Gay Teen Suicide: A Range of Causes

The problem, silhouette, is that I offer arguments, and you ignore them. It would make sense if you were simply too busy, but you continue to post in this thread. Usually your simply posting the same few argument repeatedly and, unfortunately, I have had to as well because you wont respond to them. Debating with you seems to be an never ending cycle. So, let's see if you'll break the cycle...

The question is, can it be trained in humans? I say it can't.

You have presented a very simplistic view of sexuality. The idea that that you can "train" a human, like an animal, to be gay simply by them having their first few sexual experiences be with the same-sex may seem like a solid idea at first glance, but we have to looker deeper:

I'm going to present some ideas that, I feel, should be self-evident. If you feel differently about these ideas then tell me and explain why:

Human attraction is not solely about sexual arousal. It is much more complex than that. There can be a combination of emotional, intellectual, romantic, and sexual feelings that emerge when you feel attracted to someone. This is what separates sexual orientation from a mere sexual fetish. A sexual fetish is solely about sexual arousal. When a human is romantically attracted to another human, sexual feelings don't always have to be present. There is more that separates a romantic relationship and a platonic friendship than just sex. Think about all the feelings you feel when you are attracted to someone; the excitement, the butterflies in the stomach, wanting to be close to that person, not being able to take your eyes off of that person, etc. These feelings may often coincide with sexual feelings, but they don't have to all of the time.

You base this on findings in the Mayo Clinic report that many abusers had claimed to be abused when they were children. You seem to take this as cold-hard fact, even though the Mayo Clinic was just presenting this as one of many possibilities in what causes pedophilia. You also ignore these excerpts from the very same Mayo Clinic report:

"There is also legitimate concern regarding the validity of many of the self-reports of pedophiles who claim to have been abused as children them- selves. These statements are often made in a legal or group treatment setting, in which pedophiles may be trying to mitigate their sentence or gain sympathy for their behavior."

"When reviewing research studies on pedophilia, it must be remembered that there is a strong potential for sampling biases. Many studies obtained their pedophilic or sexual offender populations from prisons or legally mandated sexual treatment groups. This sampling raises questions about the subjects’ willingness to be honest and/or to in- criminate themselves on self-report surveys.5,7,23"

This, again, would not be in-line with what the Mayo Clinic report states:

"Pedophilia, especially the exclusive type, may be best thought of as its own category of sexual orientation, not something that is superimposed on an existing heterosexual or homosexual identity.29,43"

Now, understandably you are speaking in the context of homosexuality, but if I understand correctly you are basing your argument off of the idea that if pedophilia can be something that a person can be conditioned to be, then so can homosexuality. And your basing that finding off of the Mayo Clinic report, but the Mayo Clinic seems to disagree with your idea that everyone is born with the same sexual orientation (heterosexual teleiophilia).

So, perhaps it's time to find new sources?

Pro-gay advocates don't believe your premise is sound. I don't believe your premise is sound. I have demonstrated time and time again why I don't believe your premise is sound, and yet...I get no real response.

I believe that you genuinely feel that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy, and that you genuinely want to help the kids struggling with it. But understand that I genuinely want to help them too, and many other that have set up hotlines and organizations and safe-homes and have devoted their careers to helping out these kids are also pro-gay and are equally genuine in their intentions.It doesn't mean we have some hidden agenda, It simply means our opinion/experiences differ from yours.

I believe it was myself and another poster that brought up the possibility that pedophiles target effeminate boys. The implication would be that the child was already showing signs of being gay so that the molestation did not cause it. However, no where did I nor the other poster at all imply that this means that the little boy "deserved it." No one deserves it. I never blame the victim. I know you're trying to play with people's emotions in this part of your argument, but don't make stuff up.

Child molesters can be incredibly narcissistic individuals, and when they prey on children, they will find anyway to justify their actions, and this often results in them telling themselves that the child "wants" it. It is sickening, and not something that I condone in anyway.

It is more common for gay men to be effeminate than straight men, however, not all gay men are effeminate and many straight men are. But if someone is effeminate as a child and then grows up to be gay, there is some correlation there.

I have continuously offered links and quotes, and you ignore them. Why is that?

 

Well it's fairly evident we are at loggerheads 808. You cannot accept that my premise is sound: that sexual orientation is trainable in mammals and that humans are mammals. And I cannot accept that your premise is sound, that humans can rise above dominating compulsive behaviors and somehow this is the seed of gayness?

1. Fact: mammals across species not only can be trained to artificial sexual orientations, they are being trained thusly every day.

2. Fact: Homo sapiens are mammals.

3. Fact: Homo sapiens are susceptable to all manner of compulsive behaviors that were adopted after birth via a simple reward/punishment conditioning explanation.

Let's look at something you said:

Human's, and primates of many other species, do have complex reward/punishment associations. An "electric shock" for a human might be a hurtful remark or a rejected advance. A "reward" might be the batting of an eyelash or a compliment on one's jacket. But the basic system of rewards and punishments rule our complex society far more than many of us will admit....except the human behavioralists.

Now, the Mayo Clinic is no shabby outfit. And they take great pains to see that their image stays untarnished. So given that, why would they include this comment in an "exploratory" publication if they didn't feel they could back it up with facts?

Those footnotes appear at the end of those two paragraphs because they aren't just talkin' smack. They are basing their statements on FACTS that have been discovered by scientists; facts that are apparently compelling enough for them to risk their reputation publishing.

That is saying something. And you are playing deaf, and asking everyone else to also. And that is potentially putting lives at risk if the following article has teeth:

I like Johnny C's query into who here actually cares about teen suicides, what they think about them in addition to the facts behind them. I have offered an olive branch in that I believe children in schools [this is what this subject is closely linked with: gay curriculum/promotion in schools] should be taught tolerance of ALL different walks...just not promotion when it comes to gay BEHAVIORS. And the reason I am against promoting [introducing the idea of] gay sex under the cloak of "teaching tolerance" is because I understand the mechanics of pedophilia. I understand that gays have an alarming preponderance of pedophiles in their ranks compared to the larger population. And I understand that pedophlies spend much time grooming their targets [see: "chicken", "tampered with", "turned" in gay vernacular] by first getting inside their minds and the minds of those who are their guardians in order to gain trust and "understanding" before the crimes actually begin. Some pedophiles play on the sympathies of parents. Others win them over with gifts, favors etc. And all this for the sole goal of molesting the children in their care.

How better to do this than to teach a deviant sexual compulsion [gay = the compulsive avoidance of sex with the opposite gender] to very young kids by introducing books that talk about two men "married", or promoting people in history known or suspected of having the same compulsion as "heros" for kids to aspire to?

Yes, we are at loggerheads. I agree that compassionate tolerance should be extended to gays and all other "outsiders" from the mainstream. That takes care of the teens who commit suicide from liking being gay and feeling ostracized.

You however are against extending the olive branch to those gay teens who DO NOT LIKE BEING GAY and who want to take control of their compulsion and try to do something about it: but are denied by the gay community who has forcibly hog-tied the very therapists who could help these teens.

So one of us is for all solutions to stave off gay teen suicide and one of us is only for a select group of solutions and is hotly against any others that might render a drop in the statistics of gay teen suicide.

 

You said that already. And why cant you understand that she theorizes that she might find differences if the sample was larger BECAUSE the sample she used showed no difference. Like I said

Yeah, thats why I made no statements about reality and instead limited my comments as to what she found in her study.

 

Some like Silhouette and dixon are saying things as Perkins does. It's stuff that I have good reasons to challenge and disagree with.

On the other hand, people like Mark Hatzenbuehler makes a lot more sense overall.

 

Really isnt a contradiction there. Gays in liberal areas are 4 times as likely to commit suicide, 5 times as likely in conservative areas. You can make the whole world liberal and still, gays are FOUR TIMES AS LIKELY TO COMMIT SUICIDE. Being gay has 4 times the impact upon suicide rates that being gay in a conservative area has.
Its just as likely that gays in conservative areas arent reporting that they are gay and so among those who do so report, the # of suicides simply appears to be a higher percentage of this smaller population of gays.

 

The point that is missed is that gays may be committing suicide because they enjoy being gay and the society they find themselves in is "mean" to them. I've allowed that that can be the case. So that's why we teach no-bullying to our schoolkids...of ANY other kids for any reason. But if gays are not enjoying the gay experience, then also let them find therapy to not have the compulsive distraction. I'm saying both work. Gays say: "Oh no no no no no! Only one of those types of gays can get therapy!"....leaving the other type out in the cold and vulnerable to suicide..

Gay kids will have to accept the reality at some point that they are in a minority behavior group. And if this causes angst, then they should get therapy for dealing with those feelings. Trying to get an entire society to change to accomodate a deviant behavior group that has chosen to call itself something to appear unified and powerful is asking quite a lot.

