Lion of the Blogosphere

The “gay germ” theory sounds pretty ludicrous to me

If gayness is caused by a germ, then there’d be places where everyone was gay because the germ was widespread in that geographic area, and we’ve never seen anything like that. Furthermore, while there is a huge amount of evidence that personality is genetic, there’s not much evidence of “germs” changing people’s personality.

Gayness as a genetic disorder is more than valid to explain gayness without bringing in germs. Genetic disorders can be widespread. 1 in 12 blacks are carriers for Sickle Cell Anemia, and 1 in 27 Ashkenazi Jews are carriers for Tay Sachs.

My assumptions are: (1) gayness is a more complicated genetic trait than eye color; (2) it’s partially influenced by environment; (3) the gay genes provide some other benefit to make up for the obvious problem that a man who can’t get it up for a women won’t have any offspring.

Furthermore, #3 is not entirely true. In a society which viewed gayness to be abhorrent and that strongly urged men and women to get married, many gay men would indeed get married and have children (while imagining having sex with some man while they did the deed with their wife).

Gay men seem to be much better at singing and dancing and wearing dapper clothes compared to straight men, so they would have an advantage in demonstrating higher value and ironically be better at attracting women than non-gay men. “All the good men are gay” is a commonly heard refrain and there might actually be truth in it.

Perhaps bisexual (partially gay) men are more promiscuous and have stronger sex drives than completely non-gay men, and thus they impregnated more women?

Yes, I think there’s adequate evidence that some gay genes provide a reproductive benefit, thus making up for the problem that having too many gay genes is maladaptive, but not so maladaptive in the past when gayness was deep in the closet.

My theory is that now that gay and bisexual men are encouraged to have relationships with men instead of women, their genes will be culled from the population, and there will be far fewer gay genes in the human population in the future. Which may actually be a bad thing if gay genes are associated with creativity in the arts.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 5, 2019 at EDT am

Posted in Biology

70 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Problem is such a powerful countervailing fertility bump is really hard to identify – the advantage would have to be huge to make up for even a small fertility shortfall among gay men,

    On the other hand, observationally, it sure does seem to run in families.

    Ziel

    February 5, 2019 at EDT am

  2. > gay genes provide some other benefit to make up for the obvious problem that a man who can’t get it up for a women won’t have any offspring

    This is a variant of group selection theory, which doesn’t really pencil out on a mathematical basis.

    There is no particular reason to posit that homosexuality has a genetic basis. Why even start there? It’s a strange bias of yours.

    We already know from animal research what circumstances produce disordered sexuality.

    bobbybobbob

    February 5, 2019 at EDT am

    • “We already know from animal research what circumstances produce disordered sexuality.”

      That’s a cause for sure, but not necessarily the source of all causality.

      MoreSigmasThanYou

      February 5, 2019 at EDT am

    • I don’t think that Lion is talking about group selection here, but about a sickle cell-like case where there are potential benefits to the individual in addition to the downsides of having those genes. Or, maybe more aptly, consider the genes that are associated with risk of Tay-Sachs and other congenital conditions in Ashkenazi Jews. They appear to have arisen under conditions of intense selection for IQ among medieval European Jews. In these cases, the downside is even worse for fitness than homosexuality is: it’s death. And yet those alleles still increase fitness overall. Apparently the advantages more than offset the risk of severe malfunction.

      Blue Tribe Dissident

      February 6, 2019 at EDT am

  3. Things like a very hypothetical gay gene or germ are easier to believe in if you accept that the number of “gay by nature” people is pretty small.

    Most people engaged in gay sex are experimenting. They have been conditioned by society to accept homosexuality as ok and for some people that means experimenting with it.

    For most gay people they are suffering a mental abnormality just like the DSMIII used to classify.

    There are a very small number of inherently gay people that are that way either from a pre natal infection or a gene.

    Of course, no one has been able to find a gay gene yet. But they are starting to find viruses and germs that apparently influence behavior, so we will see.

