Gay Teen Suicide: A Range of Causes

Prop H8te was voted on(Passed) in ealier election ,12 elections are still 17 months away...

 

"In these instances, the "community" is much smaller. It consists of a pedophile and his target in a bedroom, bathroom, outbuilding or wooded area, van etc. But the influence is no-less felt. The child statistically will be trained to prefer the type of sex that was done to him in that environment, to the same type of profile as he was "a 7 year old male having sex with an adult male" [for example]. He will prefer that same scenario when he grows up.

That is nothing less than trained homosexuality and trained pedophila.

Getting back to paraphilias and what we know about them; they seem to run the spectrum from any literal possiblity. With such a wide variation in presentation, including homophilia [compulsive same-gendered attraction], Occam's Razor suggests we look for a simple answer to describe what's going on. And that simple answer is what ag scientists already know: you can train sexual orientation in mammals across species to become compulsively aroused to any stimulus you pair with the first few orgasms.

Exactly. This is the 'dirty little secret' that is constantly marginalized by the gay community. This is why one gets called a 'homophobe' when simply asking for an explanation of how homosexuals come to be. We heterosexuals are supposed to keep our mouths shut while our children are being 'taught' about homosexuals in our tax-funded public schools.

Then we are supposed to change our heterosexual traditions (normal traditions) to accommodate a minority of sexually fetish oriented folks. (gays)

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) RIGHT. Times are changing. You cannot be a espouse your bigoted opinions in polite society. You homophobes are going the way of the KKK, a marginalized laughing stock. Good riddance.

 

I don't want young children taught about homosexuality. Teach them tolerance of ALL folks. The fact that a few folks are gay does not require including homosexuality in school curriculum.
Like I said before, homosexuality is most probably a fetish. Learned at a young age. Just like some men like women's breasts etc. There is nothing 'special' about homosexuality it is a sexual preference. If you have any other definition state it so far no one has offered any.

If that is bigoted by your definition then so be it.

 

These responses from the gay promoters are very typical of religious retorts.

It is as if, in the face of mounting preponderance, they clamor louder and louder their weak protests based on "just 'cuz" or "that's so yesterday!" or "you're a sinner! [bigot, homophobe]...a "PC heretic" or "uncool".

I'd like to also see some teeth to the oppositions' stance. So far it's all anthems, gospel and speaking in tongues..

 

Why? Many "young children" are homosexual; they need to know what they are dealing with in this world, just as heterosexual kids do.

How the heck do you teach "tolerance" of someone or something, if you don't teach (at least) that those people/things exist.

You may not want to face it, but if only 2% of the people in the world are known to be homosexual, then that isn't merely "a few folks".

That's idiotic, ignorant conjecture. Homosexuality is WELL-DEFINED by credible experts. It is no "fetish". That you want to BELIEVE that it is, is your burden... not something that others must debate with you. What you're saying, makes no more sense than saying... "A CAT is a RAT." That simply isn't truth or reality.

Please, PROVE what you're saying. Or cease making things up, that you WANT to 'believe'.

(see the above)

Man, you are saying some STUPID STUFF. What makes you think/believe you are anywhere near correct? Come on... stop being ridiculous.

Have you read ANYTHING credible on "homosexuality"; maybe an entry in a "dictionary"? What you're saying is meant as a JOKE... right?

If the above is what you truly think or believe... then that is plain old IGNORANCE. If you don't look in the thousands of places available to find the truth... then it is something worse, WILLFUL IGNORANCE.

 

Here's your premise Johnny. Your following points rest upon it:

Now, the evidence shows us that paraphilias, including homophilia are acquired behaviorally.

Let's look at the 2007 Mayo Clinic report again http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf :

And

So we have a situation where kids younger than 6 are being molested. In fact a sub-category of paraphilia applies to a pedophile who approaches very young children and even infants. Since memories are hard to access but reflexive behaviors can be formed then, we have a situation where a child may feel "gay" for unexplainable reasons, but the reasons are there nevertheless....and they aren't genetic. Imprinted social learning can take place at any age. And the younger the child in "the formative years" from 0-6 the more concrete the lesson is fixed.

We have a problem with gay teens committing suicide. Perhaps the "problem" is that they weren't tampered with young enough. Perhaps the problem is they have a compulsive attraction to the same gender but memories of that not always having been the case?

We'll let that sink in for awhile...

If it's true what the Mayo Clinic suggest, that sexuality can be socially learned and kids are being molested as young as infants [that part is solid fact], then "gay kids" might merely be kids who are presenting a subconscious "evidence" of having been tampered with early in life.

Meanwhile, we have the gay culture, compulsive, organized, militant even, forcing the issue of teaching homosexuality in schools under the veil of "teaching tolerance". Tolerance towards all people should be taught. The only reason to make homosexuals exclusive in the curriculum in this regard is to highlight them in the childrens' minds [more on that below].

We know that gays at 2% of the population give us gay pedophiles that are responsible for over 1/3 of ALL molestations. We've seen gay lingo that has numerous references to the word "chicken", which is factually stated as an underaged sex target. Now, let's move onto another bit of related info from the Mayo Clinic's report:

Hmm..."obtain access to children through means of persuasion, friendship, and behavior designed to gain the trust of the child and parent". That's sort of like trying to access the curriculum of a school, playing on parental sympathies towards the downtrodden by using teen suicides as a wedge.

Part of all this "normalizing" of homophilia means marraige, which then means adoption or at least the legal shoehorn by which gays may remove an adoption agency's descretion when it comes to profiling would-be pedophlies. You can bet the adoption agencies have the statistics of how many pedophiles are gay pedophiles in contrast to their relatively small proportion of the overall population. You read the Mayo report and you wonder. And most kids availible for adoption, especially older ones, come from broken homes. Hmm... must just be a coincidence.

I'm introducing another premise here Johnny. I'm introducing the premise that sexual orientation can be conditioned/taught and learned. I'm introducing external influence/coercion into the mix. If your "gay child" is so because of "tampering", that turns the whole discussion on its head, doesn't it?

 

No. My continued sanity, rests upon ignoring you intellectually at this point.

Your ludicrous, anti-homosexual nonsense... is not worth anyone's attention.

Later.

 

Ah...the old "I can't win this debate faced with such compelling data, so I'm killing the messenger of the data, taking my marbles and going home."

Rational rebuttals are in scarce supply on the Agenda side of this debate.

What? The Mayo Clinic has a report that says such "horrible" "bigoted" and "homophobic" things as recently as 2007 and suddenly the debate has lost your interest?

..lol..

Tantrums, denial, religious thinking...Yep, it all seems to fit quite nicely into the puzzle. Occam would be very pleased indeed. Simple answer: Psycho-sexual dysfunction and classic, textbook, psychotic denial behavior stemming from early childhood imprinted behaviors.

You know, from a layman's perspective...with evidence behind it from very prestigious sources indeed..

 

I've won it enough already. You have essentially failed, due to your abject bias and overall illogic.

Again, I see what you say and do not deny that you have an argument; it simply isn't as 'valid' as you believe it to be.

You make some points, and I'm sure you realize it; but your 'conclusions' are surely lacking.

 

I get the same reaction when I quote verses from the Koran. That I am villifying muslims. Just as quoting verses from the koran is villifying muslims because of the content of the Koran, revealing the results of studies on homosexuals villifies homosexuals because of the content of those studies. You are shooting the messenger, with nothing to respond to the message.

 

I guess thats why you obsess over her nonsense. The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.

 

I think you're distorting facts, and you think I'm distorting facts. We probably both are with our own personal bias, I'll try to keep mine at bay. But I'd say we both have had different experiences and are probably genuine in our intentions, so I won't question the sincerity you have in finding the truth on this particular issue.

I'm going to be quoting from your Mayo Clinic source in much of my response.

Well, let's start here. You're first assumption is that "normal" sexual behavior has to have the potential of resulting in procreation. I disagree. I would say in humans, sex does not exist solely for procreation. If this were the case, then most if not all sex acts would result in pregnancy. Human sexuality is, naturally, far more complex than the sexuality of other species. Human beings are social beings so our relationships to other people are very important and sex can be apart of that.

This, as the Mayo Clinic points out, would be called the “victim-to-abuser cycle” or the “abused-abusers phenomena.” Now, you wrote that, "The child statistically will be trained to prefer the type of sex that was done to him in that environment." If, I'm not sure, but if you're saying that being abused as a child means that you're probably going to become an abuser as an adult, the Mayo Clinic points to the contrary:

But, as the Mayo Clinic also points out:

So, I wouldn't "hang your hat" on this just yet.

