Gay Mormons committing suicide

[MikeWaters]

Let me guess, the haters in this thread did not read the article nor listen to the radio show.

It was the playwright you said that Utah has the highest suicide rate among males 15 to 24, and that it is believed up to a third of them might be gay.

I suppose some of you think her entire play is a troll as well right?

Being a gay teenager is hard enough. Being a gay teenager in Utah must be hell.

Look at the reaction of the SLC school district when the kid started the gay club. THEY SHUT DOWN ALL CLUBS! And we are to think that there was no connection between the school district's action his suicide as a 17 year old.

I'm kinda sad that people who think "Let the Fags all die" are so shamed that they can't say it in public. They are only allowed to think it. Is that progress? Or just a PC culture.

Do I think the GAs gave much thought at all to how gays in the church, spec. teenagers would react to their latest campaign? No I don't . By virtue of a TOTAL lack of address their concerns, of showing one IOTA of compassion.

"While we are opposed to gay marriage, we care for and are concerned about the welfare and happiness of gays in the church."

WHERE IS THIS SENTENCE?

Someone please point me to it, if they have in fact said something to this effect.

That's why, no, I don't think they care about these kids when it comes to this issue. Because there is a lack of compassion contained in it.

Is the church becoming more compassionate about gays? Yes. But it's not hard to get more compassionate than the position that was previously held. Do I think the parents of gay kids in the church feel any support? No I don't.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Let me guess, the haters in this thread did not read the article nor listen to the radio show.

It was the playwright you said that Utah has the highest suicide rate among males 15 to 24, and that it is believed up to a third of them might be gay.

I suppose some of you think her entire play is a troll as well right?

So you're now looking to playwrights to determine science? That's rich.

You have a wannabe social activist pulling numbers out of her ass, and you call that science.

So I get to write a nice little pandering piece to a congregation, pull numbers out of my ass, and then cry for public adulation. Maybe the move is too much for you today.

The play is a pandering puff piece.

It's easy. Suicide is tragic and sad. The current poster children for sympathy are gays. So you add the two together, contrast it against the big bad LDS Church, and people will come running.

I could do the same. People hate children with cancer. It is sad when they get sick or die. So I can make up numbers how the LDS Church causes children with cancer to contract cancer due to the oppressive culture. And if I write a play about a little girl with cancer whose mother encouraged her to attend Church I can then get on my high horse and rail against the Church.

State a hypothesis.

State factors to correlate.

Create controls.

And start a study.

See what results are derived, and then you'd have credibility. But most of the discussions on suicide run around hysterically without real competent discussion or data.

I'm not saying let gays die, but I am calling the playwright and you as bullshit artists.

[marsupial]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Isn't the solution for gay members to exit? I can't see any other pragmatic solution for them. This is not a recommendation for the Church to ask them to exit, but what the Church requires is too difficult in reality to ask of people. Here live celibate. Not going to happen.

And you're not going to find a theological position that justifies gay sex. So it's an impassable position for churches such as the LDS Church.

Thus the only real life solution is to exit the Church, as a personal choice, not as a request by the Church.

While I agree, I am sure that simply up and leaving the church is still difficult for many gay and lesbian Mormons. First, there is the issue with your testimony. You may still believe the church is true even though what you want out of life goes against its tenets. Then there is isolating yourself from family. While they may be loving and supportive, you still know of their disappointment. Then leaving the church also means leaving the culture you were raised in.

So yes, the best thing would be to leave, but it can't be easy. When you're raised Mormon, I just don't think you can make a clean break.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by marsupial

While I agree, I am sure that simply up and leaving the church is still difficult for many gay and lesbian Mormons. First, there is the issue with your testimony. You may still believe the church is true even though what you want out of life goes against its tenets. Then there is isolating yourself from family. While they may be loving and supportive, you still know of their disappointment. Then leaving the church also means leaving the culture you were raised in.

So yes, the best thing would be to leave, but it can't be easy. When you're raised Mormon, I just don't think you can make a clean break.

Initially the culture shock will ensue, but you can lose your testimony easily and engage in activities to distract you. Although I am sympathetic to the concept, I'm familiar with a few gay LDS who successfully made the transition.

The current position of the Church may be theologically correct, but it's not pragmatic. Live without sex. Hell that is hell, so no thank you. In Utah the problem would be more severe, and my limited experience shows me most leave the state of Utah.

[marsupial]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Initially the culture shock will ensue, but you can lose your testimony easily and engage in activities to distract you. Although I am sympathetic to the concept, I'm familiar with a few gay LDS who successfully made the transition.

The current position of the Church may be theologically correct, but it's not pragmatic. Live without sex. Hell that is hell, so no thank you. In Utah the problem would be more severe, and my limited experience shows me most leave the state of Utah.

No, it's not a realistic answer. It would make for a long and lonely life.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

So you're now looking to playwrights to determine science? That's rich.

You have a wannabe social activist pulling numbers out of her ass, and you call that science.

So I get to write a nice little pandering piece to a congregation, pull numbers out of my ass, and then cry for public adulation. Maybe the move is too much for you today.

