|
|
|
|
Soy is making kids 'gay'
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327
There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a "health food," one of our most popular.
Now, I'm a health-food guy, a fanatic who seldom allows anything into his kitchen unless it's organic. I state my bias here just so you'll know I'm not anti-health food.
The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore.
I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.
Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your "female side," physically and mentally.
In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen.
If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal.
Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.
Doctors used to hope soy would reduce hot flashes, prevent cancer and heart disease, and save millions in the Third World from starvation. That was before they knew much about long-term soy use. Now we know it's a classic example of a cure that's worse than the disease. For example, if your baby gets colic from cow's milk, do you switch him to soy milk? Don't even think about it. His phytoestrogen level will jump to 20 times normal. If he is a she, brace yourself for watching her reach menarche as young as seven, robbing her of years of childhood. If he is a boy, it's far worse: He may not reach puberty till much later than normal.
Research in 2000 showed that a soy-based diet at any age can lead to a weak thyroid, which commonly produces heart problems and excess fat. Could this explain the dramatic increase in obesity today?
Recent research on rats shows testicular atrophy, infertility and uterus hypertrophy (enlargement). This helps explain the infertility epidemic and the sudden growth in fertility clinics. But alas, by the time a soy-damaged infant has grown to adulthood and wants to marry, it's too late to get fixed by a fertility clinic.
Worse, there's now scientific evidence that estrogen ingredients in soy products may be boosting the rapidly rising incidence of leukemia in children. In the latest year we have numbers for, new cases in the U.S. jumped 27 percent. In one year!
There's also a serious connection between soy and cancer in adults – especially breast cancer. That's why the governments of Israel, the UK, France and New Zealand are already cracking down hard on soy.
In sad contrast, 60 percent of the refined foods in U.S. supermarkets now contain soy. Worse, soy use may double in the next few years because (last I heard) the out-of-touch medicrats in the FDA hierarchy are considering allowing manufacturers of cereal, energy bars, fake milk, fake yogurt, etc., to claim that "soy prevents cancer." It doesn't.
Copyright 1997-2007 WorldNetDaily.com Inc.
The trouble with soy – part 2:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53425
The trouble with soy, part 3:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53507
The trouble with soy, part 4:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53596
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
source.
world net daily is an extremely right wing "news" site.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
As a breast fed baby who never ate soy, I am gay anyway.
I didn't know that made me feminine, though
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I guess that explains my collection of black patent leather Joan Crawford come fuck me pumps........
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a hideous article. I'm not going to bother to get worked up about it this time.
There are no proper citations, nothing -- in other words, the author is saying, "You must believe me, because I won't give you the unbiased evidence behind my reasoning [assuming there is any, of course] so you can make up your own mind." Whose "research" shows "that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day"? Where is the evidence that children are being "feminised"? Where is the evidence that soy-fed boys are reaching puberty later? Even assuming that the estrogen can make a slight difference to human hormone levels, where is the evidence that this supposed "feminisation" makes a person (more likely to be) homosexual? Even if the phenomenon exists, is the effect anything more than negligible, both on a personal and societal level? It is not now, and it is exceedingly unlikely that it will ever be possible to attribute homosexuality in an individual to a single isolated cause such as "drinking soy milk".
I honestly don't know the answer to any of these questions. But if there were a good, conclusive, scientific answer then why was it not reported (with the names and credentials of the scientists who carried out the research)?
In other words, it's taboid journalism at its worst. I take particular exception to the casual, throwaway remark, "No, homosexuality is always deviant", as if you'd be mad to think anything else. Deviant statistically, perhaps -- but this is remark is designed to reinforce prejudice and offend in equal measure. (Thankfully I don't think any British newspaper would get away with something like that.)
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... well, at least what he says in his post above!
The articles are misleading, unscientific rubbish. It may very well be that excessive ingestion of soy products can be harmful, but none of the cited sources justify the leap of logic associating soy protein with homosexuality. It is true that there are a number of medical conditions associated with an imbalance of the sex hormones testosterone and oestrogen. It is also true that such imbalances may in some degree influence character, especially in relation to depressive illness. But, so far as I am aware, there is no published evidence to suggest that hormone imbalance has any effect whatsoever on sexual orientation.
The quality of scholarship (somewhere between deplorable and appalling) exhibited in the article is demonstrated by the assertion that homosexuality is 'always deviant' - there's plenty of evidence to contradict that, except insofar as a statistical minority is always (as Deeej points out) mathematically deviant. There's also the cheap trick of quoting spelling errors from dissenting replies. If the journalist received a dozen semi-literate dissenting responses, it seems a fair bet that he received several hundred similar responses which were perfectly literate - and a sizeable number of supportive responses which were semi-literate. But these guys have no real interest in the truth.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
did anyone check out the ads on this site ? They are AMAZING !