Nope. It's very simplistic to bring it all down to sexual arousal, while it is a very large component of most romantic relationships, I would argue that there are many feelings that come up when you are attracted to someone in a more than a friend kind of way that are romantic but not sexual. I think there's just more to it than that, the butterflies in the stomach, the not being able to take your eyes of the person, wanting to be around them, be close with them, etc. are all romantic feelings that while often coincide with sexual feelings in most people, aren't inherently sexual themselves. There's a very large emotional component as well. If homosexuality were merely a fetish, then it would simply be about just sexual arousal for people, but it's not. So, I don't believe it's comparable to someone having a foot fetish or a latex fetish or whatever.

Again, let's look at what the Mayo Clinic says:

Other type of paraphilias would include exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, voyeurism, etc. The difference between these and pedophilia is that those can coincide with normal sexual orientations, they aren't the sexual orientation. So, I'd say the idea that through "sexual-imprinting" at a young age that a sexual orientation can be born just like a fetish, I won't dismiss the possibility, but I'm not confident that that's the case. Though I would say that it probably depends on the type of pedophile as well.

I stand corrected. Pedophilia does seem to be an exclusive sexual orientation for many of them.

That said, it still seems you are taking the "abused-abuser" phenomenon as likely fact, when your source clearly states that this may not be the case.

You're argument suggesting that there may be a link between homosexual pedophilia and homosexual teleiophilia is also faulty. Say that the abused-abuser phenomenon is as prevalent as some studies suggest, which it may be, the idea that being abused can create a gender preference in a child assumes that pedophiles care more about the gender of a child rather than the age. Evidence suggests that, while they do have a gender preference, they differentiate less between genders than teleiophiles, making them have more in common with heterosexuals pedophiles than they do with homosexual teleiophilies. http://www.springerlink.com/content/u468p10062680346/

I will again, just to make sure we're clear, point out that the Mayo Clinic is not suggesting that homosexuals are more likely to molest children:

And also throw in this study showing that homosexual males were no more likely to be aroused by children than heterosexual males: http://www.robinjwilson.com/articles/freund 1989 erotic age pref.pdf

I have to ask, why are anti-gay arguments always so gay male centric and then generalized to encompass all homosexuals? Seems a bit fishy to me.

 

That is a ludicrous statement. Sexual pleasure exists so that men and women can couple and have a chance to procreate. The fact it does not always happen does not somehow 'normalize' men poking each other up the butt.

Yes a human may be sexually attracted even objects but it is not considered to be 'normal.' We do not issue a marriage license to a man and a car for instance because there is no societal purpose to do so. By the same token we will not actively stop a man from humping the exhaust pipe of his favorite automobile. We'd just rather it be kept private. We don't want our kids to see it.

 

You're missing my point. Of course sexual pleasure exists so a man and a woman can have the chance to procreate, but that isn't the sole reason. It's also be about emotional bonding. Like I've mentioned before, human beings are social beings so our relationship with people plays a huge part in our survival and our happiness. It's not just about procreation, it's about intimacy. And while the benefits of the emotional bonding/sexual pleasure can lead to procreation, procreation isn't the only benefit.

Indeed, there are many ways of having sex that aren't procreative that heterosexuals have partaken in since the beginning of time (this would include "butt poking" as you so tastefully call it). Even many animals partake in sex that isn't procreative. In-fact many women don't find pleasure in penetrative sex. Many couples have a preference for other sexual acts other than penetrative sex. Sexuality is very complex and varied.

I'll first say that just because something isn't "normal" it doesn't mean that automatically isn't natural. It's human nature to to view things that aren't "normal" negatively solely because they are uncommon and as result will make someone who isn't used to it/understand it uncomfortable. It creates a very huge bias that may keep one from looking at it objectively. It seems that you, and many that hold your position on homosexuality, want to lump homosexuality with any sexual expression that is not common...so anything that isn't heterosexuality pretty much. But if we were to look at all the wide range of sexual orientations, paraphilias, fetishisms, etc. that are out there in the world, it would seem that homosexuality has much more in common with heterosexuality than any of them because it's largely about two consenting adults being in a relationship with one another. The only real difference is, that one can result in procreation and the other one can, and of course, the genders of the people in the relationship. Though of course, homosexual couples have the option of having a child, they would just have to find other means of doing it (like many heterosexual relationships). It's through one's own personal bias that one would think that homosexuality would have more in common with object sexuality, polyamory, pedophilia, etc.

