The Right Scoop
I have mixed feelings about this one. Fleck has been in office since 2006 and he waits until now to make it public. So what if some other person threatened to spill the beans. Fleck could have just admitted it then and say he didn't want to bring sexuality (regardless of orientation) into his job as a politician. I think people would be more forgiving, but the fact he intentionally waited until after the election doesn't look good.
If he wants to keep his job, he better do one hell of a job and serve his constituents well. I'm certain another republican will seize the opportunity to run against him next election. It's up to the people in this district to decide if they want to reelect him.
Judge blocks 'gay-conversion therapy' ban
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/judge-blocks-gay-conversion-therapy-ban/
Now THIS is how you argue the debate!:
“Why are Democrat legislators supporting child sex abuse? Why don’t they care about children’s immature hearts and minds being immorally manipulated and sexually seduced by public school teachers,” he continued then. “It is certifiably evil that this bill to protect school children’s bodies was defeated by this Democrat-controlled committee.”
That's a very good question, why DO liberal legislators support child sex abuse?
Not only a sodomite but a liar. In our PC society we are supposed to embrace this behavior, but I abhor it.
Truth be told, Mike ran unopposed this year. Plus, the rumor is that he was threatened by another Republican in a close district to come out or he would tell everyone. I doubt he is able to run opposed again!
Prime example of what's wrong with the political system. Dishonesty reigns and you can bet liberals and gays are applauding this without even seeing the hypocrisy. It's who they are.
This is getting ridiculous!
Yes, I agree with the fact he apparently covered up an alternative lifestyle, and that IS wrong, when running for a public offfice.
But imagine..a newly elected, conservative politician, calling a press conference and sharing that he or she is STRICTLY heterosexual.
Can you imagine the horror of the MSM as they disect this need for such an announcement?
See what I mean? Ridiculous b/c it IS our reality!
It's not relevant to how he governs and would've just been a distraction. Just because he's gay doesn't mean he has to go around everywhere saying it. That's our beef with the gay left, that they don't make it a private issue and have to announce it everywhere. What matters is how he does in office.
But what about Dubya, Boehner, and the other RINOs going around saying they're conservatives when they act like liberals when they get power? That's what I would be upset over.
I don't know which is worse. Hiding it and getting elected or admitting it and losing because of it.
For a super majority of the issues he will be voting on his sexuality will not be pertinent.
Waited until after the election because that was the deadline the person who was going to out him gave him.
Why did he feel the need to bring up the subject at all? Now, he just looks like a phony, and he appears to be dishonest. Perhaps his sexuality didn't need to be explained, particularly if he makes a point of discussing it after the election and states he mislead his constituents. I'd never vote for anyone like this again. Not because he is gay, but because he deceived me.
"Safety" in the context of the h o m o s e x u a l movement helps to paint the h o m o s e x u a l as a victim who is being t o r m e n t e d and absused, h a r r a s s e d and maligned. And the word "safety" was purposefully chosen for its soft tone as a counterbalance to the nasty picture people have of h o m o s e x u a l i t y.
When h o mo s e x u a l s were fighting to bring the h o m o s e x u a l agenda into the school system they immediately jumped on the word "safety" as a preemptive measure to silence opposition.
In 1995, in his speech, "Winning the Culture War," GLSEN Executive Director Kevin Jennings (yes, THAT Kevin Jennings, Obama's "Safe Schools Czar") recalled how he used the word "safety" as a theme to deceive the Massachusetts governor and the state legislature into adopting the h o m o s e x u a l agenda.
He made these sobering comments:
"If the Radical Right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language--'promoting h o m o s e x u a l i t y' is one example--is laced with subtle and notsosubtle innuendo that we are 'after their kids.' We must learn from the abortion struggle, where the clever claiming of the term 'pro-life' allowed those who opposed abortion on demand to frame the issue to their advantage, to make sure that we do not allow ourselves to be painted into a corner before the debate even begins.
"In Massachusetts the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor's Commission on G a y and L e s b i a n Youth. We immediately seized upon the opponent's calling card--safety--and explained how h o m o p h o b i a represents a threat to students' safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and s u i c i d e are common. Titling our report 'Making Schools Safe for G a y and L e s b i a n Youth,' we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing shortcircuited their arguments and left them backpedaling from day one."