For example, http://www.Nukalert.com
and also, http://www.thosetshirts.com
It's always the old to lead us to the war
It's always the young to fall
Now look at all we've won with the sabre and the gun
Tell me is it worth it all
~Phil Ochs "I Aint Marching Anymore"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'm with cossie and Deeej... what a load of absolute twaddle
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He also fails to demonstrate how this "feminisation" caused by soy would "cause" someone to be a lesbian.
this site has several stories like this every month....if you read some of the other stories on the site (best not to do this right after eating) they are definitely "preaching to their base.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E.J. said,
>this site has several stories like this every month....if you read some of the other stories on the site (best not to do this right after eating) they are definitely "preaching to their base.
Why would you bother?
I'm not being facetious -- I'm honestly mystified as to why any sane person would read articles like that through choice. If you want to be challenged by new sexuality-related developments in science or politics you can find the same material elsewhere (if it isn't a figment of a right-wing bigot's imagination, that is), and if you're lucky the reporting will actually be accurate, and won't casually insult you either!
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Nope.....
Class time is better.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Oh crap!!!!
I had 3 windows open at once and got confuddled....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hadn't heard much about this before so thank you much for putting the articles here for us to read. It is very disturbing to see how we could be really harming ourselves by using so much soy. I am going to pay more attention to what is in things now.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before you make these statements don't you think you should read all 4 parts and take a look at the footnotes given?
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a footnote to my other comments I had no idea I was reading something that was anti-gay. I must really be stupid, right? Now I guess some of you should write the U of Kansas and ask how someone so stupid about science etc, could ever be given a degree in electical engineering.
I think that a lot of you are letting your bias interfere with just simply looking at what is written and taking a look at some of the references given as well as going to sites he lists as being pro-soy and sponsored by Soy Producers etc.
As for me, I am certainly not done looking into this; and my mind will be kept open about it until I am shown all that is presented in the articles is wrong.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a vegan who eats lots of soy and soy products I suppose I prove the man's point. LOL. But then ALL the other members of my family are as str-8 as they come and they eat the same food as I do, which rather disproves the man's point. LOL. And what about all those far eastern countries which rely on soy for their staple diet? - India and China, for example, must be choc-a-bloc full of beautiful gay men. LOL
In a post in a different thread I mentioned that I learned Spanish in school. In Spanish 'soy' means 'I am'. I just discovered that in Argentina the Jewish GLBT association has adopted the following slogan: "Oy Vey! Soy gay!". http://www.glbtjews.org/article.php3?id_article=149
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no need for that derogatory tone, Ken. I have read all four articles and I do not think they make any difference to my reply.
As you seem to think the footnotes are relevant, please explain how they are. Of all the citations, only one or two seem to be relevant to the specific questions I asked, and NONE are relevant to outrageous claims like "Soy makes you gay". As far as I know, the only strong link between "sperm counts are dropping" and that "vegetarian mothers are more likely to have babies with hypospadias" (both in bold, presumably because the author believes these represent his strongest evidence) and soy is in the mind of the author. The way the author blends real citations with wild conjecture makes it very dangerous indeed, for it makes it likely that it will fool people (like you?) into believing that all of it (and not just some) is real science.
The main reason that we are looking at this article is for the "soy makes you gay" claim, and yet the only justifications he provides are the following:
>No study says that soy dooms a child to homosexuality, but it's not hard to believe that at some point during pregnancy babies are hardwired for sexual preference.
(Not hard to believe? In other words, "there's no evidence, but I feel like saying it anyway".)
>My larger concern is that the increasing number of less robust 15-year-olds who are already "struggling with their sexual identity" will be shoved over that thin line into homosexuality.
(Ah, we're all "less robust". Nice. No evidence that his prejudices are colouring his writing, then.)
This is not science. This is unpleasant and insidious propaganda. I dare you to tell me otherwise. 
David
[Updated on: Mon, 08 January 2007 14:00] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
i have never read such rubbish,
The next thing they will tell us is that a earth worm is Bi sexual.?! )
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, technically, by using a fairly loose definition, I suppose they are. After all, they are hermaphrodites and each time they have sex they are mating with a member of both sexes simultaneously.
