Post: #1

Gregory Cochran, on his great blog West Hunter, in an article entitled The Depths of Madness, says:

"I’ve said it before, but it’s probably time to say it again. The most likely explanation for human homosexuality is that it is caused by some pathogen. It’s too common to be mutational pressure (and we don’t see syndromic versions, as we would in that case), it’s not new, identical twins are usually discordant (~75% of the time), and it’s hell on reproductive fitness. There is no way it is adaptive: the helpful gay uncle notion, group selection, compensating advantage in females, etc: these range from impossible to bloody unlikely. It doesn’t exist in most hunter-gatherers: you have to explain what it is you’re even talking about when you ask them. Presumably with diagrams."

Cochran finds genetic causes for homosexuality unconvincing. It reduces reproductive fitness to such an extreme degree that he compares it to malformed genitals or muteness. Responding to an article that suggests homosexuality can be caused by epigentics, Cochran states that:

"Of course, this hardly ever results in funny-looking genitalia – you’d think it would, but then natural selection has made that kind of error rare. Of course, it should have made epigenetic leakage that cause low-fitness behaviors like homosexuality equally rare. Which is the problem with this hypothesis: it rests on the assumption that natural selection in humans has been on a mysterious, all-expenses-paid vacation when it comes to mating. They suggest that maybe sexual behavior have changed since the human-chimp split and therefore there just hasn’t been enough time to thoroughly canalize sexual development in humans.

I guarantee that speech is newer than that. What fraction of people are unable to talk? Gee, being mute is far less frequent than homosexuality, even though speech sure seems more complicated. Why is speechlessness so rare? Speech is damn useful, and natural selection has made failure rare. But it’s not more useful than reproduction its own self.

Rice suggested sexually antagonistic genes, earlier. What fraction of known, common, fitness-reducing syndromes are known to be caused by that? Gee, none of them. What fraction are known to caused by leaky epigenetics? None.

What fraction are known to be caused by infectious organisms? Practically all of them. So you know it can’t be that, right? Life is really a vast murder mystery – it’s always the one you least suspect."

Peter Frost discusses "the gay germ" here.

Post: #2

Interesting stuff.

Not sure I buy it, although a pathogen would offer a nice explanation of people who really feel like they're a woman in a man's body and that it's completely their nature, etc. Perhaps they are sick.

Anyhow, I think that due to consciousness and the thinking mind it's possible for humans to rationalize a vast array of lifestyle choices and strange behaviors, and if they're exposed to a reason to find something attractive or intriguing, they'll rationalize it until it becomes a part of them. In other words, not everything we do in our wacky civilization is based in evolutionary principle - is this guy insisting every subculture in the world and every strange cultural practice or minority group behavior requires an evolutionary basis to understand?

All that said, one possible evolutionary motive to homosexuality that has often occurred to me is that it could be a natural overpopulation pressure release valve of some sort. That's not to say I support it, but it would make sense. And would explain the high rate of gays in cities and in crowded places in Asia.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Rudyard Kipling

Post: #3

OMG that's like... so totally ignorant!

But seriously, I've never bought the idea that homosexuality was genetic. Numerous efforts have been made to find the "gay gene", but they've all failed. One idea that seemed feasible was that it was caused by hormonal imbalances in the uterus. This seems interesting as well, but more information is needed.

The problem is that I don't see any major studies happening soon. Any attempt to prove homosexuality is a virus would cause a shitstorm from the LGBT and SJW communities. Nor would the government provide money for this. In the near future we will just have to speculate.

Post: #4

Cool, another West Hunter reader! Roosh V has an inquisitive user base. The human genetics blogger Jayman (https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/02/26...-of-germs/) and Razib Khan (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2...LfgFyzkDuc) have also discussed homosexuality and the Left's sudden support for hereditarianism when it comes to homosexuality, ironically in one of the few instances where hereditarian arguments are the least plausible.

Post: #5

(01-15-2015 09:34 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  is this guy insisting every subculture in the world and every strange cultural practice or minority group behavior requires an evolutionary basis to understand?

I haven't seen him state that anywhere, what would make you think he is "insisting" on that?

(01-15-2015 09:34 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  All that said, one possible evolutionary motive to homosexuality that has often occurred to me is that it could be a natural overpopulation pressure release valve of some sort. That's not to say I support it, but it would make sense. And would explain the high rate of gays in cities and in crowded places in Asia.

