Gay Teen Suicide: A Range of Causes

Good points...There is not one thread here where any homosexual has divulged how they came to be gay. In the absence of any kind of explanation coming from their side, I offered that it is probably mostly environmental factors. Influence at an early age by other gays. Perhaps most don't really remember or perhaps divulging that influence would cause their agenda to go down in flames.

The fact that gay parents can raise normal heterosexuals is a testament to their desire to NOT have their children be gay along with (most likely) an overwhelming NATURAL bias toward heterosexuality in the human being.

 

This one's pretty close:

http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...ge-how-did-you-learn-about-homosexuality.html

And how did you come to be heterosexual?

If they tell you there were no gay people influencing them in their early life you'll just claim they don't remember or they're lying, eh? That's convenient.

I'm gay, and have been for several decades...can you tell me what the "gay agenda" is, because I must have missed that meeting.

Do you think a person sexuality is determined by what their parents want? That's positively absurd. I will grant you that nature turns out more heterosexuals than homosexuals, but it turns out more brown-eyed, right-handed people too.

 

No, we just prefer the truth. The vast majority of child predators self-identify as heterosexual, and there is no evidence whatever to suggest there's a disproportionate number of child predators in the gay community.

I know it's uncomfortable to accept, but if you had a reasonable, rational argument, you wouldn't have to resort to these laughable smears to try to make your point. Your arguments are nothing but stereotypes masquerading as intelligent thought, and if this were discussion of racial issues, you'd be claiming that it's just an uncomfortable fact that blacks and Mexicans are naturally inferior to whites.

Do you actually have any facts, figures, or stats to support your absurd claims?

 

Hey you two, did you Google "chicken hawk" "tampered with" or "chicken dinner"? How about "peg boy" [from the old timey gay culture]. Yes, gay vernacular has a long and vibrant history tied closely at the hip to child predation. Thousands of studies have been done on gay linguistics. Thousands. It is a very well documented phenomenon so no back-peddling on "chicken hawk" etc. OK?

Meanwhile..

You may have heard of this thing called evolution in science? No? Ok well it's this deal where animals evolve to populate and survive throughout time. Those who do we still see today. Some great successes are still around little changed from the dawn of time. They hit the "sweet spot" evolutionarily-speaking. The urge to smell the pheremones of the opposite gender and then to couple is a complex mix of genetic libido and luck. The luck part comes in with the classical conditioning mentioned before many times. As with the AI stud animals, the urge to mount and thrust in stimulation intially to the opposite gender pheremones[a genetic drive] is crosswired in any conceivable manner of ways to "ground" an orientation that may have nothing to do whatsover with the evolutionary component.

How did I get to be heterosexual? I was born that way and raised in a normal environment that encouraged me to pair my first few orgasms with the opposite gender. So now that's what my brain reverts to in default mode. I also learned to sing well, a thing I wasn't born knowing how to do. Also I learned to ride a bike, another non-genetic behavior. If I think about singing or riding a bike now, it seems as if I always knew how. I would even say that if I wanted to be wholly vain or simplistic, I'd claim I was "born that way". For that is how it feels, so it must be true, right?

Wrong. I spent many hours learning how to sing and how to ride a bike. But in comparison to how long I've known how to sing or ride afterwards, the initial training hours disappear in a sea of proficiency-years. So it's easy to forget and think one was "born that way".

 

Suicide is a permanent solution to a temptorary problem.

 

Correct. Unless the affected perceives their problem as not-temporary and permanent. Such might be the case for a gay teen molested as a child, with conflicting feelings and an uncontrollable compulsion to keep having sex the way it was done to them as a child/fixated/imprinted.

Consider again the OP scenario:

Then consider that that teen, knows the gay community itself will not let him get reparative therapy to correct a compulsion he does not want. So even his "friends" will not support him; while society at large considers what he does "queer", and for good reasons [HIV, compulsive behavior in general, the anus being designed for expelling human waste and not copulation]. So faced with odds that are insurmoutable, the gay teen takes his life.

Now, if he had access to a therapist that could help him work through his past issues, including having gay sex coerced into his brain as a compulsion, that suicidal wish would be a temporary issue.

But no, alas... in 1973 gays stormed the APA and took care of that for our poor young hypothetical gay teen. He cannot get therapy to rid himself of that foisted homosexual compulsion.

And BTW, as this thread has been progressing, the numbers of those who say that scenario is possible are on the rise. So it would seem that the more that is uncovered as to the possible sources of gay teen suicide, the less folks seem to be convinced that the autocratic gay culture itself is innocent as to causal agents..?

 

I enjoy your argument.

The fact is that some baggage is damaged, sad but true.

On a wide scale I consider myself fortunate. Have never suffered in those ways.

