It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Slimming pills can make an embryo gay, says research

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
After another harsh discussion about wether gay people are born gay, or gay because of their own choice, I think it's time to hear what you all think about this recent research, regarding diet pills.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

To me this research points out pretty clearly that gay people are born gay and that it's something biological, something physical.

However there are more than a few ATSers that seem to think this research means nothing at all.

So what do you all think? Is this research a good way to make your point in discussions about wether it's a choice?

What will this mean for how people following a religion look at gay people? (I am a christian myself)

[edit on 16-2-2005 by Jakko]




posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Jakko..this is pointless. I don't know why it is that it seems to be only Christians that want to think, or think, that to be gay has to be a choice....why is that? Aaaaaaanyway, this too will just turn into another yes they are, no they aren't BS.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
Aaaaaaanyway, this too will just turn into another yes they are, no they aren't BS.


Maybe, but I have to know what the average ATSer thinks about this research, before I can find peace in the thought that the 2 ATS members you talk about are just idiots.

I mean, am I crazy understanding this research the way I do?

[edit on 16-2-2005 by Jakko]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Interesting research. Thanks for posting it.


...Medications and contaminations in our food and water do things we just do NOT want to know about - to our genes and our cells too....

Generally, the only effects we notice are the ones that are immediately fatal, or cause gross birth defects. ...Anything else is pretty much dismissed - but there's a whole LOT goin on.



.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
What will this mean for how people following a religion look at gay people? (I am a christian myself)


In Canada the largest Protestant congregation, The United Church of Canada, has no problem with homosexuality, and will in fact ordain gay people.

I don't think you can make a broad sweeping characterization of 'Christian' in this case, as several Christians could care less about a person's private life.

If you're gay, you're gay. I don't care how this became your sexual preference and it is none of my business anyways. Judge not lest ye be judged.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
If you're gay, you're gay. I don't care how this became your sexual preference and it is none of my business anyways. Judge not lest ye be judged.


Indeed, and as a christian I agree.
But why is it that in general christians are known for their harsh behavior against *eespecially* gay people.
LadyV will probably be able to tell you all about it, but there are a lot of christians in this world that I am ashamed of regarding the way they talk about people who were unfortunate enough to be born gay.

Could these types of research change peoples minds?



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Yes being gay is completely natural. What gets me is where do people get off calling it a sin.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Indeed, and as a christian I agree.
But why is it that in general christians are known for their harsh behavior against *eespecially* gay people.
LadyV will probably be able to tell you all about it, but there are a lot of christians in this world that I am ashamed of regarding the way they talk about people who were unfortunate enough to be born gay.

Could these types of research change peoples minds?


I have no idea why some people feel the need to project their insecurities on other people. It is shameful, and I do not tolerate it in my presense. I am one of those truly annoying people who will call out a total stranger for being an butt.. We've all got to die sometime, and if I get shot for standing up for a fellow human being, so be it.

Honestly, I don't know that the research would change any minds. It's sad, but a lot of people are unwilling to even question their belief system. I have a real hard time with Christians who hold the position gay = bad, but I'll admit there certainly are a lot of them.

I just hope that over time people become more educated and start to accept people for who they are, and not who they love.

Stricly speaking, I'm not really a Christian (practicing), I'm more 'spiritual' than anything. However I have family members that were Ministers in the United church, and I am very, very happy that I was raised to accept people for who or what they are.

The key word is tolerance, and that comes from the way you were raised, IMO.

I do not consider Christians who denigrate homosexuality to be Christians, because it seems to go against a lot of teachings. Colour me confused on this one.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
Yes being gay is completely natural. What gets me is where do people get off calling it a sin.


