideously disfigured aberration. He must have been afraid he'd eventually be wearing them when he was picking on others for it, and in that light it doesn't seem that different from homophobia. Not a natural response, but something learned.

"We" as in humans, or "we" as in "all heterosexuals"? I sense this is too general to be a good argument. If we're talking about "remote ancestors" from the OP, do you think early humans were as homophobic as they later became once the Abrahamic religions told them God didn't approve?

JacobNewton decided our rules need to be broken every chance they got, so we're going to free up some time for them to figure out the name of their next sockpuppet.

! Moderator Note You were warned against blogging, soapboxing, conspiracy theories, and bad-faith arguments, yet you keep doubling down. Best of luck elsewhere. Goodbye!