    Paul Rise

    February 5, 2019 at EDT am

    • If we don’t believe in “gay by nature” people, can we believe in “straight by nature” people?

      MoreSigmasThanYou

      February 5, 2019 at EDT am

      • Yes. There’s a huge evolutionary advantage in being instinctively sexually attracted to opposite sex members of the same species. Your chances of reproducing go way up.

        There’s no obvious evolutionary advantage to being gay. I can think of a couple of group-selectionist possibilities, but anything that smacks of group selection is controversial by default.

        Peregrino Nuzkwamia

        February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

    • Free will doesn’t exist.

      JayMan

      February 6, 2019 at EDT am

  4. My own theory is that people who identify as gay are more open to new experiences, or to try things that go against societal norms (pretty sure there’s a big 5 trait that correlates with this). Sex feels good, and if you can get over any disgust you may have with gay sex, then gay sex would feel good.
    Ergo, if you enjoy gay sex , then you are gay (or bi).
    The whole narrative of “knowing I was gay since I was three” part is probably nonsense. But being open to new experiences, and conflating that with being gay would explain why gay people are found predominantly in creative industries.

    Half Canadian

    February 5, 2019 at EDT am

    • Yeah, I agree with this. It would explain the relatively low heritability.

      Homosexual identity is a cult. The majority of homosexuals could have sex with women instead, if they chose, and the subset that couldn’t is much smaller than 1.5 -2 percent. The number of non-negotiable homos is a lot lower, like 0.1 percent, if that.

      People have remarkable ability to rationalize their choices, which you allude to.

      Lowe

      February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

    • A gay guy told me that when he found his dad’s porno mags as a young kid he was fascinated with the weiners and could care less about the women. That is 100% opposite of my experience. He also had other stereotypical gay traits.

      Something tells me it’s genetic.

      Curle

      February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

  5. Wouldn’t there be greater sibling congruence if gayness were genetic? Maybe it’s an epigenetic event which would account for twin sexuality congruence.

    toomanymice

    February 5, 2019 at EDT am

    • Yes, this is one of the biggest problems with arguing it’s purely genetic. It’s around 65% concordant among identical twins as I recall. This is very low. Ironically, I’ve seen it argued that anti-homosexual feelings are more heritable than homosexuality itself.

      For Tay Sachs, which Lion named, concordance is, I believe, 100%, or very close to it.

      Wency

      February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

      • More like 25% for cases where at least one twin in gay.

        JayMan

        February 6, 2019 at EDT am

  6. Seems like good reasoning, except gayness as a genetic disorder might have persisted despite not having any benefits when mild. Maybe it just never faced serious selection against it.

    To know you’d have to quantify how big a disadvantage it is, and how common it truly is. Cochran has made an argument like this, but those things are hard to quantify. There are degrees of homosexuality, and I think full homos are rare.

    I don’t buy the idea that mild gayness confers a direct reproductive advantage. Being dapper and good at dancing is not a a good strategy for men wanting to mate. Men who have a lot of children aren’t like that. They are masculine. Men in traditional marriages, religious polygamists, and ghetto daddies come to mind.

    Mild gayness did not confer a direct reproductive edge in the past, either. Masculine men had the most children then, only they were knights, raiders, successful merchants, or corrupt clergy. Relative femininity has no mating rewards for men.

    The only advantage I can see that being mildly gay is for survival. A mildly gay man is less likely to be seen as a threat by other men, less likely to volunteer for the armed forces, or to be sought as a soldier. Maybe they just lived longer and had more chances to impregnate a woman.

    Lowe

    February 5, 2019 at EDT am

    • Mild gayness did not confer a direct reproductive edge in the past, either

      No, in fact many monarchs, who we now suspect of being gay, seemed to have a lot of difficulty fathering children, despite the fact that they were married and under public pressure to produce offspring. Richard the Lionhearted, Louis XVI and Frederick the Great all spring to mind. Despite these “gay genes” not being passed on, gay men continue to be born. Gayness is probably a side-effect of some other advantageous mutation (like intelligence).