If only God (or nature) had designed us that way, it would eliminate all this tedious and childish prejudice from certain religious denominations. I expect there are strong evolutionary -- probably social -- reasons why he didn't, though.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since you mention God, Deeej, I say Amen to your comment! (Sorry, I couldn't resist the temptation )
I fully agree with your comments. Like Cossie, I can't stop wondering how eager some people are to label homosexuality as deviant and undesirable, and how equally important it is to seek help from both God and science to find a 'cure' to that deviation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do believe it was pointed out in one of the articles referenced that the ay the soy was used in many asian countries was different and that is was cooked somehow (I dont remember the specific but the soy products that we have are obtained in a different way it seems) and unlike a lot of soy additives that are in our foods. I think there was mention of some part of the soy plant that seems to be in our use of it but is not in much of their use of soy. I know this is probably confusing but I do know there was a difference in how the soy products were consumed here as against in asia or Japan.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must comment that if anyone infers I think that being gay can be changed somehow, I am do not belive that to be true. I just argue that I think that being gay is not the normal way we should be. Do you really think that nature would promote part of the species so it could not reproduce? I find that the argument we are born that way leave me wondering why then? If it is all evolution and only the desire of nature to keep the species going, then nature is not doing a very good job of it. I just find that it is illogical. Either nature wants to continue the species and changes it (evolution) to fit the changing conditions, or the species dies out. So where does being born gay fit into that?
I really hate to be labeled too you know. I am still open minded about it. I just dont think God made me that way because then I would have a hard time believing in God. It would not make sense to me at all. Besides, having you guys dislike me because I belive in God is not something I desire. I dont know the answers for sure either and I just want to see something from the other view that admits that science doesnt know it all either. The longer I have been alive, the more I know that I know so very little.
If you think I am some kind of religious nut from the right, then you just dont know me. I just this week found some new roommates and they are going to share the small bedroom I have for rent. They are a couple and I dont have the slightest problem with it.
So hugs to eveyone!!
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well some of the other members and myself have done our part. I have three children and eight granchildren.
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
well done !
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electroken said,
>Do you really think that nature would promote part of the species so it could not reproduce?
Yes. Your question is not a silly one, nor is "yes" a silly answer.
Let's start on a simple level. Animals evolve from generation to generation, and especially over long time scales. I hope we can agree on that. I don't mind if you believe that evolution originated in the way that God designed the universe, or whatever, provided you don't deny that evolution exists.
Okay --
The most convincing mechanism for evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is a relatively simple but extremely powerful mechanism, for it allows for individuals to be promoted even if they cannot reproduce. This is because evolution by natural selection does not work on individuals. It works on populations, dozens or hundreds or thousands of people at a time.
You do not wish to believe that homosexuality (or at least tendency towards homosexuality) is "in-built" or genetic. You're entitled to believe what you wish. But it's a certainly valid hypothesis, not one that can be ruled out scientifically or logically, because there are at least two mechanisms by which a "gay gene", or, more likely, several potential-gay genes, can benefit a population and a species and hence be passed on.
Incidentally, let's also leave statements of what "God would want" out of it, for they only lead to arguments. If history has proved anything it is that mankind cannot agree what God would want.
The two possible ways "gay genes" could benefit a population are as follows:
i. They don't just make someone gay. In a woman, perhaps, they make her better at caring for her children. In a father, having some of them, but not all, makes him more likely to stick with his family, or better at providing for it. These are such good things that they outweigh the problem of the genes -- that they make some people gay and prevent them from reproducing -- and thus they are passed on to the next generation.
2. As I said, evolution doesn't work on individuals, but on populations. People with gay genes -- even if they are gay and never reproduce -- are NOT an evolutionary dead end if they help other members of the same population. A gay man might look after his sister's children. Or he might become a schoolmaster and guide thousands of other people's children through to maturity. Thousands of years ago, he would have hunted or gathered or looked after the rest of his tribe. He is not an evolutionary dud because his genes are putting him in a position to help other people -- people from his own society, who are likely to have many of his own genes, including the gay ones -- to survive and have children of their own.
>If it is all evolution and only the desire of nature to keep the species going, then nature is not doing a very good job of it.
I'm afraid that it takes books to summarise every nuance of the theory, and I can't possibly do that here. Suffice to say, if you don't understand it you are probably missing some of the details. If you can't see the big picture, all of it at once, but only little bits of it (some people are gay, and you don't know why), it stands to reason that it won't make a lot of sense. It's like trying to identify what a small component from a car engine does by looking at it in isolation, never having seen a car or an engine before in your life. Substitute space rocket or supercomputer or human body if you wish.
>I just find that it is illogical. Either nature wants to continue the species and changes it (evolution) to fit the changing conditions, or the species dies out. So where does being born gay fit into that?
