General discussion


virus for sexual inversion

By john.a.wills ·
I found this while doing some hunting after a lead in the Economist:
Greg Cochran argues, quite persuasively, that homosexuality, by which he means sexual inversion, is caused by a virus. He does not discuss how the behaviorist methods of rectifying sexual inversion might overcome the virus's workings.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

So??? Why does this matter??? What will it change???

by sleepin'dawg In reply to virus for sexual inversio ...

The only thing I am certain of, is that no one wakes up one morning and decides to become homosexual and that if such a decision were at their disposal, that would be the one they would opt for. Aside from sexual preference, they are people just like the rest of us and in some ways maybe even better. It has been proven that there are fewer perverts and paedophiles amongst homosexuals, percentage wise, than amongst the rest of the so called heterosexual population. Why do we have to keep going over this time and again??? They don't try to convert us to their lifestyle. Why do we feel it necessary to convert them to ours??? All they are asking for is a little acceptance. Is that so difficult to understand??? Feel for them and be happy you aren't one. As for gays marrying??? Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us???

Dawg ]:)

Collapse -

Rand's take

by john.a.wills In reply to So??? Why does this matte ...

I cannot find the place, but somewhere Ayn Rand utters the opinion that "homosexuals" are sick. Perhaps Dawg or Absolutely can check their concordances (I have no Rand concordance, and neither has SF Public). However, that was not my point in referring to Cochran: I was fascinated by the biological reasoning involved, and I did point out one omission in the reasoning.

Collapse -

Sarcasm noted

by Absolutely In reply to Rand's take

And appreciated.

I can't remember any instance of Ayn Rand calling homosexuals sick, although I do believe she offered that opinion about Skinner's behaviorism!

She also supported, as do I, the rights of people to have consensual sex with mentally competent adults, even if we find their particular style unpleasant to contemplate. I will look for the word homosexual in those collections of Ayn Rand's work that are indexed.

"Concordance" indeed! I'd be offended if it were not ridiculous in the extreme to equate thought with faith.

Collapse -


by john.a.wills In reply to Sarcasm noted

does not have to be about faith. I have seen concordances of Shakespeare and Tennyson, and I have been told there is one of Rand, although I can't at the moment remember its title.

Collapse -

The Lexicon?

by Absolutely In reply to concordance..

I don't have a copy, but you maybe right. If you were going somewhere with that, feel free to proceed on the assumption that you remember correctly her comment about homosexuality as a sickness.

Collapse -


by john.a.wills In reply to The Lexicon?

The Ayn Rand Lexicon is indeed the concordance to which I was referring - only it is not quite a concordance, being both something more and something less. It was not there that I learnt of Rand's opinion about "homosexuality", and I do not know whether the Lexicon contains a relevant article. There is a $2.95 copy going second-hand at Amazon.

Collapse -

You cannot be serious.

by Absolutely In reply to yes

A second-hand Ayn Rand Lexicon? The irony would be lethal.

Collapse -

Agree fully on that one dawg.

by Oz_Media In reply to So??? Why does this matte ...

Why would someone CHOOSE to be repressed, risk bodily harm from a homophobe and risk being disowned by family and friends?

I have known a lot of gay men and women in my life, MOST of them I remember as some of the best people I have EVER met, gay or straight. They are much more accepting of people's differences or choices in life, far more open minded, much more supportive of people living their dreams and really some of the most reliable and upstanding friends I have had.

As for some nutbag thinking it's a virus, they guy needs to be quietly taken to the vet while being told he is gpoing for Ice cream. Lay him on the table and let him peacefully go into a deep, assisted sleep and the the world progess.

We don't need backward thought processes in a forward moving world.

Collapse -


by john.a.wills In reply to Agree fully on that one d ...

Where exactly is Greg Cochran's argument nutty? He excludes genetic origin on good Darwinian reasoning - or can you find a flaw in his reasoning? And what do you think of my objection to his reasoning?

Collapse -

His argument is based on ridiculous conclusions

by Oz_Media In reply to nutbag

A process of elimination of another possibility, genetic mutation, has pretty much resulted in his conclusion that it is viral?

It cannot be LOGICALLY be considered genetic, therefore it must be viral?

The whole issue with homeosexuality is that it seems so ilogical and that's why so many people are devout on finding out what causes this anomaly.

It can't be the environment, it can't be genetic transfer or mutation, it can't be evolutionary (as that also requires a parasite or infection), so therefore it must be viral?

It's just a conclusion based on elimination of theories, whether that elimination is validated or not, the writer has deemed them impossible by his standards and as a result reached a conclusion that is just as speculative and minimalistic as possible.

Ergo, nutbag.

Related Discussions

Related Forums