Jim Rutz' soy panic misguided
From Jim Rut'z OpEd in WND...
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.
Sorry, but I know health food nuts. I'm married to one, and they will be against something (or for it) regardless of who labels it "healthy". They also, as will be seen, have a tendency to over emphasize the effect individual things have on an overall diet.
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....
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.
It's one thing to note the effect of excess estrogen on the future fertility of an un-born baby boy. That's fairly well documented, and his warning there is one people should heed. But it's psychological affects are not documented, and claiming that the estrogen exposure due to soy consumption promotes homosexuality lend credibility to the claim that homosexuality is biological rather than psychological.
Sure, Liberals and homosexuals will balk at his conclusion, too, because they want to push the cause even further back, to genetics, but since any and all known, thoroughly proven psychological variables that contribute to homosexuality are ignored (actually, more or less banned) among psychologists, pushing for questionable physiological causes that lack any support whatsoever, doesn't help at all.
Excess estrogen is actually harmful to both developing boys and girls, so the idea of giving soy to nursing infants is scary, and people should be warned. But let's stop the "it'll make them gay" nonsense.
Posted by Danny Carlton at December 14, 2006 7:37 AM