http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1389841,00.html
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/05/ngay05.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/05/ixhome.html
http://www.thegayvote.co.uk/weblog/archives/2004/12/05/diet_pills_in_pregnancy_increase_chances_of_gay_ch ildren.html

Summary: Expecting mothers who take thyroid medication or slimming pills containing the hormone thyroxine are eight times more likely to give birth to lesbian daughters than expecting mothers who do not.

Validity of the study aside, what would this mean for the gay community, for our understanding of sexual orientation, and for mankind at large?

Another question that arises is: if parents could control the factors that may influence the sexuality of their offspring, will they elect to have only heterosexual children? If sufficient triggers that cause homosexuality in children were discovered, I would expect most heterosexual parents would avoid these factors (if not out of homophobia, then by a honest belief that their children will live a happier life). The obvious result would be a diminution in gay population over time. In the next century, will the gay culture of today be an historical curiosity?

Personally, I recoil from the idea that the culture which many (not all) gay men and women share may vanish someday. For many, there's a real feeling of community, shared history and proud distinctiveness in being gay. The gay people that I have met would never wish to be made straight if it were possible. Despite the difficulties in being gay, it's quite depressing to think that their community may be a historical flash in the pan.

I can't help think, however, if I could select the sexuality (if only by avoiding certain triggers) of my children that I may well choose for them to be straight. OTOH, I can see many gay parents selecting to bear gay children in order to preserve their culture. Will we see pregnant lesbians flocking to buy thyroxine? Will the focus of the question of whether homosexuality is a choice eventually shift from the gay person to their parents instead? Would it be wrong to deliberately choose to bear a gay child?

:m: Peace.

Will fundamentalists be screaming for the banning of thyroxine?

The idea of struggling to keep gay culture alive is comedically absurd.
I love it.

Gay people say they would not be made straight if it were possible simply because they're thinking of how much they enjoy gay sex. If that desire was gone they definately would not choose to be gay.

Would it be wrong to deliberately choose to bear a gay child?
I think so.
And more than that it would be illogical and an exhibition of someone not understanding the essence of their natural urges nor the point of their existence.
The whole reason people want to have children is so those children will have children, and so on, that's the point. Thats why parenting is "rewarding".
Someone wanting to have a gay child would be like someone wanting to dream about eating rather than actually eating. The whole reason eating feels good is because it keeps you alive, if you just aim to have those good feelings without the real benefits that real nutrients will provide you're like a malfunctioning machine, and you will starve to death while feeling full.
Similarly, parent of gay might enjoy their child but it will be a completely pointless venture, worthy of ridicule from the gods. Their legacy will die soon after they do and all the good times they shared with their queer little son playing dressups will have been an utter waste of time.

My understanding is that what it means for our understanding of sexual orientation is that it backs up the theories about hormone exposure on the developing brain and nervous system in the womb, and as such is a good thing, because this theory takes away all power from any critiscism of homosexuals as being wicked, mutant or anything else.

As for parents electing to control the sexual orientation of their offspring, that is likely, though unlikely to occur until we can somehow affect both the mothers genes, the childrens genes and the exact amniotic environment. So, it wont happen for decades yet. But I do think it likely that many parents would choose to have only heterosexuals. MAny more would leave it to chance. Wouldnt it be funny if the only people producing homosexuals were fundamentalists who refused to haev anything to do with new technology?
But as for whether it is wrong to bear a homosexual child, of course it isnt, unless you agree with weirdly distorted biological beliefs like dr lunatic. He gives the general reasons many people would choose to not have a homosexual child, and ignores the other point that simply, people will do what they like. No doubt in a hypothetical advanced future there might be a small fashion for homosexual children.

Summary: Expecting mothers who take thyroid medication or slimming pills containing the hormone thyroxine are eight times more likely to give birth to lesbian daughters than expecting mothers who do not.

Interesting. I'm a bit too lazy to read the links (right at this moment, don't worry I'll get to it!) does it mention anything about gay sons? Or does it deal only with lesbians?

Validity of the study aside, what would this mean for the gay community, for our understanding of sexual orientation, and for mankind at large?

Well not much, I'd wager. The argument that we're chemically imbalanced may supersede the idea that we've all been molested as children or that we're all satanic perverts who want to piss off decent Midwestern Americans. Changing the flavor of the most common homophobic attacks isn't a huge change.

Another question that arises is: if parents could control the factors that may influence the sexuality of their offspring, will they elect to have only heterosexual children? If sufficient triggers that cause homosexuality in children were discovered, I would expect most heterosexual parents would avoid these factors (if not out of homophobia, then by a honest belief that their children will live a happier life).

