For clarification, homophobic in the sense that they feel a certain level of repulsion. I am convinced it's a majority. I can't back it up with hard evidence though, but I'm sure there's studies of it on the internet.

Exactly. And that's the key thing here. Heterosexuality only means "lack of attraction" towards the same sex. You need a different term to describe the repulsion that is prevalent, and therefore I use the term homophobia.

My point is that you are not describing revulsion. You are describing a lack of attraction.

Lack of attraction is feeling neutral. Anything beyond that could be defined as revulsion.

Look at it this way, a naive example but still.

If I watch a woman's hands for example, I feel practically neutral. But the closer I come to her private parts the more attracted I feel.

With the same sex it's the opposite. I am neutral towards watching a man's arms or shoulders, but the closer I come to his intimate parts the more revulsion I would feel.

Lack of attraction would be to feel neutral towards the whole body. Lack of attraction I feel to a child, as I don't feel revulsion even to a child's penis.

Attacks? You started the attacks.

If you consider my inital phrase an attack, then your entire opening statement stoop down to a whole new level of ignobility

Of course I know the basics of the organization of DNA and the mechanisms of translation into proteins. But it's practically irrelevant to this discussion, but you fail to see that. 

I love on how you always use that phrase, because it's like a shielding mechanism that you like to employ to protect yourself from being uncertain. 
Unfortunately, the entire basis on how DNA expresses itself and the effects of sensorial inputs in that expression is also the basis for this entire discussion and the heavy debate between genomical inheritance and enviromental stimuli in sociological studies nowadays.
So no, it isn't irrelevant, as much as you want it to be. 

Have you ever heard of polygenic traits? Most of our instincts and behaviour is polygenically determined. There's seldom a unique, complete link between just one gene (protein) and a specific behaviour. But there's a often a clear correlation.

You give a very shallow explanation of polygenic traits and you try to pass it out as a lecture? Ever heard of transposonic elements and movable genomical shifts from multi-chromossomal traits? There are even traits that are dependent on simultaneous loci that are located on different alleles from various chromosomes. 

I'm gonna quote you. "there's no possible way that behaviour is determined by proteins (you're mixing hormone and signal input with behaviour)." That sentence is just plain wrong. I it's like I don't know what to say. There's actually geneticists who believe this?

As I've seen that you've paid attention to my conversation with Dtewi, you have also seen that I never said that enviromental SOLELY plays a role in determining a person's personality and behaviour, but indeed it's the largest role. Proteins and their various functions have a minor role in that.

Proteins are just a means, messengers in a long chain of events which ultimately determines a behaviour. All behaviour is multifactoral. All behaviour is at it's basis grounded in inheritance (genetics), to different degrees. But no behaviour is solely "social" or "sociological".

Some genes code for the construction of the basic framework for our mind, our neural neutwork (CSN) with it's wires, which in turn process signals (input).

Some proteins regulate the level of hormones, and hormones in turn are messengers that can affect and thus determine behaviour.

Stimuli from our senses (signal input) is another example of messengers, which through the neuronal network can trigger pre-programmed pathways, including instincts.

These pre-programmed pathways exist on every biological construct. We have the same instincts as every other eukaryotic being, we have the same preservation instinct as a bacteria does and we have the same need of passing our genes to the next generation as every living being does. That's a far stretch from any kind of DNA behavioural correlation that involves  far more complex traits

Obivously it's hard to pinpoint exactly which DNA sequence is linked to a certain behaviour, since it's all multifactoral, often polygenic and quite complicated with these levels of regulation. We just sequenced the human DNA, and that was peanuts compared to actually determining the functions of all our DNA. This is a huge work for years ahead. We're still in a primitive age.

I never said that DNA studies are a definitive, but human DNA doesn't differ that much from bacterial DNA. Bacterial DNA studies gives us a very large insight of how our genome functions, especially since human DNA isn't even the most complex genome in existance. We only have 40.000 genes, there are species that have double and even triple that amount, relating for a far more difficult level of regulation between those genes. 

But there are methods to prove raw correlations between genetics and behaviour, such as the one with the twin study of homophobia I linked to.

I'm sorry, but you can't possibly hope that a trivial study that relates entirely on a questionnaire as being scientifically viable on genomic scientist circles. Where's the factual evidence? Where's the control group? Where are the variables? I would love to see the entire study, not just the abstract, but what the abstract contained was very unscientific. 

There are hundreds if not thousands of behaviours we know are strongly genetically determined. Such as fear of the dark, fear of snakes, fear of heights, getting sexually aroused, the knowledge of how to copulate, kids prefering dolls over cars and vice versa.

Phobias are not inherited. That I can speak for personal experience. All of my phobias arose from personal trauma and not because I was genetically predisposed to them. My phobia of bees arose from when I got bitten in the tongue when I was 4 years old, before that I had no problem with them. My fear of heights arose when I fell down a 3 meters high ladder when I was 8 years old. Before that, I could climb as high as I'd like and have no effect on me. 

Most phobias rise from these same factors, primary trauma in personal experience, not because of genomical disposition. 

Sexual arousing is also heavily influenced from environmental and sensory input. A highly sexual person can suddendly find itself without any sexual interest at all, especially if he/she has a lack of hormones due to physical or psychological trauma. 

And your last two examples, are we mixing trivialities in a scientific discussion? Knowledge on how to copulate? Even sexual bacteria know how to effectively transmit their genes, due to hormonal signals sent between one another that allow for coding of sexual pili proteins. A similar thing happens in eukaryotic constructs and more complex beings, the process is just different.

Kids preferring dolls over cars is as trivial as it comes. What about the kids that prefer both? Or prefer none? Or the kids that just don't like how cars or dolls look like? That's personal experience as it comes. 

Homophobia is a very very different beast. Somebody can be revolted by the thoughts of two men kissing while not hating or fearing homosexuality or gays. Revulsion is an instinctive reaction, it is usually not conscious. Homophobia requires a conscious predjudice, hate, fear or discrimination against homosexuals or homosexuality.

I don't know if there is a term for a reaction of revulsion towards a homosexual act, but its not homophobia.

That's you, though. I don't feel strongly about other men's privates. That's why I can go into a locker room at the gym and not feel threatened. You're taking you own experiences and using them to generalize, which is not intellectually honest.

I think this is a bit cheap of you. I think most heteroes if they read this know exactly what I mean. And I know that you know I'm right. But go on and be dishonest you.

Btw I never said I feel threatened by taking a shower with naked men.

Different in intensity, but not necessarily to it's character. I've met many hateful homophobes in my life, but mostly I get a strong impression that it springs from something primitive more than a well-thought hatred.

Anyway, my theory is that the basis, both culturally and on an individual basis, springs from a natural revulsion. Whether it's a weak revulsion or strong depends on how you look at it and who you ask. But this revulsion doesn't justify discrimination, hate or such things, I've never implied that. I am just arguing that it's the main source for the cultural historical phenomenon of homophobia. And as I said earlier, our culture historically always tends to augment our natural instincts. Well, up until our modern world. In our modern world it can actually be the other way around. And rightfully so, as with racism, homophobia, sexism etc, we strongly try to supress these instincts socially because these instincts simply are not good. But I would wish that we would have slightly more knowledge and awareness of these instincts, for better nuance, understanding and maybe even tolerance of those who are intolerant.

I think this is a bit cheap of you. I think most heteroes if they read this know exactly what I mean. And I know that you know I'm right. But go on and be dishonest you.

Btw I never said I feel threatened by taking a shower with naked men.