[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: Birth Control and Homosexuality: Unintended Consequences In the 1980s, I had a boss who had gotten a masters degree in psychology from New York University. He was a brilliant man; could have been a doctor. He told me a story that explains much of what we see in society today. It seems that while doing his graduate work in the early 1960s, he had to do research on lab rats, which were given the synthetic hormones used in the then new birth control pills. The results, he told me, showed that the grandchildren of these lab rats would have high rates of homosexual behaviors. From what he told me, the findings were suppressed. Apparently, the powers that be wanted “the pill” to pass muster. What happened to the second generation of rats that followed was of no consequence to them. Then my boss told me: The first generation of kids born to mothers using the pill have already arrived. But we should expect in another generation a noticeable increase in homosexual behavior, as they would be the second generation. As that was then still in the future, I was shocked. This was told me in the mid '80s. By his reckoning, we should have seen a societal explosion of homosexuality starting around 2000, and subsequently. And, of course, we have seen such an explosion. His prediction came true. Now, to many classic conservatives – whether religious or merely social – homosexuality is a choice, something which can be learned and/or unlearned. The problem is: There is a degree of evidence that it may be contrariwise in some individuals. I invite one to look at this short CBS 60 Minutes documentary about what happens to lab rats treated with sex hormones early on their development. There is a body of evidence that early hormonal manipulation can have horrific consequences. We have to ask ourselves, what happens to all those women using hormonal contraceptives when they stop their pills in anticipation of wanted pregnancy. Does the normal human cycle return immediately, or is there a rebound effect where, even if ovulation occurs, the ambient hormonal background in the womb is screwed up? This article addressed the question of whether gonadal steroid exposure during prenatal development is one of the factors, in at least one of the pathways, that lead to variability in sexual orientation outcomes. Based on the compelling evidence that prenatal testosterone exposure influences children’s sex-typical play behavior, on the well-established links between childhood play interests and adult sexual orientation, and on the evidence showing altered sexual orientation in women exposed to high levels of androgens prenatally, because of CAH, the answer appears to be “yes.” - National Institutes of Health This next quote seems to confirm what my boss told me that the effect will skip a generation to the grandchildren. According to a newly released hypothesis, homosexuality might not lie in DNA itself. Instead, as an embryo develops, sex-related genes are turned on and off in response to fluctuating levels of hormones in the womb, produced by both mother and child. This benefits the unborn child, however if these epigenetic changes persist once the child is born, and has children of its own, some of these offspring may be homosexual. - SciTechDaily There you have it. The anecdote related to me 30 years ago, by my boss, has some scientific merit. There is a Catholic order of nuns, the Children of Mary, which in 2012 distributed information about this connection – which caused quite some controversy. To be honest, Catholicism's insistence on clerical celibacy sort of undercuts their concern with reproductive health; but the nuns may have a point. Contraception Video, Produced By Children Of Mary Order, Links Homosexuality With Birth Control – Huffington Post The Video – (Click Here) I do not agree with Catholicism's ban on artificial contraception. As long as it is non-abortifacient, I cannot see how it poses a moral issue among married couples. To be fair, it is not just a Catholic issue any more. Some classic Protestants have adopted similar views, such as with the Quiverfull movement. There is also the secondary issue that hormonal pills can lead to chemically induced miscarriages/abortions, even if that is not the intent of the user. The hormones can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. I do agree with those who see problems in altering the hormonal balance in a woman's body, which leads to this abortifacient action. So while I would take exception to the Catholic/Fundamentalist Quiverfull prohibition against condoms, I would agree with their condemnation of hormonal birth control pills. But this poses a tertiary issue. There is a body of evidence – apparently being suppressed by the popular media – that these convenient chemical alterations of women's bodies is part of the reason for the increase in Western homosexuality. The media now shows homosexuality as a heroic choice. Do they ever admit that it might be a chemically induced aberration? We were taught in school that our makeup was determined by our DNA; but there is a new science called epigenetics which is indicating that environmental effects may alter how our genes are expressed. While conservatives deny that there is a gay gene, per se, they may have to admit that there may be an epigenetic trigger. Normal DNA, in a normal fetus, subjected to unstable hormonal fluctuations in a womb, which until recently had been subjected to artificial hormones, may express itself in developing a child given to homosexual tendencies. The child's DNA may not be unusual, but the chemical bath under which the child developed may have set off triggers which led to an altered orientation or proclivity. New Clues That Sexual Orientation Could Be Epigenetic In addition, evidence has shown that women who are exposed to androgen early in life are more likely to identify as homosexual or bisexual. - Medscape (2015) This leads to a further issue. It is the province of moralists and many conservative Christians to dismiss, as hogwash, the claim of homosexuals that they were born that way. The inability to isolate a gay gene is proof that it is not genetic. However, it may be epigenetic. This further introduces