No Diabetes Pride Parade

Posted by John S Bolton on October 03, 2007, 10:04 PM | #

Other clues might be that rejecting females is similar to not desiring dead-ends of transmission. If an infectious agent is involved, it would want not just males over females, but the more promiscuous over the less-so, homosexual over straight males, better looking, and insertive over receptive. The infectious agent, if it could specify one and only one concept for its host, would have it be:command openness. The host does not need to be open, but the target of transmission must be, and the host as vector is better suited to that role, the more disposed he is to command openness on others.
I would nominate human herpes virus #6 as a candidate pathogen for qualities as above. Its prevalence fits with what one would expect. Recall also that the lineages of the infectious agent are in competition with one another, so that transmission efficiency is still relevant even in a subpopulation with universal prevalence.

Posted by John S Bolton on October 03, 2007, 10:37 PM | #

Another otherwise puzzling feature of the gay scenes especially in days without constraint of lethal disease or policing, is that there is more frenzied promiscuity as they move preferentially to locales where the prevalence of the presumptive infectious agent mounts higher and higher. The explanation of this would be that different lineages of the same infectious agent remain in competiton and more virulent ones are more favored where the density of population and prevalence and transmission efficiency are all higher. Homosexuals favor the largest cities and dislike small towns, and favor places with the highest possible percentage of transients.

Posted by 9w on October 04, 2007, 12:59 AM | #

Good to see John S Bolton commenting here again.

Posted by James OMeara on October 04, 2007, 03:12 PM | #

You’re about as insightful as a jew discussing celibacy.

In fact, let’s have some fun with find/replace:

No Diabetes Pride Parade

By Rabbi Jewy J. Jewboy

The priestly vocation seen in human males is not common among the males of tens of thousands of other species living on our planet.

As animals we are engaged in a continuous struggle against competing species for survival, space, and evolutionary success. Victory is measured by passing one’s genes into the future.

A preference for sterile sexual activities such as Transubstantiation does not make evolutionary sense.

The Catholic priesthood has a disastrous effect on reproductive success.

Genetic diseases that are severely fitness-impairing like achondroplastic dwarfism) have roughly the same odds as the background mutation rate (about one in 50,000 to one in 100,000. One rarely encounters large parades of dwarves celebrating their dwarfism.

Catholic priests have only 0 percent as many children as heterosexual men. This is a reproductive cost of 100% per generation.

If you have an inherited disease with a 100% percent fitness cost, in the next generation there will be only 0 percent of the original number in the gene pool. Eventually the number of people with the disease will dwindle to even less than the background mutation rate. 

If male Catholic priesthood was genetic, male Catholic priests would be as common as dwarves.

What other explanations are possible for the proportion of male Catholic priests that we see in our post-Roman societies?

Some people suggest there is a Bell curve of human sexuality with “strictly celibate” on one end and “strict heterosexual” on the other end.

Any sexually reproducing species that had a Bell curve of sexual preferences that stretched from absolute success to absolute failure to reproduce would be at a great disadvantage to the species that kept their eyes on the ball.

The only curve that makes biological sense is a J curve: most of mankind practicing heterosexual mating and a small tail performing the rite of Transubstantiation.

There is room for environmental causes for some the Catholic priesthood. We know that a significant number of male Catholic priests issued from the famous all boys boarding schools in England along with sadists and masochists. All boys boarding schools run on English principles are rare.

I am certain the warning labels on packages of cigarettes would link tobacco to Catholic priesthood if the people who mandate such labels were not people who believe Catholic priesthood is a good thing.

The remaining culprit for the significant percentage of the male population that are Catholic priests is the result of some infectious disease.

Some diseases attack and cause immediate damage or death.

The Catholic disease agent in not like that. No one ever says, “I am coming down with a little vocation to the priesthood today.”

Some diseases attack and affect all of their victims much the same way. The distance from food poisoning to the toilet is never long.