"Finding the effective frame for your community is the key to victory. It must be linked to universal values that everyone in the community has in common. In Massachusetts, no one could speak up against our frame and say, 'Why, yes, I do think students should k i l l themselves.' This allowed us to set the terms for the debate."
"In Massachusetts, we made creating an environment where youth could speak out our number one priority. We know that, confronted with real-live stories of youth who had suffered from h o m o p h o b i a, our opponents would have to attack people who had been victimized once, which put them in a bully position from which it would be hard to emerge looking good. More importantly, we made sure these youth met with elected officials so that, the next time these officials had to vote on something, there would be a specific face and story attached to the issue. We wanted them to have an actual kid in mind when they had to cast their votes. We won the vote in the Senate 33-7 as a result."
P e d o p h i l i a Chic
If you thought s e x with children was taboo--think again.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/333rtjrn.asp
P e d o p h i l i a Chic, Part 2
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/334juixf.asp
H o m o s e x u a l s seldom openly admit that they want to s e x u a l l y assault children, but their literature and their actions tell another story. In the January 1-8, 2001 issue of The Weekly Standard, author Mary Eberstadt exposed the clear link between h o m o s e x u a l activism and the growing North-American Man- Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) movement. Writing in “’P e d o p h i l i a Chic’ Reconsidered: The taboo against s e x with children continues to erode,” Eberstadt notes:
"The reason why the public is being urged to reconsider boy p e d o p h i l i a is that this ‘question,’ settled though it may be in the opinions and laws of the rest of the country, is demonstrably not yet settled within certain parts of the g a y rights movement. The more that movement has entered the mainstream, the more this ‘question’ has bubbled forth from that previously distant realm in the public square.
Eberstadt notes that the book, Male Inter-Generational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives edited by pedophile Edward Brongersma is currently available in the “g a y/l e s b i a n” sections of bookstores like Borders. This book, which openly promotes p e d o p h i l i a, was first published in the Journal of H o m o s e x u a l i t y in 1990. The Journal is edited by John DeCecco, a psychologist at San Francisco State University. DeCecco is a board member of the Dutch p e d o p h i l e journal, Paidika.
The h o m o s e x u a l magazine Guide published a pro-p e d o p h i l e editorial in its July, 1995 issue. In referring to p e d o p h i l e s as “prophets” of s e x u a l freedom, the Guide editorialist wrote: “We must listen to our prophets. Instead of fearing being labeled p e d o p h i l e s, we must proudly proclaim that s e x is good, including children’s s e x u a l i t y. . . . Surrounded by pious moralists with deadening anti-s e x u a l rules, we must be shameless rulebreakers, demonstrating our allegiance to a higher concept of love. We must do it for the children’s sake.”
The Weekly Standard huh? Bill Kristol's rag? He has a lot of credibility to not be deceptive huh?
It is good that he waited until after the election. This would have been an unnecessary distraction. Some people say he should have announced before the election, but he doesn't even have to announce at all. After all, his sexual orientation is his business, and it has nothing to do with whether he should be elected or not.
No it's not JUST his business. It's everyone's business when you run for public office to be made aware of the character and intentions of the person you're voting for. That is the RIGHT of the constituency. So, Mr Fleck's first act in office is to LIE to his constituency.
It's understandable why this simple truth evades the intellectual limitations of radicals where lying is a favorite past time.
He waited to come out until he felt comfortable. I'm happy for him and couldn't care less what he does behind closed doors. The point about "honesty" and "integrity" is exceedingly silly. Either you have a problem with him being gay or it--and his coming out--is a non-issue.
I'm glad the conservative movement isn't picking up on this, and I trust the rising stars of the GOP are moving beyond this kind of dated inanity. I'm sure Mike Fleck (who isn't a congressman, by the way) will serve his state legislative constituents as well as he always have and the people who have a problem with him will be increasingly few and rightfully embarrassed to go on about it.
Well, he's already proven that he's a liar. What he does behind closed doors will only reflect the same.
I'm gay-friendly, but the voters have a right to know the basics about people who run for office. Why does the public need to hear this fact now, but not before the election?
