Water pollution from contraceptives does much more harm than once thought.
For years, gays have been looking for a gene that would legitimately give them the right to say nature has turned them into the opposite sex. As a result, they believe same-sex marriage should be a natural thing. To gays, same-sex marriage should be something beautiful, natural, and part of God’s big plan. But the reasons may be anything but natural.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Clavos
Clavos--Congratualtions! What does that mean, 6 out of 320,000 people. I can believe that...
What does it mean? Well, for starters, it's 25% of all the gays I know, so extrapolating, it's possible that up to 80,000 of the 320,000 are in long-term relationships.
But in any case, Doc's link pretty much sums it up.
27 - Ruvy
Kevin Roeten,
You really wrecked this article - and now you've devalued it further by getting into debate about homosexuality.
You had an excellent piece about the chemical polution and damage caused by larding the eco-system with estrogen. Homosexuality just doen't have all that much to do with chemically "feminizing" men.
Homosexuality has to do with an in-grown sexual preference - and stuffing some boy with estrogen will not change his sexual preferences.
You are entitled to your views about homosexuality - but those views will leave you under attack - while the meat of your article goes ignored....
28 - Dr Dreadful
Kevin says: It seems you'll have to crack a dictionary to get the actual defintion of homophobia.
My vocabulary is as adequate as your homophobia is plain, thank you.
When did I say that ALL gay men are feminine?
Your argument is that estrogen pollution in drinking water is causing males, to develop feminine characteristics; and you use what you claim is an increase in the rate of homosexuality as one of your pieces of supporting evidence.
But most are...
And you base this on what? The same personal experience that leads you to believe there are no long-term gay relationships? Or TV stereotypes?
I'd sure like to know where you came up with that piece of information...
It's in the link I provided, Kevin.
29 - Dr Dreadful
Ruvy, you've pretty much nailed Kevin (no pun intended!) with your #27.
Estrogen pollution is a justified concern. Unfortunately, Kevin's simply using the issue as a Trojan horse to promote his real agenda: his anti-gay views.
30 - zingzing
kevin: "Bicho--You're sure you know the reasons they stayed together? Ever conceive of the fact that no one else wanted to get married to them?"
wow. that kind of logic is grounded upon something so thin, i'm not even sure you could write it down without tearing up the paper.
"Dreadful--I'd sure like to know where you came up with that piece of information..."
you mean the one he linked to? so, in a link, you follow the link and it leads you to a source. this one happens to be a newspaper article which cites a study. you read the source, you find the citation, you know where it comes from. see?
[personal attack deleted]
31 - El Bicho
"Bicho--You're sure you know the reasons they stayed together? Ever conceive of the fact that no one else wanted to get married to them?"
No, that never occurred to me, but then I am not a close-minded person desperately trying to spin facts to fit my presumptive, narrow view of how the world should be.
32 - Kevin
Dreadful--We now know you've never read the definition of homophobia. Thanks.
So I didn't say all gay men are feminine. And i never said anything about an increase in the rate of homosexuality.
I never said there wer no ling-term gay relationships. I said I couldn't fing any.
Wow, your making this disagreement wat too elementary...
33 - Kevin
Dreadful--How unfortunate of you to assume things. I bet you've done that all your life, huh?
34 - zingzing
have troubles with your fingers there, kevin? still, i'm glad you're stepping back from your arguments. seemed much more sure of yourself yesterday.
35 - Kevin
Zing--YOU'RE talking about logic? That's pretty good! Sorry, I missed that link Dreadful pointed to. What was that link again?
36 - Kevin
Bitcho--So you didn't know the reasons. I can live with that. Wow, you're omniscient too! Amazing how you knew so much about a person without...well, really knowing him.
No problem. We prayed for you today.
37 - Kevin
Zing--I never stepped back from my arguments. But you assumed that? Wow, you're really good.
38 - zingzing
yeah, kevin, i'm talking about logic. and you can just press that little "previous 25 comments" link right there and find the link yourself. it's very simple. and it's impossible to miss. you just have to make a choice (or is it christ that compels you?) to click it.
39 - Dr Dreadful
Dreadful--We now know you've never read the definition of homophobia. Thanks.
A phobia is an irrational fear. Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals. Your views regarding homosexuality and its connection to the estrogen levels in water have been shown to be irrational, and based on fear.
And i never said anything about an increase in the rate of homosexuality.
You're being blatantly dishonest now. From page 3 of your article:
"The gay population will increase within the existing population, and will claim they were born that way."
I never said there wer [sic] no ling-term [sic] gay relationships. I said I couldn't fing [sic] any.
Then what was your point? Surely, with a scientific background, you must be aware of how feeble anecdotal evidence is?
40 - handyguy
Without its offensive, crude, utterly false opening paragraph, this is a reasonably interesting article.
Kevin has spent virtually all his energy in the comments section spewing ignorant bigotry similar to that first paragraph.
Your article is [or claims to be] based on science. Your statements about gays are based only on your own opinions, which draw on your [apparently] very limited experience in the real world.
What [nearly all] gay people assert is that we were born with this predilection -- not that we wish we were members of the opposite sex.
And yes, there are plenty of long-term gay relationships [not to mention short-term straight relationships]. If you don't know enough about a subject to say something meaningful, the best advice is to just shut up about it and move on.
41 - zingzing
are we sure that the kevin who wrote the article is the same as the "kevin" in the comments section? there is a "kevin roeten" in the comments section, as well as a "kevin w." i haven't yet made the assumption that the author and "kevin" are the same, but i could be wrong, and if i were kevin roeten (and kevin roeten is not "kevin"), i'd be out here proclaiming as much, unless he agrees.
42 - El Bicho
Kevin the Troll, first you do yourself no favors acting like a seventh-grader. Everyone who resorts to "Bitcho" shows a complete lack of originality and wit, so thank for falling into the dunce trap.
"Amazing how you knew so much about a person without...well, really knowing him."
Actually it's not that amazing. All one has to do is read your article and comments. It's rather obvious.
Besides you claim to know so much about gay relationships without knowing the people involved. Not really sure how you come to the conclusion that Stein and Tolkas were together because no one would marry them. Are you possibly projecting your own inadequacies?
I don't need your prayers so spare the condescension. Besides there's no one listening.
43 - Ruvy
zing,
Kevin Roeten wrote and ruined this article. The other Kevin refers to himself as Kevin W. and has different views from those of the author.
44 - zingzing
ahh, but ruvy, there's kevin, kevin roeten (comment 2 and 4,) AND kevin w. (comment 8).
kevin w. is obviously a different person. but it's kevin and kevin roeten that i'm not sure about. doc seems to make the assumption that they are the same person.
45 - zingzing
that may be because they write from the same ip. but i don't know that they do.
46 - Dr Dreadful
I'm, pretty sure that 'Kevin' and 'Kevin Roeten' are one and the same, zing. The later Kevin may have been speaking to us from his cellphone - hence the many typos.
47 - Kevin Dreadful
And the same tone of argument.
48 - Kevin
Ruvy--Of course homosexuality has everything to do with 'feminizing' men. What are you basing that info from?
49 - Kevin
Zing--I finally did read the comments on that link. You were actually right! I guess you didn't notice that info came directly from San Francisco--the gay capitol of the world. Of course they would say those things. I'm afraid it lends no credence to it, however.
50 - Kevin
Bicho--Please forgive my misspelling of your name. I didn't even know I had misspelled it until I read your thread about it. If I had meant to misspell your name, I likely would've done so on every thread before it. I'm truly sorry.
51 - Kevin
Dreadful--You found the definition of homophobia. Congratulations! It is correct. But please don't assume that I have some sort of irrational fear of homosexuals. I didn't know you could detect emotions from this thread.
