> I have never encountered a rational argument for homophobia.
From parents and close relatives it is easy to see a evolutionary reason. However from unrelated males (more common) it would seem that they would have every reason to encourage homosexuality in other males. Maybe it comes from when most people who lived together were related.
I can't see how it falls to the naturalistic fallacy ("that which is natural is good").
Surely a neo-darwinist sees the only goal of life as perpetuation of a specific genetic code. If an only off-spring chooses to take sexual partners that prevent the perpetuation of the parents genes beyond that offspring's generation then the parents genetic material will cease to be passed on. This is negative not because it is merely natural but because it destroys the only apparent purpose in such a system.
I can see how you'd argue against such a position but I can't see how you can see it is not rational.
Generalizing from a situation where it may apply (close relatives) to one where it does not apply isn't rational, even if it's a vaguely similar-looking situation.
- The post I was replying wasn't about that part as far as I could tell.
- The exact same reasoning has been applied to why we commit altruistic acts by richard dawkins (sorry no reference). The general idea is that certain behaviours are somewhat hard-coded and applying them to everyone was a good enough approximation for helping your close relatives in the past.
- This is speculation. Generalisation is quite rational when speculating.
From parents and close relatives it is easy to see a evolutionary reason. However from unrelated males (more common) it would seem that they would have every reason to encourage homosexuality in other males. Maybe it comes from when most people who lived together were related.