 

Animal handlers and scientists daily train sexual orientation in stud animals across all domestic and many exotic mammaliam species [as many are in zoos]. They bank on it. There's no "theory" in that field. It is cold hard fact. Also a fact: homo sapiens is a mammal.

So, there's that. And of course the findings of the mayo clinic that sexual preference in pedophiles of exact ages of kids they grow up to molest coincide with the age they were molested at as kids. That reflects a socially imposed sexuality instead of an innate one.

There are many things that humans do with the sensations that give them pleasure. Eating is one of them. If a bulimic decides to overeat and then vomit when s/he does in order to keep eating more without getting obese, then who are we to say that choice of pleasure-seeking is wrong? Is it unhealthy and therefore can we say it is wrong? Yes, I suppose the stomach acids eating away at tooth enamel and the esophageal lining could be considered detrimental to the health. We could then say that was "wrong" to our kids, you know, to dissuade them from adopting the habit.

Likewise we know, and the CDC tells us this, that anal sex or what they call politely "MSM" [men who have sex with men], comes with the highest risk of sexual behavior for the transmission of the deadly HIV virus. We could then say that was "wrong" to our kids, you know, to dissuade them from adopting the habit.

What I find interesting is the desire of gay promoters to teach anal sex [implied by the word "gay" in association with men], to kids as "normal". What that is in essence is a promotion of the spread of the deadly HIV virus. At the very least it could be called attempted reckless homocide. Disagree? Here's what the CDC says about men who have sex with men. One wonders if this snippet will be included in the compulsory elementary school promotion of gays:

Truly sad if you consider that a significant portion of men, from statistical evidence, must have been tampered with to be sexually imprinted as "gay". They otherwise would not have died from HIV. I knew a man who was molested as a young boy, struggled his whole life with being in love with women but being driven by compulsive sexual attraction only to men. He became highly reckless in his lifestyle, pursuing more and more sex with riskier and riskier partners until he finally contracted HIV and died of AIDS in the mid 1990s. No, it wasn't "suicide" but it was though, wasn't it?

Ironically he could not have received therapy to address killing the sexual compulsion [some call it "orientation"] that was killing him. The militant gay gestapo made sure of that when they took over the APA back in 1973. Oh well, "another one bites the dust...another one's gone, another one's gone, another one bites the dust.."

 

Please, stop with the bogus crap.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhHHoWouktg"]Here[/ame] are some facts to start with. (Need a source? Start with the APA... it's a credible organization.)

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfOrpNoCjos&feature=related"]If you're homosexual, you just are.[/ame]

 

Silhouette, can you tell this man that he can be made 'un-gay'?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kPo7KGj1OE&feature=related"]Listen.[/ame]

You can say what you want, but MILLIONS of people have been through what this man has gone through.

The MOST valid fact is this: Reparative and/or aversion therapy is neither effective nor are they 'good'. The APA and other organization have figured that out, apparently you have not.

 

I'm just curious, could you offer up some reading on this? I've googled, can't find anything.

But as I mentioned in my other post, the Mayo Clinic did put this disclaimer:

So, I'd say a little more research needs to be done in that area before we reach any real conclusions.

This is not comparable to homosexuality for reasons I've stated already. One big problem with your over all argument is that you focus on the gay male population and then generalize them to be the overall homosexual population. I do find it interesting that anti-gay people almost always focus on gay men over lesbians. Interesting and, perhaps, a little telling. Anyways...

