The Gay "Germ" Hypothesis

[hlat]

If existence is really informational and not really material, then maybe the cause of homosexuality is the receipt of harmful information and the lack of receipt of needed information. Imprinting at key developmental stages would fit nicely within that concept. And germs could gain a beachhead in a person who has been applying harmful information or not applying good information. So maybe there's more than one material cause of homosexuality, which are at the root informational causes.

What are germs anyways? They are created living things, like we are created living things. For what purpose were they created (STO) or hijacked/tinkered/repurposed (STS)?

 

[Hindsight Man]

what about gay animals?
and ''natural'' aversion ,really? there were gay people among hunter/gatherers ,accepted,respected and often valued for their artistic talents
this phobia shtick seems to be a ''new'' thing (new as in neo as in Neolithic ),must be all those plants,lol,

Well animals also have plenty of child murderers,rapists and necrophiliacs among their ranks.I don't think that looking to animals is the defense that you think it is.

 

[Gwenllian]

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.

I remember an interview with Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke who played Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, commenting on their friendship and a scene where they were walking in the streets arm in arm when it was still possible to do so (at the end of the 19th century). No talk of homosexuality then.

It's so sad that these deep friendships between men have been destroyed and hypersexualised. Imagine what people would say nowadays if single men were to live together, just because they can't afford the rent as was the case with Holmes and Watson.

 

[luc]

If our Designer chose to create--for whatever reasons we might theorize--hundreds of "unnecessary" varieties of birds, butterflies, fish, flowers and faces with a dozen different eye colors, isn't it conceivable that same Designer also created a few varieties of human sexual attraction?

Only 8% of the global population have blue eyes but no one views that as a sickness to be healed or prevented--in fact their rarity makes them all the more appreciated and valued.

I get your point, but what bothers me about this is that you make it sound as if the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is completely trivial, which is just another way of saying "they aren't really different". This seems to be one of the lefty contradictions - aren't we supposed to celebrate diversity, i.e. difference? But at the same time, they say "we are all the same!". You can't have it both ways, it seems to me.

So, having established that the difference between homos and heteros is much, much bigger than let's say the difference between blue-eyed and brown-eyed folks, the question is - are those who are the norm "better"? Well, how about: all there is is lessons, and each one of us came here to experience different challenges?

In that view, new possibilities open up. For example, it's hard to deny that gays are on average much more promiscuous and fixated on sex in general. Perhaps many of them came here to learn how to get a grip on that? And maybe in past times, men who (like cyre said) are attracted to men but sometimes also to women, simply would have married one of the women they feel attracted to and decided against expressing their homosexual urges? What's so bad about this? I'm sure there were quite a few awesome gay dads and husbands back then. Or bachelors who didn't express their sexuality at all but focused on other things.

But of course, liberals are completely horrified about such ideas. They tend to glorify sex and think sexual expression is a road to liberation. Newsflash: sex isn't everything in life, far from it in fact. What a concept! And we all, gay or not, have to control our sexual urges, express them responsibly, and often consciously decide not to express them. Maybe it's just that this can be harder for gays. But well, each one of us has issues to deal with. Here's another great challenge that can lead to growth!

I'm not saying that we should go back to criminalizing homosexuality or anything like that. But as always, the picture is more complex than "good" vs. "bad". And a sense of entitlement, lack of external consideration, and hypersexuality have never helped anybody progress, whatever acts of sexuality they fancy.

 

[Keit]

It's so sad that these deep friendships between men have been destroyed and hypersexualised. Imagine what people would say nowadays if single men were to live together, just because they can't afford the rent as was the case with Holmes and Watson.

Here's this image, for example, of the propaganda posters in the Soviet Union times. Notice the writing on the picture in the bottom right corner. It says "friendship forever". During this time there was a certain naivete, and although among themselves people could roll their eyes at this propaganda, they didn't think immediately about "homosexuality". But that's how it is viewed now.

 

[Ant22]

It's so sad that these deep friendships between men have been destroyed and hypersexualised. Imagine what people would say nowadays if single men were to live together, just because they can't afford the rent as was the case with Holmes and Watson.

