This was also forwarded to us by king of all drunks (he sure does know about a lot of "gay" stuff... but we have it on good authority that he's all hetero-male).
Apparently there is some "evidence" that soybeans are "feminizing" because they contain "substantial quantities" of estrogen. And for men, "feminine" must equal "gay", right?
According to Jim Rutz (who by the way, is not a medical expert):
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.
Toxicologists estimate that an infant fed exclusively on soy formula is getting the equivalent of three to five birth control pills — per day. One study found that soy-fed babies had 13,000 to 22,000 times more estrogen in their blood than milk-fed babies.
He does have a point about excessive amounts of soy products (particularly soy milk and soy milk formula) given to infants and children being potentially harmful. There are a lot of things in soy that aren't 100% good for you in huge quantities.
Read the full article here: Soy is making kids 'gay'
Another of the proposed side effects of soy milk is premature puberty in adolescent girls and boys (or on the opposite side of the spectrum, a delay in maturation of boys). However meat, milk, and dairy products containing growth hormones have also been linked as a possible cause. [Precocious Puberty Is On the Rise] There is also evidence that soy may affect men's sperm count and fertility. [Phytoestrogens & Male Health]
So maybe soy isn't the perfect food... but citing homosexuality as one of the side effects is quite a stretch.
I'm hesitant to think about homosexuality as something that can be caused, since having a "cause" implies that there is a "cure" (or rather, that it is something that can/should be cured or prevented at all). There is still no clearcut evidence as to whether homosexuality is an inborn trait and I don't like the idea of it being thought of as a preventable side-effect, regardless of the science.
And even the science is up for debate. Many medical professionals think that the amount of estrogen in soy formula is unlikely to have any serious long-term effects. [Too Much of a Good Thing?] Supposing that the theories are correct and soy is feminizing in some way, I think it's irresponsible to immediately jump to the "it will make you gay" conclusion. That is Jim Rutz's conclusion by the way - if you read his sources, they don't all link the side effects of soy with being gay, that is his own opinion (based on no medical training). Maybe a hormonal imbalance could possibly lead to some confusion about sexual identity or some sexually "ambiguous" behavior (I say "maybe" because I don't have any evidence to this effect, nor do I wish to seek any out, but I guess anything is possible). However, even that does not constitute the claims that it can cause homosexuality.
Basically, my issue with this article and Rutz's stance is two-fold: I fear that there will be two main reactions to this theory and neither of them are positive. On the one hand, are the people who will blindly support his position and work to ban soy formula, etc. in order to prevent a "gay epidemic". His theory (although "backed by science") is simply him jumping to an inflammatory conclusion, which both concerns and offends.
On the other hand, are those people who will instantly dismiss his writings as those of a crazy bigot. Maybe this is a potential health issue that should be taken seriously. By immediately linking it to homosexuality, he discredits the entire argument against soy, when maybe more people should be looking further into the risks associated.
Conclusion: Jim Rutz is a moron, but maybe soy is bad for us (but not because it will make you gay). Your thoughts?