Researchers showed a slideshow with images of gay male couples kissing or holding hands, along with neutral images of random stuff, and images of maggots. The subjects were heterosexual men who had their saliva collected after looking at each image. What was found that when looking at images of gay couples, and maggots, the saliva sample had a high amount of alpha-amylase, a digestive enzyme associated with stress and disgust. But this was not true for the neutral images. The subjects also were asked their personal beliefs about homosexuality and the study found no difference in results between personal acceptance of homosexuality, and psychological response to it(disgust response was triggered even in pro-gay straight men).

https://www.psypost.org/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots/

This is interesting, it implies straight men seem to have an innate aversion for male homosexuality. There haven't been similar studies on women, but this suggests that homophobic cultural norms may have arose due to disgust

Does homophobic behavior have an evolutionary explanation like anti-incest behavior does?

>>16723466 (OP)
how does this hint to a possible biologically foundation?
It can be explained with cultural imprint and psychology, no need to assume biological realities.
Because if there would be a biologically, or evolutionary factor involved then gay couples would have been able to change their biology.

so this suggest it's more a cultural thing, patriarchy has been the dominate cultural framework for some thousand years now

>>16723471
one explanation for the prevalence of homosexuality is it's a natural variation of neurochemistry. The other is that it is an anomaly like a mother cat eating it's own kittens. If it's the latter and homosexuality is a 'mistake' then it could be possible that aversion to homosexuality is an evolved trait to discourage homosexual behavior

>>16723471
>muh culture
ah yes. you and i when in grade school were shown images of maggots and gay dudes side by side via operant conditioning. that's why we all experience the same visceral disgust unless... wait for it... we're deprogrammed via the SCIENCE to acknowledge and accept diversity.

there are countless cases of lefty dementia and alzheimer patients reverting to bigoted viewpoints in hospice care. i'm talking actively protesting at gay pride parades in their "youth" (40-50s), teaching their kids the value of inclusivity... then turning around and calling them race-traiting faggots after some time with alzheimers.

and, if that isn't enough, this type of reversion never occurs in the reverse. you never get a righty dementia patient "reverting" to pro-homo behaviors. so, you tell me given these data: what behavior is natural and what behavior is culturally programmed, faggot?

>>16723475
well how come it didn't disappeared in billion years of evolution?

>>16723479
nice attempt at an argument, but having the "straight reaction" to homoerotic stimulus doesn't mean you can not have the higher cognitive functions to realize this cultural imprint and regulate yourself accordingly.

your anecdotal example of leftists with dementia suddenly taking homophobic stances after losing their cognitive ability is insufficient to suggest that homophobia has a biological reality to it.

>, this type of reversion never occurs in the reverse. you never get a righty dementia patient "reverting" to pro-homo behaviors. so, you tell me given these data: what behavior is natural and what behavior is culturally programmed, faggot?
can be easily explained with cultural indoctrination , also homosexuality is widely observable in animals, who are not subject to cultural programming.

Which suggests that homophobic reactions are a result of cultural programming.

and no I am not gay

>>16723483
you don't know what an anecdote is.
>homosexuality is widely observable in animals
this myth needs to die.

>seeing faggots is the same as seeing maggots
pun intended

>>16723487
>this myth needs to die.
how is it a myth if homosexual behavior has been observed in over 1500 different species, and is not a rare anomaly?
just check out the article, there is a lot of photographic evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

also old books like the old testament, leviticus more specifically, prohibit homosexual behavior, but how could homosexual behavior 3000 years ago if it is solely caused by modern day social engineering as you attempt to claim?

>>16723526
>wikipedia
don't care.

>>16723526
Cancer is also observed in animals, doesn't mean it's not a disease. Just because something happens in nature doesn't mean it's "natural" or good. Animals have the exact same defects humans have, after all humans are also animals.

>>16723562
You are trying to imply that homosexuality is a disease, by comparing it to cancer.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/disease
a condition of a person, animal, or plant in which its body or structure is harmed because an organ or part is unable to work as it usually does; an illness:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/illness
a condition in which the body or mind is harmed because an organ or part is unable to work as it usually does; a disease or sickness:

homosexuality does not harm body or mind
homosexuality is not caused by an organ or part of an organ unable to work as it usually does
There is no evidence that homosexuality has anything to do with the body or structure being harmed.

This clearly shows that homosexuality is not a disease and not in any observable way bad for you.

>Just because something happens in nature doesn't mean it's "natural" or good.
It is part of nature so technically it's natural.
It even occurs without human influence.

also define "good".
I was not making any moral claims whatsoever

>>16723466 (OP)
Well no shit. First of all, the reason why gays exist is probably because it gave them an advantage in lowering the guards of other men and women, then they ended up sexing girls after all. Another thing is that the genes responsible also could do something else that was beneficial, this is strangely not really talked about at all, despite everyone knowing gays aren't just attracted to the same sex, they are different in other ways too.