I'm not sure what you mean by "evolutionary motive". Did you mean that homosexuality can be adaptive in over-crowded environments?

Not sure that there's anything supporting that idea, a few people being gay in a crowded urban area doesn't really have the positive affect of helping others survive. There has been the idea that gay people can be adaptive in that instead of raising their own children, they help raise the children of their family members, and in such have a similar affect to grandmothers (children with living grandmothers have a higher chance of themselves reaching reproductive age because of the care grandmothers provide). However I don't think that's really been supported.

If your idea is they are just helping us by not reproducing, well, i see no mechanism that would allow for that to be the case. Could you elaborate?

Post: #6

Cochran has been suggesting that for quite some while (and making wimpy SJW scientist colleagues squirm in discomfort and mad as hell). He has an enviable position, a known scientist that has good standing, is unfireable and thus can actually ask the proper questions without doing the little cautious dance to not lose funding or get fired for uncomfortable doubleplusungood wrongthink.

But I think he's wrong. Well, wrong in the sense that it would be bizzare if gayness was a 100% genetic or even viral thing. Surely, some people are already broken since their birth where the genetic/viral thing can apply. Also probably an explanation for those men who are mid 40, have a wife, family, kids and then suddenly decide "Oh by the way I'm a pretty woman and I like sucking dicks!".

But most of the cases of people going gay/bi are from early childhood trauma. Dad being abusive, calling his son a loser, sissy, a wimp. Some shady uncle getting way too friendly with a young kid. Older sibling molesting you (see: Lena Dunham). Some kind of forced abusive bullying situation between your friends. Other traumatic events: loss of a relative, guilt tripping, overbearing mother. The causes and reasons can be really multiple. So much can go wrong if you don't have a stable family environment.

Post: #7

I'm not sure either way, but regardless, it's only a matter of time before science finds the cause of homosexuality. Once found, it will not be long before it's screened out, inoculated against or treated in some way.

Despite all of the social justice rubbish being thrown around, I would bet that 99% of parents would want normal children if given the choice.

Post: #8

(01-15-2015 11:21 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 09:34 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  is this guy insisting every subculture in the world and every strange cultural practice or minority group behavior requires an evolutionary basis to understand?

I haven't seen him state that anywhere, what would make you think he is "insisting" on that?

Among him stressing this in many other ways, from the article:

A fair number of the smarter people interested in the subject agree with me. Not that they think it proven, but they agree that it is the only theory out there that makes any evolutionary sense.

He seems to be working from a premise that the theory that fits must make sense on an evolutionary basis. And it's used as a reason to rationalize his pathogen theory.

Why ? Plenty of modern human behavior does not seem to serve an evolutionary role or stem from genetics.

Quote:

(01-15-2015 09:34 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  All that said, one possible evolutionary motive to homosexuality that has often occurred to me is that it could be a natural overpopulation pressure release valve of some sort. That's not to say I support it, but it would make sense. And would explain the high rate of gays in cities and in crowded places in Asia.

I'm not sure what you mean by "evolutionary motive". Did you mean that homosexuality can be adaptive in over-crowded environments? Not sure that there's anything supporting that idea, a few people being gay in a crowded urban area doesn't really have the positive affect of helping others survive. There has been the idea that gay people can be adaptive in that instead of raising their own children, they help raise the children of their family members, and in such have a similar affect to grandmothers (children with living grandmothers have a higher chance of themselves reaching reproductive age because of the care grandmothers provide). However I don't think that's really been supported.

If your idea is they are just helping us by not reproducing, well, i see no mechanism that would allow for that to be the case. Could you elaborate?

Don't mistake me - It's not my idea." I'm not saying anything, really, as I have no theory in the matter. And I'm certainly not suggesting we embrace homosexuality to curb population growth.

I'm saying that if one were to insist on an evolutionary basis, as many seem set on doing, it's worth considering that Nature has checks and balances we don't understand. Stranger theories have been suggested. Like the idea, for example, that humanity itself is a virus.

So I don't think considering the idea of evolution working on these macro levels is that far out there.

Populations that get too crowded fold in on themselves and sometimes lead to their own demise, so on a grand scale, it could be a natural pressure release valve to keep us from breeding ourselves into extinction.

It's not an idea I've thought through enough to support or get into. It's just an idea.