It's why I keep bringing up bulimia. We have, have had and always will have a given percentage of the population that engage in bulimic behavior to the exclusion of normal eating. They could call themselves "Keers" or something. So pretty soon "Keers" unify to get their pleasure-seeking taken off the DSM. And then Keers begin to demand "equal rights" in dining situations. Pretty soon laws are changed to allow vomiting urns in restaurants, discreetly in bathrooms at first. Then later marches are held to put those vomiting urns on tables, to allow Keers to "come out of the closet". Keer pride parades are held with great orgies of food being consumed on floats and then people vomiting into urns on Main Street in front of all walks.

Keer teen kids begin to get weird comments from "straight eaters". They begin to feel weird about themselves for being "different". So Keer people in Hollywood start a group called KAAD. They start putting real pressure on movie directors, commercial makers and other film agencies to depict and portray bulimia in a favorable light. They do this for a generation or two and then when the young ones are "in the fold" supporting bulimia, the Keer folks launch a campaign to require kids to learn about great Keer heros in history and about "alternative ways of eating" in health ed. Industry like General Mills gets behind the Keer movement because let's face it, bulimics are good for business. So what if the food they binge on doesn't stay down?

Eating food is pleasurable. Who has the right to tell someone what is "natural" when it comes to eating? Let people eat the way they want to eat! Don't hate!

And so on...

And if you find yourself feeling absurd at this Keer thing, this is precisely how people who question the gay agenda find the gay movement. It is a behavior that deviates from the biological purpose of having sex or the foreplay that leads to heterosexual coupling. We uphold that physical behavior because it is normal. Just as you reading this are finding it squeamish to imagine that someone would eat food for the sole purpose of barfing it up and starting all over again. You find it bizarre, dysfunctional and not something you'd want to pass onto your kids.

So if bulimics feel bad about what they do, is it them or the society they find themselves in that objects to that type of pleasure-seeking with food? If for three generations we taught all our kids that bulimia was normal, pleasureable and the natural right of the bulimic to practice, would there be so many depressed bulimics? They simply want to eat a lot and not get the downfall of obesity that comes with it. Who are we to intervene and make them feel bad or weird about what they do?

 

Even so, your analyses of these things, isn't of the caliber that folks should invest in. Your words are full of conflict and misinformation.

People shouldn't listen to what you and Silhouette are saying, but if they do... they must certainly check it out for themselves.

 

I'm going to have to break my response into two separate posts:

We're kind of cooking now, Silhouette. Kind of..

My premise is that sexual orientation is essentially innate and cannot be changed at will nor can it be conditioned.

Now, can you show me some reading on mammals that become oriented toward something new while also giving up what their natural/original orientation was?

How would a batting of an eyelash or a compliment on one's jacket translate to changing one's entire sexual orientation? Certainly, from the time we are children we are used to hearing compliments from people of both genders. I can't imagine simple polite compliments having such a significant impact.

I agree completely that Mayo Clinic is no shabby outfit. But your taking these findings out of context. As i've noted repeatedly, the Mayo Clinic is listing the "abused-abuser" phenomenon as one of many possibilities as to what causes pedophilia. They also explore the possibility that pedophilia is caused by nature, and not nurture. And, as I have repeatedly shown and you continue to ignore, the Mayo Clinic asks the reader to be cautious about findings of abusers reporting to have been abused as children:

"There is also legitimate concern regarding the validity of many of the self-reports of pedophiles who claim to have been abused as children them- selves. These statements are often made in a legal or group treatment setting, in which pedophiles may be trying to mitigate their sentence or gain sympathy for their behavior."

"When reviewing research studies on pedophilia, it must be remembered that there is a strong potential for sampling biases. Many studies obtained their pedophilic or sexual offender populations from prisons or legally mandated sexual treatment groups. This sampling raises questions about the subjects’ willingness to be honest and/or to in- criminate themselves on self-report surveys.5,7,23"

Oh, look, more footnotes. Now, what do you think of these quotes from your source, Silhouette? Is there a reason you have yet to directly address them despite the fact that I have posted them repeatedly in this thread?

And you do realize that this is simply a report on what different studies have shown, and that the Mayo Clinic is not suggesting to take all of these studies as "fact."

 

The person they are quoting in this article is Dr. Ronald Stall. This is what Ronald Stall has to say about why these issues are so prevalent among gay men:

This is the analysis Ronald Stall is referring to in the above quote: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2010-18179-001


I'm going to explore your child abuse argument a bit more:

You note the high rate of homosexual pedophiles, the high rate of reported childhood sexual abuse, and the reports from abusers that they themselves had been abused when they were young as evidence that child molestation can turn someone gay.