The play is a pandering puff piece.

It's easy. Suicide is tragic and sad. The current poster children for sympathy are gays. So you add the two together, contrast it against the big bad LDS Church, and people will come running.

I could do the same. People hate children with cancer. It is sad when they get sick or die. So I can make up numbers how the LDS Church causes children with cancer to contract cancer due to the oppressive culture. And if I write a play about a little girl with cancer whose mother encouraged her to attend Church I can then get on my high horse and rail against the Church.

State a hypothesis.

State factors to correlate.

Create controls.

And start a study.

See what results are derived, and then you'd have credibility. But most of the discussions on suicide run around hysterically without real competent discussion or data.

I'm not saying let gays die, but I am calling the playwright and you as bullshit artists.

I state a hypothesis, and you are upset because a scientist can't state a hypothesis?

WTH?

[MikeWaters]

I should add, "Be careful what you ask for."

The study showing you that LDS gay teen males in Utah are disproportionately likely to commit suicide would not comfort you much, I dare say.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I should add, "Be careful what you ask for."

The study showing you that LDS gay teen males in Utah are disproportionately likely to commit suicide would not comfort you much, I dare say.

The point is, you engage in rhetorical demagoguery. People who don't like my sloppy hypothesis are haters. That's demagoguery and you know it.

I'm certain a study can be designed to show anything an author wants it to show. Studies in the social sciences and in the sciences of the mind are really not that reliable unless a consensus of studies establish the fact, given the errors of designing studies to eliminate author bias. Because you already possess a bias, I doubt you could design an unbiased, impartial study which would be revelatory.

Do I as a nonexpert believe environmental factors impact suicide? It sounds reasonable, but to what degree I am uncertain. And although urban holds certain societal pressures impact suicide, I haven't seen reliable consensus data supporting that, but I would not be surprised if it exists. A key example is the effect of Japanese culture to succeed has upon students in their educational system. And borrowing from Hegel, it also seems plausible that societal forces at the point of collision between thesis and antithesis, there will be casualties. Thus if one modifies those forces, there will be side effects. Are the consequences intended?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The point is, you engage in rhetorical demagoguery. People who don't like my sloppy hypothesis are haters. That's demagoguery and you know it.

I'm certain a study can be designed to show anything an author wants it to show. Studies in the social sciences and in the sciences of the mind are really not that reliable unless a consensus of studies establish the fact, given the errors of designing studies to eliminate author bias. Because you already possess a bias, I doubt you could design an unbiased, impartial study which would be revelatory.

First you say that I came to an unwarranted conclusion. I came to no conclusion.

Then you say that I am not allowed to state a hypothesis, despite the fact that hypotheses are often where science starts, and are highly accepted as a method in science.

And now you say the science that I or anyone else could come up with isn't worth anything anyway.

Thanks for playing. I think you struck out and it's time to sit at the end of the bench.

All you have done is muck up this thread with distortions and untruths, in a way worse than Rocky pre-2005. And that is saying something.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

First you say that I came to an unwarranted conclusion. I came to no conclusion.

Then you say that I am not allowed to state a hypothesis, despite the fact that hypotheses are often where science starts, and are highly accepted as a method in science.

And now you say the science that I or anyone else could come up with isn't worth anything anyway.

Thanks for playing. I think you struck out and it's time to sit at the end of the bench. You are a bigot on this issue, and you know it, just like you are bigoted against women.

I don't know if it's too your credit or not that you are more bigoted against women than gays. I'll have to think about that.

And if you think I am just making this up, again, I dare say, ask any woman on this site. Since we don't have any gays here that I know of, hard to ask them if they think you are bigoted against gays.

All you have done is muck up this thread with distortions and untruths, in a way worse than Rocky pre-2005. And that is saying something.

This is considered the Tex approach.

First, you imply by suggestion and then when somebody calls you on it, you deny you ever implied anything and then engage in ad hominem attacks. How about trying to use good dialogue or discussion instead of demagoguery. Nice try, but you evaluation of my sensibilities doesn't affect me, as I can see through your rhetorical devices. I like you but just because you are intelligent doesn't mean you aren't wont to use sloppy demagoguery when it suits your purpose.

Second, you post some alarmest discussion of gay suicide in Utah, and imply by posting that LDS culture is to blame.

When I point out that's sloppy, you pull a Tex and state, "I never implied anything it's just those damn 'gay haters'".

Rhetorically that's sloppy and intellectually dishonest.

Third, you then engage in ad hominem by stating the very slopppy rhetorical which has a Latin, "just ask everybody", you are "....." and thus seek to undermine my credibility through the authoritative argument of divine right rather than examine the argument.

If you simply want to say, "I was trolling, and got called on it," do so.

Despite your "arguments" not everybody is malevolent who disagrees with your world perception. And not everybody who isn't a gay advocate is a gay hater and not everybody who doesn't express himself is a misogynist. That appears to be a revelation to you.

You appear to have big heart, but for some reason you've gone mullah on us in your judgment of people who disagree with you. What's bugging you doc?