The tragedy of gay teen suicide is exaggerated and exploited by gay activists to serve their political agenda in public schools.
By
knappster
on March 25, 2007
The Gay Youth Suicide Myth
by Peter LaBarbera
The rate of suicide has nearly tripled among young people since 1965. Efforts to discover the root causes of this epidemic of self-inflicted violence must be dispassionate and free of politics. However, homosexual activists have manipulated this national tragedy to promote their political agenda.
Voicing concern over suicide risk for "gay youth," homosexual activists are pushing pro-homosexual programs in the schools, which will invariably ensnare vulnerable teens who might otherwise have avoided the destructive homosexual lifestyle. Their diagnosis: gay youths need affirmation of their homosexuality in a "homophobic" world, or they may become suicidal. The proffered solution: affirmation programs that make gay youths comfortable with being homosexual and the rest of the student population comfortable with the concept of homosexuality. Once everyone accepts homosexuality as "normal" and "natural," gay youth will achieve high self-esteem and avoid suicidal behavior.
But this view is based on the aims and values of the gay activist movement, not on any solid scientific assessment. For starters, it ignores the possibility that homosexuality is a condition — apart from societal acceptance or nonacceptance — that often leads to unhealthy behavior, which leads to unhappiness.
snip
Due in large part to the effective use of the suicide scare, Massachusetts teenagers in public schools are now facing an array of pro-gay counseling programs similar to Project 10-the Los Angeles school program set up by a lesbian teacher with the goal of "validating the feelings" of "lesbian and gay youth." Project 10's blatant pro-gay bias is exemplified by its name, which is based on the now-repudiated myth that homosexuals make up 10 percent of the population.
The myth of a gay teen suicide epidemic is built upon a flimsy statistical foundation. Gibson, a homosexual social worker in San Francisco, uses statistics from mainly homosexual sources and then extrapolates them to the general youth population using the discredited Kinsey estimate of a 10 percent gay population.
A perusal of Gibson's report turns up numerous contradictions and statistical impossibilities. For example, he refers to one author who speculated in 1985 (in the gay newspaper, The Washington Blade) that as many as 3,000 gay youths kill themselves a year — a number that exceeds the total number of annual teen suicides by more than a thousand.
snip
7
42
14.3% 85.7%This claim was inspired by
Claims inspired by this one
Similar claims
- 17-7 Teaching children how to have homosexual intercourse is not necessary to decrease their incidence of HIV infection.
- 26-21 Public schools should not teach prepubescent children how to have homosexual intercourse.
- 13-30 Public schools should not teach children of any age how to have homosexual intercourse.
- 117-3 'Homosexual intercourse' and 'anal sex' are not synonymous.
- 6-15 People who advocate teaching anal sex to other people's prepubescent children should not be authorized to care for them.
Discussion (13)
The risk of suicide and the risk of HIV infection are both used as leverage by gay activists in their quest to change sex education in public schools.
The risk is real. The solution is not clear. The attempt offered is for people to do the right thing anyway. This seems like a pretty clear course to me.
The solution of radically changing sex education in public schools is only "pretty clear" if one agrees with the aims and values of the gay activist movement — a premise noted above by Peter LaBarbera.
Huh. You know what. My knee jerk reaction for so long has been to assume that the "gay activist movement" has the best ideas of how to help gay teens, that I've never really looked into what other people are saying. If Peter LaBarbera feels that education isn't the correct way to reduce the risk of gay teen suicide and HIV infection, exactly what does he prescribe? Can anyone find a reasonable alternative that Mr. LaBarbera has advanced?
While I am unsure of the veracity of the claim, the article knappster has quoted is infuriating. The use of the phrase "destructive homosexual lifestyle" in the above essay is clearly bigoted.
The author has no basis for the claim that homosexuals catagorically engage in more "destructive behavior" than heterosexuals. On the basis of this unfounded assumption, Mr. LaBarbera deduces that the groups in schools draw students into risky behavior, simply by encouraging students to feel comfortable with their own sexuality. In fact, groups like these are often involved in safer sex education, attempting to reduce the risk for gay adolescents.
Gibson may have been biased. However, the NY Times reported in 1988 that teen suicide in 1985 was about 5,000 - so, while exaggerated, Gibson's claim is not impossible. Suicide statistics are notoriously hard to pin down. How many "accidental deaths" are really suicides, and vice versa? There is no way to know.
Speaking of bias, the above article came from the Leadership University, which is proud to proclaim that it is part of the "Telling the Truth Project, as part of the Christian Leadership Ministries (http://www.clm.org), themselves hardly an unbiased organization.
LaBarbera is also the Executive Director for "Accuracy in Academics", whose About page states:
"Groups like Accuracy in Academia are having the effect of shining a light on the continuing depredations of leftist thugs at our universities." and "Accuracy in Academia does much more than complain about the leftist, statist, and Marxist biases on American campus. It promotes awareness and understanding of our genuine political tradition; it puts young Americans back in touch with their ancestors."
Sounds like a pretty open-minded group to me. </sarcasm>
I also question the careful phrase "aims and values of the gay activist movement". Is this the "homosexual agenda" rearing its ugly head again?
I believe that any project that will help reduce teen suicide - whether it be faith-based or something else - is something that should be supported rather than condemned because it addresses issues that are unpalatable to some.
"The author has no basis for the claim that homosexuals catagorically engage in more "destructive behavior" than heterosexuals."
That's really an absurd thing to write. Anyone paying attention would know that we've already covered the necessary evidence. I mean, didn't you ever wonder why HIV spread like wildfire among gays and intravenous drug users many years before it slowly reached other segments of the population? Risky behavior can be very destructive.
"... leftist, statist, and Marxist biases on American campus."
Even from the left, that looks right on target to me.
"Is this the "homosexual agenda" rearing its ugly head again?"
Gosh, I'm sorry. Are some taboos more equal than others?
"... rather than condemned because it addresses issues that are unpalatable to some."
Some?
Outside of cocoons like San Francisco, Portland and Washington, abnormal sexual behavior is unpalatable to a supermajority of parents.
When I was in high school, IIRC the group with the largest growing incidence of HIV infection was heterosexual females. Clearly being a straight girl is destructive. Lock up your daughters and wives!
What I wrote was not absurd, although I could have phrased it better. The author appears to be presupposing that risky behavior is inherent in being homosexual. It's not.
The spread of HIV among gay men was largely caused by promiscuous, unprotected anal sex. The vast majority of gay men have wised up by now and no longer take such risks.
Exactly, everyone wants to fight the battle we lost as if our current battle were exactly the same. It's tempting, but stupid.
Homosexuals used to think that because they couldn't get pregnant they didn't need to use protection. Having unprotected sex is dangerous. Now, for very sad reasons, they know better.
Today's battle is that heterosexuals think that STDs are more likely to happen if they're gay, and since they aren't, they don't use protection nearly enough. However, tomorrow's battle is unknown. And the best thing we can do is prepare everyone with the idea that unprotected sex isn't safe - no matter whom you are having it with.
Well said, Rachel.
What you're saying is absolute bull. People dont make up these statistics and claims to scab sympathy off the heterosexual community. The issue is real,the concequences of constant tormentation and homophobia are real, and its due to the dismall from people like you that the situation arised in the first place and some acceptance wouldnt do you any harm.
Realize, steffb, that knappster the homophobe fled in ignomity half a year ago.
D'A