Where I live, in London, plenty of single men and women live together in house shares due to skyrocketing costs of living. Even people on really decent income choose house sharing as living on your own simply eats up too high a percentage of one's income. Since those living arrangements are considered normal and due to their prevalence they aren't in any way sexualised by the community, it's usually a go-to option for single people wanting to save money - or simply wanting friendly companionship.

Things may be different in other places where renting a flat is more affordable but I have friends from pretty much all over the world and many of them lived in shared accommodation before moving to London. So it's not just a London thing. I suspect that increasing costs of living and stagnant salaries will likely force more and more people to resort to this living arrangement as living on your own will become more and more unaffordable.

 

[DianaRose]

I remember an interview with Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke who played Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, commenting on their friendship and a scene where they were walking in the streets arm in arm when it was still possible to do so (at the end of the 19th century). No talk of homosexuality then.

It's so sad that these deep friendships between men have been destroyed and hypersexualised. Imagine what people would say nowadays if single men were to live together, just because they can't afford the rent as was the case with Holmes and Watson.

I think perhaps, you might have a view of friendship that is a bit too romantic. What makes you think that deep friendship between men have been destroyed? Or that they were there to begin with? And what does deep friendship even mean? Also, are deep friendship possible in the world we live regardless of sexual orientation? A lot of friendship I see between men or even women are coercive with people not necessarily liking each other but still hanging together or constantly criticise each other behind each other's back etc. There's also a lot of hidden or over jealousy...etc. What I'm trying to say is that things aren't so black and white. Human relationship, including friendship are complex and involve many different dynamics. Besides, as Ants22 pointed out, it's very common for men and women to live together in places like London and nobody thinks of sexuality. If there was no rent issue, I don't think most people would want to live with their friends, unless perhaps they're both old with nobody else in their immediate family.

 

[Konstantin]

I think this is a crucial point. I don't think the "aversion" is towards a germ infection per se, allthough one can suppose that given that viruses and such may carry a certain signature in the information field that could be picked up by certain individuals, but rather to the symptoms, namely the "abnormality" and the promiscuity that is implied by the overt identification. The same avertion is present for such abnormalities as incest or an old man marrying a young woman who could be his daughter or granddaughter. One must notice the aversion to promiscuous women among heterosexual men, even if one would use "evolutional psychology" to argue otherwise.

As an insignificant anecdote, we had dinner once with a private homosexual, and depite evrybody knowing it, there was no tension whatsoever. On the other occasion his partner came, and this one had exagerated mannerisms that one could describe as a bad caricature of a old woman. Things were different this time because all he talked about was sex-related things. It made everybody uncomfortable, including the first person.

I also agree with this. The aversion comes because of the heterosexual majority on this planet are forced to accept one deviation among the population as a new normal.
In the last few decades this movement of promoting homosexuality as a new normal and organizing manifestations on the streets all over the world promoting not just homosexuality but also other deviant forms of behavior. I think that this is the reason for aversion toward homosexuality.
They go to extremes and they are promoting this even in schools and school books. And this way of promotion is so aggressive that it is creating an aversion toward homosexuality because people feel that the natural state of things is endangered. They fear for their children.

Homosexuality should stay private, without agressive promotions and things like that. No parades of naked lunatics across the streets.
Then it is ok, It is your choice. Same as the normal heterosexual people do that. They do not organize crazy parades across the streets promoting their sexuality. It is nonsense.
It is probably part of the Divide and conquers plan as others have already said. I don't see any reason for this aggressive promotions. To make as biggest as possible aversion between homosexual and heterosexual people.

 

[biala84]

Maybe some people cannot understand very well their nature and i think this is the main problem. Their confused people in their heads :D To don't feel free and to don't feel. For me for example woman is constructed to feel pleasure with a man while for example is having sex and i'm not going to change it :) I will remind also that is important to know with who, while transfering the energy :) What i realized that many people who were abused or something happend to them negative when they were young they skirt to have contact and open themself. As i see after this article that maybe also bacterias can provoke this kind of emotions in young children.
When i lived in amsterdam i saw a lot abberations realted to this topic :) Because some people feel superiority and they prefere dominate then be a person. This one i don't accept :)

 

[Michal]

I'm pretty sure it's not.

