In the "not as wacky as it sounds" department, I propose that the primary driving force of the the successes of progressive liberal ideology over the past 100+ years is not philosophy or politics, but an unknown pathogen picked up by Europeans from the native tribes of North America.

Anthropologist Peter Frost has recently been posting overviews of various theories about the causes of male homosexuality in humans. It's a biologically interesting phenomenon because it has a severe negative impact on reproductive fitness, yet is fairly common. He has pointed out that homosexuality as we know it today may be quite different than it used to be, and both homosexuals and heterosexuals have been becoming more woman-like in terms of their taste in mates and their desired self-image. He also points out men something closely resembling our "modern-style" homosexuals have been known among Native Americans at least since the XVIII century.

This suggests one possible version of Greg Cochran's gay germ theory involves a pathogen which had existed in North America in pre-Columbian times and was spread by Europeans to the rest of the world.

But if we are dealing with a germ which prevents the masculinization of male brains and affects personality, why should its effects be so limited? The same germ could easily also prevent the development of other masculine mental traits. One possibility is that in boys infected early enough, it prevents the development of the male-typical mate search image but in those infected at a later age it only affects the mate search image slightly but still prevents the development of, for example, some properly masculine a-hole traits.

This could explain a lot of recent history, not only the entire progressive movement from temperance to Middle East democratization but also social phenomena such as the lack of masculine young actors, all the 70-kilogram men in gyms trying to "lose weight" and "get toned arms", and even the increased prevalence of bands playing music they wrote themselves. Of course, identifiably progressive views have been around in earlier times, but they were not nearly as progressive or as popular. The current form of progressive ideology may not be possible without a certain critical mass of feminized male brains to support it.

There are several reasons to think this theory is plausible. A simple one is that the vast majority of homosexuals are progressives. Progressives, like homosexuals, are more prevalent in cities where population density is higher and pathogens have an easier time spreading. We do know that in the US, Republicans are generally less infection-prone than Democrats - and as progressive as the Republicans are in this day and age, they are still slightly less progressive than the Democrats. Also, some of the variation in progressive views is genetic and progressives have lower reproductive fitness than non-progressives (athough the reproductive fitness hit is not as severe as with homosexuality), and yet progressive ideology has been spreading rapidly over the past 100+ years. Additionally, progressives romanticize native North American tribes even more than other non-whites, perhaps because these tribes' worldviews actually are more compatible with their own.

The idea that a pathogen can penetrate the blood-brain barrier and cause changes in personality traits which might affect political views seems strange but we already know it does happen. Toxoplasma gondii does just that, and what is more it causes different personality changes in males and females.

This isn't anywhere near as farfetched as the genius germ theory, anyway. We know that plagues have had profound effects on history before. The only difference with this hypothetical plague is that it killed its victims using more indirect methods, from fairly obvious ones like labor camps and democracy-spreading wars to more subtle ones such as using politics to aid the spread of other pathogens.

The real question is, how can this theory be tested? Unless a pathogen which causes homosexuality is discovered, I can't really think of any good tests off the top of my head. Perhaps surveying the support for the core points of progressive ideology amoung hunter-gatherer groups unfamiliar with exclusive male homosexuality would work. Is anyone familiar with any sources of such data? I don't suppose that getting any government-funded research grants is an option.

I don't understand why people are arguing over Gay agendas or non Gay agendas, why are people even bothered who is Gay or not?

It's nobody else's business but their own, people ought to pay attention to their own lives and stop poking their nose in to other people's sexuality.

How does anyone know if a Gay person has closet issues? and if they did is it your business anyway? No.

The media just love to cause trouble, but if you pay attention to your own lives the media will lose! Switch your TV off and don't buy newspapers - simple!

next time someone religious or non religious rants on about Gays ask them "what business is it of yours? get on with your own life!"

Originally posted by findlesticks
I don't understand why people are arguing over Gay agendas or non Gay agendas, why are people even bothered who is Gay or not?

It's nobody else's business but their own, people ought to pay attention to their own lives and stop poking their nose in to other people's sexuality.

It seemed to begin when the DOD stated that there should be openess in the armed forces, becaue they were hiding behind a veil.

However, many if not most, will partake in the "bashing", where sheet parties are not of the amusement sorts.

It's a mistake the current administration is making, but why deviate from their set pattern.

The fallout will end in ridicule and labeling. But, what are you gonna' do?

