Did a germ make you gay?
-
Hah? This is NEW. A GERM caused gayness in homosexuals, not genes. Hehehe... So next time we have an ANTIBIOTIC for gays & lesbians to make them straight?
Pls click:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/calebcrain/gaygerm/ -
So gays & lesbians are really sick people. They need medication & help from doctors.Originally posted by ICanOnlyHope:Hah? This is NEW. A GERM caused gayness in homosexuals, not genes. Hehehe... So next time we have an ANTIBIOTIC for gays & lesbians to make them straight?
Pls click:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/calebcrain/gaygerm/
-
the article so long..
-
homophobics are sicker. 80% of male homophobics get turned on by gay porn. freaky.Originally posted by Repented John 2:So gays & lesbians are really sick people. They need medication & help from doctors. -
the fella who came up with the idea comes from the aerospace industry. The article also says they have no evidence, no proof or no way of proving their theory. The whole thing is offered as that. A theory, with no evidence.Originally posted by ICanOnlyHope:Hah? This is NEW. A GERM caused gayness in homosexuals, not genes. Hehehe... So next time we have an ANTIBIOTIC for gays & lesbians to make them straight?
Pls click:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/calebcrain/gaygerm/
To quote from the article itself:Right now their theory is just that—a theory. They do not claim to have proof, and they have not named a particular virus or bacterium as the culprit. Homosexuality is not even the focus of their work. Cochran(originator of the theory) emphasizes that homosexuality “is just one aspect of [our work], not the biggest.” He’d rather talk about heart disease.
I say there is a long way to go before its a credible theory, but my guess is that homophobic people and religious extremist will gladly sieze upon it as more (misguided and incorrect)evidence its "wrong" to be gay. Of course they will conveniently forget that even the people proposing the theory is only offering it as an unsupported and unevidenced theory. Then again, knowing how homophobics and religious extremists often need to be right to the point of being willfully blind to the truth, we'd expect as much. Afterall, what else would we expect from selfish people who have no qualms about causing misery to others in the name of some misguided beliefs? -
no need to read it all. 1st para says it all.Originally posted by Pitot:the article so long..
in fact not even. these 2 sentences of the article says it all:
Right now their theory is just that—a theory. They do not claim to have proof, and they have not named a particular virus or bacterium as the culprit. -
quite interesting read actually..
-
Quote from the article:Originally posted by HENG@:I say there is a long way to go before its a credible theory, but my guess is that homophobic people and religious extremist will gladly sieze upon it as more (misguided and incorrect)evidence its "wrong" to be gay. Of course they will conveniently forget that even the people proposing the theory is only offering it as an unsupported and unevidenced theory. Then again, knowing how homophobics and religious extremists often need to be right to the point of being willfully blind to the truth, we'd expect as much. Afterall, what else would we expect from selfish people who have no qualms about causing misery to others in the name of some misguided beliefs?What Cochran suspected about homosexuality, he and his colleague now believe to be true for a large number of conditions¡ªnamely, that microbes, not genes, are responsible for them. Ewald and Cochran¡¯s innovation is to consider disease from the perspective of human evolution. If your mother is obsessed with knowing when you are going to give her some grandchildren, then you are more or less familiar with the traditional perspective of human evolution: You were put on this earth to reproduce. Anything that gets in the way of reproduction is a problem that you better be prepared to explain. To judge the size of such a problem, evolutionary biologists assess its ¡°fitness cost¡±¡ªthat is, the damage it does to your chances of procreating. Genes with a substantial fitness cost do appear from time to time. Every so often a cell makes a mistake while copying its DNA¡ªa mistake known as a random mutation¡ªand this mutation may give rise to a gene harmful to the person carrying it. But in such a case, according to evolutionary theory, the new disease-causing gene would vanish after a hundred generations or so, gradually but inexorably, because damaged organisms reproduce less often and less prolifically than healthy ones. (There is an exception: Some disease-causing genes simultaneously provide a protective benefit¡ªsuch as the gene for sickle-cell anemia, which also happens to ward off malaria.) The higher its fitness cost, the faster a gene disappears. Like the basis of most scientific paradigm shifts, Cochran and Ewald¡¯s idea sounds obvious once they¡¯ve pointed it out: It is almost never in our evolutionary interest to develop genes for diseases. But what does this have to do with homosexuality? Remember your mother¡¯s idð”fixe. She doesn¡¯t care about your hobbies; she wants to see infants. Unhappily for her, modern homosexuals have only one fifth as many children as heterosexuals do, according to a San Francisco study published in 1981. That puts the fitness cost of homosexuality at 80 percent¡ªstaggeringly high from the perspective of human evolution. If there is a gene for homosexuality, nobody has figured out why it survives. As lesbians and gay men have won liberation and come out of the closet, they have probably become less likely to marry and produce children; some researchers have suggested, therefore, that in the past, when homosexuals lived more closeted lives, they reproduced at a rate closer to that of heterosexuals. But even under a regime of compulsory heterosexuality, disinterest in the opposite sex would still have lowered the rate of reproduction. Nor will the current ¡°gayby boom¡± turn the tide. Gay parents are still very far from matching the fertility rate of straight parents. The math is unforgiving. If a genetic trait has a fitness cost of just 1 percent, it will sink to the very low rate of a random mutation after only 100 generations. Over the course of human evolution¡ªroughly 800,000 generations so far¡ªa trait would vanish even if its fitness cost were as low as 0.001 percent. According to the best available estimates, however, 3 to 4 percent of men and 1 to 2 percent of women in the United States are exclusively homosexual. That¡¯s a lot of homosexuals. Too many, Cochran and Ewald believe, for the condition to be genetic.
As above, in the bold & other sentences, it's just impossible that the gay gene hasnt died out after so many yrs of evolution bcos it's a disease genetic mutation & homos dont reproduce as well as non homos. The last sentence says it all. There's too many homos for the condition to be genetic. The maths just doesnt add up!