It's not illogical. Nature, and natural selection, doesn't "want" anything. This is a very common fallacy. It is not guided by any controlling intelligence or "will to survive" that extends beyond the individual. But those people who are best suited by their genes to their environment are the ones who tend to survive. If something counter-intuitive works then it's likely that you will find it in nature, even if it doesn't appear to make sense taken in isolation.
I hope that my few words above have give you some ideas. If not, please explain why and I'll try and rephrase. You could also try and find a popular science book that explains evolution and natural selection in full, but please make sure it's written by someone who is knowledgeable and impartial and not someone with an agenda, for if it is the latter they will do their best to confuse you into thinking that it is all illogical, which it is not.
David
[Updated on: Mon, 08 January 2007 19:17] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken,
I hope this doesn't sound patronising, and if it does, I apologise. However, I feel I have to say it.
You are welcome to understand the theory of natural selection and reject it in favour of a God-driven mechanism for evolution, or even full-blown creationism if you wish; you're entitled to believe what you want to believe. But please take my word for it that evolution and natural selection are not illogical. Saying that they are is not a convincing argument to anyone who understands it better than you. Greater minds than ours -- scientists, atheists, Christians*, members of 101 other religions alike -- have conceded that natural selection is a good explanation for life as we see it today, and, what's more, that it is a viable (though not as yet proven) propagation method for homosexuality.
If you can understand an opponent's position in an argument or discussion, you are in a much, much better position to counter it.
You will sound more plausible if you say, "I appreciate that X and Y are possible and within the bounds of science, that this theory Z is scientifically likely, but I choose to believe that God designed it slightly differently". I wouldn't recommend it, but you can do it. And, of course, if you take that slippery path and science subsequently proves that there is a genetic basis to homosexuality, you have to be willing to say, "Oh, sorry: I was wrong".
David
*from virtually all denominations including the Roman Catholic Church
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just asking? But are not bachelors a greater danger to the continuation of the species then gay's?
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gay people who have children successfully pass on their genes to the next generation, and are hence no threat to the continuance of the species. Even if they had "gay genes" these would have to exist already in the population in abundance with no deleterious effect, so passing them on to their children would present no further threat. Gay people have often had children.
The 'threat' is, on average, I would have thought, about the same for a gay person who does not have children as for a lifelong, confirmed (straight) bachelor.
On a societal level, and from an evolutionary point of view, a gay man who adopts a child or devotes his life to making life better for other people (especially children, teenagers and young couples) is not a threat at all -- in fact, he is positively beneficial for the species as a whole. In contrast, a straight man who has no children as a lifestyle choice, and spends his lifetime avoiding young people, represents a much greater threat to the species.
David
[Updated on: Mon, 08 January 2007 20:34] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not unimformed as to what constitutes evolution etc and I may not be someone who can point out each and every thing that tends to support it, but I can still see some things that seem to go contrary to it.
I should think that a gay gene (if it really exists at all) would tend to be selected out of the population since those with that gene or advanced versions of it would not be reproducing. I dont think you have convinced me of how it continues to be there since it is not contributing to survival. I see your point about the nuturing side of it, that someone with the gene would tend to look after the children more etc, but how does that relate to being gay? Teh same gene which makes you gay is not necessarily the one that makes you want to nuture.
It is a field where there are no clear-cut answers and I am not steadfastly saying there is no gene, but questioning it's existance. I think most behavior is learned. NO, you don't learn to be gay! I will save you the effort of refuting that. I think that we simply have a tendency in some cases and due to how we are nutured, we can gravitate towards gay relationships more than hetro ones. I readily agree that we are some of each when it comes to sexuality. I am certainly not any kind of macho man type myself but that doesnt prove anything. I think that gay guys do tend to be more reflective and sensitive about things much like females and maybe that is what has happened in our genes.
On the whole I am not convinced that we all began from some simple cell but I can agree that the selection mechanism is going on in the world. I am not stupid and I can see that for myself, but one does not mean the other is a fact either. I dont know why some people get so worked up over something that is only a theory about the origin of life. No matter if it was thousands or millions or billions of years ago that life began, why is it so bad to believe it was God that started it? I can answer my own question about this. It would mean that we are more than a plant or some other animal and that we did have to answer for the way we acted towards others and maybe some people cannot live with that thought. Our actions are accountable if we believe in God; but if we deny Him then no matter what we do or who we hurt, it is only the species that suffers. I firmly believe that I will be help accountable for what I do and that how I treat others will come back to me. I know it is egotistical to think we live on sometime after death, but if this is all there is to life, then why the hell go on with it? Give me a good reason to struggle with living other than a hope for a life sometime in the future. Otherwise all this life of mine has been for nothing at all.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmm.........I hadnt seen this post of yours David when I made my other one just a few minutes ago.