Joe, English lesson for me please. In this reply did You mean:
1. Aversion is not natural = learned response
2. Aversion is natural = not a learned response
?

 

[Joe]

Joe, English lesson for me please. In this reply did You mean:
1. Aversion is not natural = learned response
2. Aversion is natural = not a learned response
?

Aversion is not a learned response.

 

[JGeropoulas]

So if a cohesive tribe serves an educational function as a product of experience and previous learning...

For a tribe to be genuinely cohesive, it seems it must encourage honesty and accept the diversity of its members as a means of expanding the tribes' collective experience and learning. Enforcing a false conformity may provide a superficial benefit of some kind, but is ultimately promotes embracing a false reality which is always detrimental.

We have seen no evidence that the majority of the LGBT group or their supporters are aware of ponerology, in fact we're seeing quite the opposite, as we do in most groups.

As with most minority groups, it's a mistake to speak of the "majority" of that group based upon the most extreme or vocal members showcased by the media. There are many members of the LGBT group--at least the LGB members of it--who never come to your attention because they are quietly going about living their lives. But I would agree that most people on this planet are probably not aware of ponerology, otherwise psychopaths would not have such a strong grip on humanity.

 

[JGeropoulas]

Well animals also have plenty of child murderers,rapists and necrophiliacs among their ranks.I don't think that looking to animals is the defense that you think it is.

Likewise, the "natural vs. unnatural" argument often used to disparage homosexuality is not the unassailable rationale many think it is. It is "natural" that fatal toxins exist in plants and that some animals deceive their prey in order to eat them or kill off their rivals so they can impregnate their mates.

 

[JGeropoulas]

I get your point, but what bothers me about this is that you make it sound as if the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is completely trivial, which is just another way of saying "they aren't really different". This seems to be one of the lefty contradictions - aren't we supposed to celebrate diversity, i.e. difference? But at the same time, they say "we are all the same!". You can't have it both ways, it seems to me.

In some ways, homosexual people are exactly like heterosexual people. In other ways--usually inconceivable to the heterosexual majority--homosexual people's experiences are vastly different from those heterosexual people who've grown up in a congruent, majority culture. I think we should accept and respect the existence of diversity, but not necessarily celebrate--or reflexively fear and condemn--it.

So, having established that the difference between homos and heteros is much, much bigger than let's say the difference between blue-eyed and brown-eyed folks, the question is - are those who are the norm "better"? Well, how about: all there is is lessons, and each one of us came here to experience different challenges?

I completely agree, but that principle also applies to heterosexual people, who have many potential lessons and challenges presented to them by the presence of homosexual people. This reminds me of a saying, "God gave us families to teach us how to get along with people we'd never choose to be around".

 

[DianaRose]

For a tribe to be genuinely cohesive, it seems it must encourage honesty and accept the diversity of its members as a means of expanding the tribes' collective experience and learning. Enforcing a false conformity may provide a superficial benefit of some kind, but is ultimately promotes embracing a false reality which is always detrimental.

As with most minority groups, it's a mistake to speak of the "majority" of that group based upon the most extreme or vocal members showcased by the media. There are many members of the LGBT group--at least the LGB members of it--who never come to your attention because they are quietly going about living their lives. But I would agree that most people on this planet are probably not aware of ponerology, otherwise psychopaths would not have such a strong grip on humanity.

But I think that's where the issue lie. Diversity it seems to me is mostly a myth. In a tribe there cannot be any kind of diversity for cohesion to exist. Aversion to Others is real and generally people are only comfortable with people that are like themselves. Besides, as a minority, you need to consider if your experience is relatable to the majority and if the majority would find your input valuable. The answer to that varies greatly. The majority needs honesty and charity within its own group to survive and thrive, but it doesn't need to be charitable to outsiders to ensure its own wellbeing. Generally speaking, the only option for the minority if it wants to remain and be accepted into the larger tribe is to shut out its difference provided it is a difference that can be buried or ignored.

How can I say this? I don't think people are meant to be happily living together. We're all separate little tribes and that's that.