Some diseases are fickle. Identical twins living in the same home almost always catch measles at the same time. But there are diseases where only one twin gets the disease. Almost two-thirds of identical twins exposed to polio did not get the disease. Half of identical twins exposed to tuberculosis do not get TB. The Catholic priesthood disease agent must work like this. Only 20% of identical twins who are Catholic priests have a brother who is also a Catholic priest, 80% do not.

Some diseases agents have different effects on different people. 99% of the people who contract polio do not get paralyzed. 99% of the people who contract H. Pylori do not get stomach cancer. Almost everyone contracts herpes simplex, but very few develop Bell’s palsy. The Catholic priesthood disease agent is probably like this.
Some disease agents can reveal themselves in different ways over time. Chicken pox burst out twice: first in childhood, decades later as shingles. Again, the Catholic priesthood disease agent is probably like this.

We now know that a mental disorder can result from a lingering immune system response to an infection.

The Catholic priesthood disease agent must be picked up early. Catholic priests often say that they always knew they were different. 

The Catholic priesthood disease agent might be creating male Catholic priests as simple side effect.

It is also possible that the Catholic priesthood disease agent is an aggressive sexually transmitted disease.

As any taxi driver can tell you, Catholic priests are frenetic compulsive addicts to intimate physical contact with strangers in unsavory places.

It is possible the Catholic disease agent experiences a reproductive advantage by being transported back and forth.

The most amazing aspect of the Catholic priesthood disease agent if it exists is its power over the minds of its victims.

Species flourish only if they follow a successful reproductive strategy.

Catholic priests should realize that not even wanting to mate with females is to reject the reproductive strategy followed by the thousands of species that reproduce sexually. They are the odd men out.

Posted by Al Ross on October 04, 2007, 07:48 PM | #

Special Class Protections for Self-Alleged Gays : A Question of “Orientation” and Consequences.  An interesting paper by A.N.Marco.

http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc10.html

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 04, 2007, 08:58 PM | #

“Good to see John S Bolton commenting here again.”  (—9w)

For newbies:  Bolton’s book-length critique of forced “diversity” (also linked at his blog) is pretty good.  And check out his latest blog entry over there — it hits the spot ... cuts through all the crap and gets right down to the nub of the matter in least verbiage and fewest sentences.  Nice work. 

(And notice he illustrates his blog’s homepage with Botticelli in the upper left-hand corner, just like ... what was that other blog that did that? ... Wait, it’ll come to me ...)

Posted by James J OMeara on October 05, 2007, 07:44 AM | #

“(And notice he illustrates his blog’s homepage with Botticelli in the upper left-hand corner, just like ... what was that other blog that did that? ... Wait, it’ll come to me ...)”

Probably nambla.org.  Consider:

“On November 16, 1502, when in his later fifties, Botticelli was accused of sodomy with his garzone (shop lad or assistant who may also have served as a model). So averse was he to marital domesticity that an anecdote has Botticelli report that he “walked like a mad man all over Florence throughout the night” rather than return to a nightmare in which he was married….  Botticelli’s workshop was a space where pleasantries mixed with serious discussions about Savonarola’s reformist zeal, and a chronicler later took this to mean that an “academy of idlers” gathered there. Others probably thought his shop was a sodomites’ hangout. Vasari put it delicately: the painter was “extraordinarily fond of those he knew to be students of the arts.” —Patricia Simes

Botticelli as the genius loci overlooking a blog celebrating the joys of reproduction?  Either this Bolton chap is an clueless philistine hack [like the idiots who never knew that Allan [‘Gays are destroying Western civilization”] Bloom was a pederast] or…. perhaps La Bolton doth protest too loudly.  What could be more deliciously camp?

And why do I have to type ‘69hard” to be allowed to submit a comment?  Just what kind of place is this?

Posted by Bret Ludwig on October 05, 2007, 07:54 PM | #

Although males and females are different in their brain chemistry and functions, they both start from a basis that is nearly identical and differentiate with development.  Both sexes have the functionality of both sexes in the hardware: some is not used, like two microcomputer chips which are the same die and which have different hardware selectively disabled for different markets.