52 - Kevin
Dreadful--It's not nice to take statements out of context! I said "rate" of homosexual occurence. You know as well as I do that the rate hasn't changed, but the overall number of people that admit they're gay has increased because they think it's fashionable now.
53 - zingzing
kevin: "I guess you didn't notice that info came directly from San Francisco--the gay capitol of the world. Of course they would say those things."
jesus, kevin. not that it has anything to do with it, but the info did not come from san francisco. the article did. the info came from... oh, you just saw san fran, said "gaaaaaay" and moved on, eh? you're fucking ridiculous.
"I'm afraid it lends no credence to it, however."
i'm afraid nothing would to you. one would think that a study finding that homosexuals actually do form lasting relationships would make you think that homosexuals actually do form lasting relationships, but this is kevin's world we live in. it's a twisted place where things that actually are aren't and only what kevin abides exists.
54 - zingzing
kevin: "You know as well as I do that the rate hasn't changed, but the overall number of people that admit they're gay has increased because they think it's fashionable now."
you need to learn some history. "fashionable?" with people like you out there? yeah, they do it to piss you off.
55 - Kevin
Handy--You thought the first pargraph was "crude"? Maybe someone needs to demonstrate what crude really means. Maybe you need to understand what spewing bigotry really is. There was no namecalling, or hatred, or crude remarks. Did you just assume that?
And why do you make the assumption that gays were always 'born' that way? And is there really a lot of gay long-term relationships?
56 - zingzing
"And why do you make the assumption that gays were always 'born' that way?"
because they are. why do you think it's something in the water?
"And is there really a lot of gay long-term relationships?"
(clavos: subject/verb) yes, there are.
57 - Kevin
Zing--Uh-oh, I must've pushed some buttons with you. You're using explatives in your writing now. What was it that I did to hurt you?
You seem to be making judgments at a whim now, even though you really know nothing about me. Please, all gay people aren't like that.
58 - Kevin
Zing--I never made any assumption. I think you made the assumption that gays were always "born" that way.
59 - zingzing
"Zing--Uh-oh, I must've pushed some buttons with you. You're using explatives in your writing now. What was it that I did to hurt you?"
i curse all the time, don't worry.
"You seem to be making judgments at a whim now, even though you really know nothing about me. Please, all gay people aren't like that."
i know enough about you to tell that you're a homophobe. that is what we're talking about, right?
not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean.
60 - zingzing
"Zing--I never made any assumption. I think you made the assumption that gays were always "born" that way."
"always born?" you mean every time they're born? yes, gay people are born gay. it's not a choice. did you choose to like women, and did you, at some point, weigh your options?
61 - Kevin
Zing--You KNOW I am a homophobe? When have I ever said that I hated homosexuals? That I might be scared of them? That I wanted to rid the earth of them? That I wasn't a homosexual myself?
An awful lot of assumptions. Do you always assume things? I guess you always assumed they were born that way. Who told you that?
The last time I checked gays could not produce kids. They could not be fruitful and multiply. Are you in it only for fun?
62 - Dr Dreadful
You know as well as I do that the rate hasn't changed, but the overall number of people that admit they're gay has increased because they think it's fashionable now.
OK. So first you claimed that increased gayness was due to something in the water. Now you're saying it's a cultural thing?
You're disappearing up your own bendy logic, my friend.
I guess you didn't notice that info came directly from San Francisco--the gay capitol of the world. Of course they would say those things. I'm afraid it lends no credence to it, however.
Since you asked me to look up the word 'homophobia', Kevin, perhaps I should ask you to look up the logical fallacy known as 'poisoning the well'. (Seems a very apt phrase in this context, BTW!)
Saying that the source has no credence because it was reported in a San Francisco newspaper is like saying you're not going to believe the last election result because you saw it reported in the New York Times.
But please don't assume that I have some sort of irrational fear of homosexuals. I didn't know you could detect emotions from this thread.
No assumptions necessary: unless you're just playing a role, your words tell us much.
