Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Homosexuality a Pathogen ?
#1
First off.... I'm not subscribing to this theory and imagine it's propaganda.
I had not heard of it and figured I would share this post from another forum.
-------------------
Gregory Cochran, physicist and adjunct professor at the university of Utah has developed the hypothesis that homosexuality is caused by a pathogen [1] - either a virus or a bacterium. There are several good reasons to believe this may be the case.

- The low hereditability of homosexuality (0.22) [2]
- The absence of homosexuality in hunter-gatherer populations
- The relatively high frequency of homosexuality (~4% in the west)
- The lack of any plausible evolutionary explanation.

In short, a lack of sexual interest by males in females would be an evolutionary penalty. If it were caused by a 'gay gene', the trait would have been selected out long ago because of a lack of reproductive fitness. Also, the frequency is too high to be caused by a mutation.

There are various examples of infectious agents altering behavior: [3]

- Rabies causes dogs to be more aggressive in the final stage of the disease.
- Influenza causes humans to be more social in the days prior to the noticeable effects.
- Toxoplasma causes rats to be (sexually) attracted to cat urine.

There are many more examples of behavior-altering agents (mostly viruses). This leads us to the conclusion that a pathogen changing sexual orientation is far from impossible. It would explain the frequency in western population and the absence in hunter-gatherers.

Furthermore, there is the interesting phenomenon of homophobia. Homophobia isn't an actual phobia, but an aversion of gays. Interestingly, homophobia actually is heritable, much more so than homosexuality (around 0.5) [4]. If it is heritable, what purpose does it serve? In particular, what purpose does it serve if homosexuality is caused by a pathogen?
Research has been done on the nature of homophobia, and this research has found that it exists strongest with regard to homosexuals' contact with children. A subjective 'degree of discomfort' was found much higher when confronted with a scenario of gay people who hold a profession that involved contact with children (such as pediatrician or teacher) than with gay people who were e.g. lawyers or construction workers. A second study showed that for different types of medical doctors, a high degree of contact with children (e.g. child psychiatrist) induced more discomfort than an invasive procedure (e.g. brain surgeon) but only for gay doctors. Two more studies clearly suggested that homophobia is aimed at preventing children, particularly younger children, from being exposed to homosexuals. [5]

What if homophobia is aimed at preventing the spread of the pathogen that causes homosexuality?

Cochran asserts that it’s not likely that the pathogen is spread by homosexual sex. How the putative pathogen is spread is not clear at this time. Even less clear is whether there is a “critical period” for this infection to affect sexual orientation. It’s also not clear how prevalent the pathogen is in the population, or what percentage of infected individuals become homosexual.

Regardless of how the pathogen is spread, it likely that extended periods of fairly close contact with an infected individual is more likely to result in transmission of the infectious agent. If there is a critical period of time, say some time in childhood, for an infection to result in sexual orientation being altered, the evolutionary purpose of homophobia starts to become more apparent.

Indeed, the existence of homophobia may stand as pretty good evidence in support of Greg Cochran’s pathogenic hypothesis for homosexuality. Indeed, for as many have pointed out, homosexuals are otherwise harmless and indeed perhaps beneficial to other males in the group (reduced competition for females, for example). That gays are nonetheless hated seems hard to explain otherwise.

One possible way to test Cochran’s hypothesis is to observe if there is a higher incidence of homosexuality among the adopted children of homosexuals. Using adoptees controls for heredity, and presumably, sharing a household should give plenty of opportunity for the pathogen to be passed on to the adopted child. Ideally, the study should look only at children adopted very young, from strangers (to minimize selection bias among the adopted children). If higher rates of homosexuality were observed among these adopted children, it would point to some environmental factor – the most likely being infection.

The low, but non-zero heritability of male homosexuality may be indicative of some sort of genetic susceptibility to the pathogen, perhaps through weakened defenses or a vulnerable neural architecture.