Then the aversion could have evolved because of this sort of parasitic nature of gays. As well as them being more prone to spread diseases, similar to maggots. So a similar response isn't that weird.

>>16723483
>well how come it didn't disappeared in billion years of evolution
We don't know what precise factors affect homosexuality. Maybe the factors that cause it were not present in the past

>>16723585
>homosexuality does not harm body or mind
of course it does. the species reproduces sexually. if a human doesn't want to mate and reproduce they are mentally ill and their gene line is terminal. it's not only a harm to the individual organism, it's a risk to the human species if such mental illness propagates and reduces the breeding capability of the species.

>>16723643
There was a 2005 study that claimed that homosexual sex is as dangerous as drug abuse and smoking, with discrimination inadequate as being shown a confounder

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16173359/

>>16723466 (OP)
Just because you're disgusted by gays kissing doesn't mean you have to hate them

>>16723643
> if a human doesn't want to mate and reproduce they are mentally ill
no. it just means they don't want to reproduce.

> their gene line is terminal
It's not really reasonable to care about your geneline.
1. you didn't chose your geneline
2. your genetic imprint on offspring will half in every generation
3. if t here is an afterlife reproduction doesn't matter
if t here is no afterlife reproduction doesn't matter

> it's a risk to the human species if such mental illness propagates and reduces the breeding capability of the species.
over-dramatic and therefore unreasonable claim in an already overpopulated world,
also humans kill each other all the time in wars and don't give a damn how that effects the breeding capability of the species. you could argue that is a way worse mental illness, i suggest you start there

>>16723647
study was affiliated with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Institute

The Family Research Institute (FRI), originally known as the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality (ISIS), is an American socially conservative non-profit organization based in Colorado Springs, Colorado which states that it has "...one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse".[2]
The FRI is part of a sociopolitical movement of socially conservative Christian organizations which seek to influence the political debate in the United States. They seek "...to restore a world where marriage is upheld and honored, where children are nurtured and protected, and where homosexuality is not taught and accepted, but instead is discouraged and rejected at every level."[2]

Like their bias is their mission statement already.
They want to influence political debate.
"..one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality.."

>>16723681
the other guy won and you lost

>It's not really reasonable to care about your geneline.
psycho argument
>only i matter

>>16723686
>the other guy won and you lost
trust me bro

>psycho argument
"according to my made up morals you are egotistical so therefore you lost the argument"
typical ad hominem and appeal to morality of people who don't have the intellectual integrity to reason correctly or look at evidence.

>>16723647
trvthnvke from more independent and inttellectually honest research: https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/mental-health

>>16723466 (OP)
>anal sex with men evokes disgust
mindblowing discovery for modern academia

>>16723693
what a mess of logic and understanding, you don't even know what ad hominem is, and "trust me bro" makes absolutely no sense there.

>>16723471
>It can be explained with cultural imprint and psychology, no need to assume biological realities.
It can also be explained with biology without assuming cultural conditioning.

>>16723704
but the images were just men kissing, or holding hands. That makes it interesting

>>16723706
Assuming that homophobia has biological causes
struggles to explain how gay couples have changed their biology

And the assumption that homophobia is natural reaction and homosexuality is a genetic defect that influences brain chemistry fails to explain how this supposed gene defect did not disappeared during evolution, or how this genetic trait was able to reproduce and spread so far and wide over the world in so many different species.
=> homosexual behavior has been observed in over 1500 different species, and not as a rare anomaly.

Assuming a "genetic defect" that is evolutionary unfavorable spreads to so many individuals of the same species and at the same time is so common in other species is very very implausible.

It clearly suggests that homosexuality is completely natural and not a "genetic defect" or disease:>>16723585
Which clearly suggest that homophobia is purely cultural phenomena.

>>16723466 (OP)
lets test this spooky theory

>>16723466 (OP)
>This is interesting, it implies straight men seem to have an innate aversion for male homosexuality.

Assumpeted this resultes holds further tests...

It does not answer the question of whether this aversion arises from evolutionary biology or from conditioning, such as education. We already know from experiments with Pavlovian dogs that such natural reactions can be trained through experience and learned associations.

>>16723479
I never heard of a single one of this cases. Please link or citate a example!

>>16723483
>to realize this cultural imprint and regulate yourself accordingly.

Neither can you know that this is all just "cultural imprint," nor did it follow. Even if it can be a perfect biological aversion, you could argue that, since it doesn't harm anyone, it must be tolerated. Vice versa.

You just show a case of left-wing hypocriticism. While homosexual behavior itself must be biological and you "born with", homophobic behavior must be the effect of cultural brainwashing.
It serves your purpose, but it doesn't bring us any step closer to the truth.