Allthough, I have overcome huge adverisities in my own life. Overcome is the key word here.

It's a lack of an internal constitution. Perhaps society at large is at fault, not sure.

 

Just imagine that you're one of those gay teens in the OP scenario. Then read this again:

Oh yeah, the gay is all about compassion for those in their ranks who want to leave, who feel they don't belong there, who want to rid themselves of a compulsion foisted on them since a very young age. Some gays aren't that way by molestation. Some self-imprint. But for those that are there by external coecion/force, they are imprisoned for life.

Right there is a recipe for hopelessness. Right there is a recipe for suicide..

 

You make good sense. Thanks for sharing that.

 

Close don't cut it. Basically they really don't know how they became gay. I was born heterosexual like every human being.

Unless they can provide proof of something else...Yes...because (see above) all humans are born heterosexual.

In a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington, homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi proclaimed:


"We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right — as heterosexual Americans already have — to see government and society affirm our lives"

In an article entitled "Gays on the March" in 1975, Time magazine quoted gay activist Barbara Gittings who stated:

"What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise — is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality." In response, Time opined, "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive"

"A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in public schools. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of Parker v. Hurley"

In a 1992 report by John Leo in U.S. News and World Report, he notes some books which were part of New York City's public school curriculum.

"The first-grade book, "Children of the Rainbow", stated on page 145, which states that teachers must "be aware of varied family structures, including...gay or lesbian parents," and "children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household."

"Another book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, states, "Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice."

More here...

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_agenda

No..Even gay parents don't want gay kids. You're going to need to prove gays are born homosexual. I think you cannot.

 

Still, you cannot "explain" what that means. Homosexual people are most likely "born" that way, like all human beings... but I'm certain that YOU cannot explain why it happens to be. The BEST experts in the world, aren't done figuring that out 'yet'.

That is a foolish ASSUMPTION. Anyone who knows science, would tell you that you're off-base.

And... THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT (in the legal sense). Morally, people will have their views. Some people still think that 'races' (ethnic groups) should be separated in every way... the LAW reflect something different, THANK GOD!

Of course... because IT IS.

That Americans are "apprehensive" about change... that is nothing new and to be expected. We already KNOW that allowing gay-marriage and homosexual people to live safely in peace... does not cause the sky to fall. And the anti-gay hype/hysteria generated by the closed-minded and crazy... is more disruptive and detrimental to this society than the millions who are homosexual could/would EVER be.

Let it be 'proven'. And what exactly is the "homosexual agenda"? What is the anti-homosexual agenda?

Seems like a separate issue to me. Even so, I don't blame some parents for not wanting their preschool kids to be taught about it. As teens however, they need to know such relationships IMO.

Teachers... should DEFINITELY be aware of what exists. Why pretend that there is NOTHING "positive" about alternative family structures? I think the problem with many (especially back in 1975), is that they think THEIR WAY, is the only RIGHT WAY. That simply isn't and never will be true.

Again, there is NOTHING wrong with that. I can see how some parents would like for their children to opt out of receiving such knowledge, but it isn't necessarily damaging or untrue information.

Some may not, some don't care; even some straight parents can accept their kids as being gay. That is reality.

The above is LUDICROUS, capricious and prejudicial beyond description. Such expression illustrates exactly why homosexual people and those who advocate WITH them MUST continue to FIGHT HARD for EQUAL RIGHTS and PROTECTIONS under the LAW.

 

This is true. And why I always say "tolerance, but not promotion" when it comes to gay issues. Even Ancient Greece, which indoctrinated young boys in generational homosexual/pedophilia, did it sort of "unofficially". Yet the ruling gay male classes were really not subject to challenge. So it became the de facto "law of the land".

It's more important than mandating acceptance though, it is mandating indoctrinization. This is an important distinction to make. A person can begrudgingly adhere to a mandate, but when children are taught to see gay as equal to straight, that child knows nothing else. And a child that accepts something without question is a child who will be open to indocrinization of that something without question. The Ancient Greeks knew this and got the boys very young so they wouldn't be waylaid with females and spurn the advances of the men that sought to sodomize them. It really is a reach at society-approved pedophilia because the pedophile first gets into the heads of those charged to protect children [PC gay "civil rights" "teen suicide" play on public sympathies] and then into the mind of the child [curriculum at school] and finally access to that child alone [gay marriage/mandated non-discrimination in adoption] = ACCESS TO AT-RISK CHILDREN.

 

Silhouette, is there a reason your posts in this thread have dwindled down to repetitive appeals to emotion instead of responding to arguments that actually address your points?

 

All humans are born either male or female (accept for a few rare mutants). That is HETEROSEXUAL. BTW the word 'sex' implies 2 distinct sexes...Male and Female so the word HOMOSEXUAL is meaningless.