63 - Dr Dreadful
The last time I checked gays could not produce kids. They could not be fruitful and multiply.
Gay men and women are just as capable of producing offspring as heterosexuals. I know several gay parents myself (but that's just anecdotal evidence!).
64 - Ruvy
Kevin,
I did a google search on estrgen and men. This article describes why men take estrogen and what can happen to them. Note, it does talk about men desiring other men, it talks about a decreased interest in sex. This article also talks about estrogen in men, and how it can get there, and why. Again, there is no mention of changing sexual orientation. You may find this article from Atlantic Magazine, Homosexuality and Biology to be of some interest. What it indicates, among other things, is that estrogen does not cause homosexuality, which is your evident thesis in your article. Too bad the good data is wasted on such a bad thesis.
65 - Ruvy
In comment #64, that should be: it does NOT talk about men desiring other men,...
66 - Dr Dreadful
Truth be told, and this whole gay row aside, I think Kevin overstates his case with regard to the feminizing effects of water-borne estrogen in humans.
It's well-known that many species of fish, some amphibians, a few reptiles and even the occasional bird can change genders under certain circumstances. So it's not surprising that the most dramatic effects of estrogen pollution would be seen in fish and frogs, since their biology allows them to do so relatively readily.
Humans, too, can be induced to take on characteristics of the opposite sex. Transsexuals do it all the time, but it takes the ingestion of massive amounts of hormones - in vastly higher concentrations than would be found in drinking water - to accomplish these physiological changes.
I'd need to see a lot more data than is presented here to be convinced that there was a significant risk of widespread male feminization - and by extension, a risk to the species - from estrogen pollution.
67 - Ruvy
DD,
You might find this story interesting.... Apparently estrogen has more effects than meet the eye.
68 - Dr Dreadful
I'll have to look at it when I get home, Ruvy. Apparently the filtering software here has deemed your link a Sexually Explicit Site! :-)
69 - Modern Zen Architecture
Yes. We need more data. Does anyone know of any studies going on now? I guess we could all use more statistics...
70 - Dr Dreadful
Hmm. Just spotted this...
Kevin: Zing--I never made any assumption.
Then, a few comments later: Are you in it only for fun?
That's a pretty big assumption right there...
71 - Glenn Contrarian
Kevin -
You seem like a religious person, and I certainly am strong within the Church of Christ, of which I am a member.
So here's something for you to chew on: if God meant for there to be only men and women, then why are there people who are born hermaphrodites with both male and female genitalia? Why are there women who have an internal set of male testes, and who have male (instead of female) chromosomes? Why do some men develop breasts (and even have breast cancer)?
Prejudice made its way into the Bible. Even the prophet Jeremiah complained how scribes were inserting their own prejudices into Scripture.
You see, Kevin, Christians believe in God and Jesus and follow Their commands. However, the words we read in the Bible canNOT be used to ignore scientific fact. Both the Bible and provable scientific fact MUST agree...unless you want to believe the Catholics were on the right track when they persecuted Galileo for saying that Earth wasn't the center of the universe.
72 - zingzing
doc: "That's a pretty big assumption right there..."
mhmm... because i don't abide homophobia, i must be gay. at this point, i can't even assume kevin is serious.
73 - handyguy
The "Kevin" in the comments section argues and writes like an 11-year-old. [Actually, that is somewhat unfair -- to most 11-year-olds.] Could all us liberals be falling for some kind of hoax here?
74 - zingzing
tis a possibility.
75 - Kevin
Glen--Please don't put words in my mouth. GHod meant for only men and women to procreate. Mutations and submutations happen all the time. It doesn't mean they should procreate.
The Bible has not been used to ignoire scientific fact. Where do you get that?
Catholics did not persecute Galileo. They put him under house arrest, but did not stop him from what he was doing. Back then, Galileo was simply stating something that went against the grain of known science at that time. Later, when the truth was known, any restrictiuons placed on him werwe removed.