Just another dishonest politician. Who cares if he is homosexual (I refuse to call these people gay anymore) or D or R. It is his dishonesty that should disqualify him for serving.
I don't think he needed to announce he's gay or straight running for congress, especially when he's been there since 2006 so it looks like the people of Pennsylvania in his district feels he's doing a good job to reelect him.
Mike Fleck, news flash: You are NOT gay! You are practicing the chosen behavior of homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a state of being as liberals so often believe (which is why they do not believe in any type of "cure" or therapy). Homosexuality is actually a chosen behavior, similar to alcoholism and drug abuse. Do your constituents want an alcoholic or a drug addict as a representative? You can be fiscally conservative and strong on national defense all you want, and we thank you for it. But hiding your addiction from your constituents was cowardice. If you were not going to admit to this affliction before the election, then it makes no sense to announce it now.
How little faith in your constituents you have. Conservatives love you as one of God's children, as we love all people suffering from addiction. All because we openly disagree with the nature of your addiction does not mean we love you less. Glenn Beck is still an alcoholic but he makes the daily choice not to consume alcohol. You are suffering from the addiction of homosexuality and are making the choice to act on it. Hiding behind the state-of-being mantra of the left by claiming you "ARE" gay instead of behaving gay tells us you are less conservative than your constituents thought. Look up Sy Rogers and let the therapy begin. Remember God loves you, period.
Jasper, stage9...I appreciate your thoughts on this issue. I have had friends and family get upset with me because I equate homosexuality as a choice sexual behavior. Even if I remove the Biblical teaching on the subject, I still see it the same way.
Agree. He is making the wrong choices. Also a devout Christian doesn't remain in their sin. They ask for forgiveness, repent, and let God turn their life around. They don't out themselves. Your analogy to alcoholism is a good one.
Homosexuality behavior is actually more like Heterosexuality behavior than to alcoholism and drug abuse. In your hetero-lifestyle, you can choose your mate maybe multiple mates if you choose, you can choose with your mate when you have sex and how often, maybe before marriage or wait till marriage when you and your mate choose to have sex. So I think it's absurdly self-righteous and wrong connecting alcohol and drug abuse(which many people believe is a disease) to homosexuality, because if you had sex with the opposite sex wasn't that also chosen behavior as well?
I would also equate the heterosexual who needs a one night stand every weekend as also having an addiction similar to drugs and alcohol abuse. But it is not their heterosexuality that is the problem. It's their hypersexuality that is the addiction. All because there is a "consensus" in the scientific community that claims they will find the "homosexual gene" some day, all their efforts to date have failed. My wife has worked in the genetics research field for almost 20 years. There are no series of research journals that suggest through scientific reasoning (and not consensus) that they are anywhere near finding a gene for homosexuality. That being the case, it is still a behavior issue. It is still a choice. I relate that choice to drug abuse and alcoholism not to belittle them, but to empathize with their struggle with the choice they have to make. My brother died from a lifestyle of heroin use. I am tired of walking on eggshells around addiction. Homosexuality is an addiction.
It is not "absurdly self-righteous" of me at all to point this out. I sing in the choir with 2 homosexual men who each live with partners. They are my friends I have known for several years. Another friend of mine who is now "married" in California to his partner was a groomsman at my wedding and still a good friend of mine. They all know that I disagree with their chosen lifestyle. But I could no more disassociate myself from them as friends as I could disassociate myself from my drug addict brother. The reason is simple: because I am NOT self-righteous. I see plenty of faults in myself. How do I know if God sees my faults as worse than theirs? I don't, so I treat them as I would treat myself, the way Christ has taught us.
It is what it is. The biology of it has never been proven, and the research community are trying very hard to find something, some thread of hope that a gene can be found to explain it. They tell us they are close but are not. All you have is behavior; choice.
It's not an addiction. It's amazing how you can compare the two, when your brother's lifestyle killed him and you have gay friends living in your life.
I disagree, it's VERY similar, and no homosexuality is no where even NEAR the same universe as heterosexuality.
Homosexuality is a disorder. It is a physiological disorder. It is also a mental disorder.
Homosexuals are driven by lust, not love. In fact that is how they often define themselves, by their lust. In the West the two words, love and lust are often used interchangeably but to do so is wrong headed. Love and lust are NOT the same thing!