I don't think that this would be such an awful thing, really, preventing your child from being gay is really just one less thing to worry about on the part of the parent and the child. Of course this is assuming that all of the factors which result in a person being gay or not has to do with substances the mother is exposed to in the prenatal period.

The obvious result would be a diminution in gay population over time. In the next century, will the gay culture of today be an historical curiosity?

Well homosexuals have been with us as long as. . . well at least as long as civilization, at least, and quite likely longer than that. As for current "gay culture" it may well be just a "flash in the pan" as our own culture as a whole may be. It's here now and it'll either be violently destroyed or just fade away as cultures have been known too in the past. Nothing really worth getting all in a tizzy over really. Besides, even if we stopped making more homosexual people there will still be plenty of heterosexual eccentrics and fans of "camp" to carry on the legacy, I'm sure, heh.

Personally, I recoil from the idea that the culture which many (not all) gay men and women share may vanish someday. For many, there's a real feeling of community, shared history and proud distinctiveness in being gay. The gay people that I have met would never wish to be made straight if it were possible.

Wow, I really suppose this would depend on who you talk too. I mean I'm sure any theater enthusiast would agree with you, but personally I'm a bit hard pressed to muster much enthusiasm about "gay culture" in and of itself. But then I do spend quite a lot of time doing my best to blend in in the most obvious way possible such that I might display to people that not all homosexuals are limp-wristed lisping sissies who sing show tunes and talk about how "fabulous" this or that thing is.

I can't help think, however, if I could select the sexuality (if only by avoiding certain triggers) of my children that I may well choose for them to be straight.

Don't worry about it, it doesn't make you a bad person or anything. Like I said before, just one less thing to worry about, right? If you knew your kid was going to be born with a radically different skin color from you, but you could prevent it and avoid jokes from friends along the lines of "Say, what color was the Mail man?" and it was as simple as having your wife avoid certain foods, wouldn't you consider that as well? You'd love your child just as much either way, sure, but that's just one less thing to worry about.

OTOH, I can see many gay parents selecting to bear gay children in order to preserve their culture. Will we see pregnant lesbians flocking to buy thyroxine? Will the focus of the question of whether homosexuality is a choice eventually shift from the gay person to their parents instead? Would it be wrong to deliberately choose to bear a gay child?

I find that most gay parrents tend to take the attitude that their children's sexuallity will be what it will be, and they'll love and support 'em no matter the case. I don't imagine that it is as akward in the minds of gay parrents that they should be raising a straight child (we're very used to being surrounded by straight people, hell most gay people's parrents were straight!) than it would be for an average straight couple raising a gay child.

Will fundamentalists be screaming for the banning of thyroxine?

Oooh what does it matter? If they aren't screaming about that, then certainly they will be about something else. They're fundamentalists, they scream a lot, it's what they do, who really cares?

I think so.
And more than that it would be illogical and an exhibition of someone not understanding the essence of their natural urges nor the point of their existence.

Leave it to Dr. Lou to hold out on us about the fact that he's got the objective meaning of life and human existence up his sleeves for this long! Come on, man, if you knew all this time why didn't you tell us! We sure must look like idiots to you, what with everyone trying to find their own path and meaning as it seems to make sense to them. Shit, my face is red!

Goofy
Summary: Expecting mothers who take thyroid medication or slimming pills containing the hormone thyroxine are eight times more likely to give birth to lesbian daughters than expecting mothers who do not.

Interesting. In trying to appease society's obsession with looks and notions of being skinny to look good, women resort to taking drugs that could result in their daughters being born lesbian. I wonder what will win out in the end. Being skinny and have a lesbian child or being fat and have a child that may or may not be gay.

Another question that arises is: if parents could control the factors that may influence the sexuality of their offspring, will they elect to have only heterosexual children? If sufficient triggers that cause homosexuality in children were discovered, I would expect most heterosexual parents would avoid these factors (if not out of homophobia, then by a honest belief that their children will live a happier life). The obvious result would be a diminution in gay population over time. In the next century, will the gay culture of today be an historical curiosity?
I think that if one could elect their child's sexual orientation, many would elect for a heterosexual child. Others simply wouldn't care, just as long as the child were healthy and happy. I can imagine the ultra right sector utilising the controlling factors to ensure that their children be born straight... gives them leverage over the devil worshippers who love their gay children. I can imagine it now.. I believe in God and my child isn't gay, so why is yours... Others may opt for a heterosexual child, for as you've mentioned above, to spare them the pain and discrimination that society will cause them for being gay (a society composing of increasing numbers of the neo-cons).

As to whether the gay culture of today being a historical curiousity in the future, I doubt it, as women not on the hormone thyroxine can also have children who are homosexual.