>>16723466 (OP)
maybe because it is disgusting and unnatural. like seeing pictures of someone eating poop or poking their finger into their eye. your body reacting to it isn't a sign of unconscious homophobia or whatever you're implying, it's a sign that your body is recognizing something bad that needs to be avoided so it doesn't get harmed.

>>16723731
yep works on me

>It serves your purpose,
what purpose bro

>but it doesn't bring us any step closer to the truth.
lol

>You just show a case of left-wing hypocriticism.
selfcontrol according to principle/intent/will/person ideals/conviction is not hypocrisy

> Even if it can be a perfect biological aversion, you could argue that, since it doesn't harm anyone, it must be tolerated. Vice versa.
I have only argued about the facts, I never discussed the morality of any of that.
morality of it is another topic and discussion not related to this thread

> While homosexual behavior itself must be biological and you "born with", homophobic behavior must be the effect of cultural brainwashing.
>Neither can you know that this is all just "cultural imprint," nor did it follow.
I think my reasoning is pretty solid and it clearly suggests that homophobia is cultural.
It's the most plausible explanation according to all available evidence.
I laid out my reasoning clearly here: >>16723718

also my line of reasoning doesn't require me to make statements about homosexuality being biological or genetic or not.
the only thing I said along those lines is that it is natural >>16723585

>>16723895
>>16723842

>>16723585
>homosexuality is not caused by an organ or part of an organ unable to work as it usually does
the brain is an organ. not being attracted to the opposite sex is a defect of the brain

>>16723661
>just because you're disgusted by pedophiles doesn't mean you have to hate them
disgust is humanity's way to filter out deleterious behaviors

>>16723872
I tried searching for images of maggots and sure enough, same feeling. I thought at first the maggots might be less gross but then I saw the worst maggot photos and it was the same after all.

>>16723842
i'm sorry that you have no old people in your life to learn from, or no friends with old people who share their experiences with you. maybe if you spent more forging social relationships, you wouldn't be such a miserable piece of shit trying to argue on 4channel.org for why homosexuals are somehow mentally sane and not a danger to society. in reality, people hate you.

>>16723907
it only seems true from a very specific reductive perspective which reduces human beings into an reproductive robots,
but even from this specific perspective it is not even halfway true, because a economically successful homosexual person can just legally buy an egg donation and reproduce.
completely without finding females attractive

From perspectives who are not that reductive and see humans as more as just reproductive robots your statement is just incorrect.
Meaning.homosexual attraction is in this not a defect, but rather a natural variation in human sexuality.
also: sexual attraction is a complex phenomenon influenced by a variety of factors, not just brain function

homosexuality is not caused by any cognitive impairment.
there is no such thing as a homosexual cognitive disadvantage, which makes a clear case that the brain of a homosexual person is not defect in any way

also if you didn't seen this study yet: https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/mental-health


but maybe according to you the only non defect brain is one which accepts a 2000 year old fairy tale full of contradictions as the infallible word of god..
which would be yet another claim with no evidence to back it up

>>16723911
I don't hat that person. and I don't hate homosexual
also homosexuality is not associated with mental illness: https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/mental-health

your attempts at demonizing homosexuals have no basis in reality
frankly it says more about you, and your non existent intellectual integrity than about homosexual people

>>16723466 (OP)
it doesn't say if they're viewing zesty buckbroken niggas, young twinks, old obese bears or what so it's scientifically meaningless

>>16723953
idc what species of maggots i'm looking at either. it's all disgusting.

>>16723718
Racism is an innate biological process. Its evoked by our genetics because it evolved to keep us safe from the dangers of other, genetically distant humans; disease we’ve no immunity to, competitors, halfbreed offspring with foreign genetics unsuitable for the environment.

It’s reasonable to expect some similar genetic biological process that contributes for hating fags.

>>16723718
> or how this genetic trait was able to reproduce and spread so far and wide over the world in so many different species.
Group selection. Doesn’t mean the trait is good for the individual.

>>16723718
> genetic defect
No such thing by your metric. Just because something is kept by evolution due to group selection, doesn’t make it bad for the individual.

>>16723938
>also homosexuality is not associated with mental illness: https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/mental-health
lmao

>>16723466 (OP)
>Does homophobic behavior have an evolutionary explanation like anti-incest behavior does?
Only if your relative is hideous, otherwise you'd be a fag for not wanting to fuck them

I have an aversion to seeing people kiss, period.

Unless it’s truly artistic or aesthetic or romantic I want to vomit.

PDA should be made illegal. I hate seeing teens make disgusting kissing noises.

>>16723466 (OP)
Wow, so my gayness is so powerful enough to cause psychic mindbreaks on straggots.

>natural behaviour like murder, rape and violence is le good and learned behaviour is le bad
wonderful discussion