Love is defined as: A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
Lust on the other hand is defined as: a strong desire for sexual gratification
The reason alcoholism and homosexuality are similar is because both lifestyles are driven by an insatiable lust for something that the addict believes will satisfy an inner craving.
The public have become like some well-meaning families who ignorantly ENABLE their addicted love ones. Believing they're building trust so as to help the addict the family may give the addict money or other resources and assure the addict that the family member is there to help. Instead, what they wind up doing is enabling the addict to spiral even deeper into the pit of alcoholism.
The American public is doing the same thing with homosexuals. Rather than confronting the homosexual with his behavior and offering REAL help that can free him from the underlying problems, he is instead told that all is well. "Continue in your homosexuality, we support you."
But because the homosexual lifestyle is replete with high incidences (MUCH MUCH higher than heterosexuals; the numbers are staggering in each category) of mental instability, domestic abuse, suicide, promiscuity and disease, what the public is ACTUALLY doing is speeding the homosexual's demise.
Studies in nations even FRIENDLY to homosexuality have shown that high sucidality in homosexuality is NOT even related to societal stereotypes but to how the homosexual views himself.
Canada is one of the few country's left that actually still studies homosexuality as a mental disorder.
Adultery is a criminal offense in the military and it is recognized by a court of law as grounds for divorce. And adultery is a consensual practice. And it hurts everyone involved. In other words there are behaviors that "harm others" and are not "physical" in their scope.
I would ask that you please read the following pages before you suggest that homosexuality "doesn't harm anyone". " In law there are varying degrees of harm.
What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/index.html
Homosexual activity harms no one
http://carm.org/homosexual-gay-sex-harms-no-one
Condemning Homosexuality is practicing discrimination and this is wrong
You stated crimes, (murder, stealing, rape) that hurt or take things from others. That's why it's a crime, that's why it's wrong. Laws in this country are to protect people from others. Underlying moral issue is for God to judge.l Homosexuality doesn't hurt you, doesn't take anything away from you. You can come with all kinds of data but the same problems in homosexual community happens in the heterosexual community. You are fight a moral battle with others that you can't win. You only control you, your choices and attitude. Let God judge the moral issues, if people want to obey him great, if not so be it, there is nothing you can do it about it.
NO, and I am not particularly interested in having a gay friend! But, I can do one better, I have a nephew that says he's gay and I completely disagree with him too.
I didn't even bring UP the church! You don't even need to mention a SINGLE scripture to destroy the arguments of the homosexual movement. Just present the statistical data.
And where do you think the LAW comes from by the way? It is ILLEGAL to murder precisely because it is IMMORAL! It is illegal to steal precisely because it is IMMORAL! It is illegal to rape precisely because it is IMMORAL! It is illegal to EMBEZZLE precisely because it is immoral!
The law does not exist in a vacuum. It exists because there are underlying moral absolutes that we ALL intuitively know, and those absolutes, according to our Declaration of Independence, are a reflection of the nature of God.
We are endowed by our Creator with...rights...that is a Judeo/Christian premise. Morality and human value come from God to man and man in turn is meant to institute those values in the things that he says and does.
Naturalism cannot justify morality. Societal consensus cannot produce morality, otherwise the German people should not be held to account for their advocation of the persecution of the Jews during WWII. Because the vast majority of them approved of Hitler's views towards the Jews! Since most of them approved, did that make them right? Of course not!
So who dictates morality? God does. And WE are obligated to obey Him. For it is upon the foundation of these Judeo/Christian principles that America exists, and it will fail under any other.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams
Do you even have a friend that is gay? You might be surprised how normal they are except they like the same sex.
Yea know, you can bow out and say that you don't support this evil behavior but how can you profess to even have a religious beliefs and go against one of the basic tenets and foundation for morality and the support of human life. Look, I am not concern with what you, individually, believe but I am concerned with what is being taught in schools and how so many are persuaded with the same twisted ideology that you adhere too. I know many on RS disagree with my position but I don't see that as my problem. But what I do see is more than just a disagreement among friends. I see it as supporting a mental disorder that none, other than stage9, really understand the effects on society in general as a whole and specifically individuals. Now while stage9 so fluently gives us the psychological positions I look at it from a biological standpoint that goes against what that part of the human body is made for. You know the area of excretion and not an area of entrance. So everything is wrong about this behavior physically and mentally.