Why should anyone 'affirm' homosexuality? What does that even mean in the first place? Nothing but goobledy gook rhetoric. Most minorities believe in separation. They want special 'rights' from the government mostly having to do with the receipt of tax dollars. Most folks are tolerant your perception is askew.

No it isn't. Homosexuals (as in 2 men) cannot procreate. That is not 'on par' with heterosexuals.

The only hype/hysteria I see is coming from the gay community as they seem to fear heterosexual society and somehow think everyone is out to get them.

I just gave you examples.

No they don't.... all they need is a good moral foundation that includes treating others as you yourself would be treated. No 'special' treatment for a self-segregated group. Heterosexuality, if anything, is more important if you are going to teach sex.

Alternative family structures are deleterious to developing children.

There is no reason to teach homosexuality to any child.

Any parent who actively raised their child to be gay should be in jail for child abuse.

I see, to even ASK you to prove your contention is seen as 'prejudicial'.....On what grounds?

 

Get educated.

 

Long ignored in this false-civil rights movement are the civil rights of at-risk kids in schools and adoption agencies soon to be affected by gays gaining further inroads that disallow for further examination of what makes them tick [as the Mayo Clinic found]. Adoption agencies must not ignore statistics that say "of all the molestations, a self-identified group called "gay men" at only 2% of the entire population are responsible for OVER A THIRD of ALL molestations".

An adoption agency now may take that into consideration when asked to look out for the welfare of a child to be placed. Upon the passage of gay marraige and all the promotional instruction to follow in schools, an adoption agency will be not just asked, but legally forced to ignore alarming statistics when placing a child in a home that is statistically predisposed to molest them.

This campaign is about legal leverage to access children. And if those children are found to be affected by predation, and grow up to be teens that are conflicted or confused, the gays already have a remedy for that. They aren't allowed to get access to therapy and instead are only allowed to access therapy that teaches them to "acquiesce to the abuse and become a good and passive victim. Ignore the voices of conflict in your head". Much like telling a woman victim of serial rape to "enjoy the experiences"..

 

It's "false" to YOU and others with their eyes/minds mostly 'closed', but it's REAL to millions who are deadly-serious about it.

You only help out the movement by applying your illogic upon it. Thanks.

 

It is a false civil rights movement. Gays aren't a race. In fact gays and lesbians only have in common the compulsive avoidance of sexual activity with the opposite gender. It is behavioral and it is learned.

When you're talking about normalizing a behavior that comes with alarmingly high statistics for predsiposition to child molestation, you'd better darn well get a complete consensus on where that behavior came from, who has it and what the potential for teaching it to kids is. Homo sapiens, the great "aper", the great imitators will soak any social norm up like a sponge from birth..

The Mayo Clinic publication gives ample evidence to consider that homosexuality may be as learned as age preference of the pedophile. So we must stop in our tracks and explore that possibility. We must explore if victims of childhood tampering are homosexual by birth or by coercion/compulsion? We must look at terminology in the gay culture itself that refers to child predation. Words like "chicken", "chicken hawk", "twink" "turned-out", "tampered with" and so forth are some of the milder expressions of pedophilia within the gay vernacular itself [documented exhaustively, sorry]. Some of the words in reference to preying on the young and even virginal children "to turn" border on outright violence and rape. These things we simply cannot ignore. We MUST take them into consideration before deciding whether to normalize gay marraige and thereby fast-track that propaganda straight into the schools to reach...*drum roll* little children..

Are gays commiting suicide from pressures from outside the gay community or from within it. Read up well first before you decide..

 

Gays don't have to be a race in-order for it to be considered a matter of civil rights.

You haven't demonstrated this with any solid evidence. I'm thinkin' you're in denial, Silhouette.

Gay men are more likely to report child abuse, there is a number of possibilities as to why this is. We've already explored a few in previous posts.

But you never did respond to my comparison of statistics on gay men vs. gay women. That seems to undo a great deal of your argument right there.

From what this thread, and my research has shown me, we have no real reason to believe that children can be "taught" homosexuality.

The Mayo Clinic also says to be cautious to take any such evidence as "fact", because it's very likely that the pedophiles that say they were molested as children are lying.

In order for this exploration to be productive, you have to be open to other possibilities as well. It doesn't seem that you are. It seems you have your mind made up already, any evidence to that contradicts your conclusion will go ignored.

I'll go through these again, "chicken" simply means young, it does not have to mean underage. Indeed, many pedophiles call themselves "chickenhawks" but that doesn't mean that it means "underage" when the general gay male population uses it. To be honest, I don't think I've heard this slang used in real life.

"Twink" is just a really skinny young gay man. Usually with a very preppy sense of style. Again, it's usually referencing gay men in their early 20s.

