The Gay "Germ" Hypothesis

[DianaRose]

Maori could be used as an example of preagricultural society and also very isolated one - Maori language has specific word for devoted partner of the same sex and there are historical records from early settlers that homosexuality amongst Maori wasn’t frowned upon.

Early Māori sexuality

Māori sexuality on European arrival When Europeans arrived in New Zealand they found that Māori views of sexuality were different from Western ideas of the time. Māori chiefs would often have more than one wife. Except for puhi (high-born women set aside for a political marriage...

teara.govt.nz

Actually, even in this days and age, I'm sure you could find tiny village lost in Africa, Asia or some other continent where same-sex relationship aren't really frowned upon. I'll try to look it up, but I remember watching a documentary a long time ago where women would take wives, sometimes because they found this partnership easier then taking a husband, or because they had lost their husband and wanted a life partner...etc and it was just the way worked in this tiny village. The main difference between perhaps the case you mentioned and what we're seeing in the West is that there may not be fetishism in these union. It might be a more mature decision reached not because of hormone, but because of your brain. What I'm trying to say is that behaviour related to homosexuality for the most part in the West and elsewhere has been heavily corrupted.

From my point of view, the problem isn't homosexuality per see, but the way it has been presented over the years: cartoonish, excessive, and morally decadent. I'm talking about men taking on women's speech pattern and mannerism, promiscuity and multiple partners, over-zealousness. Nowadays, it's even worse because you have men putting on makeup and dresses and you have women who make themselves look like men. All of this has made homosexuality become a sad performance instead of simply an union of two people who like each other and happen to be of the same sex. The LGBT community is one group where the personal is political.

I think that's why many heterosexual are often repelled. For example, there is a homosexual couple near my home. They have weird pictures of men kissing/ in sexual position stuck on their windows. One in the couple is overtly girly while the other is mainly. It didn't need to be that way. And it is things like that, that creates tension and otherness. Obviously, if as we're discovering these behaviours might be influenced by outside forces, then...there really isn't a solution. But I think the interesting thing would be to discover, how many cases of homosexual are there without all these pathological attributes, if any, and why they are different. But we could still come back to genes. If let's say you come from a family of very rational people who have high pragmatism and intelligence or maybe you have high level of personal cleanliness or disgust, or any other relevant gene combination, then even if you're infected with the "homosexual germ", something in your make-up would prevent you would from pursuing reckless activities.

 

[Jones]

This article is from a pro LGBT news source. It's good that he's talking out against conversion therapy.

Conversion Therapy Group Founder Comes Out As Gay, Issues Apology To LGBT Community

A South Carolina man who founded one of the nation's largest conversion therapy ministries has come out as gay and has issued an apology for his role in

thegailygrind.com

It seems as though he was gay prior to going into leading a conversion therapy group.

 

[Breo]

I find the "Gay germ" hypothesis presented by Laura a real eyopener.

A: You should know that these bloodlines become parasitically infected, harassed and tinkered with whenever a quantum leap of awareness is imminent. .... Such as "now".

This quote is with me since long and I have been thinking about it often.

With the background of the Wave series/forum, I often wondered what influences gays (and there are definitely decent ones) to such overt sexually highly charged behavior of a draining, toxic and addictive kind. The „gay germ“ hypthesis seems very plausible to me as a possible answer and an example that points to the much larger pattern the Cs and Laura are referring to, that „bloodlines become parasitically infected, harassed and tinkered with.“ My interest goes towards the "germ" connection.

Following the Cs statement, who then in the now is not dealing with known or unknown germ infections? After all STS 4D infected us with their parasitic mind virus. And if microbes can influence sexual behavior, what else can and do they influence?

The Cs also say proteins are receivers. It seems to me very likely that after an infection the host will change not only on a physical level. What I am trying to ask is: could it be that these known and unknown species are vectors on their own? With a specific capability to change the host, not only chemically but also energetically and psychically? Responding to a specific frequency pattern? And could these species enable intrusions of other levels? Could there be a link?

 

[Cyre2067]

I'm not seeing any experimental evidence for this hypothesis at any of the links. Did I miss something? His argument seems to consist of "we've ruled everything else out. Here are some other pathogens that alter behavior in other life forms, so the theory is plausible."

That's not a terribly convincing argument.

 

[whitecoast]

I'm not seeing any experimental evidence for this hypothesis at any of the links. Did I miss something? His argument seems to consist of "we've ruled everything else out. Here are some other pathogens that alter behavior in other life forms, so the theory is plausible."