And I'm certainly not schooled in scientific thinking, so if I was going to engage on a topic at length, this wouldn't be it.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Rudyard Kipling

Post: #9

(01-16-2015 08:41 AM)Rangarr Wrote:  But most of the cases of people going gay/bi are from early childhood trauma. Dad being abusive, calling his son a loser, sissy, a wimp. Some shady uncle getting way too friendly with a young kid. Older sibling molesting you (see: Lena Dunham). Some kind of forced abusive bullying situation between your friends. Other traumatic events: loss of a relative, guilt tripping, overbearing mother. The causes and reasons can be really multiple. So much can go wrong if you don't have a stable family environment.

I've heard this idea too, and it seems strange to me, what mechanism is there in between child abuse and homosexuality that is causative?

I honestly have no clue what homosexuality might be caused by, no theory makes sense to me.

I am thinking of kids I grew up with, who from a very early age, acted effeminate and later turned out to be gay. Once we were like 8 or 9 years old people started guessing these kids were gay, and they were surely picked on because of it. Does that mean others them gay was what caused them to be gay, or does it mean they were already exhibiting readable signs of homosexuality even before puberty, and the other kids were simply able to pick them up before the kid even really experienced sexual desire?

Post: #10

(01-16-2015 10:04 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 11:21 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 09:34 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  is this guy insisting every subculture in the world and every strange cultural practice or minority group behavior requires an evolutionary basis to understand?

I haven't seen him state that anywhere, what would make you think he is "insisting" on that?

Among him stressing this in many other ways, from the article:

A fair number of the smarter people interested in the subject agree with me. Not that they think it proven, but they agree that it is the only theory out there that makes any evolutionary sense.

He seems to be working from a premise that the theory that fits must make sense on an evolutionary basis. And it's used as a reason to rationalize his pathogen theory.

Why ? Plenty of modern human behavior does not seem to serve an evolutionary role or stem from genetics.

Well I think what he means here is:

1. Many people out there postulate homosexuality is genetic.
2. Homosexuality is relatively common, and that must mean that *if* it is genetic, there is positive selection for it in an evolutionary sense.
3. Selection for homosexuality is highly unlikely because homosexuality reduces your reproductive fitness so much.
4. Therefore homosexuality is likely NOT genetic, and has some other cause.

He is only entertaining the idea of homosexuality as being adaptive from an evolutionary standpoint to show how unlikely that is.

Post: #11

So this topic is interesting to me, but I don't know a whole lot about the science behind it, so I e-mailed a friend who graduated with a degree in psychology and conducted all sorts of experiments during his Master's program and still currently does for his job. We both have a similar disdain for homosexuality and transgenderism.

Here are his thoughts:

Quote:I think it's wrong. Lots of counter-evidence and his is lacking.

There are explanations for the exceptions, homosexuality has strong evidence of a hereditary component. It also has a learning component but the genes seem to be a pre-req. You can't catch the gay from being around them.

It reproduces because homosexuality is a spectrum, like from 1 to 10 where 10 is perfect straightness and people's innate preferences looks like a straight leaning skewed bell curve. Society still puts major pressure to not come out. So anyone straight enough to get with a girl will, even if they are into pegging, or group, poly, do some other straighter thing where they can avoid criticism but enjoy what they want.

That is, society overestimates it's straightness. Lots of animals, tribes, and historical records show that it has likely been around. So it's just not true that hunter-gatherers are never gay. Lots of African tribes are as bi as it gets.

These bi people are how it all moves, even if it's a preference rather than actual behavior. They often meet partners with similar views that are accepting of their weirder lifestyle. You think a nice down to earth straight blond country girl is going to be cool with anal all the time and using a strap on on her husband? And only getting off to oral...yeah, most girls that do these things are a little more... open in the first place, but so are girls that are down with threesomes. Lots of gay genes are passed on through weird "straight" couples, they have normal variance of genes and their kids can vary from more or less gay than the parents. The thing is, most bisexuals lean straight because of pressure from society, so they have kids far more than expected for their preferences.

I could send you some papers about it if you're interested. Evidence is from anonymously listed preferences, activities, and family history.

In a later e-mail he said:

Quote:Here you go, this cites lots of OK stuff. But the science on the topic of gay twins is actually poorly conducted.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_a...rientation

Those confounds include, for one, an obsessive focus on only homosexual activity. Ex: Men that like being pegged by women did not get counted even though we all know it counts.