Thank you for afirming my existance as what you have described is me. I am gay and never married nor really never in a relationship officially.
I expect, that if I could ever come to visit you, we could discuss this at length over a few (many) pints. (damn now I am almost talking like you guys). Ok then, beers!
YOu put up with me and still do not get mad. Thanks for that too.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are not patronizing and if I was a lot better at this sort of debating thing, you would see I do agree with a lot that you say.
I know that a lot of the things I believe are not necessarily logical, but I will admit to some of that too. As far as creation, God or a big bang are just as easily proven or denied.
Just as an example. I dont happen to think that gay relationships will work in the long run as often as a marriage between girl and boy, but I think it is really wrong to condemn a same-sex union. A lot of people think that I cant do that, but I won't try to tell someone that it is wrong to be gay. It is not the best thing in my opinion and you have a lot more problem with being gay. It is like interracial marriage or carrying a cat by its tail. Life could be a lot easier for you if you didnt do that, but far be it from me to try to tell you not to do it or try to forbid you from doing it.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken said,
>As far as creation, God or a big bang are just as easily proven or denied.
The existence of God is virtually impossible to prove, as people keep moving the goalposts. Some people maintain that God does miracles -- in which case these should be pretty easy to prove or deny, at least on a case by case basis. But others maintain that God is outside the universe altogether -- which makes it completely impossible to tell anything about him. The Big Bang is much, much easier, and there is already evidence in its favour. So these are apples and oranges.
Anyone can deny anything, but that doesn't mean they are right. You can deny that God does not exist, but that doesn't make me agree with you.
>Just as an example. I dont happen to think that gay relationships will work in the long run as often as a marriage between girl and boy, but I think it is really wrong to condemn a same-sex union.
You don't think? This, surely, is something that can be proven or at least a very strong case made with the use of actual statistics! If you're going to say something like that that could so easily be supported by actual evidence, you should. Anyway, a gay relationship is not the same as a marriage, so you cannot compare them. You should compare long-term gay relationships with long-term, unmarried straight relationships, or marriages with gay marriages or civil partnerships. I would be very surprised if you find a very significant difference. Straight divorce is very common. And, of course, to come up with a legal argument on that basis would be to tar everyone with the same brush, though I'm sure you realise that.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken said,
>I should think that a gay gene (if it really exists at all) would tend to be selected out of the population since those with that gene or advanced versions of it would not be reproducing.
Only if its problems outweigh its benefits.
>I should think that a gay gene (if it really exists at all) would tend to be selected out of the population since those with that gene or advanced versions of it would not be reproducing. I dont think you have convinced me of how it continues to be there since it is not contributing to survival. I see your point about the nuturing side of it, that someone with the gene would tend to look after the children more etc, but how does that relate to being gay? Teh same gene which makes you gay is not necessarily the one that makes you want to nuture.
According to this mechanism, it IS necessarily. It's not a leap of faith -- it's how the whole system works. I am, basing my thoughts on my knowledge of human genetics, proposing a solution to the problem of how a gay gene might function.
A gene does not exist in isolation. Genes are grouped together on chromosomes, and one gene may turn on or off many others. If there is a gay gene (or many), then a mechanism for it to survive is that it does not just affect sexuality but it works in conjunction with other genes which affect the psyche of the adult and help. The resultant gene(s) 'switch(es) on' other genes which encode for lots of things, which may or may not include nurturing instinct, sociability, femininity, sexuality and many others.
The human body, and human genetics, are incredibly complicated, and I've tried not to get into huge amounts of technical detail. I would urge you to find a book on how evolution and genetics work. I found them fascinating at school.
>I think most behavior is learned. NO, you don't learn to be gay! I will save you the effort of refuting that. I think that we simply have a tendency in some cases and due to how we are nutured, we can gravitate towards gay relationships more than hetro ones.
I trust when you use the word 'think' you mean 'in light of the current evidence, I believe', because this is of course not proven. However, I don't disagree with you. It seems likely that there are elements of both nature and nurture.
>I think that gay guys do tend to be more reflective and sensitive about things much like females and maybe that is what has happened in our genes.
You may be right. I don't think anyone can say for sure at this stage.
>On the whole I am not convinced that we all began from some simple cell
Oh, and the conversation was going so well! I hope I have misread that, as I don't believe you will find anyone in the rational world who would agree with you, except perhaps in an American church.