      Peter Akuleyev

      February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

  7. No argument here overall but you’ve got women’s plaint wong. Even if they used to say all the “good” men are gay, what they really meant was the men who enjoyed going shopping.

    Marty

    February 5, 2019 at EDT am

  8. Another good post.

    Been on a roll.

    Curle

    February 5, 2019 at EDT am

  9. Hunter Gatherers in Africa claim homosexuality doesn’t exist among themselves.

    chris

    February 5, 2019 at EDT am

    • Don’t they also claim that you can give people the evil eye, etc?

      Lowe

      February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

  10. Gayness has to be genetic, and therefore has to be passed through the mother as much as the father. Until 15 years ago, it was way too hard of a path to “choose,” and yet 1-3% of the population was gay.
    Sure, there are some gay dads who passed it down to their sons while trying to fit in to mainstream society by marrying, but it still would have met a genetic bottleneck if that was the only hereditary channel.

    DN Poolside

    February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

    • there are a lot of hard paths that people choose. Affairs, addiction, obesity, etc.
      All of them have some sort of reward center. No one is arguing that homosexual behaviors don’t provide some sort of reward.
      Except for people trying to argue in bad faith.

      Half Canadian

      February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

    • 15 years ago, 2004? Did you mean to write that? It has been relatively easier to be openly gay, for longer than that. Starting sometime in the 70s American society started getting more accepting of gays. By the 80s gays really weren’t under threat of violence or legal repression, anywhere in the US.

      Lowe

      February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

      • DN Poolside must be 15 year old, so does not remember what was before 2004. It was always easy to be gay anywhere.

        My 2¢

        February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

      • As long as you could keep your head down, not seek public office or anything like that, then you could be a practicing homo in the West starting hundreds of years ago. Probably Napoleonic times. Any earlier than that, though, and you would probably be killed if a lot of people found out.

        But you couldn’t be publicly homosexual, or have bars or restaurants catering mostly to homos, until the latter half of the 20th century. I think the laws were liberalized a little earlier in Europe, though someone else will have to say for sure.

        Lowe

        February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

  11. Lion, if you haven’t already, you need to read Greg Cochoran’s (The 10,000 Year Explosion) take on this:

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/depths-of-madness/

    Rusty Shackleford

    February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

    • JayMan has a good roundup of links to Greg Cochran’s posts on his gay germ hypothesis:

      https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/greg-cochrans-gay-germ-hypothesis-an-exercise-in-the-power-of-germs/

      MEH 0910

      February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

      • He has. Lion already posted the same theory some time ago about Cochran hypothesis and we found the same hypothesis that gay genes must be polygenic, like autism, and at a certain level, with maybe some environnemental causes, it crystallized into a sexual orientation

        Bruno

        February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

    • I was about to post this link but scrolled down and sure enough someone had beaten me to the gun. But yeah!

      Kosher Kowboy

      February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

  12. The sickle-cell gene is good for you if you get one copy (it protects you from malaria), and you live in an environment where there are malaria-carrying mosquitoes. It’s only if you get two copies that it becomes crippling and life-threatening. The trait persists in populations because the individuals who benefit by getting one copy far outnumber the unfortunates who get two copies.

    Peregrino Nuzkwamia

    February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

    • It depends on the total number who got the genes in the first place. And the interest is related to the mortality rate linked to the disease. The benefit is when the number of people killed before of having two alleles is inferior to the number of people saved by having one allele ….

      Bruno

      February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

      • Whether the genes are very rare or very common, they may still be advantageous, depending on the prevalence of malaria. If they are rare at first, but significantly protect their beards from malaria, they will become common. If they are common, but malaria is rare, they will tend to become rare.