If homosexuality is indeed caused by an infectious agent, it would have broad implications for society, particularly the prospect of being able to prevent homosexuality (perhaps through a vaccine).

[1] https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/depths-of-madness/
[2] http://www.mygenes.co.nz/whitehead_twinjhs.pdf
[3] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/how-your-cat-is-making-you-crazy/308873/
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2292426/
[5] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/natural-homophobes-evolutionary-psychology-and-antigay-attitudes/
[6] https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/a-gay-germ-is-homophobia-a-clue/
#2
(05-19-2016, 07:32 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: First off.... I'm not subscribing to this theory and imagine it's propaganda.
I had not heard of it and figured I would share this post from another forum.
-------------------
Gregory Cochran, physicist and adjunct professor at the university of Utah has developed the hypothesis that homosexuality is caused by a pathogen [1] - either a virus or a bacterium. There are several good reasons to believe this may be the case.

- The low hereditability of homosexuality (0.22) [2]
- The absence of homosexuality in hunter-gatherer populations
- The relatively high frequency of homosexuality (~4% in the west)
- The lack of any plausible evolutionary explanation.

In short, a lack of sexual interest by males in females would be an evolutionary penalty. If it were caused by a 'gay gene', the trait would have been selected out long ago because of a lack of reproductive fitness. Also, the frequency is too high to be caused by a mutation.

There are various examples of infectious agents altering behavior: [3]

- Rabies causes dogs to be more aggressive in the final stage of the disease.
- Influenza causes humans to be more social in the days prior to the noticeable effects.
- Toxoplasma causes rats to be (sexually) attracted to cat urine.

There are many more examples of behavior-altering agents (mostly viruses). This leads us to the conclusion that a pathogen changing sexual orientation is far from impossible. It would explain the frequency in western population and the absence in hunter-gatherers.

Furthermore, there is the interesting phenomenon of homophobia. Homophobia isn't an actual phobia, but an aversion of gays. Interestingly, homophobia actually is heritable, much more so than homosexuality (around 0.5) [4]. If it is heritable, what purpose does it serve? In particular, what purpose does it serve if homosexuality is caused by a pathogen?
Research has been done on the nature of homophobia, and this research has found that it exists strongest with regard to homosexuals' contact with children. A subjective 'degree of discomfort' was found much higher when confronted with a scenario of gay people who hold a profession that involved contact with children (such as pediatrician or teacher) than with gay people who were e.g. lawyers or construction workers. A second study showed that for different types of medical doctors, a high degree of contact with children (e.g. child psychiatrist) induced more discomfort than an invasive procedure (e.g. brain surgeon) but only for gay doctors. Two more studies clearly suggested that homophobia is aimed at preventing children, particularly younger children, from being exposed to homosexuals. [5]

What if homophobia is aimed at preventing the spread of the pathogen that causes homosexuality?

Cochran asserts that it’s not likely that the pathogen is spread by homosexual sex. How the putative pathogen is spread is not clear at this time. Even less clear is whether there is a “critical period” for this infection to affect sexual orientation. It’s also not clear how prevalent the pathogen is in the population, or what percentage of infected individuals become homosexual.

Regardless of how the pathogen is spread, it likely that extended periods of fairly close contact with an infected individual is more likely to result in transmission of the infectious agent. If there is a critical period of time, say some time in childhood, for an infection to result in sexual orientation being altered, the evolutionary purpose of homophobia starts to become more apparent.

Indeed, the existence of homophobia may stand as pretty good evidence in support of Greg Cochran’s pathogenic hypothesis for homosexuality. Indeed, for as many have pointed out, homosexuals are otherwise harmless and indeed perhaps beneficial to other males in the group (reduced competition for females, for example). That gays are nonetheless hated seems hard to explain otherwise.

One possible way to test Cochran’s hypothesis is to observe if there is a higher incidence of homosexuality among the adopted children of homosexuals. Using adoptees controls for heredity, and presumably, sharing a household should give plenty of opportunity for the pathogen to be passed on to the adopted child. Ideally, the study should look only at children adopted very young, from strangers (to minimize selection bias among the adopted children). If higher rates of homosexuality were observed among these adopted children, it would point to some environmental factor – the most likely being infection.

The low, but non-zero heritability of male homosexuality may be indicative of some sort of genetic susceptibility to the pathogen, perhaps through weakened defenses or a vulnerable neural architecture.

If homosexuality is indeed caused by an infectious agent, it would have broad implications for society, particularly the prospect of being able to prevent homosexuality (perhaps through a vaccine).

[1] https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/depths-of-madness/
[2] http://www.mygenes.co.nz/whitehead_twinjhs.pdf
[3] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/how-your-cat-is-making-you-crazy/308873/
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2292426/
[5] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/natural-homophobes-evolutionary-psychology-and-antigay-attitudes/
[6] https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/a-gay-germ-is-homophobia-a-clue/

Interesting, but I highly doubt that homosexuality is a pathogen.
[Image: giphy.gif]
#3
So it's like the Walking Dead and it's in all of us?  Ninja  " MellowNinja
[Image: giphy.gif]
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
#4
(05-19-2016, 08:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: So it's like the Walking Dead and it's in all of us?  Ninja  " MellowNinja

You just had to use the mellow smiley.....
Now, I cannot ask if it excites you.
Whatever
#5
(05-19-2016, 07:32 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: First off.... I'm not subscribing to this theory and imagine it's propaganda.
I had not heard of it and figured I would share this post from another forum.
-------------------
Gregory Cochran, physicist and adjunct professor at the university of Utah has developed the hypothesis that homosexuality is caused by a pathogen [1] - either a virus or a bacterium. There are several good reasons to believe this may be the case.

- The low hereditability of homosexuality (0.22) [2]
- The absence of homosexuality in hunter-gatherer populations
- The relatively high frequency of homosexuality (~4% in the west)
- The lack of any plausible evolutionary explanation.

In short, a lack of sexual interest by males in females would be an evolutionary penalty. If it were caused by a 'gay gene', the trait would have been selected out long ago because of a lack of reproductive fitness. Also, the frequency is too high to be caused by a mutation.

Wait... we're deciding that there were no gay humans when we were hunters/gatherers? lol?

Also, I've seen theories on the evolutionary benefit of the gene. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html

This one theory seems to suggest an X chromosome gene that increases fertility in females. So while the males may not procreate much or at all, it is passed down to sisters as well. 
[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#6
(05-19-2016, 09:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Wait... we're deciding that there were no gay humans when we were hunters/gatherers? lol?

Also, I've seen theories on the evolutionary benefit of the gene. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html

This one theory seems to suggest an X chromosome gene that increases fertility in females. So while the males may not procreate much or at all, it is passed down to sisters as well. 

I also thought that seemed to be a really odd statement.
How could we really know ?
Do we even have evidence that pair bonding was even that strong ?
#7
I've always thought it had something to do with hormones and brain chemistry. While it could be a pathogen, if that was the case, it should be significantly increasing. Which I don't think it has been.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#8
Most of the folks I've known that were gay were either sexually abused or had oppressive/abusive childhoods or relationships.

I'm not saying that this is the case every time, but it's a theme from what I've seen.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
#9
(05-19-2016, 09:47 PM)Benton Wrote: I've always thought it had something to do with hormones and brain chemistry. While it could be a pathogen, if that was the case, it should be significantly increasing. Which I don't think it has been.

I can't remember in which reference it was in, but I'm thinking it hasn't increased because the theory had to do with the percentage susceptible remaining nearly constant.
That and the amount of exposure to the "pathogen".

In my own little mind, I see homosexuality as much needed population control.
I would even consider it part of any divine entity's plan.
#10


[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#11
(05-19-2016, 10:00 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I can't remember in which reference it was in, but I'm thinking it hasn't increased because the theory had to do with the percentage susceptible remaining nearly constant.
That and the amount of exposure to the "pathogen".