I wasn't talking about homo/hetero pedophiles. You seem to think Homos just want sex with boys and I wasn't talking about illegal sexual activity. And the reason I bring up the Heteros do the same thing is because you bring up a negative one point seeming like it's exclusive to Homosexuals. There are good homosexual people, parents and role models out there, teaching good values and how to treat people, just as their are Heteros that do the same. And I don't care what you think is immoral or moral sexual activity between adults. What you feel is immoral or moral is irrelevant in this country. You don't have control over peoples lives and they have the right to choose their life the way you choose your life, is my whole point. That matters is what is legal or illegal. The United States isn't run by the Church. We are not a theocracy. But we can still live our lives according to God by our choices. We don't need to force people to live that way unless they come to it for themselves. It's the way it should be. Who cares if you don't agree with the sexual preference of homosexuals if it isn't illegal. You can still live your life the way you want.
Sandusky was found guilty and faces 30 to 60 years in prison, basically a life sentence at his age. What do you mean isn't enforceable by law? I think the punishment is too weak for pedophiles. The shame is that it took so long for him to be turned in for his crime. NAMBLA is a pedophile organization, Homosexuals aren't advocating pedophilia in our country, maybe a few but there probably even some Hetero males that want the same thing with young under age girls. As far as the natural law, you should look up 'Homosexual behavior in animals', it happens in nature. I don't think homosexuality is right because of my faith but my faith is my faith not the law of the land in this country and I'll let God sort that out and I'll work on me what God doesn't like in me. It's not my business what two legal adults do in their personal life in this country.
Then we must CONSTANTLY remind them of it my friend.
NEVER ALLOW A LIBERAL TO CREATE THE NARRATIVE! It is ALWAYS a narrative for evil!
And you WILL NEVER hear this on talk radio or see it on the evening news. The American people are being fed a lie that has been planned for YEARS.
Communist Goals of 1963
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
"After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s"
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.html
That was written in 1963! and it is the exact language they use today to sell their BIG LIE.
Thank you, stage9! I know this behavior is a mental disorder but so many, like the liberals, refuse to see or hear or read evidence.
Of course there are! They are sexual addicts too! But we don't REWARD addiction, we treat it! And that's my point. Rather than treating homosexuality, we REWARD it and ENABLE it.
And frankly, liberals do the same thing with hetero sex as well. Rather than abiding by moral boundaries they cast them off and proclaim a SEXUAL REVOLUTION (REVULSION)!
But the underlying inference here is that you seem to be condoning one side of bad behavior to justify the OTHER side.
Others use this same line of reasoning to justify immoral behavior:
"Well, Catholic priests molested children."
"Well Sandusky molested children."
"Well, some Boy Scout leaders molested children."
How can THIS be used as a legitimate justification for homosexual pedophilia or any other decadent behavior exactly? Didn't we learn anything from our parents when they asked, "If your friends jump off the bridge are you going to do the same?"
I mean this is the entire ARGUMENT of the LIBERAL, to justify decadence by pointing out others' decadence! We don't judge morality by what the IMMORAL DO; we judge morality by what the MORAL DO!
WHO THINKS WHAT SANDUSKY WAS DOING WAS OK???? If they do, then they're sick too!
Second, I am NOT wrong!
According to Dr N.E. Whitehead, Author of "My Genes Made Me Do it":
The authors of one study done in The Netherlands were surprised to find so much mental illness in h o m o s e x u a l people in a country where tolerance of h o m o s e x u a l i t y is greater than in almost all other countries.
Another good comparison country is New Zealand, which is much more tolerant of h o m o s e x u a l i t y than is the United States.
Legislation giving the movement special legal rights is powerful, consistently enforced throughout the country, and virtually never challenged. Despite this broad level of social tolerance, s u i c i d e attempts were common in a New Zealand study and occurred at about the same rate as in the U.S.
Dr Whitehead says:
Saghir and Robins (1978) examined reasons for s u i c i d e attempts among h o m o s e x u a l s and found that if the reasons for the attempt were connected with h o m o s e x u a l i t y, about 2/3 were due to breakups of relationships --not outside pressures from society.