I understand the "why". I also understand that they feel it's a sin because their religion say so, though I see it different than they do, I don't think it is meant in the way they take it, but that's neither here nor there.....what upsets me, is that many Christians, will not, under any circumstances, open their minds to see research, or to try and understand other aspects....they probably have never known any gays closely. They have not seen the anguish and pain of trying to fit in, trying to be attracted to what they aren't attracted to.....thinking about, and trying to commit suicide over their situation....they have no clue, and they judge people while saying they aren't, when the mere fact that they say it's their choice is judging them. I'm outa this thread now, because it will turn into another back and forth bunch of rhetoric, and it's not worth my energy. As I have said before, a person can't go beyond what they have to work with...so it's hopeless.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
After another harsh discussion about wether gay people are born gay, or gay because of their own choice, I think it's time to hear what you all think about this recent research, regarding diet pills.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

To me this research points out pretty clearly that gay people are born gay and that it's something biological, something physical.


This is a single study that attempts to correlate two variables based on statistics. Nothing is conclusively demonstrated by this study. This study supports the hypothesis that sexual preference is influenced by environment... nothing more. This study doesn't close the book on the issue of 'sexual preference is a choice.' This study is also retrospective, merely using statistical corrleations as opposed to actual experimentation. Studies like this are useful in support of other experimental data, but conclusively demonstrate nothing. The study also points out that the reverse effect is true in males... stating that "mothers of heterosexual males were 70% more likely to have taken pills to combat nausea than those of gay men."

While this study is intriguing... it hardly closes the book on the issue of sexual preference.

In the end though, what difference does this make? You'll never convince someone who believes their God prohibits homosexuality to feel any other way... choice or not.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Jakko are you still trying to advance this as proof of your hypothesis?
Have you read the article?

TAKING pills for slimming and thyroid problems during pregnancy may increase the possibility of bearing lesbian daughters, a study has revealed.

Ok so in the first paragraph the article itself states may, not will, not does may, as in there is a possibility, not "proof" as you so ignorantly posted.
Next

Researchers studied thousands of pregnant women to study the effect of prescription drugs on their babies and discovered that the drug thyroxine, used to treat thyroid deficiency, and amphetamine-based slimming pills appear to influence homosexuality among female children

Ahh so it appears to influence Not causes, not leads to, not is responsible for, another qualified statement used to indcate that while there may be a relationship, it is not certain.
now this is where it gets really interesting jakko and where a rational logical person wold have realised there is a problem

Professor Lee Ellis and his team at Minot State University, North Dakota, compiled the study using the mothers of more than 5,000 students. They discovered thyroid pills were taken by 5.2% of the mothers of lesbians but by only 1% of mothers of female heterosexuals. Slimming pills were taken by 2% of mothers of lesbians but only 0.2% of mothers of heterosexual children. The findings will appear in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, next month.

So according to the data 5.2% of those mothers who were known to have lesbian daughters, had also taken this particular drug.
Now jakko heres where you failed to use any powers of reasoning. It does not say that 100% of those mothers who had lesban children took the drug just 5.2% in other words one out of twenty, what about the other 95% of women who had lesbian daughters? So what wpould a resoned informed person gather from this data? Well there seems to be a statistical correlation, not a casual relationship. Do you know the difference?
A correltion means "where we see X we often see Y as well". As casual relationship is " X leads to Y"
Finally the report concludes

The report concludes: “The most noteworthy findings were that if prenatal therapeutic substances affect offspring sexual orientation, the effects are mainly confined to female offspring and are limited to the first trimester of pregnancy

in other words if the statistical correlation is valid, the effect are confined to female offspring, and only if those substances interact with the fetus in the first trimester.

So to conclude jakko, the rsearcher admit that there is no evidence of a casual relationship, that thier findings are limited to female offspring only, and that the correlation only seems to be present when the drug was taken in the first trimester.
Now for some of the holes in the research.
The homosexuality of the offspring was not tested at birth, rather it came to light after puberty. Meaning that the correlation could be due to other factors that 5.2% of of mothers also have in common. In addition there is no the researcher themselves admitted thier test was too limited and that a larger study must be done to determine if thier data is even accurate. But hey jakko, why should you exerc8se your brain when you have the internet to tell you what to thnk right?



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
This is a single study that attempts to correlate two variables based on statistics. Nothing is conclusively demonstrated by this study. This study supports the hypothesis that sexual preference is influenced by environment... nothing more.