The argument that you have presented pretty much assume that gay people were molested when they kids which resulted in them being gay as adults. You come to this conclusion because many child abusers say that they were abused as children (of course this study involves men only). As I've already pointed out, there is too much room for bias to take their word for it just yet. Your trusted source, the Mayo Clinic, points this out twice in the article that you derived this information from.
You then assume that if abuse can turn a person into a pedophile then it can probably turn them into a homosexual as well. As I said in my previous post, this is assumes that homosexual pedophiles have more in common with homosexual teleiophiles than they do with heterosexual pedophiles. Evidence suggests this is not the case, homosexual pedophiles have more in common with heterosexual pedophiles than they do with homosexual teleiophiles (http://www.springerlink.com/content/u468p10062680346/.
Then you suggest that the higher rates of promiscuity, depression, drug use, suicide, etc. in the gay community is not due to the social stigma attached to their sexuality, but that they know deep down that their "compulsive attraction" is in contradiction to what their inner-being really is. If this were indeed the case then that would suggest that everyone's "inner-being" would be heterosexual teleiophilia. But the Mayo Clinic, once again, does not agree:

So, there's that.

The risky behavior isn't having anal sex, it's having unprotected anal sex. The solution would be to try and promote more safe sex, not abstinence.

Gay "promoters" teach about the dangers of HIV and the importance of safe sex as well. If you think this is an issue that gets swept under the carpet in the community, then you're very very wrong. I think it's funny that you seem to be implying that it's some deep dark secret that the gay community doesn't want anyone to know about when it's just the opposite. It's a huge issue in the gay community and one that is very much acknowledged.

I don't know why you keep presenting this as fact when your source and other studies on the matter have repeatedly said not to, there's too much room for bias.

Is this personal anecdote time? I'm gay. I wasn't molested. I'm happy. I don't do drugs, I rarely drink, don't engage in promiscuous sex, etc. And I know many many other gay people like me as well. This is why these types of gay arguments can be a little frustrating because I know what my life has been like, I know what the lives of other gay people I know have been like, and yet there are people trying to portray us all as drug addled, promiscuous, emotionally messed up, reckless individuals. It's the case for many, I'm sure. But far from all or even most.

Statistically speaking, the therapy was probably not going to help him.

 

Over and over I've said that once an orientation is imprinted, it is difficult to change, especially if it has been reinforced for many years. If people don't want to change, then they don't. If people want to change, the therapy to do so should be availible, especially if they are victims of molestation and feel like their homosexuality is compulsive and unnatural.

In fact, instead of turning my points on their head, you have unwittingly underscored them. That changing a person or animal's artificial orientation is difficult only means we should double up on making sure kids are not exposed in any way to artificial sexual orientations like homosexuality. The fact that sexuality exists to compel an organism to reproduce means that any sexual compulsion that causes the sufferer to completely exclude reproductive sex from their lives should be curtailed in children. It shouldn't be taught to be OK. We should redouble our efforts to keep kids from being exposed to this type of coercion, not teach them that it's "OK".

If a person has conflicting feelings about being homosexual, and they believe it is a compulsive behavior they wish to be rid of, people should not forcibly stonewall them from therapy that would help them try to reach their goals.

Gay teens who are compulsively gay because of tampering via molestation, who thereafter cannot access therapy to revert back would be expected to be in the highest risk group for committing suicide. To ignore that in favor of a cult of denial's political agenda is to put lives at risk, or even contribute to unnecessary deaths.

 

You seem like a really smart person, Silhouette. You offered up a really interesting argument. Not one I agree with, but a pretty well thought-out argument none-the-less, more so than what you typically see from the anti-gay side. You strayed from un-bias sources for the most part which is always a big plus.

So, I have to say, I'm a little disappointed with this response. To quote you early in the thread, "I'd like to also see some teeth to the oppositions' stance. So far it's all anthems, gospel and speaking in tongues", that's kind of what this response seems like to me. You're simply repeating the same arguments without actually refuting mine.

You haven't been able to offer any solid evidence for this though.

This is based on an assumption, not evidence.

You would have to demonstrate this.

Again, you're assuming that the sole purpose of sexuality is for reproduction, when really it exists for a number of reasons. Reasons I have already listed in previous posts, though you never did reply to them.

Again, this is assuming that homosexuality is simply "compulsive behavior" and not a real sexual orientation. You haven't actually provided evidence for that yet.

Who is in denial? Either your withholding some brilliant arguments from me right now, or you simply don't have any. You have offered no real evidence for molestation to be the cause of homosexuality.