more moral issues, particularly to those who would decry homosexuals as willfully degenerate. It may not be a much of a choice as classic moralists might want to think. Now, I happen to think homosexuality will destroy any society where it is unchecked. I am opposed to gay marriage, because it violates biology. I am also opposed to the media's glorification of homosexuality as the equivalent of normal orientation. It is not. However, a considerable portion of the blame may be with the pharmaceutical companies which push these pills. Initial tests, done 50 years ago, seem to have shown what problems would arise. My boss' fearful predication told to me 30 years ago has come true. No doubt, our culture and media compound the problem by encouraging homosexual behavior in individuals who might be easily persuaded to revert back to normal proclivities. However, we may have to address a frightening problem that even were we to re-Christianize our societal worldview – highly unlikely - there will be a considerable swath of individuals who were irrevocably damaged in utero; and who may be beyond complete re-adjustment. The best that can be suggested is that women be fully informed of the dangers of taking hormonal birth control; and a certain degree of Christian charity – by which I do NOT mean approval – be tendered to those individuals who say they cannot change. In plain terms, society should not allow gay marriage, but should make provisions for individuals who cannot change. Ideally, the withdrawal of hormonal birth control from the marketplace would be a solution, forcing women to revert to older barrier and prophylactic methods. However, our social engineers would remind us that this would result in poorer women – code word for blacks and minorities – having more unwanted babies, as they are too “uneducated” to know how to use simpler birth control methods which require a few seconds of extra effort. And that is the real issue. Social engineers will continue to sacrifice generations of children to the moloch of gender dysphoria to keep the unwanted subterranean Morlocks of society at bay. The unintended consequence is that quite often the individuals hurt will not be in the poorer classes, but in the sections of society they would want to see reproduce. Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who wishes he had availed himself more fully of the opportunity to learn Spanish in high school, lo those many decades ago. He writes on the Arabs of South America at http://latinarabia.com. He also just started a website about small computers at http://minireplacement.com. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
#1. To: Ada (#0)
A very interesting hypothesis.
No one has been able to find a gay gene, so its either hormones or cultural. I read that male children born in Germany during the last days of WWII when their mothers were under great stress were disproportionately homosexual Obviously they weren't on the pill but the stress they were under could have affected the hormones in the placenta.
I would say that understanding of genetics is still in relative infancy, so it's too soon to conclude there is no genetic cause of homosexuality. In the long debate of whether it is genetic or environmental (personally, I have never believed it to be a choice) the suggestion that it is hormonally induced offers a 3rd option. Some researches have already found at least somewhat of a consistency between the physical size of a part of the brain and the sexual orientation across both heterosexual and homosexual people of both genders. If homosexuality is a choice then.... I suggest only homosexual people would be qualified to authenticate the theory, and I know of no such person who has ever stated it was a choice.
If homosexuality is a choice then.... I suggest only homosexual people would be qualified to authenticate the theory, and I know of no such person who has ever stated it was a choice. 60 Minutes did a program on identical male twins where one was homosexual and the other heterosexual. Obviously their genetics and brain makeup was identical. If there is anything to the hormone theory, there would have to be some way one of them got a bigger dose of the stress hormone than the other. The article had a paragraph about lesbians which IMO was nonsense. I have never read any lesbian who claims she was born that way. For them it is a choice. Males OTOH usually say they realized that they were gay at a very young age.
Obviously true on genetics, but that doesn't necessarily mean brain makeup is identical. If hormones are responsible for activating various genes, then it's possible that hormones could cause differing physical characteristics between 2 identical twins. In this discussion, it's important to differentiate between homo/heterosexuality in terms of sexual attractiveness and the desire to be one gender or the other. I.e. a man might have a feminine personality in terms of lifestyle and want to be a woman, and yet still be attracted to females. And of course there are plenty of gay men that are still relatively macho in lifestyle. They have no desire to live like a woman, and yet they are gay. I see the discussion of genetic, environmental or choice in terms of homosexuality only being valid in terms of sexual attractiveness, and not with regard to whether one wants to *be* a member of the opposite sex or has non-sexual lifestyle preferences that are consistent with the opposite sex.
I'm disregarding cultural homosexuals like the Spartans who lived in barracks without women for long periods and thought having a boy lover (age 12-18) proper, but not okay if older. The author has raised the question whether birth control hormones can cause homosexuality in boys and uses evidence that there are many more homosexuals than there used to be. Maybe its just that its now acceptable; but if there really are more, then the hormone theory might be correct. Years ago the prevailing theory was that male homosexuals were the fault of an overbearing mother and an absent father. That went out of fashion but maybe if the birth control pill theory is valid, people will go back to blaming mother.
There are no replies to Comment # 8. End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||