        Peregrino Nuzkwamia

        February 9, 2019 at EDT am

  13. Alright Lion, you’ve presented a good theory but to make it credible you need to back it up with some examples from Star Trek.

    Armando

    February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

  14. “If gayness is caused by a germ, then there’d be places where everyone was gay because the germ was widespread in that geographic area, and we’ve never seen anything like that.”

    If homosexuality is caused by an autoimmune disease (triggered by the gay germ) that targets a relevant part of the body itself, not everyone infected with the gay germ is going to have the autoimmune reaction.

    MEH 0910

    February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

  15. gayness like all behavioural phenotypes is likely polygenic. two straight people are able to produce a gay bc when their genes combine it can produce the polygenic combination that inclines people towards homosexuality. thats how homosexuality can keep emerging when it should be selected out, its a random genetic recombination effect.

    james n.s.w

    February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

    • Even if it was due to non-additive genetic effects (which would lead to higher concordance in identical twins if so), it would have an average additive effect, and so would be selected out (or at the very least be much rarer than it is).

      JayMan

      February 6, 2019 at EDT am

  16. Explain ancient Greece, if it was a germ.

    gothamette

    February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

    • I don’t think ancient Greece was as gay as we’ve been led to believe. Rather, I think the amount of homosexuality in ancient Greece has been overstated as part of the agenda to legitimize homosexuality. Not that there weren’t homos in the ancient Greek city-states. But there are gay communities in every major city. There always have been. Homos are attracted to cities because it’s easier for them to fit in (or at least not stand out) and find other homos to screw.

      destructure

      February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

      • No, ancient Greece truly was extremely gay, or rather bisexual.

        They had gay sex pottery and there are many mentions of it in their literature. Sappho of Lesbos’s poetry gave us the word lesbian. The famous Zeno paradox guy lived in the woods with his lover. Plato was mildly negative about homosexuality and still wrote a lot of stuff about it. He portrayed the more mainstream pro-gay position he disagreed with in the Symposium. Pederastry was considered completely normal. And then there was the Sacred Band of Thebes. And then you have Achilles and Patroclus.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles_and_Patroclus

        Pop

        February 6, 2019 at EDT am

    • If it were a germ, then probably it only affects you when you are a kid. So pederasty might cause it, in boys who were susceptible. Which means there would be a ratcheting effect as homosexual pederasts gained prominence.

      “Prolier Than Thou” pointed out this might happen, even if it weren’t a germ, just learned behavior for the few with some genetic predisposition. So Greece is not proof either way, just proof homosexuality can become commonplace in a society.

      Lowe

      February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

    • There are ~80,000 recovered Greek vases from the classical city-states era, and roughly 600 of them depict homoerotic themes. How gay was Greece exactly?

      Panther of the Blogosphere

      February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

  17. Homosexuality is less genetic than TB. Why is TB genetic? Because there are genes defending against it, either specific defenses, or the general strategy of HLA diversity in the immune system.

    Yes, if there’s a gay germ, it’s probably super common so that we don’t see clusters. Something that everyone gets, like the common cold, or Epstein-Barr. 90% of Americans test positive for EB. Yet only a small number get mono and even smaller get narcolepsy or MS, yet those are also caused by EB. If EB can cause the immune system to attack a few brain cells and induce narcolepsy, then it is totally plausible that a similar mechanism can produce homosexuality.

    Anonymous

    February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

  18. “If gayness is caused by a germ, then there’d be places where everyone was gay because the germ was widespread in that geographic area”

    For the most part, everyone is gay in San Francisco.

    Living in a bubble

    February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

  19. “…and ironically be better at attracting women than non-gay men. ”

    lion is forgetting that almost all gay men are weak, effeminate, shallow, ridiculous, etc…huge turn off…i hope.