There are numerous other gay tendencies that in theory should be connected. Such as cross-dressing, finding same sex attractive, looking at same sex porn, same sex sexting, transgender, kissing/oral same sex, experimenting, bisexual behavior, and more.

The science too often confuses the behavior with the preferences but whatever, fags won't let us study it more so that's it. We just get to guess at it.

I'm not sure what to think of all that, but that last bit does not surprise me.

Post: #12

(01-16-2015 10:43 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 08:41 AM)Rangarr Wrote:  But most of the cases of people going gay/bi are from early childhood trauma. Dad being abusive, calling his son a loser, sissy, a wimp. Some shady uncle getting way too friendly with a young kid. Older sibling molesting you (see: Lena Dunham). Some kind of forced abusive bullying situation between your friends. Other traumatic events: loss of a relative, guilt tripping, overbearing mother. The causes and reasons can be really multiple. So much can go wrong if you don't have a stable family environment.

I've heard this idea too, and it seems strange to me, what mechanism is there in between child abuse and homosexuality that is causative?

I honestly have no clue what homosexuality might be caused by, no theory makes sense to me.

I am thinking of kids I grew up with, who from a very early age, acted effeminate and later turned out to be gay. Once we were like 8 or 9 years old people started guessing these kids were gay, and they were surely picked on because of it. Does that mean others them gay was what caused them to be gay, or does it mean they were already exhibiting readable signs of homosexuality even before puberty, and the other kids were simply able to pick them up before the kid even really experienced sexual desire?

I don't think it's the simply cause of "childhood trauma turns you gay". It's more a case of "childhood trauma warps you behavior into a weird direction". I mean some people become recluses, some antisocial, some become uber narcisists/control freaks where everything has to be perfect or their entire self-esteem comes crashing down. Women can become promiscous from childhood trauma, so do men. Self harm is also a possiblity, or some OCD behavior. Again, it's more like a random chance that the warped behavior that you'll develop after some childhood trauma will be homosexuality. Surely there are some specific cases which exact traumas have a higher chance of exactly this result. Your parents divorcing can have millions of different results on a young child, a father calling his son a sissy and wimp could make this child become gay or go to the complete other direction to spite and prove his father wrong and becoming hyper ambitious.

Scientist bro Wrote:You can't catch the gay from being around them.

Also, sorta agree with this. You won't necessarily "catch" it from exposure to gay stuff but it sure as hell paves the way for some people to make it seem acceptable in their minds. I mean, you do a cursory read on some "open-minded" forums (reddit for example) and you'll find tons of totally 100% straight bros who just like to get their asshole fingered or to get pegged. By a woman, sure, and they'll probably some on a dildo, just as a joke haha, a bit of ass play with their buttplug. But hey they're totally straight man no homo! To a normal objective observer, they seem like faggots, but them they're 100% straight because it's their frumpy girlfriend doing the pegging. Would that behavior have been considered this normalized in their head if they didn't get exposed to gay shows, gay exploits, videos, forums, stories, articles etc. etc. everywhere around them?

Post: #13

Quote:Also, sorta agree with this. You won't necessarily "catch" it from exposure to gay stuff but it sure as hell paves the way for some people to make it seem acceptable in their minds. I mean, you do a cursory read on some "open-minded" forums (reddit for example) and you'll find tons of totally 100% straight bros who just like to get their asshole fingered or to get pegged. By a woman, sure, and they'll probably some on a dildo, just as a joke haha, a bit of ass play with their buttplug. But hey they're totally straight man no homo! To a normal objective observer, they seem like faggots, but them they're 100% straight because it's their frumpy girlfriend doing the pegging. Would that behavior have been considered this normalized in their head if they didn't get exposed to gay shows, gay exploits, videos, forums, stories, articles etc. etc. everywhere around them?

Then I guess it's kind of like alcoholism, right? You can have genes that heavily predispose you toward becoming an alcoholic, but if you never touch booze in your life you won't become one.

And I referred "Science Bro" (haha) to the forum. I think he'd make a good addition since he's pretty smart and has been casually following Roosh, manosphere and GamerGate stuff for a while now.

Post: #14

Has anyone seen the videos of gay lions?

Post: #15

I can only shake my head at this.

Gregory Cochran is blatantly trolling. If homosexuality is caused by "a pathogen," surely this would have been seen in at least one of the other 1500 species who engage in same-sex behavior.

My favorite species example of this is the Bonobo apes, who are related to chimps. In the book Mean Genes, it explains the alpha males get to have a harem. The beta males hang around in packs of their other beta buds, and engage in homosexual behavior. However, once a beta male stumbles across a female he can have sex with, he stops circle-jerking with his buds and tears up that Bonobo pussy.

I've had the opportunity to talk to gay guys who were very honest.

Ask a gay dude what porn he jerks to.

Ask what his experience with girls was early on in his life.

Ask them, "if you had the chance to sleep with a beautiful woman, would you?"

People do tend to have pride, so unless they completely trust you, they likely won't be as forthcoming about their answers. But every gay guy I've gotten to know falls in the stereotype of a boy scorned early on by a beautiful girl. Gay men can pedestalize women even more than the guys who come around here trolling for advice on their one and only.

I do believe there is a genetic component to homosexuality, but not in the sense most would believe - a lot of gay men simply won the genetic anti-jackpot, and amassed a collection of undesirable traits. Low T, slight frame, unathletic, etc. The activation energy to attract a beautiful woman thus becomes too high in order to achieve sexual release.

Where is the activation energy lower? Oh yea, there's another gender that produces millions of sperm per day, and is much more indiscriminate about where they launch it.

A lot of gay guys are just cases of men who either

a) don't have the means to attract a quality woman, or
b) would rather not jump through all the hoops required to bang a woman. After all, dudes are much hornier and easier. Just look at the differences between Tinder and Grindr. Further, some of these guys understand what it takes to bed women, but are unwilling to employ alpha traits because it goes against what they believe is right. Society has borderline criminalized male-to-female heterosexual advances, so they're just playing along.

People are afraid of voicing this opinion because it is very politically incorrect. That's why

Quote:fags won't let us study it more so that's it. We just get to guess at it.

They won't let you study it because we'll come to understand the great majority made a choice, often based on their own sexual market value and access to quality members of the opposite sex. No study will ever come to this conclusion, because it's just too painful to admit.

Post: #16

(01-16-2015 12:33 PM)Kamikaze Wrote:  A lot of gay guys are just cases of men who either

a) don't have the means to attract a quality woman, or
b) would rather not jump through all the hoops required to bang a woman. After all, dudes are much hornier and easier. Just look at the differences between Tinder and Grindr. Further, some of these guys understand what it takes to bed women, but are unwilling to employ alpha traits because it goes against what they believe is right. Society has borderline criminalized male-to-female heterosexual advances, so they're just playing along.

No way. Even if I looked like the guy in the internet tough guy meme, I would take a quick wank over some porn three times a day rather than hook up with a guy. Your theory has no explanation for either good looking gays, or bisexuals (who can and do have their pick of both sexes)

I've also talked to gay guys quite candidly, and my opinion is similar to that of the previous poster who hypothesised the existence of a spectrum. The gayest gay I know slept with a woman once 'just to see what it was like' but says he really didn't enjoy it. I know a few bi guys who genuinely enjoy both sexes, and a couple of 'straight' guys who have slipped further down the spectrum the more alcohol they consumed...

Never asked the gay guys what porn they jerked to, but the existence of such sites is clear evidence of a market for someone who jerks to gay porn. I suspect gay guys.

It's not beyond possibility that a pathogen could re-wire your brain. Such behaviour is documented in rats in the case of toxoplasma gondii .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis

There have also been inconclusive studies linking toxoplasmosis to behavioural changes in humans.

Post: #17

(01-16-2015 02:03 PM)roberto Wrote:  Your theory has no explanation for either good looking gays, or bisexuals (who can and do have their pick of both sexes)

Actually, what I mention in point b addresses good looking gay dudes quite nicely, because I had those in mind when I wrote it. I've talked to several, ugly and good looking, who have admitted they'd love to have sex with a beautiful woman, if they didn't have to put in the work. One very good looking dude I grew up with was absolutely obsessed with several girls in school, but none ever gave him a chance. Ended up a bi dude in college. Few more examples like that.

(01-16-2015 02:03 PM)roberto Wrote:  I've also talked to gay guys quite candidly, and my opinion is similar to that of the previous poster who hypothesised the existence of a spectrum.

