As of yet I have never heard of any experiment where a new born baby has been taken and isolated from any external influences and studied while growing up. If such an experiment would take place and the child would manifest repulsion towards homosexual acts despite no external influence to encourage such a thing then I'd admit that homophobia (as in repulsion towards homosexual acts) is genetic.

However children, especially males are, taugh that any sort of contact with members of the same sex is inapropriate from a very young age. Heven't you ever seen parents freak out when their 5-year-old son kissed another boy on the cheek, followed by expressions like "don't do that, taht's disgusting/icky!"? Or haven't you ever seen TV shows where men even hesitate to hug themselves and act as if they just did something disgusting? Our personalities are greatly influenced by absolutely everything we see around us.

You for example may think that eating a dog is something disgusting and terrible, yet dogs are considered a delicassy by hawaiian natives. Lot's of the things we find disgusting are culturally determined.

There were tribes in the South Pacific where men would ingage in anal sex with eachother as a rite of passage into adulthood (I forget the name of that particular tribe). And contrary to what Slimebeast says there are societies, like some islamic countries, where men engage in homosexual acts with eachother simply because women are off-limits, considered to be reserved for marriage and reproductive puropses only. When Slimebest says most men are disgusted by homosexual acts, he actually refers to men raised in western societies influenced by judeo-christian ideology, as the repulsion he talks about is not at all specific to eastern societies for example.

In traditional Chinese culture (contemporarily it's kind of ambiguous) it was important to have sons - Confucianism said this was one of your primary duties - but as long as you were able to raise a family, you were generally allowed to have male lovers. It was you affair, and I'm not aware of any Chinese religions that treated homosexuality as a sin.

Sexular ancient Indian society proscribed all homosexual activity, but that's because pretty much all sex was taboo - and two people of the same sense getting it on would incur only a small fine, whereas a man "polluting" a woman would get a huge fine and lose two of his fingers. It can't be claimed that secular Indian society was particularly opposed to homosexuality - and the spiritual side if the Kama Sutra is any indication, treated homosexuality as a natural and healthy component of general human sexuality.

I don't really know anyting about gayness in Africa, I have to admit. Surviving texts out of stuff like Egypt don't really mentioon much about homosexuality, though according to Wikipedia the oldest recorded homosexual couple was living in Egypt in 2400 BCE, so it couldnt't have been too taboo.

Before the Spanish conquered, ancient Peru had some homosexuality up ins and it was treated as being very natural.

The Romans were all about gay sex.

To the best of my knowledge, the Saxxons, the Francs - pretty much all of Europe didn't really care about whether or not you were banging men until the Roman Catholic Church took over everything.

Point is this: different cultures are different in a lot of ways, including how they approach sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. Claiming that homosexuality was proscribed through all of human history is blatantly wrong.

Man, what part of "WHY" did you not understand? That's only one word! You managed to not answer a question that can be summed up in one word.

Do you mean normal as in people saying "It's normal for some men to prefer the emotional and sexual company of other men"? We're almost there as-is!

Oh good lord, Slimebeast was actually trying to correlate repulsion of homosexuality as being genetically inherited?. He's the least qualified person to talk about genetics of any sort (just take a look of his arguments in the evolution thread). 

Genetic inheritance and environmental constructs are something entirely different. No kind of biological being can "inscribe" any kind of sociological behaviors into it's own DNA. DNA doesn't code behavioral proteins  

Anyway, i'm pretty mesmerized at the amount of misinformation that some people have shown in this thread. In the information society we live in today, it's a shame that cases like these still occur.

I agree 100%!

What the hell is behavioral proteins. lol

Why do so many people care if gay couples get married? I honestly don't get it. I'm not going to lie and say I agree with the gay lifestyle,but they deserve every right to get married,just like any straight couple. I don't understand why people have to pry in other people's bussiness,just because they don't agree with other people's lifestyle.Gay marriage is legal in some states,in the United States,but the real reason all of the states won't get on board,is because America is a real conservative country. You also have a bunch of religious nut jobs,that have to force there views on everybody else. In conclusion,I'm all for gay marriage being legal.

Nothing  

What I meant was that DNA doesn't code for proteins that give you "instincts" and many other behavioral adaptations that biological beings suffer. That's why it's impossible to genetically inherit traces of homophobia, like Slimebeast said. 

Thanks for clearing that up. lol

You're again showing how incompetent you are in genetics and biology.

Your arguments in the evolution thread were poor (as if evolution stops at a cell's ability of independent metabolism).

Yes, I correlated repulsion of homosexuality to genetical inheriage, what was wrong with that? I did it in a more sophisticated way than anyone else in the thread.

Bolded: that is simply wrong. I am amazed to read that. Although I don't know what you exactly mean by "environmental constructs" as it is vague, but genes and their proteins indeed determine behaviour in animals as well as in humans.