General discussion

Locked

virus for sexual inversion

By john.a.wills ·
I found this while doing some hunting after a lead in the Economist: http://harpend.dsl.xmission.com/harpending/1201/cochran.homosexuality.rants.pdf
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.

78 total posts (Page 4 of 8)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

response

by Jessie In reply to reproduction

Hypothetically, your sexual inversion would not cause my child's sexual inversion. Living in tenement housing with 15 roommates would be more the cause of the DNA "switch" being flipped, at conception.

But then, it's all hypothetical... as I have neither the cash nor the desire to pursue the research... because I don't think it's a choice people make, nor a disease to be cured.

I do know several people who were severely sexually abused as children and are homosexual or bisexual, possibly as a "result" or possibly because they were predisposed to it. I also know several homosexual people who were NOT sexually abused and grew up in perfectly healthy loving homes, and whose mothers tell me that they pretty much "knew" since their children were very little that they were not heterosexual.

There's an argument for both nature and nurture. Personally though, I don't care about the why or the how. I just care that people are people wherever you go, no matter their sexual preference, and they deserve to be treated with respect and fairness.

Collapse -

NewsWeek back in the late 80's

by jdclyde In reply to virus for sexual inversio ...

Had the front page "Is the child gay?" and had a picture of a baby.

They talked about finding the "gay gene" and this was proof that people were "born gay", instead of it just being a choice to be gay.

There was then insane talk about trying to get minority status, blah blah blah. Crazy talk.

After a while this died away. People started to realize you could take this defective gene theory to an ugly conclusion.

If they are born this was because of a defective gene then that makes being gay a birth defect and NOT a natural way of life.

It also would mean that if it is a birth defect, then there could be a cure for it.

Not a popular idea for gays to think they are suffering from a birth defect and thus should be cured by science.

This would and could have led to some really really REALLY ugly times in the world.

If people could check DNA for hair color they could then check for homosexuallity, and because so many people think it is perfectly acceptable to get an abortion, they could start to abort all future potentially gay children.


BRRRRR! Not a world I would want to be a part of.

Collapse -

I remember when

by jck In reply to NewsWeek back in the late ...

I read a study that actually showed the chemical and physiological composition of the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men differed greatly from one another.

It was weird, because they showed how electrical activities, chemistries, etc., differed between them.

Of course, that makes total sense to me. Since we have different things that stimulate pleasure centers, we should have different activity levels.

But...birth defect? hm...dunno...sounds like Robertson or Falwell is backing that research.

Collapse -

Pure science

by jdclyde In reply to I remember when

It was when the whole DNA craze started and they were trying to identify the genes for various traits.

If there IS a malformed gene that causes homosexuality then it WOULD be a birth defect.

Like I said, some people that were trying to validate the "born that way" and using science to do it. They didn't take into concideration where that could lead to.

Like in this discussion, if something DOES cause someone to be gay, then there can be a CURE for that something.

This is apposed by the gay community understandably because one they don't want to think they are that way for any other reason than they just ARE that way. And also, they don't like the idea of being sick and needing a cure.

It is a no-win all the way around.

Collapse -

Hmmm

by jck In reply to Pure science

I see what you're saying...but, I see also that if you call someone's preference a defect...then, what do you call someone that has no preference?

If the human "norm" should be to prefer the other sex...then to be without preference (asexual) would not be a defect (deviation in standard), but instead making absence of a standard human trait.

Therefore, should asexual people be considered non-human since they are missing characteristically human though processes??

Personally...I think you should live happily ever after, so long as you don't infringe on anyone else's right to live happily ever after.

In the spirit of my acceptance and openness of all sexualities, I'd like to quote one of my favorite movie characters, Psycho from Stripes:

"Any of you homos touch me, and I'll kill ya."

And now...back to see if my beer thread has picked up!

Collapse -

It isn't about preference

by jdclyde In reply to Hmmm

it is looking for a PHYSICAL reason in the DNA to explain that preference.

Your missing the point I tried to make. It wasn't MY point, just reporting what I read.

So it isn't the behaviour that makes them gay according to the study but a defective gene. the behaviour follows the "condition", not the other way around.

Collapse -

But what if...

by Jessie In reply to It isn't about preference

It's not a "defect" so much as a "switch" that activates when population growth is too active. A biological imperative, to keep population growth DOWN. Then it would be something we shouldn't WANT to cure...

Personally I don't want to cure it anyway. I know lots of gay folks, and they're the most giving thoughtful people I've ever known. The world would be a sadder place without them.

Collapse -

I was reporting, not advocating

by jdclyde In reply to But what if...

I am not saying to cure the evil gays or line them up and shoot them.

Just stating a line of research and exploring some of the unintended consiquences that could come from it.

Was not here to judge. I have more important things to worry about that actually AFFECT my life, than how other people live their lives.

Just don't indoctrinate this in the schools as an "acceptable alternative life style" as that IS a morality judgement and the public schools damn well better not be spending my tax dollars to teach morals on this or the many other issues in life.

Collapse -

a preference is a preference

by jck In reply to It isn't about preference

I'm not saying you're wrong...just was saying...whether they choose because of life influence or genetic predisposition...it's a preference...


I prefer women...even tho I've had many many bad experiences...I think it's a preference due to genetics...because it's part of the makeup of who I am.

Anyways...not saying your wrong...not saying they're wrong...just saying that preferences aren't caused by only one factor all the time...whether it's taste in food...or sexual preference.

Cause to be honest...I don't know what makes up humans...I don't think anyone has the definitive template.

Collapse -

It isn't ME to be right

by jdclyde In reply to a preference is a prefere ...

go back to the first post. I was an old article in NewsWeek in the late 80's.

I was also pointing out that people have gotten away from that line of reason because of all the bad things that could be concluded.

Sheeess!

Back to Community Forum
78 total posts (Page 4 of 8)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums