Talk:Pathogenic hypothesis of homosexuality

message: Since this article conveniently links to Scientific_theory, it may be worthwhile to review Scientific_theory#Characteristics when considering this article.  Speculation or conjecture are not scientific theories.  I think the title is hopelessly POV because it incorporates two POV assumptions: (a) that homosexuality is a pathology, and (b) that this conjecture is a scientific theory. --Tabor 16:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm these are interesting points but I'm not sure.  It seems to be a subset of the germ theory of disease, this guy thinks that anything with a high degree of fitness cost that isnt explained by other environmental factors is due to pathogens.  It us undoubtly true that homosexuality has a high fitness cost as gay and lesbian people have what appears to be only 1/5 the number of children compared to heterosexual couples, meaning a fitness cost of 80% - a fitness cost of anything more than 1% is rarely found in a population due to genetics. --ShaunMacPherson 17:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: [Edit conflict] But this discounts the value of uncles and aunts in survival of offspring.  The so-called "fitness cost" to non-breeders doesn't stop wolves or ants or various birds.  Read something (can't remember where) about the selective advantage of homosexuality in humans, cast in precisely these terms.  Guettarda 17:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Were you able to input it in, this is an excellent point.  I added the evidence of homosexuality being found in many species observation also, meaning that this pathogen (if it exists) would have to be wide spread and thus mroe easily found, and if it is in many species it would be everywhere and thus would likely affect more than 1-5%(10%?) percent of species' populations. --ShaunMacPherson 17:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence "The assertion that 'evolution would have bred out homosexuality genes' ignores the existence of kin selection;" seems a bit tendentious. Certainly, this assertion discounts the relevance of kin selection, but you are assuming that kin selection is indeed relevant. Are there are any other examples of kin selection causing behaviors that are so obviously disastrous in terms of directly passing on your own genes? - Nat Krause 06:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Update 2, I also incorporated counter points such as the ones you've raised right from the article from Out Magazine we've discussed.  The idea is out there, let us document it fully, let it be NPOV and raise the issues and problems of this theory. --ShaunMacPherson 17:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I took that out. It's blatantly prejudicial, which can hardly be justified by reference to some other Wikipedia page. - Nat Krause 06:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced it - as of now, there's nothing to  distinguish this "theory" from cold fusion, creation science or any other pseudoscience. --FCYTravis 20:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the psudoscience category should be removed, cold fusion has been discredited' as a theory since it could not be replicated.  So far this theory has not been discredited, it is currently based on widely held and credited principles of biology, (it is the principles in aggregate and the conclusion that the proponents say that is what causes the controversy). --ShaunMacPherson 00:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. - Nat Krause 05:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Kin selection is an interesting idea on fitness cost, is it covered well in the article?  The article isn't being corrected it seems, someone will have a task traslating our discussion into the article :).
*As well, I recall one theory of gay (male) behaviour is that males may form coalitions in order to better find females.  Since males are usually in direct competition with eachother, genetically speaking, such a coalition must have a reinforcer in the form of a relationship.  From that standpoint mating, even 1/5 of the time, is better than mating 0 times so gay behaviour maybe a backup strategy.
*Another interesting topic to be covered is that gay and lesbian individuals maybe 'social glue' to better intergrate socieity (i.e. Bonobo).
*As well, there seems to be a continum of gay/lesbian behaviour which may or may not be accounted for by this theory.
It would be useful to start finding documentation from journals on this issue so we can get some concerete sources, although sexual research is very much underfunded so finding useful sources maybe difficult. It is our job to present this idea NPOV, not really prove or disprove its merits.  It seems that the idea is mainstream enough to justify having its own article (and if you disagree I asked anyone to offer their rational how this theory doesn't conform to core biological ideas or hos it is 'fringe') so now we need to quote what people are saying about the issue.--ShaunMacPherson 02:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kin selection & the variety of homosexual behaviour / culture 

message: It would be interesting to get a copy of the February 1999 story from the Atlantic Monthly, and also more original publications by these Cochran and Ewald and any other advocates. -- Beland 01:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd help in doing this, it seems a very useful project. Perhaps a Wikibook would also be useful, for some reason I have an urge for an original research project. Perhaps a subpage called references were we can list references.  The Fact and Reference Check (FARC) project has useful styling tips and tools for going about making a list of references, and examples of articles that have been referenced.
Refeferencing an article that is controversial is useful, and interesting as you say, since it is easier to be NPOV when describing what others' have said. --ShaunMacPherson 12:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todo 

message: The 2005 Nobel_Prize_in_Physiology_or_Medicine was awarded to the pathogenic theory of bacteria causing stomach ulcers. I was somewhat surprised in reading up on this that the scientific community was very much opposed to this idea, only a few decades ago. Even the prize mentions the 'dogma' they had to fight against in presenting their idea, I am happy they won out in the end.
I believe that such dogma still exists against pathogenic theories in general and is relevant to this article. I'll probably add a blurb in a bit after checking to see if anyone has any ideas on how to best word it. --ShaunMacPherson 10:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathogenic theory gains Nobel Prize respectibility 

message: The intro needs rewriting. It's clumsily worded, and hard for the layman to figure out what point exactly is being made. Here's my guess:
*It's the theory that homosexuality is caused by germs not genes. The theory argues that genes could not be the cause, so it must be something in the environment. 
Stated like this, it's much easier to see the weakness in the theory: why have they overlooked childhood upbringing, for example? Uncle Ed 17:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Is at Louisville not Brown. He used to be at Amherst, I don't think he has ever been at Brown. 152.17.49.136 14:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Ewald 

message: I wonder what you think about having this talk page deleted? The original article was merged a decade ago and this article still comes up in Google. Sxologist (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a "noindex" template for that issue. You may be interested in this discussion as well:  Crossroads -talk- 16:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page deletion