In my own little mind, I see homosexuality as much needed population control.
I would even consider it part of any divine entity's plan.

Exposure is the issue. If its a pathogen, its passed somehow. If its through sex only, then there would be no more afflicted as you couldn't get it unless you already had it. If its passed through some other way (air, bodily fluids, dead skin cells, whatever) then the number would have to go up as more people hot infected. One person coughing (or whatever) infects x amount of people. X amount each infect x amount.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#12
(05-19-2016, 10:06 PM)Nately120 Wrote:


Are you saying that we should outlaw musicals, to reduce exposure to the pathogen ?
Tongue

(05-19-2016, 10:24 PM)Benton Wrote: Exposure is the issue. If its a pathogen, its passed somehow. If its through sex only, then there would be no more afflicted as you couldn't get it unless you already had it. If its passed through some other way (air, bodily fluids, dead skin cells, whatever) then the number would have to go up as more people hot infected. One person coughing (or whatever) infects x amount of people. X amount each infect x amount.

I had seen somewhere that there were to be people with immunity to the pathogen.
I could have misread.
Again, I believe it was in the source material.

Regardless, I will defer as my biology skills have far depreciated from back in high school.
#13
(05-19-2016, 10:33 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Are you saying that we should outlaw musicals, to reduce exposure to the pathogen ?
Tongue


I had seen somewhere that there were to be people with immunity to the pathogen.
I could have misread.
Again, I believe it was in the source material.

Regardless, I will defer as my biology skills have far depreciated from back in high school.

Whoops, I thought I posted that in the thread about Oklahoma outlawing abortion.  Oh well, spread the word.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#14
(05-19-2016, 09:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Wait... we're deciding that there were no gay humans when we were hunters/gatherers? lol?

Also, I've seen theories on the evolutionary benefit of the gene. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html

This one theory seems to suggest an X chromosome gene that increases fertility in females. So while the males may not procreate much or at all, it is passed down to sisters as well. 

Does that link say Huffington Post?


Pathogen makes as much sense of any of the other theories.
[Image: bfine-guns2.png]

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#15
This thread makes me proud of the P&R regulars. We're capable of discussing a less popular theory on why people are gay without it degrading someone or a group of people. Hell, that religion/gay thread is pretty good too. In both, the OP (Roto), merely introduces a topic to be discussed without then attacking people who are religious or who are gay or having some snide comment about their mental condition.

Maybe it's a combination of how it was presented and who is currently posting here.
[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#16
(05-19-2016, 11:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Does that link say Huffington Post?


Pathogen makes as much sense of any of the other theories.

No, it says Bigboobsalert.com

That's where I go for all my biology news.

Also, I can't dismiss a pathogen theory, which is why I was addressing the claim that there's no evolutionary benefit. It certainly seems like a well thought out theory that takes a totally different approach to things, though one that doesn't seem as strong as the genetic theories out there.
[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#17
(05-19-2016, 11:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, it says Bigboobsalert.com

That's where I go for all my biology news.

Also, I can't dismiss a pathogen theory, which is why I was addressing the claim that there's no evolutionary benefit. It certainly seems like a well thought out theory that takes a totally different approach to things, though one that doesn't seem as strong as the genetic theories out there.

My theory is that straight parents are producing gay children.  We should be testing all these straight people for a recessive gay gene or chromosome!

I have another theory....





And there goes the nice conversation...
[Image: giphy.gif]
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
#18
(05-19-2016, 11:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: And there goes the nice conversation...

Damn it, Dino. You're better than this.
[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#19
(05-19-2016, 11:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Damn it, Dino. You're better than this.

Don't count on that.   Mellow


You got me.

Besides, speaking the plain truth is getting pretty damn dull around here.   ThumbsUp
[Image: giphy.gif]
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
#20
I told you you could get it from being near the gays!
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]





Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)