That's not a terribly convincing argument.

I think process of elimination is a good way to find hypotheses to test, but yes to-date there's no smoking gun (i.e. pathogen). Maybe reporting like this will generate enough interest in this kind of research and attract more funding.

The ability of pathogens to influence our health, behavior, and receivership capacity in unexpected and subterranean ways, I think, means that everyone, gay or otherwise, should take a precautionary stance on the subject and not overlook it. It's also worth thinking about the fact that people with different genes can respond to pathogens (or other environmental elements) differently, which may explain why evidence of a genetic link has been inconsistent.

 

[hlat]

If the battle is through us, and as above so below, then it seems disciplined acts everyday for a long time might defeat the infectors. It is not the knowledge alone that helps, because knowledge needs to be applied. So knowledge applied daily.

If we look at the pathogens as below, then the good microbes are overrun by bad microbes, because our bad actions overwhelm correct actions. We look at our actions as a person, to see if we are acting in ways we should not act. Are we drinking, using drugs, having many sexual partners, lying, cheating, abusing others.

The outside forces do not completely destroy consciousness and free will. Even 4D STS seem to want consent to hurt us.

 

[Gwenllian]

I can't be sure of course, but I'd say the vast majority of of heterosexual men (at least in Western countries) are not homophobic (in the way that term is used i.e. some kind of militant and overt anti-gay attitude) but have a biologically-instantiated aversion to homosexuality that they keep under control out of respect for others. A strict reading of the word homophobia is a fair enough from this point of view, it's a similar instinctive aversion to arachnaphobia for example. It's should not to be condemned or 'shamed' out of people any more than other natural phobias. The issue is one of respect for other people while drawing a line at certain personal boundaries.

Thank you for clarifying, Joe. The Netherlands are very open to this 4STS agenda (I don't know anything about other countries) with their 'dark rooms', notorious parking lots along the motorway and parks where men meet to have sex and so on. Where I work the agenda seems to be in full force. The majority of people who are there are (very) conservative, but at the same time the place is into promoting the LGBT agenda. They have this rainbow flag outdoors, special projects for gays and someone told me that the organisation for gays even organises support when other gays have to appear in court (I can't say too much, since this is a public thread). IMO, the government wishes to attract young foreign gays and trans-genders to further promote their agenda and I probably don't even know half of it. There is something very sordid about all of this. FWIW.

 

[Laura]

I can't be sure of course, but I'd say the vast majority of of heterosexual men (at least in Western countries) are not homophobic (in the way that term is used i.e. some kind of militant and overt anti-gay attitude) but have a biologically-instantiated aversion to homosexuality that they keep under control out of respect for others. A strict reading of the word homophobia is a fair enough from this point of view, it's a similar instinctive aversion to arachnaphobia for example. It's should not to be condemned or 'shamed' out of people any more than other natural phobias. The issue is one of respect for other people while drawing a line at certain personal boundaries.

Yes, this is true. I don't think that homosexuals are actually thinking about others at all when they fail to realize that heterosexual people have something like an instinctive aversion to such differences. They aren't thinking about their own advantages, either, when they try to force acknowledgement of their lifestyle. That "forcing" only engenders deep revulsion that may be kept under wraps for a time, but will eventually explode outward with possibly dire consequences.

I don't see a good outcome for the way these issues are being handled in the present time. It's one thing to be homosexual and private about it; something else to demand that this part of the self take center stage. Most heterosexual people do not make an issue of their sexual preferences; it's private, and the overt declarations of gays that "I'm gay! You must embrace me and my lifestyle or you are a bad person" is the direct wrong way to go about this.

 

[Z...]

Abstract A small but important portion of the population is attracted to individuals of the same sex. This phenomenon raises the question, why selection forces have allowed such dispositions to exist in the population. The weak selection pressures hypothesis, argues that same-sex attraction has been the result of weak selection pressures during the period of human evolution. Such pressures were predominantly the consequence of arranged marriage in which individuals, irrespectively of their attractions, are mated to opposite-sex partners. Arranged marriage is more common in societies which base their subsistence on agriculture and animal husbandry than in societies which base their subsistence on hunting and gathering. Accordingly, it is predicted that homosexuality would be more prevalent in the former than in the latter societies. Using anthropolog- ical evidence from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample, the present study finds support for this hypothesis. The evolutionary implications of this evidence are further discussed.”

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Menelaos_Apostolou/publication/311913894_Is_Homosexuality_more_Prevalent_in_Agropastoral_than_in_Hunting_and_Gathering_Societies_Evidence_from_the_Standard_Cross-Cultural_Sample/links/5a434f36aca272d29459ca82/Is-Homosexuality-more-Prevalent-in-Agropastoral-than-in-Hunting-and-Gathering-Societies-Evidence-from-the-Standard-Cross-Cultural-Sample.pdf?origin=publication_detail

 

[luc]

Thank you everyone for sharing, this is fascinating.

One thing that bothers me though is that if you read the comment section on the articles referenced here, at least 70% seems to be about silly evolutionary speculation. Same old running in circles as to why and how this or that could have been "beneficial" to this or that and why it "evolved" and how it must have been in "ancient tribes" but isn't anymore and so on. After reading Behe and David Stove, one can only shake one's head. Especially since the germ theory actually makes those musings even more silly - unless you want to go Dawkins and postulate that a bunch of microbes "evolved" God-like qualities to change people's behavior and sophistically steer organisms for their own demonic purposes, we can safely forget about all these evolutionary fairy tales: someone just put those germs here. How, when and why are the more interesting questions.

The good news is that we don't need to waste our energy on all this and can focus on what matters.

Or am I missing something here?

 

[Laura]

Thank you everyone for sharing, this is fascinating.

One thing that bothers me though is that if you read the comment section on the articles referenced here, at least 70% seems to be about silly evolutionary speculation. Same old running in circles as to why and how this or that could have been "beneficial" to this or that and why it "evolved" and how it must have been in "ancient tribes" but isn't anymore and so on. After reading Behe and David Stove, one can only shake one's head. Especially since the germ theory actually makes those musings even more silly - unless you want to go Dawkins and postulate that a bunch of microbes "evolved" God-like qualities to change people's behavior and sophistically steer organisms for their own demonic purposes, we can safely forget about all these evolutionary fairy tales: someone just put those germs here. How, when and why are the more interesting questions.

The good news is that we don't need to waste our energy on all this and can focus on what matters.

Or am I missing something here?

Yes, the whole thing is based on TOE. They are trying to figure out how something exists that cannot possibly have been selected FOR, etc.

For me, the most curious thing about it is what has been pointed out: some sort of instinctive aversion on the part of most (all?) heterosexual people toward homosexuals that manifests even in small children who have not been exposed to "homophobia", so to say.

I think back to what Lobaczewski said about there being instinctive aversions to DIFFERENCES.

Now, why would that be hard-wired into human beings? Obviously, the most dangerous of predators to the human is the psychopath and they usually are so LIKE us (via their mask) that there is no instinctive warning.

Since we know that evolution of species is bunkum, we still have something of a puzzle here and a germ theory can certainly be in the running as an explanation for some homosexuality. Though I still don't really get the aversion.

 

[DianaRose]

Yes, the whole thing is based on TOE. They are trying to figure out how something exists that cannot possibly have been selected FOR, etc.

For me, the most curious thing about it is what has been pointed out: some sort of instinctive aversion on the part of most (all?) heterosexual people toward homosexuals that manifests even in small children who have not been exposed to "homophobia", so to say.

I think back to what Lobaczewski said about there being instinctive aversions to DIFFERENCES.

Now, why would that be hard-wired into human beings? Obviously, the most dangerous of predators to the human is the psychopath and they usually are so LIKE us (via their mask) that there is no instinctive warning.

Since we know that evolution of species is bunkum, we still have something of a puzzle here and a germ theory can certainly be in the running as an explanation for some homosexuality. Though I still don't really get the aversion.

I may be completely off-mark with this. But I think aversion to homosexuality makes sense within the context of human beings' role/position in this realm. Aversion to homosexuality translate to remaining heterosexual, and hence, facilitate reproduction. If we didn't have any aversion to homosexuality, this means that perhaps there would be a possibility that more people would enter homosexual relationship. What I'm going to say is highly hypothetical. But for example, could there be a chance that two single men/ women who are tired of looking for a partner or didn't have much luck with romance would decide to enter a relationship together simply to have some sort of companionship even though they may not be homosexual in the strict sense of the term? If you had cases like that or similar to this, it would mean that demographic may fall. But the moon needs its food doesn't it? In other words, I think in some ways aversion to homosexuality could be an efficient population control.