Personally, I recoil from the idea that the culture which many (not all) gay men and women share may vanish someday. For many, there's a real feeling of community, shared history and proud distinctiveness in being gay. The gay people that I have met would never wish to be made straight if it were possible. Despite the difficulties in being gay, it's quite depressing to think that their community may be a historical flash in the pan.
Ah but you're an educated and enlightened individual with a sense of human decency. Unfortunately, not all feel as you do. We are born as we are born, and we should be proud to be who we are (unless you're Bush, in which case the question should be what went wrong.. but that's another thread altogether), be it gay or straight.

Will fundamentalists be screaming for the banning of thyroxine?
Only if they don't mind looking podgy in their Sunday best at Church every Sunday morning. And for the fundamentalists who appear on TV.. well the camera does add 10 pounds... Decisions decisions... to look good and skinny and better than Mrs Jones down the street in a mini or to have the risk of having a lesbian child.. the mind boggles... ;)


Lou
The whole reason people want to have children is so those children will have children, and so on, that's the point. Thats why parenting is "rewarding".
It is? Here I thought people had children for use as personal slaves. My parents didn't have me so that I could have children. If they did then I must be an extreme disappointment.

Similarly, parent of gay might enjoy their child but it will be a completely pointless venture, worthy of ridicule from the gods. Their legacy will die soon after they do and all the good times they shared with their queer little son playing dressups will have been an utter waste of time.
You line of thinking assumes that homosexuals can't have children, when they can and do. Their reproductive organs don't shrivel up and die just because they are homosexual.

But then I do spend quite a lot of time doing my best to blend in in the most obvious way possible such that I might display to people that not all homosexuals are limp-wristed lisping sissies who sing show tunes and talk about how "fabulous" this or that thing is.
Come now, if you want to sing do so. Why try to blend in?
(Beyond that necessary to get out of a fight with some rabidly heterosexual men?)

Come now, if you want to sing do so. Why try to blend in?
(Beyond that necessary to get out of a fight with some rabidly heterosexual men?)

Luckily for me and my sense of dignity I have no urge to break out into song most of the day. Sometimes when I'm in the shower, but usualy never in public, haha. Likewise dressing in drag holds no appeal for me. . . unless I'm headed to a Scifi Convention, in which case I'd really like to try dressing up like Chiana from Farscape sometime. Hey, I'm bulit for it (with a mild bit of padding in the right places, of course).

My god how could they publish findings like that? Havn't the evangelical christian politicians and preachers warned us about the homosexual agenda? Soon gender terrorists will steal huge amounts of these drugs and contaminate the food and water supplies with them, ensuring a gay baby boom with which they can destroy the family and all that is good and decent!

Crazy... Taking drugs while cooking one in the oven.

So how about holding the coincidence as a criminal matter? Since the people seek so desperately to reject the Constitution in favor of their hatred of gays, why not hold the mothers of gay children criminally responsible for causing the revocation of their child's civil rights? Since the stain will last the child's entire life, I think mandatory sterilization and life in prison for the mother is a fair trade-off.

And since I'm considering the validity of justifying gender-based hatred, I think we ought to outlaw abortion and instead of spanking babies as they come out, simply present them with a bill for room and board. A bill for $10,000 for rent, food, and services rendered doesn't seem unreasonable from the perspective of a parent, but the shock will certainly cause the baby to breathe in order to gasp and choke at the absurdity. Of course, then the baby needs to get a job in order to pay for the lawyer to argue about what the mother did or didn't do during pregnancy in order to knock off parts of that bill ....

Yeah, that's what our society is coming to. Let's be proud of it.

In the meantime, I think anyone taking speed (e.g. diet pills) during pregnancy has some seriously screwed-up priorities.

In the meantime, I think anyone taking speed (e.g. diet pills) during pregnancy has some seriously screwed-up priorities.
Didn't you know Tiassa? One must now always be thin. And one should definitely try to be thin during a pregnancy, after all, that baby adds such a bulge in tight clothes. I was telling a friend of mine about this article and she told me she was amazed when she was pregnant with her first child and went to buy some clothes in the maternity section and tried on some black pants and the sales lady told her those pants looked good on her because they were so sliming and hid the pregnancy. She didn't get the pants.

Soon gender terrorists will steal huge amounts of these drugs and contaminate the food and water supplies with them, ensuring a gay baby boom with which they can destroy the family and all that is good and decent!
Yes, we all want to preserve a notion that encourages families to reject their child for being gay and then call those families good and decent. Yay for Christian fundamentalist for teaching people to reject their own children for being born the way they are. :rolleyes: