I just saw a study about homosexuality that was done on campus, and the study showed that the faculty with the highest levels of prejudice by far was the natural science faculty.
Explain this to me.
I just saw a study about homosexuality that was done on campus, and the study showed that the faculty with the highest levels of prejudice by far was the natural science faculty.
Explain this to me.
Second highest levels of prejudice were for business school students.
Well I don't think shiro is prejudiced against you so either the study is wrong or you aren't gay like you claim.
gay goes against the code of darwin
Shiro do you realize you gave me like 5 hours of music to listen to?
I thought that people in the natural sciences would have more positive views on homosexuality given that they are the ones who are most likely to think homosexuality is innate, but the study showed it was exactly the opposite.
You would think that, but the scientific community doesn't really concern itself with moral v. immoral. They try to make sense of things on a very impersonal level. Homosexuality isn't a sin to them, it's something that cannot be explained, which in some ways is much worse in their minds. They've come to accept that natural selection gradually encourages the progression of traits that enhance a species' survival, and they've come to reason that unexplainable traits exist due to gene mutation. However, something as complicated as sexual orientation can't be pinned down to a specific gene mutating, at least in part because it's so complex. They see homosexuality as an inexplicable trait that does not encourage reproduction of itself by it's very nature, however it can't be argue'd off with a mutation theory. Therefore... they dislike.
Essentially, if natural selection is right 100% of the time, homosexuality should not exist. It's a fly in the ointment. A beautiful, shimmering homosexual fly with fantastic style.
Interesting explanation, unfortunately, along with higher prejudice against homosexuality, there was also a higher adherence to traditional gender norms.
ugh... well, I guess I could use the same argument, that gender norms promote reproduction, but they're probably just prejudiced.
Edit: On second thought, that's really not a bad argument at all. Gender norms are somewhat the building blocks of our species' mating ritual, and adherence to them ensures the survival of our stronger traits. Or something. I guess I could make the argument, but I don't know if I'd really believe it. It would be tough to link adherence to gender norms to the survival of our stronger traits without spinning a yarn.
Once again, I'll get back to this after I'm done in the lab, but this doesn't really surprise me.
And Tagus's explanation probably doesn't even come close.
I listened to disc 1 this morning, I'll listen to some more later.
Disc 1's pretty golden.
Like I said, there's a lot of demos and live stuff on some of the discs.
The answer is that the arts programs are full of fags so of course they would love other fags. Real men with testosterone play god and science rats with human brains. It has more to do with how gay-loving arts is than with how gay-hating science is.
Generally, the place where the was the least amount of prejudice was at the social science faculty.
Was probably a bunch of art acting fags posing as social science students
PROOF THAT IT IS NUTURE, NOT NATURE THAT CAUSES GAY
DAMN NUTURE
fuck you mother nurture NUTURE
women keep fucking shit up