Does the Bible forbid homosexuality and abortion?

[rousseau]

Again, prejudice against homosexuality is not a human universal, but a learned behavior. It makes no sense to posit biologically deterministic responses as explanation for culturally specific phenomena. Just because you feel something very strongly doesn't make it a "biological instinct".

Why can't it be a product of both causes?

Well, to some extent it is. Culture-formation and primary socialization are very obviously, in and of themselves, biological phenomena. But the instinctive part of the equation here is "I must agree with other members of my social network, and will feel endangered on a fundamental level if I do not", not "I must hate the color pink, enjoy working on cars, and freak the fuck out when I see two men kiss."

I agree that culture reinforces and likely even amplifies norms, and I'd also argue that instinct itself is flexible as we see between different cultures. I'm in no way arguing that there is a monolithic 'homophobia' trait in people, just some level of antipathy toward same sex, and some level of attraction toward opposite sex. In it's worst manifestation we get extremely homophobic cultures, in it's best manifestation we get indifferent men who would just rather have sex with women.

[Rhea]

I guess I still don’t see you connecting why this results in hate and rage against homosexuals, rather than indifference. Indeed for the repoductive pressure, the elimination of rivals is a positive thing. A male would want to be (and indeed is, in animal cultures) surrounded by subservient, non-sexually competing males.

So I don’t see the connection for this theory.

Likely partly culture, partly because the trait isn't uniform across our species. You're assuming that hate/rage is the norm and universal, which I'd argue isn't the case. Many men may be disinclined to be intimate with other men, but they're absolutely not homophobic - it's the same process, but a different phenotypic expression.

We can't really equivocate one man with all men - cognitively we're a diverse species, and some cultures might reinforce a higher degree of homophobia than others. Some men might be extremely repulsed by same-sex intimacy, while other men have no inclination to be intimate with other men, but are otherwise accepting. It depends on the type of reproduction that their culture facilitates and where the trait has been amplified. Like any other human trait it should be a spectrum.

I said “for those those inclined to be Alpha”. Which is not all men. But it is often those who set Taboo.

[rousseau]

I guess I still don’t see you connecting why this results in hate and rage against homosexuals, rather than indifference. Indeed for the repoductive pressure, the elimination of rivals is a positive thing. A male would want to be (and indeed is, in animal cultures) surrounded by subservient, non-sexually competing males.

So I don’t see the connection for this theory.

Likely partly culture, partly because the trait isn't uniform across our species. You're assuming that hate/rage is the norm and universal, which I'd argue isn't the case. Many men may be disinclined to be intimate with other men, but they're absolutely not homophobic - it's the same process, but a different phenotypic expression.

We can't really equivocate one man with all men - cognitively we're a diverse species, and some cultures might reinforce a higher degree of homophobia than others. Some men might be extremely repulsed by same-sex intimacy, while other men have no inclination to be intimate with other men, but are otherwise accepting. It depends on the type of reproduction that their culture facilitates and where the trait has been amplified. Like any other human trait it should be a spectrum.

I said “for those those inclined to be Alpha”. Which is not all men. But it is often those who set Taboo.

You're putting the cart before the horse - you've proposed a trait in Alpha men which results in taboo - fair, but you haven't explained how the trait has propagated to them, or why it's exclusive to them. Even if it is exclusive to them.

You're a fan of Sudoku so maybe that can be a fun puzzle for you - what specific mechanism resulted in this configuration?

[Rhea]

I said “for those those inclined to be Alpha”. Which is not all men. But it is often those who set Taboo.

You're putting the cart before the horse - you've proposed a trait in Alpha men which results in taboo - fair, but you haven't explained how the trait has propagated to them, or why it's exclusive to them. Even if it is exclusive to them.

You're a fan of Sudoku so maybe that can be a fun puzzle for you - what specific mechanism resulted in this configuration?

No I did explain that. It was my initial point. That Alpha males will react much more aggressively to homosexual men because Alpha Males who constantly assess rivals and react to them will tend to stay alpha, while those who turn their backs on potential rivals by underestimating them will perish. Not always, but often enough to select for tha trait.

Hence, the type of men who tend toward alpha behavior will be more fearful, suspicious and aggressive toward homosexual men (and especially bisexual men) because gay men represent an ambiguity in rivals and will feel to the alpha like they are deceiving in their beta behavior. And these same alpha-type men will not react that way to lesbians.

That’s the cause. Men (animals) who are agressive to homosexuals are less likely t be taken in by a rival masqueraing as an ally. The distrustful alpha leads an anxiety-filled life, but reproduces a lot and prevents reproduction by beta or deceitful males (homosexuals are an unintended casualty of this pressure)

[OLDMAN]

I said “for those those inclined to be Alpha”. Which is not all men. But it is often those who set Taboo.

You're putting the cart before the horse - you've proposed a trait in Alpha men which results in taboo - fair, but you haven't explained how the trait has propagated to them, or why it's exclusive to them. Even if it is exclusive to them.

You're a fan of Sudoku so maybe that can be a fun puzzle for you - what specific mechanism resulted in this configuration?

No I did explain that. It was my initial point. That Alpha males will react much more aggressively to homosexual men because Alpha Males who constantly assess rivals and react to them will tend to stay alpha, while those who turn their backs on potential rivals by underestimating them will perish. Not always, but often enough to select for tha trait.

Hence, the type of men who tend toward alpha behavior will be more fearful, suspicious and aggressive toward homosexual men (and especially bisexual men) because gay men represent an ambiguity in rivals and will feel to the alpha like they are deceiving in their beta behavior. And these same alpha-type men will not react that way to lesbians.

That’s the cause. Men (animals) who are agressive to homosexuals are less likely t be taken in by a rival masqueraing as an ally. The distrustful alpha leads an anxiety-filled life, but reproduces a lot and prevents reproduction by beta or deceitful males (homosexuals are an unintended casualty of this pressure)

As a straight male, I have to say that the first time I saw two men kiss, it was a bit shocking, unlike the first time I saw two women kiss. But now that it is more accepted, on different media, I am getting used to it. But I would not classify myself as an alpha male.