Also, hard-wired aversion to difference increase the chance of suffering for both heterosexual and homosexual.

 

[luc]

I may be completely off-mark with this. But I think aversion to homosexuality makes sense within the context of human beings' role/position in this realm. Aversion to homosexuality translate to remaining heterosexual, and hence, facilitate reproduction. If we didn't have any aversion to homosexuality, this means that perhaps there would be a possibility that more people would enter homosexual relationship. What I'm going to say is highly hypothetical. But for example, could there be a chance that two single men/ women who are tired of looking for a partner or didn't have much luck with romance would decide to enter a relationship together simply to have some sort of companionship even though they may not be homosexual in the strict sense of the term? If you had cases like that or similar to this, it would mean that demographic may fall. But the moon needs its food doesn't it? In other words, I think in some ways aversion to homosexuality could be an efficient population control.

Also, hard-wired aversion to difference increase the chance of suffering for both heterosexual and homosexual.

Or, it could be something beneficial that just has been hijacked to create chaos?

What I mean is that humans usually have very close same-sex bonds and deep friendships (men with other men, women with other women). These are actually often based on deep love and affection. So maybe we are designed (or informed by our higher connection?) to be instinctively "disgusted" by homosexual practice to protect these deep bonds, i.e. it keeps us from trying anything homosexual and thus destroying these precious connections.

It's interesting to note that many guys in particular seem to be increasingly weary of showing tenderness and affection to their male friends, despite the "homosexualization" of society. Perhaps they instinctively sense that in this current climate it's easier than ever to "fall" for homosexual experiments that might ruin everything. Or perhaps they are just disgusted with our "homo society" and so avoid anything that even remotely reminds them of homosexuality. In the past, most guys probably didn't even think about such things, much less consider them, and so were more free in forming deeper bonds to their friends or group of friends?

Perhaps this otherwise healthy "homophobia" was hijacked by a divide and conquer operation, an all-too common STS tactic: promote homosexuality on the one hand, while simultaneously amplifying homophobia to the point where our crucial bonds to others from the same sex are weakened or even destroyed, because everything is so messed up. Just speculating of course, could be totally off.

 

[Jones]

Though I still don't really get the aversion.

What if it's not aversion to homosexuality per se, but to some instinctive perception of the germ or the effects that it creates. If I refer back to Yozilla's reaction for example, the feeling behind the aversion that I read in that post seemed to be disgust and that can be a fear of contamination or infection. Thats kind of why I find the germ theory interesting.

There is another take on the fear of contamination or infection - on occasion I've heard expressed one of the fears of homophobia is that homosexuals can make others turn homosexual through ordinary social contact.

 

[Joe]

I don't think that homosexuals are actually thinking about others at all when they fail to realize that heterosexual people have something like an instinctive aversion to such differences.

Well, that tendency to deliberately provoke the sore points of others - a refusal to accept the world as an insoluble 'mixed bag' - seems to have been 'flavor of the month' for the past several decades. Today we are seeing the culmination of that process, where the goal seems to be to expose, to the greatest extent possible, any and all differences between human beings - differences that have been there for all of human history - and then encourage people to 'take a position on' and fight about each issue.

What few people seem to understand anymore is that suffering, discrimination, prejudice and generalized "inequality" in human affairs is a permanent feature. More poignant and personally felt than any externally imposed example of this is the suffering that comes 'unbidden' as a mere function of being alive (I suppose 'god' should be called to account for that one!). We CAN and DO, on an individual and case by case basis, address the worst examples of these injustices in our immediate and broader social lives - and it's not always perfect to say the least - but the push to eradicate them wholesale from the human experience is pure obtuse idiocy and inescapably destined to create social chaos, conflict and discord that will be much worse than the unavoidable injustice and suffering.

In short, people need to try to reconcile themselves to the reality of human existence and the myriad forms of unavoidable suffering that comes with it, stop asserting their supposed 'right' for revenge on, or recompense from, others or other 'groups' as stand-ins for their resentment about the basic 'injustice' of being alive, and stop feeding their narcissism with narratives about victimhood and persecution and the elevation in social status or material goods they think it will bring them.

Life does not exist for any of us to overcome or shut out, it exists for us to assume a responsibility to and for it, to the best of our abilities. That responsibility begins with ourselves as a single unit of life and then extends to those in our immediate environment. Anyone who claims they can or should do more is at best delusional, at worst a dangerous ideologue intent on leading others away from life.