Similarly, Bell and Weinberg (1981) also found the major reason for s u i c i d e attempts was the breakup of relationships. In second place, they said, was the inability to accept oneself. Since h o m o s e x u a l s have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with h e t e r o s e x u a l s, and since longterm g a y male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if s u i c i d e attempts are proportionally greater. The median number of partners for h o m o s e x u a l s is four times higher than for h e t e r o s e x u a l s.
(Whitehead and Whitehead 1999, calculated from Laumann et al 1994)
S u i c i d a l i t y Among H o m o s e x u a l s:
Study #1:
Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999 Oct; 56(10):876-80
Is s e x u a l orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people?
Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Beautrais AL. Christchurch Health and Development Study, Christchurch School of Medicine, New Zealand.
BACKGROUND: This study examines the extent to which g a y, l e s b i a n, and b i s e x u a l young people are at increased risk of psychiatric disorder and suicidal behaviors using data gathered on a New Zealand birth cohort studied to age 21 years.
METHODS: Data were gathered during the course of the Christchurch Health and Development Study, a 21-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of 1265 children born in Christchurch, New Zealand. At 21 years of age, 1007 sample members were questioned about their s e x u a l orientation and relationships with same-s e x partners since the age of 16 years. Twenty-eight subjects (2.8%) were classified as being of g a y, l e s b i a n, or b i s e x u a l s e x u a l orientation. Over the period from age 14 to 21 years, data were gathered on a range of psychiatric disorders that included major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and substance use disorders. Data were also gathered on suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.
RESULTS: G a y , l e s b i a n, and b i s e x u a l young people were at increased risks of major depression (odds ratio [OR], 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-9.3), generalized anxiety disorder (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-6.5), conduct disorder (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.7-8.7), nicotine dependence (OR, 5.0; 95%, CI, 2.3-10.9), other substance abuse and/or dependence (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.9-4.2), multiple disorders (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 2.4-14.8), s u i c i d a l ideation (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.4-12.2), and s u i c i d e attempts (OR, 6.2; 95% CI, 2.7-14.3).
CONCLUSIONS: Findings support recent evidence suggesting that g a y, l e s b i a n, and b i s e x u a l young people are at increased risk of mental health problems, with these associations being particularly evident for measures of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder.
_____________________________
S u i c i d a l i t y Among H o m o s e x u a l s:
Study #2
S e x u a l Orientation and S u i c i d a l i t y -- A Co-twin Control Study in Adult Men
Richard Herrell, MS; Jack Goldberg, PhD; William R. True, PhD, MPH; Visvanathan Ramakrishnan, PhD; Michael Lyons, PhD; Seth Eisen, MD; Ming T. Tsuang, MD, DSc, PhD, Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999; 56:867-874.
BACKGROUND: Several recent studies have found a higher lifetime prevalence of s u i c i d e attempts in h o m o s e x u a l males compared with h e t e r o s e x u a l control subjects or population rates. These studies used either convenience samples, most without controls, or population-based samples in which confounding factors such as depression and substance abuse were not measured.
METHODS: This study used twins from the population-based Vietnam Era Twin Registry, Hines, Ill. An analytic sample of 103 middle-aged male-male twin pairs from the registry was identified in which one member of the pair reported male s e x partners after age 18 years while the other did not. Four lifetime symptoms of s u i c i d a l i t y as measured by the Diagnostic Interview Schedule were analyzed: thoughts about death, wanting to die, thoughts about committing s u i c i d e, and attempted s u i c i d e. A composite measure of reporting at least one s u i c i d a l i t y symptom was also assessed.
RESULTS: Same-gender s e x u a l orientation is significantly associated with each of the s u i c i d a l i t y measures. Unadjusted matched-pair odds ratios follow: 2.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-4.6) for thoughts about death; 4.4 (95% CI, 1.7-11.6) for wanted to die; 4.1 (95% CI, 2.1-8.2) for suicidal ideation; 6.5 (95% CI, 1.5-28.8) for attempted s u i c i d e; and 5.1 (95% CI, 2.4-10.9) for any of the s u i c i d a l symptoms. After adjustment for substance abuse and depressive symptoms (other than s u i c i d a l i t y), all of the s u i c i d a l i t y measures remain significantly associated with same-gender s e x u a l orientation except for wanting to die (odds ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 0.7-8.8]).