"Turned-out" is not exclusive to the gay vernacular. In-fact, I would argue it's not really gay vernacular at all but just prison vernacular. In the context of prison it means to be raped, but most of the rape that happens in prison is usually done by straight men as a way to prove their power/exert their dominance. Not out of real desire to be with another.

"Tampered with" just means someone who was raped/sexually assaulted by another man. Again, the phrase does not imply approval of the acts.

It's really obvious what you're trying to do here, Silhouette. But why don't we ever look at the questionable obsession that society as a whole has with youth? I mean, it doesn't take much research to see that "teen" porn and "school-girl" porn makes up a large portion of mainstream porn aimed at straight men. Not to mention the questionable obsession self-proclaimed "twilight-moms" had with an underage age male star of the twilight films. There's an obvious double-standard at work here.

I find it interesting that you seem to believe Dr. Ronald Stall is a reliable source of information on gay men, but then turn a blind eye to his numerous claims that the majority of the problems within the gay community are a result of societal homophobia.

 

The fact that those terms exist and persist within a cultural vernacular, celebrated, used and documented for many decades, has a reflection on that culture. Particularly important is the fact that there are SO VERY MANY OF THEM that refer to predation on minors.

Literally, as I was reading some of them on different websites [some of which have been taken down since the big marraige/teaching gay in schools started], every third or fourth word is a reference to sex with a very young person, or even a minor child. And about every other word was referring to a sex partner as "meat" to be consumed and then forgotten about.

That numerous appearance of words is a reflection of the culture, not just the mere words themselves. And the number of sexualizing/obectifying terms in gay lingo is alarming. And telling...

An old article from Time Magazine in 1975, at the dawn of the big push to mainstream gay, talks about that objectifying and the toll it takes on people who are homosexual themselves:

..

Gay is a subculture, not a race. It's very rare to see pointed out flaws within that subculture when it is so very very good at playing super-victim and backing off queries as to it's inner workings. But here we see someone pointing out that the gay culture itself meat-a-fies its members. And we look again at the OP scenario:

 

Please, stop promoting your made-up falsehoods.

 

Making them up eh?

Any reader here can go to this link and see for themselves.

Where there are literally hundreds if not thousands of studies on gay lingo..

And then there's this:

It's called "Lavender Language" and it is RIFE with sexually objectifying terms, many of which are aimed at minors and even some at very young children. You study a language, you study the culture behind it. It's that simple.

If you disagree with that premise then you'd better alert the colleges of linguistics across the world. They've been laboring under a delusion for so long now..lol..

 

You are so far off-base, it really isn't worth debating what you're saying. I can see that you believe what you do, but I haven't read/heard a single (credible) expert, espouse the assumptions and conclusions you personally seem to reach.

At the very least, what you say here should be questioned by anyone/everyone; you should not be 'believed'.

 

From the OP:

Consider the following from the boy's own mouth just recently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-Pb1CaGMdWk

His hero was lady gaga. I remember recently a clip I watched of her strutting out on a stage wearing a dress made entirely out of raw meat. Her/his dress was very sexually suggestive and explicit, as it always is. This overt/extroverted sexuality is one of the hallmarks of a compulsive behavior someone who has been molested in youth exhibits.

When we examine closely, and not in a kneejerk fashion, the causes of gay teen suicide, all things leading up to that suicide must be taken into account. I am not happy at all about the MSM laying a guilt trip on the students in this boys' school who knew him. First we must understand why his hero is lady gaga. Then we can understand more about all of the angst he experienced. Being made to think your sexuality is all about being a piece of raw meat for someone else to use may itself lead to suicidal thoughts.

 

Lady Gaga defended her meat dress:

On the left is the "I'm a sexual object and piece of meat" Lady Gaga. On the right is Cher, whose daughter decided to chop her breasts off and is the poster child for child star gone mental:



Could it be even remotely possible that these kids are very tweaked and confused and that the bullying is just the straw that broke the camel's back? Kids are reacting viscerally to what is so very obviously a culture of mental illness. Now if kids were educated that what this boy had was a sexualized identity syndrome and suffered from that compulsion/identification, then the bullying could be stopped by explaining that the child is suffering from an affliction. But when kids are seeing something that is patently screwed up mentally and being told 'it's perfectly normal', you're going to have a rebellion on your hands. And it is THIS that I suspect that is making the tormenting of these fragile minds a continuing problem.

Kids can see between the lines. They aren't as quick as adults to play pretend and that something wrong is "all good". So kids are especially prone to pointing out the elephant in the living room. Teach them that the elephant is suffering and deserving of compassion and the tiger will be tamed. Try to force them to see the elephant as a mouse and you're going to get exactly what's happening today... It's unfortunate but being in denial has consequences that nobody likes.