We all began from a simple cell, made up of our mother's egg and our father's sperm. This proves that it is possible, even if that's not quite what you meant. However, I firmly reject the notion that this cell just "popped" into being, as fabricated by a God or higher power. We share large percentages of our genetic material with other animals. We are genetically almost identical to chimpanzees (96% of our DNA is identical), and we share 60% of our DNA with the fruit fly. Much of our genetic material is "junk" DNA that does not have any apparent purpose, shaped by the largely random process of evolution through natural selection. This is a clear indication that we have a common ancestry stemming back into the mists of time. Why would God create such an amazing record inside every single cell of our bodies? To fool the poor, deluded scientists? God does not set out to deceive, surely? An argument that makes far more sense to me is that God allowed life to come into being over billions of years through the random process of natural selection. It's not a scientific theory, but at least it does not contradict science.
>I dont know why some people get so worked up over something that is only a theory about the origin of life. No matter if it was thousands or millions or billions of years ago that life began, why is it so bad to believe it was God that started it?
I'm afraid you've got the question the wrong way round. Why should the rest of us believe that God started it?
To answer the question, atheists and members of other religions do not mind at all, except where religious people start dictating science. If they say the Earth is only a few thousands of years old when the fossil record clearly shows it's billions of years old, this causes an almighty rumpus because they are so clearly wrong!
I don't think any reasonable scientists or atheists mind if someone believes in God, provided they don't let it compromise a clear, logical line of thought. A scientist who sets out to discover the sheer wonderment of God's creation, wherever it leads him, will learn so much more than one who refuses to do so, or denies it, in case he discovers what he has been told is wrong.
>Give me a good reason to struggle with living other than a hope for a life sometime in the future. Otherwise all this life of mine has been for nothing at all.
Because it's a shame to have come all this way (our collective history goes back billions of years) and not to do something worthwhile with our lives? Because we have a duty to those people who have invested their time in us, to others around us, to our children and to our species? So we can die feeling we have made a difference? I personally think those are awesome reasons.
David
[Updated on: Mon, 08 January 2007 23:02] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soy, the perfect heathen food -- it does a body gay
Mark Morford, San Francisco Chronicle
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking: I knew it. I knew that soy stuff was evil like black sunshine in spring! Also: Is Tom Cruise really gay? Does he eat a lot of soy? Is Steve Jobs a god? Does God like soy? Wait, didn't God invent soy? So how could it be bad for my innocent cherubic child who loves iPods and looks nothing like Tom Cruise? Is this the year I wear more orange? And so on.
Oh yes, you knew it. Especially if you are from the far end of the baffled, gay-hatin', right-wing mind-set and don't read much and don't really care about pesky stuff like science or facts or health or, you know, actual thought. Yay, you!
Yes, you knew there was a threat far, far more dire to your precious child right now than Nancy Pelosi's terrifying agenda or Aaron Sorkin's bewildering dialogue or pagan yoga classes or swell federal abstinence programs.
Here, then, is your hot new target, writ large in what must be the absolute cutest unsung little ultra-right-wing article of all of 2006, appearing on an obscure conservative news compendium site called WorldNetDaily, among other stories like:
"Should Christians be armed? The ultimate biblical exploration of self-defense." "How the U.N. will be the death of Israel and the West." "Chuck Norris' column appears here!" "U.S. infrastructure for sale to foreigners." "The good news about the looming disaster ... it's easy, inexpensive and fun to get prepared!"
The author of this particular article, Jim Rutz, a guy who likes his meat organic but his facts as toxic and undercooked as a high school cheeseburger, states, with absolute certainty, that soy products will make your kid gay. And why? Because soy contains "feminizing" estrogen compounds, so when you feed soy products to your little girl, she will menstruate by age 7, and if you feed it to your little boy, his testicles might not fully develop until he enters college, and if you feed soy milk to your baby (heathen! sinner!), your tot will, according to Jimbo, receive the equivalent of five birth control pills per day (italics his), and doing so could actually kill your baby. Oh, my God, who will save the children from the gay (plant) agenda!
I see you smiling, you, over there, who actually read books and eat well and, you know, think for yourself. I see you shaking your head in disbelief, perhaps thinking I am making this up. Alas, I am not. It is a real article, read (presumably) by real humans, many of whom might actually believe it, just as they believe that immigrants want to "mongrelize" the American "race" and that Christmas trees are actually Christian and that Taylor Hicks is somehow tolerable. It's funny because it's true.
But wait. Do not fall into fits of ironic intellectual mirth just yet, because perhaps you should consider the ugly truth that, by logical extension, God hates vegans.