I don't agree

Researchers studied thousands of pregnant women to study the effect of prescription drugs on their babies and discovered that the drug thyroxine, used to treat thyroid deficiency, and amphetamine-based slimming pills appear to influence homosexuality among female children.

The results show sexual orientation is affected by prenatal rather than social factors, with mothers of homosexual girls proving eight times more likely to have taken those pills — most noticeably with daughters whose mothers took them during their first three months of pregnancy.


It's not just a simple correlation between two variables matt, they tracked this down to the drug thyroxine. Next is of course a test with this drug in order to fully proof what this research allready shows, but to me this shows that being gay is not a choice. And I mean never.



[edit on 17-2-2005 by Jakko]



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
But hey jakko, why should you exerc8se your brain when you have the internet to tell you what to thnk right?


Once again your post is a little pathetic.
Of course it's not going to be 100%, just like drinking dirty water will not make 100% of the drinkers ill.

The words "may" and "appear to influence" are always used in these kind of researches, because in the scientific world it takes years and years of additional tests and researches for something to be 100% sure.

This does not mean that this research means nothing though.

Now about excercising my brain.

First of all, learn to type, your posts are becoming increasingly hard to read.
Second, just try to activate some braincells for yourself ok?
You're really one of the most pathetic ATSers I have ever seen, and I don't judge fellow-christians who are a little too conservative quickly, but you're just beyond anything I've met.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko

Originally posted by mwm1331
But hey jakko, why should you exerc8se your brain when you have the internet to tell you what to thnk right?


Once again your post is a little pathetic.
Of course it's not going to be 100%, just like drinking dirty water will not make 100% of the drinkers ill.

The words "may" and "appear to influence" are always used in these kind of researches, because in the scientific world it takes years and years of additional tests and researches for something to be 100% sure.

This does not mean that this research means nothing though.

Now about excercising my brain.

First of all, learn to type, your posts are becoming increasingly hard to read.
Second, just try to activate some braincells for yourself ok?
You're really one of the most pathetic ATSers I have ever seen, and I don't judge fellow-christians who are a little too conservative quickly, but you're just beyond anything I've met.


ohhh nooooooooo jakko thinks i'm pathetic, and doesn't like my spelling.
Like I sad before jakko when you understand the difference between a statisticl correlation and a casual relationship you will have proven yourself capable of citing studies, untill then

BTW you realise tht you just admittied your argument doesnt hold water right?
Your admission of loss is convienently bolded.

Something that is not 100% sure is "proof" eh?



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
In the end though, what difference does this make? You'll never convince someone who believes their God prohibits homosexuality to feel any other way... choice or not.


I think my God prohibits homoseksuality, allthough I am not 100% sure.
The part in the bible that speaks about this, contains so many other rules that people (even the most conservative christians) are not applying to their lives anymore anyways.

To me it's very important to know wether a human being is able to change and form his own sexual desires. It just changes the entire discussion...
If gay people are born gay, it means they are not to blame for what they are. And looking at how young gay people commit suicide because they have parents like mwm1331, I think it should become very clear wether becoming gay is a choice or not.

To me even this simple and not waterproof research shows that, because prenatal factors influence the sexual orientation of the "soon to be" human being, it can not be a choice, or result of social factors...

[edit on 17-2-2005 by Jakko]



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Jakko how sweet of you to mention me in your sig line

Well at least if your ignoring me I wont have to listen to anymore of your ill considered attempts to prove a point with inconclusive data that has been badly misinterperted due to your lack of critical thinking.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko


I think my God prohibits homoseksuality, allthough I am not 100% sure.
The part in the bible that speaks about this, contains so many other rules that people (even the most conservative christians) are not applying to their lives anymore anyways.



You just hit my biggest all time problem with some Christians! They pick and choose what they will follow....."I'll be against gays and be vocal and dislike them cause the bible says it's a sin, but I will still drink and party, and lie, and womanize cause I like that and it's too hard to stop" hypocrites

It's like one of my employees that voted against gay marriage, she's in church when the doors are open....but she is living with her boy friend that she met a month before she voted and she is only 19. When I asked her why, she said "because it's wrong".....so I said, "so is living with a man you hardly know"....she said yeah, but that's different! WTH is different? I guess because she wants to do one and doesn't want to do the other...