[edit on 26-2-2010 by Isawsomething]

Originally posted by findlesticks
I don't understand why people are arguing over Gay agendas or non Gay agendas, why are people even bothered who is Gay or not?

It's nobody else's business but their own, people ought to pay attention to their own lives and stop poking their nose in to other people's sexuality.

How does anyone know if a Gay person has closet issues? and if they did is it your business anyway? No.

The media just love to cause trouble, but if you pay attention to your own lives the media will lose! Switch your TV off and don't buy newspapers - simple!

next time someone religious or non religious rants on about Gays ask them "what business is it of yours? get on with your own life!"

I don't think the real issue is "being gay" for most people. Anyone can do whatever they like and live any lifestyle they choose as long as it is legal and does not harm anyone else. A lot of people are just irritated by the emphasise of Gay themes in the media. It sometimes feels like the Media are trying to say "hey, if you aren't gay then you are either a hateful red neck or a closet-gay yourself." Then you see people that go out of their way to emphasise their homosexuality. Whether they are acting or not, it gets irritating and people associate it with all homosexuals. (Unfair that all get generalised in this way, but it happens.)

[edit on 1/3/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by findlesticks
I don't understand why people are arguing over Gay agendas or non Gay agendas, why are people even bothered who is Gay or not?

It's nobody else's business but their own, people ought to pay attention to their own lives and stop poking their nose in to other people's sexuality.

How does anyone know if a Gay person has closet issues? and if they did is it your business anyway? No.

The media just love to cause trouble, but if you pay attention to your own lives the media will lose! Switch your TV off and don't buy newspapers - simple!

next time someone religious or non religious rants on about Gays ask them "what business is it of yours? get on with your own life!"

I don't think the real issue is "being gay" for most people. Anyone can do whatever they like and live any lifestyle they choose as long as it is legal and does not harm anyone else. A lot of people are just irritated by the emphasise of Gay themes in the media. It sometimes feels like the Media are trying to say "hey, if you aren't gay then you are either a hateful red neck or a closet-gay yourself." Then you see people that go out of their way to emphasise their homosexuality. Whether they are acting or not, it gets irritating and people associate it with all homosexuals. (Unfair that all get generalised in this way, but it happens.)

[edit on 1/3/2010 by Dark Ghost]

You summed it up perfectly, good job!

The other day someone actually posted that heterosexuals are coaching their children to mistreat the poor orphans that are adopted by homosexuals. One person said Christians are responsible for thousands of young people committing suicide, another popped up with a statement that Christians are responsible for serial killers! Any discussion with homosexuality proponents is impossible unless you are 100 percent in agreement with them on all points. If not, they start dragging in the most preposterous notions. It has become an agenda with no rules.

According to the original poster's comment... ANY agenda that creates discussion could be part of a NWO strategy... so to focus on the 'gay agenda' the way he did really showed his true colours as being homophobic.

I'm glad the majority of replies have pointed out the same 'anti-gay' hidden agenda of the first post.

I feel that if the homosexual movement in america is not only leading to corruption and the future destruction of our country... (according to the bible supposedly)

I think that in The United States of America, we are committing the same type of sins and blasphemy that were Conducted in the Ancient Cities of Sodom And Gomorrah....

if you have seen the movie "they live" we are trapped similar to the society in the movie... Our Society Seems to have been conditioned to worship the DOLLAR. To many of my fellow Americans, that is GOD. whether or not they choose to realize and accept it or not, that is what they live for, work for, worship, and glorify... Shouldn't the following things i listed be reserved for God Exclusively? I may be wrong, for i am only 19 years old, but it seems that the citizens of my country have been lied to and led to do the exact opposite of what we represent... Our slogan is "IN GOD WE TRUST", but if we truly cared for god, we wouldn't allow homosexuality to be tolerated, accepted, or even possible..

Sure, there are enough Men & Women to satisfy each other, but over time SIN affected the sexes, and now today, TRUST is the most important factor in most Relationships. "Men Are Dogs, And Women Are Whores"... or at least that's how it seems. .

If Men were true to Women as well as themselves, and found inner harmony, we would not need to sneak around and have affairs, because we would be truly satisfied and at peace with everyone and ourselves...

As for our Women, i cant speak on their behalf...

Matter of fact, i cant even Speak for all men.

but from what i've seen and learned, it seems homosexuality is more so a culture.

The people i know in California that are gay whom I'm close to seem to SHARE ONE DISCREET, YET MAJOR CHARACTERISTIC-THEY ALL EXPERIENCED SOMETHING TRAUMATIC OR WERE MISLEAD.