It seems to me that your reason for believing the way you do about homosexuality is driven by something that isn't based on studies or research. Is it simply a natural repulsion you have to the idea that makes you believe that something must be wrong with it? That seems to be the case for many people. They don't like the idea of homosexuality first and foremost, and then they try to find studies supporting their claims. Not that the everyone on the pro-gay side has done their research on the topic either. I would say most haven't on either side. Both sides are largely driven by personal bias. But I do think think one thing the pro-gay side has on the anti-gay side, is that a large portion of people on the pro-gay side were not always pro-gay. Probably most. Myself included. I grew up in the same society everyone else did and thought it was icky and weird and not natural, which only made the fact that I was gay more complicated. When I realized that gay people could be normal, three-dimensional individuals like everyone else and weren't all walking stereotypes, that's when things changed for me. It's seems most of the gay people in your life have not been that way, they've either lived pretty sad lives or have been weird and perverted. Perhaps that's where you get your ideas on homosexuality from. and I'm sure the overly PC mainstream gay organizations probably make you feel like they're trying to shove ideas down your throat, that doesn't help much either.

Anyways, I'm done rambling, it was cool talking to you.

 

Yes, I have. But each thread needs a refresher so allow me:

Pigs are our closest cousin on the farm of mammals. You have to accept that all the mammals being sexually trained are of the same class as we are. We lactate, cycle and bear young so I'm cool with the comparison:

So the experienced AI handlers know how to use phermones from an estrus female that doesn't even need to be present, to stimulate males to copulate with anything that is present. The females don't even need to be around. Their scent can be left behind on anything.

Growing up I knew groups of boys who were outcast types and who couldn't get girls that were around them all the time. Kinda makes you wonder. Apart from forced orientation as with the Mayo Clinic report's findings, simple frustration and self training to other stimuli might be behind homosexuality and other paraphilias.

 

I agree that "praying the gay away" is ridiculous. However, training it away for those who do not want it has been shown to work. All you do is associate negative "rewards" for the compulsion and the animal learns quickly to not seek out that behavior: aversive conditioning.

And in fact the booth the gay militants upturned at the 1973 APA convention before they siezed the microphone and demanded to have homophilia singled away from other paraphlias on the DSM was a booth on "aversive conditioning". To be fair, in the old days psychologists would thrust reparative therapy on individuals or at their family's behest. That is wrong for two reasons: 1. It strips away individual freedom and 2. Makes the therapy a failure due to lack of zeal in the patient. The bottom line being that gays themselves know where the orientation comes from. But like a biker club, they don't want to lose any members. And they will stop at nothing, even preventable [with counseling] gay teen suicide to keep those ranks from defecting. But it is equally as wrong to deny an individual the freedom to want reparative therapy all on their own. I know where the Agenda is going. They've sensed a disturbance in the ranks. To keep the mavericks from jumping the corral, they're just expanding the size of the corral, to include a vast "supportive" culture that is in collusion with keeping gays gay.

Better not Anne Heche! Death before mutiny..

 

I don't say that 'praying' doesn't help some people in certain ways. In fact, I say that the ways which people are/aren't motivated to accomplish any number of things, very often stems from a 'religious' belief (of something similar).

Even so, it is RIDICULOUS for you to assert that there has been any substantial result or success in "training it [homosexuality] away for those who do not want it"; those people range in the hundreds of thousands (at least). And there is NO shortage of testimony from gay people who surely WANTED (and wholeheartedly sought) to be straight; myself being one of them. And yes... I saw a certified mental therapist about the issue (I decided to go myself, and was not 'forced' in any way).

But all these years later, here you (and others) come with MORE BS theories and mad-science; which leads to nothing but lies and confusion about human sexuality.

You have your opinions, but they do not come anywhere close to what the most credible scientists and experts in the fields of human sexuality have said. It's okay to have opinions (as we all share here), but they do NOT carry the weight of properly conducted and concluded research; something that sets science apart from most politics and even law.

If you can 'prove' (better than those experts) that what you're proposing is the proper conclusion or approach, then I invite you to do that. So far, that is something you have not accomplished, certainly not within this forum.

Honestly, can YOU show where ANY reputable organization supports your overall premises or conclusions? I what you 'believe', but i don't see where you have actually 'proven' that your beliefs or theories are indeed correct.