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
And of course lady V only chrstians do that right? I mean we own the patent on hypocracy dont we?
No pagan, jew, muslim, buddhist, etc. would ever do such a thing.
Not only that but all christians do that rght?
Get a life and a real religon.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV

You just hit my biggest all time problem with some Christians! They pick and choose what they will follow.....


What I ment is not really what you are talking about though.
I was talking about several very weird laws that are also in leviticus, that are so hard to live by these days that noone does anymore.

"I'll be against gays and be vocal and dislike them cause the bible says it's a sin, but I will still drink and party, and lie, and womanize cause I like that and it's too hard to stop" hypocrites

But yes you do have a point.
Humans will remain humans, and even christians show some signs of being humans sometimes. ;+)
With the ultimate example of a hypocrit, mwm, in our midsts we can only realize that there must be quite a lot of these idiotic types in real life.

Fortunately there are also a lot of christians who do try to stick to Jesus teachings and focuss on the positive instead of telling others what to and what not to do.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
I don't agree

Well, you're certainly entitiled to your opinion... that's what makes the world and interesting and diverse place.


Researchers studied thousands of pregnant women to study the effect of prescription drugs on their babies and discovered that the drug thyroxine, used to treat thyroid deficiency, and amphetamine-based slimming pills appear to influence homosexuality among female children.

They could've studied millions of women, and traced it to a different factor... Look, no matter what, this study IS a statistical correlation between two variables. These types of studies are suggestive of hypotheses, supportive of hypotheses, but NEVER conclusive proof of cause and effect. Conclusive proof = perform act A (taking diet pills for example), observe the effect of act A on the system being studied (in this case the sexual orientation of offspring). In the most conclusive case, 100% of offspring will be affected. However, the study that you've cited doesn't do this, in fact a small, but apparently statistically relevant percentage of the population are affected. But again this study falls far short of conclusive proof. And anyway... since when is a single scientific study (I remember the gay sheep, and am aware of LaVay), conclusive proof of anything? Never, at least among myself and my colleagues.


The results show sexual orientation is affected by prenatal rather than social factors, with mothers of homosexual girls proving eight times more likely to have taken those pills — most noticeably with daughters whose mothers took them during their first three months of pregnancy.

Yes, I did read the study... and I stand by my original rebuttal.


It's not just a simple correlation between two variables matt, they tracked this down to the drug thyroxine. Next is of course a test with this drug in order to fully proof what this research allready shows, but to me this shows that being gay is not a choice. And I mean never.

Whether or not they've 'tracked' it to thyroxine isn't relevant. No matter what they've done, it doesn't change the nature of the study. The study was, is currently, and always will be a simple statistical correlation between two variables. The scientific community ('hard' science, that is) as a whole is generally taught that these studies are never conclusive proof, only demonstrative or supportive of ideas.


I think my God prohibits homoseksuality, allthough I am not 100% sure.
The part in the bible that speaks about this, contains so many other rules that people (even the most conservative christians) are not applying to their lives anymore anyways.

I understand where you are coming from... I mean how can anyone who eats shrimp, lobster, or shellfish (it is an abomination) persecute homosexuals for not being good Christians and not following the letter of God's Law? I empathize with you.

Let me ask you though... if you believe that, or think that God prohibits homosexuality, how can you justify it on any level, choice or not? This is not a flame, I am interested in your perspective. Simply because other Christians, and even those who claim to be 'conservative' break God's Law, is that somehow a justification for your sinful behavior? If you believe God's laws are written in the Bible, how can you justify breaking them, irrespective of what others practice/believe?

Disclaimer: I don't believe homosexuals or anyone else should be persecuted for the beliefs.... I am not a member of any religious organization, nor do I claim to be a Christian, good or bad. I am just interested in the opinions/feelings of those who seem to straddle unique moral positions.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join