Is it not obvious? After all, most vegans eat a lot of soy. Consequently, most vegans are, of course, violently gay, just like the billions of Asians who've eaten soy products for millennia and are so gay and feminine and estrogen heavy they can barely stand up. Which explains Hello Kitty. And samurai movies. And the Scion Xb. I mean, obviously.
It all makes perfect sense. Because if there's one thing God loathes, it's gay people, what with them being such an abomination for daring to want to fall in love and be happy. Therefore God must really hate vegans (especially Asian vegans), because they must be gay, even though he loves everyone, which is a total contradiction and which sort of confuses God and which therefore makes him hate soy products even more even though he invented the stuff despite having long ago forgotten why. See? Clear as a bell, right, Jim?
By the way, for the record, soy does indeed contain estrogen. Plant estrogen (phytoestrogen), that is, a very weak estrogen indeed, 1/1000th the strength of synthetic. Soy, in particular, contains estrogen-like compounds called isoflavones, which actually do have some very mild estrogenic effect.
Does this make soy a bit controversial? Indeed it does. Are there some on the fringes of the health spectrum who are now claiming we are eating way too much of it? Indeed there are. Should you check into it for yourself? Absolutely.
But does this mean that eating a nice tofu veggie burger will shrink your testicles and make your average hetero male linger, swooningly, a bit longer over photos of George Clooney than he normally would? Does this mean you get to dispense with logic altogether and claim that small penises somehow equal gayness (as opposed to, say, increased SUV sales) or that all gay men are "feminine" or that soy is the probable cause of obesity and leukemia and infertility and the downgrading of Pluto? Why not? It's the homophobic, science-is-for-sissies GOP way.
Alas, there is no mention in Rutz's article about the other foods that have calamitous effects on one's sexual wiring. It is no secret, after all, that the consumption of excess Girl Scout cookies -- particularly Caramel deLites -- will make you a butch lesbian. It has also been reported in lesser-known scientific journals that eating lots of organic baby greens means you want to subscribe to the New Yorker and drive a Prius and get your genitals pierced, often at the same time.
Finally, it is now widely known that hip, fusion cuisine has been proved to contain alarming amounts of multicultural ingredients, such as couscous and lemongrass and ghee, which obviously translate directly into anti-American hate and probably mean you are a radical Muslim, a Bollywood fan or both.
I know what you're thinking: It's all too easy to make fun of mind-sets like Jimbo's. But it is also, of course, mandatory that we do so, if for no other reason than to laugh at such matters and point up the adorably warped mental gyrations required to make such claims. Because if you cannot, then you are not able to lay blame where it so obviously lies, which is, of course, smack on our education system. It's an intellectual crisis, is what it is.
Stay in school, kids. Stay in school and please learn something lest you end up like Rutz, what with his trembling hands and his spasming colon and his violent nightmares featuring giant tofu robots leading perky armies of sashaying soy-fed children, marching into his yard wielding soy lattes and Barbra Streisand records and waving gay-marriage petitions like victory flags. Shudder.
©2007 San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/10/DDGTFNF6OC1.DTL
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know this is in a humerous vein and I can appreciate that too! But would you agree then that everything written in that article is 100% wrong? Even this writer mentioned at one point that there is some credence to what is being said.
"Does this make soy a bit controversial? Indeed it does. Are there some on the fringes of the health spectrum who are now claiming we are eating way too much of it? Indeed there are. Should you check into it for yourself? Absolutely."
(I dont know how to change the type set to italics for this so I used quotes)
I am not going to view it all as either black or white but probably somewhere in between.
I remember that saccrin(sp?) was so bad for you it would almost instantly make you drop over dead. (If you read those articles condemning it years ago) Then, it was pointed out that you would have to consume huge quatities of the sweetner in drinks to even have a mild side effect, but it was banned here in the USA. I noticed on my visit to Germany that they ban nutrasweet for almost the same kind of reason and yet they use saccrin in their diet drinks. Well of course we may both be correct you know.
Anyway, the point is that not all that was said in that article was a lie and I will continue to read more about soy and wonder who is telling me the truth about it. Seems most talking about it have some profit motives.
Oh yes, weren't we told that in a debate, if it was not easy to refute what your opponent said, then make him look silly or use ridicule on him.
[Updated on: Fri, 12 January 2007 05:01]
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... that there is some truth behind it, Ken.
You said,
>Anyway, the point is that not all that was said in that article was a lie and I will continue to read more about soy and wonder who is telling me the truth about it.
Excellent -- that's exactly what the article in response suggests you do.
>I am not going to view it all as either black or white but probably somewhere in between.