CONCLUSIONS: The substantially increased lifetime risk of s u i c i d a l behaviors in h o m o s e x u a l men is unlikely to be due solely to substance abuse or other psychiatric comorbidity. While the underlying causes of the s u i c i d a l behaviors remain unclear, future research needs to address the inadequacies in the measurement of both s e x u a l orientation and s u i c i d a l i t y in population-based samples.
From the Division of Epidemiology-Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago (Mr Herrell and Drs Goldberg and Ramakrishnan); the Vietnam Era Twin Registry, Health Services Research and Development Program, Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Ill (Drs Goldberg and Ramakrishnan); the School of Public Health, St Louis University (Dr True), the Research Service, St Louis VAMC (Drs True and Eisen), the Division of General Medical Sciences, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine (Dr Eisen), St Louis, Mo; the Department of Psychology, Boston University (Dr Lyons), the Harvard Institute of Psychiatric Epidemiology and Genetics (Drs Lyons and Tsuang), the Harvard Medical School, Department of Psychiatry at Massachusetts Mental Health Center (Drs Lyons and Tsuang), Boston, Mass.
______________________________
S u i c i d a l i t y Among H o m o s e x u a l s:
Study #3
Am J Public Health 2000 Apr; 90(4):573-8 Related Articles, LinksLifetime prevalence of suicide symptoms and affective disorders among men reporting same-s e x s e x u a l partners: results from NHANES III. Cochran SD, Mays VM. Department of Epidemiology, UCLA School of Public Health 90095-1772, USA. cochran@ucla.edu
OBJECTIVES: This study examined lifetime prevalence of s u i c i d e symptoms and affective disorders among men reporting a history of same-s e x s e x u a l partners.
METHODS: In the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, men aged 17 to 39 years were assessed for lifetime history of affective disorders and s e x u a l behavior patterns. The study classified this subset of men into 3 groups: those reporting same-s e x s e x u a l partners, those reporting only female s e x u a l partners, and those reporting no s e x u a l partners. Groups were compared for histories of suicide symptoms and affective disorders.
RESULTS: A total of 2.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3%, 3.1%) of men reported same-s e x s e x u a l partners. These men evidenced greater lifetime prevalence rates of s u i c i d e symptoms than men reporting only female partners. However, h o m o s e x u a l l y/b i s e xu a l l y experienced men were no more likely than exclusively h e t e r o s e x u a l men to meet criteria for lifetime diagnosis of other affective disorders.
CONCLUSIONS: These data provide further evidence of an increased risk for s u i c i d e symptoms among h o m o s e x u a l l y experienced men. Results also hint at a small, increased risk of recurrent depression among gay men, with symptom onset occurring, on average, during early adolescence.
That's where you are DEAD WRONG! How enforceable is the laws against pediphila when a man,like Sandusky, can do this for years?! Or when there is an organization called the NAMBLA who advotes for man/boy love. Heterosexuality parallels NATURAL LAW that supports the reproduction and family unit and what Natural laws does homosexuality parallel? None, that I know of other than the sea horse! So your argument is weak but you are free to continue to brainwash yourself is certainly your right.
stage9, you are dead on about this, my friend! No one and I mean NO ONE is even thinking about the pshchological or mental disorder aspects of this. I find it amazing that what Sandusky was doing was homosexuality but on young boys and many think this is OK. What I have seen is that those who identify as homosexual have been molested somewhere along the way and that is the real tragedy. Yes, my friend many are complicit in their support by approving of this. All I have to say is that if you have young sons keep a very close eye on them because they are in the school system and they are there to turn these young boys out, just like Sandusky!
Here's the thing, in our country, it's illegal to be a pedophile, it isn't illegal to be a homosexual. It's also illegal to physically abuse your spouse.
Pediphiles love the young childrenand particualr young boys who they molest too, and abusive husbands love their wives who they continually abuse too! Would you say that's the same as homsexual love? stage 9 is absolutely correct!
There are many Heteros that lust after sex as the same for Homos... Love is not exclusive to Heteros, Homos can love the same way Heteros do. You sound like someone that's never known someone who is a gay.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.