    “…bad thing if gay genes are associated with creativity in the arts.”

    no. that would be a good thing. no art is good art.

    twin studies are garbage which enormously exaggerate the effect of genes on behavior/personality, but even twin studies don’t agree. some of them find a very small heritability. but the studies agree that male homosexuality is much more heritable than lesbianism.

    and lion is right, as norm macdonald said, “i don’t think there are any gay people. they’re all straight. because homosexuals have married and reproduced and not been miserable while straights marrying some one of the same gender couldn’t stand it.”

    is the pope a racist?

    February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

  20. “If gayness is caused by a germ, then there’d be places where everyone was gay because the germ was widespread in that geographic area, and we’ve never seen anything like that. Furthermore, while there is a huge amount of evidence that personality is genetic, there’s not much evidence of “germs” changing people’s personality.”

    Not necessarily.

    RE the germ theory. Maybe the fetus is only affected if it has specific genes that are susceptible. If the germs were widespread then the homos would be distributed evenly. But there would still be a small number homos because only a small number of fetus’s had that combination of genes.

    RE evidence of germs changing personality. Studies show that toxoplasma gondii can change a person’s personality. Other studies show a correlation between infection and schizophrenia. That’s one of the reasons cats are a risk factor in schizophrenia.

    https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/9/11/03-0143_article

    “Which may actually be a bad thing if gay genes are associated with creativity in the arts.”

    That’s sarcasm right? You’re being sarcastic kind of like when you said we need immigrants so that we can have foreign themed restaurants?

    destructure

    February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

    • I’m not being sarcastic. Creativity in the arts is a good thing, it what’s make Western culture Western culture.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

      • Western culture isn’t defined by queers. Regardless, the “arts” is not what makes Western culture Western culture. I expected you to be a deeper and more independent thinker than that.

        destructure

        February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

      • I am not sure at all creativity is the domain of gays in most arts, with one exception, fashion. Music certainly is not, the majority of film directors, painters, chefs, writers and sculptures are not gay at all and a lot of the gay art is very mainstream and limited to a very specific domain of pop and kitsch. They usually join movements after the straights created them and just perpetuate the art or become the consumers of it, but not the originators. I got a feeling gays got a lot of PR which is a bit misleading.

        Hashed

        February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

      • The arts are assigned too much importance in society at present anyway. Too many people screwing around looking for “self-actualization” rather than doing the relatively boring things that produce tangible, positive outcomes for our society.

        Just a hundred years ago, people saw actors as grifters, same as they viewed pickpockets. Guess what? They had it right.

        driveallnight

        February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

      • “Western culture isn’t defined by queers.”

        Don’t tell the gays that. I live in a city where the library system is allegedly dominated by gays (gays hiring gays). Was checking out a Shakespeare analysis book not too long ago and the check out guy gives me an odd look and says ‘have you heard Shakespeare was gay?’ I replied in the affirmative and high tailed it out of there.

        Curle

        February 6, 2019 at EDT am

    • It’s ironic that Lion posts “there’s not much evidence that germs cause changes in personality” about a week after all of the news articles indicating that new research is showing that Alzheimer’s Disease may be caused by oral pathogens migrating to the brain.

      Panther of the Blogosphere

      February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

    • toxoplasma gondii is the only example we have of a germ causing complex behavioral changes. Yet we have a million examples of genes and non-germ environment causing strange behavior that reduces reproduction.

      TG’s effect on human behavior can happen at any age of infection, and is fairly subtle with multiple types or changes. Shutting off heterosexual desire and starting homosexual desire with an infection is really different.

      We’d also see decreasing homosexuality after the advent of antibiotics, and higher rates in areas with poor hygiene and medical care. Instead it seems exclusive homosexuality is the same 2-3% of males and 1% of females everywhere it isn’t aggressively suppressed.