I completely agree and believe in the Kinsey scale... never in my post did I say sexuality was black and white, and neither is it in the animal world, as with the Bonobos.

(01-16-2015 02:03 PM)roberto Wrote:  Never asked the gay guys what porn they jerked to, but the existence of such sites is clear evidence of a market for someone who jerks to gay porn. I suspect gay guys.

Of course, I never discredited gay porn altogether either. I'm not saying same-sex attraction doesn't exist. Of course there are very popular, good-looking celebrities that could have their pick of women, and choose to pursue the uglier sex. Guys like Neil Patrick Harris and Ricky Martin. They definitely like dudes. But I'm merely saying sexuality is influenced very much by personal experience, access, trauma, abuse, etc. I've seen it even in my own family, with an aunt, no less...

(01-16-2015 02:03 PM)roberto Wrote:  It's not beyond possibility that a pathogen could re-wire your brain. Such behaviour is documented in rats in the case of toxoplasma gondii .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis

There have also been inconclusive studies linking toxoplasmosis to behavioural changes in humans.

I'll believe it when I see it at least in an animal setting. There are many species to choose from.

Post: #18

(01-16-2015 02:25 PM)Kamikaze Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 02:03 PM)roberto Wrote:  It's not beyond possibility that a pathogen could re-wire your brain. Such behaviour is documented in rats in the case of toxoplasma gondii .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis

There have also been inconclusive studies linking toxoplasmosis to behavioural changes in humans.

I'll believe it when I see it at least in an animal setting. There are many species to choose from.

That's the point though, if there is a 'gay pathogen', we haven't found it. It may very well be a side effect of a lesser-studied, currently considered benign pathogen.

Post: #19

Vito : It's complicated.

Tony : I'm sure it gets complicated when you take it up your fag ass!

Vito : It was the medication I was on. It fucked with my head. I can get a note from my doctor...

Tony : You got a note from your doctor, sayin' you dont like to suck cock?!

Post: #20

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala

I've always felt there could be some knowledge learned by more closely examining the Amygdala itself, the immediate chemistry occurring specifically in that part of the brain, neuro patterns, etc. If it was to be the source, back tracking could help determine what outside pathogen, if any, is causing this.

Meanwhile to accommodate this quandry: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supr...ge-n287041

Yes Roosh, you'd be right when you say it's getting pretty gay back in the states.

Post: #21

Be right back, working on developing a pathogen to be released over my city to turn all the guys into fags. Then I'll have lines around the block of thirsty women needing me to fuck them.

Post: #22

In Weston A Price's books, he mentions that the hunter gatherer tribes also have no mentally ill/retarded people whatsoever. And the children rarely have behavioral issues infact they never cry or throw tantrums.

I think the correct pathogen could = gluten & dairy.

Post: #23

(01-17-2015 11:36 PM)Low Status Beta Wrote:  In Weston A Price's books, he mentions that the hunter gatherer tribes also have no mentally ill/retarded people whatsoever. And the children rarely have behavioral issues infact they never cry or throw tantrums.

I think the correct pathogen could = gluten & dairy.

You forgot to mention they commonly tossed weak and defective children into middens or trash piles.

Even as recently as the Spartans, they did this.

Post: #24

(01-19-2015 01:32 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  You forgot to mention they commonly tossed weak and defective children into middens or trash piles.

Even as recently as the Spartans, they did this.

This tribe in the Amazon still kills babies with birth defects, or those born to single mothers, by burying them alive or through exposure.

Post: #25

Personally I have hypothesized that homosexuality comes about as a subconscious psychological assessment of the environment. I got this from studying r/K selection theory. Homosexuality would be a form of r-selection because they are seeking out sexual novelty instead of breeding like they are supposed to. Look at prison populations. Those guys aren't gay but they are having gay sex and even gay relationships.

Let's say Cochran is right. Let's say it's viral and they discover the virus and they try to create a vaccine against it. Would a company even be allowed to do such a thing? I honestly believe our government would prevent such a vaccine from being developed. Or if it was developed, the LBGT lobby would prevent parents from having their kids immunized in their infancy.

Homosexuality could essentially be wiped out just like polio with enough support behind it. I can see it now: big pharma carrying out the "gay genocide" I think most parents would immunize their kids against homosexuality.