Once again, i was only speaking of homosexual people i know.

but anyways, They say that children who grow up in gay households have a higher suicide rate. i think the kids are confused, and they probably are made fun of Sub Rosa. who knows, i know it must be stressful though as a child to see your friends with A Male and Female for parents, and they have two of the same sex.

The Questions that would rise would be WAY over the childs head... Perhaps they saw themselves as HOMOSEXUALS BY DEFAULT, and maybe since their natural instinct is to like the other sex, they thought they were wrong. Kids are simple you know, im kinda young... and I'm a Heterosexual but im young, and kids at first aren't too smart, especially when they are easily misguided. You know children dont really know, they only go by what they see, hear, and are taught.

Saying all that, IMAGINE YOUR ENTIRE CHILDHOOD with 2 Homosexual Parents. What would be going thru your mind when your at Parent Teacher Night and "Bobby's" Parents are "REGULAR" and you come thru with your two gay parents... Imagine the pressure of attention, the snickers, the Semi-Silent heckles, the jokes your gonna have to hear tomorrow, the constant questions from peers whenever they get you in private...

it would be stressful.. I would never condone nor commit suicide, but these kids obviously are living a live in which many would consider a curse.
With the Cards Dealt, the most obvious conclusion would more than likely be either confused, homosexual, a recluse, maybe develop mental problems, depressed, or... SUICIDAL.

now back to America.. This would never even happen to the children if we were really the COUNTRY WE CLAIM TO BE.
Homosexuality is allowed although it contradicts the foundation, teachings and beliefs of America. Its the LAND OF THE FREE, BUT YOU CANT BE HOMOSEXUAL DUE TO THE RELIGIOUS CODE OF OUR BIBLE.

YET ITS... WAIT.

Yet its allowed, (lol) and that is a simple example of how America is so messed up that it somehow inadvertently led to these suicides.

Its bad, but USA is worst than 9/11, its a CONTRADICTION to LIFE and ITSELF.


thanks?
=)

I believe that some of the early American settlers must have been homosexual if you accept the statistical arguement. In those days some of the married couples may actually have been bisexual as social norms differed and the sexes may have been more seperated in many ways.

Any here is the homosexual agenda.

1) Live happy

2) Live a life without fear of oppression from religious fundies, idiots, homophobic latent homosexuals etc.

3) enjoy a life free from homophobia.

Come on OP what is your problem? Why go chasing down a possible 10% of society? Is homosexuality the only problems facing America. Or are homosexuals running the banks??

[edit on 12-3-2010 by Tiger5]

It's sad really. I joined this site, just for this post. I'm sorry, but the mention of the "gay agenda" is religiously driven. The gay agenda "is a conspiracy theory developed in the United States popular among some religious and social conservative groups which refers to advocacy of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual orientations and relationships." (wiki) The first person to even use such words comes from FRC in 1992. Since the OP is familiar with NARTH, you would be familiar with FRC. Same ideologies.

I want to mention to, in the OP, you mention that you were conflicted because of your religious beliefs. Well this might not be news to you, but for others quite simple. Most people against the idea of homosexuality stems from a religious background. I'm not saying all people who are religious are, but I'm saying that most are. Most of these so called theories that you presented are usually religiously based or motivated. The "yuck" factor does not count.

The studies that you mention earlier, the main reason why people question the source, is if the source is not a credible one, then it is quite easy to debunk. The statistics that shown how many gay men had partners, etc. I think I've read that study somewhere, but the study itself is extremely unethical in its findings and methods.
Remember how, in biology class or any science class they ask you about the scientific method? Remember how there is a certain guideline to follow? Well, guess what? Most of those studies done by NARTH or even FRC are extremely biased. These so called "scientists" that goes on to study "homosexuals" are out to prove one thing, that it is malleable and change be changed. Assuming of course that heterosexuality is the only fixed notion in this world, which sorry to say its not. Most of the studies basis itself on other studies that have been debunked by many other organizations or found to be unethical.
Did you know that some of the studies that has been used and still used by these organizations are outdated if not debunked? Hell some of these studies are dated by in the 70s, during those times views are extremely different. Biased sources like from the FRC and NARTH does nothing to prove your point.
You already have said your position. By using the word "gay agenda," it seems that you already have picked a so called side. Mind you, there are more than just your religion out there. To prove how other people should live their lives according to your religion, is another.