      Pop

      February 6, 2019 at EDT am

      • Pops — Earlier, you claimed “ancient Greece truly was extremely gay, or rather bisexual.” Now you claim that it’s the “same 2-3% of males and 1% of females everywhere it isn’t aggressively suppressed.” Hmmm….

        destructure

        February 6, 2019 at EDT pm

  21. There’s a correlation between homosexuality and fertility on the mother’s side of the family. The theory is that whatever makes men like men makes women like men more. So the negative effects of homos not having children are balanced against the positive effects of female relatives having more children. This means hoes are more likely to have homos in the family. Which is a good reason not to screw tramps or else you might end up with a queer kid.

    There’s also a correlation between birth order and homosexuality. Apparently, the risk of a son being homo increases with birth order. So the last born son is more likely to be homo than first born sons. Of course, this might have less to do with birth order than age. As the parents would be older when they had their last sons than their first.

    destructure

    February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

    • The birth order issue is interesting, it could indicate an issue with parent age or an infection imparted in the womb.

      Paul Rise

      February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

      • Or it could be that multiple births alters a woman’s hormones, immune system, etc for subsequent births. Kind of how Rh negative mothers develop an immune reaction to an Rh positive fetus. Often the first pregnancy is fine but the next one isn’t. Because the mother’s immune system sees the Rh positive as an infection. So it might not need to even be an actual infection to have an effect.

        destructure

        February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

    • Specifically fraternal birth order. Michael Jackson seemed gay and he had many older brothers (one died really young)

      pumpkinperson

      February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

    • Both such claimed relationships are tenuous at best.

      JayMan

      February 6, 2019 at EDT am

  22. Don’t be sad 🙂 … gays are using insemination techniques, so they are spreading their genes as before (or more !).

    The gay that reproduce today is like the ancient closeted gay, a bit more conservative than the ones who only like cruising in toilets and taking drugs.

    It’s even good for gays, because it’s the elite gay that has kids. The trashies can’t (surrogates must be very expansive).

    Bruno

    February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

  23. I think the hypothesis is that there’s genetic vulnerability for gayness which is expressed only if the person is exposed to the gay germ early in development. The germ is a necessary but not a sufficient cause–genetic vulnerability is needed as well. Similarly, gastric ulcers are genetically heritable even when though 90% of the time they are caused by H pylori infection–both the germ and the genetic vulnerability are needed.

    Matt

    February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

  24. make up for the obvious problem that a man who can’t get it up

    Not gay, but erectile dysfunction is never a problem with my $1/pill knockoff, 100 mg Viagra from India.

    E. Rekshun

    February 5, 2019 at EDT pm

  25. I don’t think you really understand the gay germ hypothesis because you don’t really understand how infection works. And you also don’t know how infection-caused disease works, especially with infections which linger in the body for decades. People who do understand, like Robert Trivers, William Hamilton & Paul Ewald all acknowledged that Cochran’s idea had merit. I actually read Ewald’s book, after I read Cochran’s these and realized he had a very strong case.

    Clearly, it’s possible to have a specific brain function or process manipulated by a parasite, there are 1000s of examples in the animal kingdom — which humans are part of. In fact, the smallest parasites do exactly that: focused manipulation. Also, gayness clearly is both natural (who would choose to be disadvantaged in life?) and not genetic (because it would quickly die out, do the math: TFR is very low), so a germ is a very likely candidate.

    Gay men, on average, suffer from other problems as well, which also indicate an impacted brain area; depression, substance abuse. Just because gay men are more often, say, ballet dancers does indicate feminization of some sort, but from a germ analysis, it is not very interesting. All gay gene studies have come up short, by the way. Why hold on to an increasing unlikely hypothesis? Seems weird to me.

    Maciano

    February 6, 2019 at EDT am

  26. You don’t understand pathogens very well, so this isn’t a good topic for you to comment on.

    If gayness is caused by a germ, then there’d be places where everyone was gay because the germ was widespread in that geographic area

    Cities.

    Also, the idea is that the gay germ is a semi-common infection that rarely results in homosexuality in the infected. There are plenty of infectious agents that only cause ailments in a minority of hosts (e.g., HPV, Epstein-Barr).