  Homosexuals have, at least genetically inclined homosexuals have, the “Wrong” functions enabled or disabled. My guess is that although homosexuality is destructive to the individual, there is a social function a certain level of homosexuality serves which evolutionarily adapted societies which were less successful in stamping it out. For one thing, homosexuals do not breed, qua homosexuals. To breed they must either be somewhat bisexual or they must be situationally induced to “cross the line”.

It’s also nearly certain male and female homosexualism are largely or wholly independent of each other from a biologic standpoint. Lesbians can get themselves inseminated, artificially or naturally, quite easily where gay males have a lot of effort to do to to find a female willing to birth their child.

Lesbianism is likely a purely environmental and social development issue: it’s my belief that most any woman could be a lesbian in the right circumstances (Ava Gardner, Debbie Harry, Angelina Jolie) whereas most males are inherently revolted by male homosexuality and extraordinary circumstances of environnment (such as prison) are needed to make more than a rare minority of males gay. But no circumstances could have made a good proportion of free-world gays not gay. This points to the “disabled chip functionality” theory even more strongly.

Provided they stay somewhat closeted and strictly leave children and the uninterested adults alone there is no particular benefit in rooting out and killing or ‘deporting’ homosexuals. They should simply be left alone.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 05, 2007, 08:29 PM | #

James I meant a blog a little ... closer to home ...

Posted by James J OMeara on October 06, 2007, 09:19 AM | #

Fred,

Hee hee.

“Closer to home” indeed.  All kidding aside, I have Sandy’s Primavera on my wall. 

Now I have to type ‘love66’ to post.  What kind of hippie blog is this?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 06, 2007, 09:40 AM | #

“Now I have to type ‘love66’ to post.  What kind of hippie blog is this?”  (—James O’Meara)

Just to be clear, I find GW’s and John Bolton’s choices of paintings excellent.

Posted by Peter on October 15, 2007, 07:31 PM | #

Bret Ludwig how dare you make those comments!
What right do you have to tell a “group” of people to be more closeted? I am gay and PLEASE i have better things to do in life than “chase” straight males. Yes there are many gay guys who do that Just like there are many Straight guys who fancy Lesbians. Plus i think you need to learn the difference between Homosexual and Pedophile. Your ignorance is apparent here - “strictly leave children and the uninterested adults alone”. Homosexual men are attracted to other men not children!
Also a lot of you males are too sensitive. For example If i say some straight guy is handsome many of you will think i am coming on to him. While many straight women do it all the time….admire other women’s physical appearance. Such a Dichotomy.

As for Robert Reis who posted this…homosexuality is much more common and widespread among animal species than you think. I suggest you look at our “relatives” Bonobo’s (if you don’t know what that is, they are a kind of ape similar to chimpanzees) who participate in homosexual activity quite a lot. Also seems like your thoughts are a few centuries old! Homosexuality is not a mental disorder or a disease. I don’t have all the answers but maybe homosexuality is a form of population control?
Let me ask you Robert - Do all heterosexual couples have/can have children? So the ones that choose not to, have a disease? Plus explain to me the evolutionary benefits of oral and anal sex practiced by heterosexuals?

An idea that occurred to me…Maybe you guys are “upset” because most gay males in any population happen to be white (talking about the West) which further exacerbates the declining “white population”

THIS should make an interesting read for you people
“The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.”
—J.B.S. Haldane, evolutionary biologist

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

As can be seen in this link the percent of homosexuals in some animal species is even higher than humans. They aren’t extinct yet! As well What do you guys think of bisexuality now?

Final words - please don’t post homophobic comments about me. Some of you wishing i was dead isn’t going to accomplish anything. Let us all be more civilized.

Posted by Al Ross on October 15, 2007, 08:32 PM | #

For more information about ‘Peter’ and his kind :

http://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com

Posted by Peter on October 16, 2007, 10:50 PM | #

Al Ross
My initial reaction was .... Here is another “hater” but the website seems interesting (Haven’t gone through it all). I was being assumptive (which i am of some straight males) that your being “negative”, but maybe i will change my mind after looking at the website.
Thank you!