Before regarding it as somewhere in between -- the temptation, if you do that, is to assume that there is something like a 50% chance of there being a significant risk, which is *vastly* overrated -- PLEASE look up about it and find several unbiased articles that say the same thing first (and report back here if you like!). Don't, from now on, start telling people, "There may be significant health risks about soy" (and certainly, "Soy makes you gay," because as far as I can tell that's a complete fiction). Until you can look it up, say you honestly don't know. That's what I do. It doesn't prevent me from being critical of dangerous and unpleasant articles by people whose business is creating mass hysteria in uneducated bigots.
>Oh yes, weren't we told that in a debate, if it was not easy to refute what your opponent said, then make him look silly or use ridicule on him.
Mr Morford did not only ridicule Mr Rutz. But sometimes, when people spout incredibly biased mostly-nonsense there's not much you can do but look on and laugh.
Just out of interest, why would you wish to defend Mr Rutz? Say I'm a religious fundamentalist, and I write a post that says:
>God loves everyone! Except gay people who will rot in hell!
Would you defend all of it just because you happen to agree with half of it?
David
[Updated on: Fri, 12 January 2007 11:36] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3735668.stm
If there is indeed a link between fertility in women and homosexuality in men, then this is precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about -- nature retains the "gay gene" or genes because the advantage of making a woman more fertile is more useful than the (potential) disadvantage of some children being gay.
It is, of course, mostly theoretical and the results are by no means conclusive. However, it's quite interesting to think about.
How homosexuality is 'inherited'
Scientists say they have shown how male homosexuality could be passed from generation to generation.
Nature encourages mothers to pass on a "gay trait" to their male offspring by boosting their fertility, the Italian University of Padova team believes.
This would keep the pattern of gay inheritance alive, they told the Royal Society's Biological Sciences journal.
Critics of the theory argue a gay gene would eventually be wiped out because gay couples do not procreate.
Inheritance theory
There is controversy about whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice, the authors of the study admitted to the journal.
Campaigners say equality for homosexual people is the more important issue.
Back in 1993, US researchers suggested male homosexuality was passed from mother to son after they found strong patterns of inheritance in family trees.
It has also been noted that homosexual males are more often the younger siblings of a number of older brothers.
Scientists have said it might be that the mother develops some kind of resistance to the male Y chromosome in her offspring that makes subsequent baby boys more likely to be born gay.
Scientists doing DNA studies on homosexual brothers pinpointed 'culprit' genetic material to a region of the X chromosome that mothers pass on to their offspring.
But other researchers in the US have not been able to replicate these findings.
Highly fertile
Andrea Camperio-Ciani and colleagues argue genetic factors favouring homosexual male offspring could make women more fertile.
"Our data resolve this paradox by showing that there might be, hitherto unsuspected, reproductive advantages associated with male homosexuality," they said.
They looked at 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives, which included more than 4,600 people overall.
The female relatives on the mother's side of the homosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father's side.
This suggests that these women who, in theory, pass on the gay trait to their male offspring are also more fertile.
In comparison, the female relatives on both the mother's and the father's side of the heterosexual men did not appear to be as fertile, having fewer offspring.
The researchers believe the homosexuality-increased fertility trait must be passed down on the female X chromosome.
They pointed out that this would not explain the majority (80%) of cases, and that cultural factors might be important.
Bigger picture
"It is clear that our findings, if confirmed by further research, are only one piece in a much larger puzzle on the nature of human sexuality," they said.
In 2002, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics produced a report into the possible link between genes and behaviour, which included sexual orientation.
It concluded: "There are numerous problems with genetic and other biological research into sexual orientation which mean that any reported findings must be viewed with caution."
It said many of the genetic studies were too small to draw definite conclusions from.
Alan Wardle from the gay rights charity Stonewall said: "This is an interesting debate and there may well be a genetic element, but it's not conclusive.
"It does not really matter whether it is nature or nurture.
"The important thing is getting equality for homosexual people."
[Updated on: Fri, 12 January 2007 12:03] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken said,
>But would you agree then that everything written in that article is 100% wrong?
Nope -- because Mr Morford did not say that everything in the article was 100% wrong. Given that, I'm not sure who you think we might be agreeing with!
As you point out himself, he says:
>Does this make soy a bit controversial? Indeed it does. Are there some on the fringes of the health spectrum who are now claiming we are eating way too much of it? Indeed there are. Should you check into it for yourself? Absolutely.
Just because parts of an article may or may not be true (and, like me, you can't say at this time), this does not prevent us from ridiculing other parts that demonstrate poor logic and quite astonishing bigotry.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