    Furthermore, while there is a huge amount of evidence that personality is genetic, there’s not much evidence of “germs” changing people’s personality.

    Also, read about other species

    https://www.livescience.com/47751-zombie-fungus-picky-about-ant-brains.html

    Gayness as a genetic disorder is more than valid to explain gayness without bringing in germs.

    No, because of several problems:

    1 Low heritability. Less than 22%. Identical twins where one is gay are discordant for sexual orientation upwards of 75% of the time.

    2 Too common and too deleterious. Even if genes were mostly responsible, a genetic defect with that kind of fitness hit (for a man, lack of interest in women is a huge drawback) cannot exist at 3% prevalence. Other fitness reducing disorders are much rarer (the more deleterious, the rarer).

    Genetic disorders can be widespread. 1 in 12 blacks are carriers for Sickle Cell

    What kind of selective pressure on par with falciparum malaria have gays been exposed to? It takes a rare set of circumstances for something that harmful to be evolutionarily favored. And even if so, see the previous point.

    the gay genes provide some other benefit to make up for the obvious problem that a man who can’t get it up for a women won’t have any offspring.

    Like what? Even the very best case scenario, concentrating all your parental effort into close relatives (nieces/nephews) would require you to help at least four survive that otherwise wouldn’t in order to be evolutionarily favored. The math doesn’t work out.

    Furthermore, #3 is not entirely true. In a society which viewed gayness to be abhorrent and that strongly urged men and women to get married, many gay men would indeed get married and have children (while imagining having sex with some man while they did the deed with their wife).

    Sure, but on net, those men are going to have lower fitness than straight men. Competition for mates between men was fierce. How do you think men who weren’t even trying would fare? Even a tiny selective disadvantage would cause said genes to disappear over evolutionary time.

    Gay men seem to be much better at singing and dancing and wearing dapper clothes compared to straight men, so they would have an advantage in demonstrating higher value and ironically be better at attracting women than non-gay men

    Are they? I don’t think that has been demonstrated statistically. Further, as I often say to these points, wouldn’t it better to have those characteristic and not be gay? How does the homosexuality help?

    Perhaps bisexual (partially gay) men are more promiscuous and have stronger sex drives than completely non-gay men, and thus they impregnated more women

    Bisexuality is less common in men than homosexuality. Which is a clue.

    Of course there are other things, like the fact that male sexual orientation isn’t continuously distributed (it’s decidedly J-shaped) that point to something going on.

    The idea that is some sort of compensatory advantage for gay genes is silly. And like I said, we run up against the heritability problem. No, rather, what we see is what we expect if we were looking at an equilibrium arms race between pathogen and host.

    JayMan

    February 6, 2019 at EDT am

    • The “gay germ” people always resort to “you don’t understand biology!!!!!”

      Cochran is a state u professor of physics. JayMan is a random Jamaican guy. While both are smart, their attempt to pull rank and argue from authority against Lion and his commentators is laughable.

      None responded to my main point. We have a billion different human behaviors that reduce reproduction. We also only have one single example of an infection causing specific odd behavior in human beings. And that one example is nothing like homosexuality.

      Pop

      February 8, 2019 at EDT pm

    • Liking BJs a lot makes men have less sex. Even a 1% reduction in children from all the BJs would get weeded out by evolution.

      Ergo, liking BJs is caused by a virus.

      Pop

      February 8, 2019 at EDT pm

      • If you think blowjobs reduce fitness you’re a fool.

        JayMan

        February 8, 2019 at EDT pm

      • You don’t think the strong preference for BJs some men have reduces the chance of them conceiving?

        Pop

        February 9, 2019 at EDT pm

  27. John Derbyshire wrote the definitive article on this back in 2005…

    https://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/metaphysicssciencehomosex.html

    Thagomizer

    February 12, 2019 at EDT am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: