Do many dislike 'gay people' because of instinct?

I mean in the traditional sense; the traditional form of reproduction that would be the only method available to cave people.

That's still available to gay people...they don't suddenly lose the ability to have penis-in-vagina sex.

Regarding your points about "the pack" and maybe we're programmed to dislike people who don't reproduce, I don't think that could even slightly be a contributing factor because:
1 many straight people don't want to reproduce
2 gay people can still reproduce
3 "the pack" would only want "the best" to reproduce and wouldn't want to "pass on" gayness
4 it could be beneficial to have non-reproducing members of society

People are homophobic because they've been brought up that way, through religious indoctrination, homophobic parents/guardians, lack of education that "different" =/= "wrong" etc.

Considering that so many, non-religious, people dislike gays, with little reason to do so, is it not possible that there is another, more biological/psychological, reason? Could we be driven to loathe anyone who does not reproduce, and thus is of no use to the pack?

1/2. Many straight people, today, don't want to reproduce. But when we lived in caves, all would be expected to reproduce. Maybe things have changed, but that very simplistic idea of straight = reproduction gay = no reproduction might have been programmed into us from when we lived in these times.
3. The 'pack' would have absolutely no understanding of genetics. We didn't until a very long time after when we're talking about.
4. Not really. From an entirely 'cave man' perspective, the cost of food and resources that non-reproducing people would consume would outweigh their contribution to the pack: hunting, killing, etc...

1/2. I expect that a gay caveman would be more inclined to reproduce if it was so strongly expected of him, and from what I've heard/read homosexuality was generally accepted in many civilisations. As long as he could "do his duty" or however a caveman would have phased it, they probably wouldn't have an issue.
3.I disagree. If you had a man who was clearly weaker than the others but still useful, you wouldn't want him to reproduce. I struggle to believe that ancient civilisations and even cavemen didn't notice that certain characteristics of the parents appeared in the children.
4. LMAO Babies don't hunt until they're adults. People without babies to look after can hunt more often than people with babies to look after. If one couple can have 15 kids, even if only half of those survive to adulthood, you can have 3 other "couples" who are childless. Apart from genetic diversity, which you've already said you don't think cavemen cared about, it doesn't matter where the babies come from, as long as enough are made. It probably makes more sense to have specific people reproducing and not, so that you have some people available all the time for hunts/defence.

1/2. Many straight people, today, don't want to reproduce. But when we lived in caves, all would be expected to reproduce. Maybe things have changed, but that very simplistic idea of straight = reproduction gay = no reproduction might have been programmed into us from when we lived in these times.
3. The 'pack' would have absolutely no understanding of genetics. We didn't until a very long time after when we're talking about.
4. Not really. From an entirely 'cave man' perspective, the cost of food and resources that non-reproducing people would consume would outweigh their contribution to the pack: hunting, killing, etc...

In regards to your last response Katie beat to the post.
Why do you assume that we would all be expected to reproduce?
In what way would a homosexual consume more resources than they contribute?
Breeding round the clock for humans would have been detrimental to our survival. Infact homosexuality would have carried several benefits for the group


Posted from TSR Mobile

Considering that so many, non-religious, people dislike gays, with little reason to do so, is it not possible that there is another, more biological/psychological, reason? Could we be driven to loathe anyone who does not reproduce, and thus is of no use to the pack?

no i think its to do with...

sexual violence aka sodomy.
sexual abuse aka pedophiles. in many cultures there is little distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia.

unhygienic. i think a lot of people find the combination of anal and oral sex pretty repulsive.

i think its rarity makes people uncomfortable when they see it because its not a social norm.

then I think theres gender behaviour. homosexuality is associated with female behaviour.

generally female traits such as irresponsibility, emotional outbursts, weakness, lack of loyalty and bitchyness are strongly discouraged amongst men.

a man that embodies female behaviour is not respected by other men and makes other men uncomfortable.

so its lose lose.

if you are a masculine homosexual, men are threatened because of chances of sexual abuse.

if you are effeminate homosexual, men do not respect you and are not comfortable with your effeminate behaviour.

Right? I'm being sarcastic. So are gays more likely to sexually abuse people? Right? And if a man is not respected for demonstrating female characteristics, are we all just misogynists; or is it just you?

Can be kinda weird seeing men acting all effeminate

But that's all down to the constructed gender roles in society anyway. So what if a man has feminine traits or vice versa, it has no negative impact on anybody so why do people care so much about the way people behave i it causes no harm?

It baffles me that people place so much importance on men acting manly, and girls acting girly. If the world had a much more relaxed view point on gender roles and didn't force blue on boys and pink on girls and put people into limiting boxes, then there would be nothing to be weirded out about at all, we would just accept it without question. So it's only just because of the way society has taught us to view males and females that people would have this unnecessary view.

Also it should be noted that gender identity and sexuality, while often seen as overlapping characteristics, are separate things. A straight man can have feminine qualities, a gay woman can have feminine qualities, a gay man can have masculine qualities and all the variables in between because there is no rule that says gay man = camp and gay woman = butch. Those are just damaging stereotypes continually perpetuated by the media, that make the wider public think that all lgbt people fit neatly into boxes when they don't.

Of course there are feminine gay men and masculine gay women, and that is okay obviously, it just becomes frustrating when straight people assume that that is the way all gay people must act. It leads to ignorant comments such as 'You're too girly to be a lesbian/Oh really, you're too pretty to be a gay girl' that reduce lesbians down to a stereotype, and it gets pretty tiring to hear.

Firstly, i was just answering the question.

Secondly, nice try at trying to sidestep millions of years of evolution. N.B. that without these traits you hate so much our species would likely be extinct.

Thirdly, stereotypes are stereotypes because more often there is a lot of truth to them (even if they are slightly oversimplified).