One thing that must be pointed out is that your evidence has fixated solely on the male population. But certainly if we looked at the female population we find would similar rates of homosexual pedophilia? But we don't. Most female pedophiles go after the opposite sex, only a minority have a preference for the same sex(http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/child-sexual-abuse.asp0. So, of course this would mean that the number of female homosexuals/bisexuals is significantly much smaller than that of male homosexuals/bisexuals? It's not. It is smaller but only by about 0.2% (http://www3.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/pdf/How-many-people-are-LGBT-Final.pdf). Not a very significant difference. So, if you are argument is true, why does it not seem to apply to female homosexuals/bisexuals?

This statement contradicts findings from the Mayo Clinic:

You have ignored this statement from the Mayo Clinic, why is that? How would you interpret this statement?

Let's look at this gay slang (which aren't really used as much with younger gays anymore, I have to point out). "Chicken" just means young, it does not have to mean underage. Indeed, many pedophiles use the term "chickenhawk" to describe themselves, but that does not mean it mean the same thing when the gay male population is using it. "Tampered with" I have never heard, I had to look it up. It seems to mean any straight person who is forced into gay sex against their will at any age, it's doesn't seem to condone the act itself. And "turned" is just in reference to people who had previously exclusively been in heterosexual relationships all of a sudden being in a gay relationship. These terms aren't meant to be as predatory as you are making them out to be.

And with the number of young men who convinced themselves that they could "turn" me straight, I would say this was of thinking is not one that is exclusive to gay people.

The reason why I don't accept your premise is because I believe it be flawed. I believe that if we promote "reparative therapy" to gay people that we will probably see a rise in suicides. The problem with reparative therapy is that it believes homosexuality to be, at it's very core, a corruption of "real and "natural" sexuality. I believe this type of thinking is not only untrue, but dangerous and contributes to the high suicide rates young gays face. Not to mention that reparative therapy seems to have a very low success rate, I can only imagine that the sense of failure would only cause more distress in an individual.

Not to mention that most of the reparative therapy organizations seem to have religious motives, and even a secular organization like NARTH gets much of it's research from religious organizations. It's hard not to see the obvious bias there.

 

First off, you're just blind to whats in front of you and are manipulating what you see to something you want to see.

Anyways, I learned about this from biology scholars, but here are just some links you can read.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002340883_gayscience19m.html

http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000020

>>> http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx <<<

And this is what I was talking about with animals/humans being gay because of hormones attacking male fetus'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_sexual_orientation

And it isn't coincidental that most gay men have older brothers. But there are some that are eldest or even only children, doesn't kill the research, as there is always an exception.


You can also search for "gay twin studies" As there are twins who are separated have completely different environments, both end up gay. These are identical twins, same genes. Though it's possible that they happened to both grow up in environments that made being gay an easy choice, non the less, they picked gay over straight, so even if they are heterosexual, there is something inside them that makes them sexually attracted to males. No straight man chooses to be gay, have you seen some of those "bears". These are huge ugly men, yet people are still attracted to them, you think they make that as a choice? "I can either have sex with my hot wife, or go down the street and get raped by a fat guy.... okay fat guy it is"

 

Thanks for sharing that! And it is clear enough, that those who don't 'want' to see... won't see.

 

Too bad they never taught you that mating is an impossibility with two of the same sex.

 

Funny you should bring up identical twins in this debate thisoneguy.

I knew a set of identical twins, friends of my daughter growing up. They were raised in a lesbian household with a butch woman and a "lipstick lesbian" officiating as "wife". This lipstick gal flipped back and forth between wanting women and men. Finally she settled for men and is married to one now.

Back to the twins. They grew up and one is heterosexual and the other is a lesbian. They self identify this way to anyone who asks. The lesbian one has a man's hair cut [for our culture in this day and age, though back in the Renaissance she would opt for longer hair], tries to square her jaw for all her photos etc. The hetero one has long flowing hair and softens her eyes for every photo [they keep up on social networking].

So there you have it. If you have one single set of identical twins who winds up going different orientations, you have the genetic theory debunked.

 

What does that have to do with anything? "Sex" as a source of pleasure for animals isn't a wildly accepted idea, people think animals don't have sex for pleasure, only for reproduction. So a male dog might stick his wiener into another dogs because biologically he thinks it's for reproduction.

Now if you are a person who think's animals has sex for pleasure, then the male dog is having sex with another male dog because to him it is pleasurable. But does this make the animal immoral in any way? Does this prove the animal randomly thought to itself "I'm going to stick my wiener into another male dogs butt for pleasure" or is it just an instinct or "urge" that drives him to do it?
Do you believe animals are on the same level as humans? If animals are on the same level as humans, then gay sex among them is immoral, but if you truly believe in your "bible" Animals are not on the same level as humans, so that them having gay sex can only be biological because there's no way they could think about pleasure.
Either way, you are contradicting your own beliefs. What is it?

 

I did mention there are exceptions to the theory, as there is exceptions to every proven and theoretical theory and even exceptions to facts.
A homosexual environment will turn someone gay, yes, but are they gay or just bisexual? You have to ask yourself is every human born bisexual and has to choose being straight to not anger God? or are they all straight and being gay is a complete and utter immoral choice which the person isn't even attracted to their sexual partner... which would make you think they wouldn't enjoy it, so why do they do it?

The identical twin theory isn't a perfect theory, you can take it anyway you want because for every case that there is 1 gay twin and 1 straight twin, there will be 2 twins that a gay and 2 twins that are straight. It still doesn't explain how twins separated at birth in 2 completely separate environments just happen to be gay, it's happened enough to where it isn't just some freak event.

 

What does reality have to do with any of your beliefs? Two animals of the same sex simply cannot "mate". Its a biological fact they evidently dont teach you kids in school anymore, likely because too much time was devoted to the wonders of homosexuality. I dont think a rational discussion is possible with you. The ideology is too deeply engrained

 

Did you even read what I said. You missed the whole point of why I was using the word "mate"..... I'm not even going to explain anymore because it's clear, and if you're gonna say everything I say is invalid because of that, than fine. Lock yourself in your mind and don't open yourself to whats right in front of you.

 

You mean your rant about morality and the bible? I didnt know what the hell that was all about. Im an atheist and couldnt even make sense of what you were trying to say.

 

Well I thought you were against the gays because of moral religious since most people are, but the point still stands about are humans better than animals or not.

And you're still an idiot for not understand why I used the word "mate". Actually I have no idea where you are even going with what you were saying. If a male dog is confused and something tells it to put it's penis in another dogs but for reproduction purposes or "mating" That's it. What do you even mean by "Mating can only happen between a male and a female to produce offspring" Well DUH. I just have no idea where your head is.

But if you're an atheist, why would you think animals aren't born gay? Because they are, and does that excuse humans? Are humans now not animals? If you don't believe in creationism, something being born gay would be possible to you wouldn't it?

 

Yes. According to the scenario, he was repeatedly molested. Molestation victims suffer enough "angst" (your word) to have substantial emotional damages, that would lead to suicide. I have no idea if repeat molestation victims have a higher suicide rate, but am guessing, yes.

Compound the molestation emotional ramifications, with societal pressures of being gay, and toss in the speculative research in the areas of the hippocampus and how hormonal (via flooding of hormones) change can result after significant tramautic events occur. (giving the lack lustre shrink a bit of an out).

 

Because "gay" is a human invention. The concept of a homosexual didnt exist until 1869.

 

You mean the term didn't exist before then? Because I'm fairly sure same-sex attraction has always existed and does exist in all societies.

 

"Gay" as in preferring or only being attracted to the same sex. Gay as in identiying one self as "gay". Bisexuality is very common in nature. Gay or homosexuality is not.

 

Wow, I can see the conversation has successfully [for now] pulled away from the "why" of gay and instead sheltered under a diversion.

Getting back to why...

If gayness is a learned behavior, it isn't a race. If gayness is a learned behavior, it can also be taught. If gayness is something that, in some cases, can be foisted upon a child via molestation or tampering and that child grows up to be confused, compulsive and in angst, then we need to keep looking at the "why" of gay.

I know. The advocates here want desperately to steer the conversation away from the alarmingly disproportionate numbers of child predators within the ranks of homosexuals and their very vernacular [google: "tampered", "chicken", "chicken hawk", "chicken dinner" etc..].

I know it's uncomfortable to accept, much less discuss that gay teens may want out of the culture but are unable to access therapy to do so because other gays have hog-tied them. I know it's devastating to the Agenda's wishes to get at the kiddies early, to tie the word "gay" in with "fun" "neat" "heroic" and so forth. It's hard to sell an apple that has worms crawling out of the back that your hand is over but someone else keeps insisting to see..

Stay on the "why". We need to examine the used car thoroughly before we buy it..

 

I agree completely, Silhouette. Perhaps a good place to start would be responding to my arguments on this "used car"?

http://www.politicalforum.com/4074402-post358.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/4074408-post359.html