Obviously Skewed “Study” Finds Gay and Teen Suicide Rates Higher in Conservative Environments than Liberal

Yeah, right.   I believe this study like a I believe the Moon is made of cheese.

Why?  Because, when it comes to Liberal “researchers” promoting the gay agenda, there is no such thing as an accuracy in the methodology.  

The author’s conclusion that a permissive school environment and liberal community would significantly reduce depression and suicide among gays is absolutely wrong.  How do I know that?  Because the Netherlands, which has one of the most tolerant and permissive societies on planet Earth, has conducted its own studies which have found that homosexuals are almost twice as likely to suffer from major depression than their heterosexual counterparts.  In other words, if permissiveness and tolerance were such major factors in leveling the mental health playing field between homosexuals and heterosexuals, then a study conducted in the ultra-libtarded Netherlands would have proven that out, now wouldn’t it? 

The bottom line is that this is just another example of Libtards wanting to push an agenda—like “safe schools”—and then getting one of their Liberal buddies in academia to release a “study” supporting said agenda.   Then, the Liberal talking heads and politicians use this agenda driven “study” to influence the masses into accepting all this BS as a “truth” (after all, it came from a “respected” university, right?   Who are you to question academia? ).  And, finally, laws are passed forcing the public into compliance, further moving the Overton Window.  I see this pattern repeated time and time again:

What leads gay, straight teens to attempt suicide?

By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer

Suicide attempts by gay teens — and even straight kids — are more common in politically conservative areas where schools don’t have programs supporting gay rights, a study involving nearly 32,000 high school students found.

Those factors raised the odds and were a substantial influence on suicide attempts even when known risk contributors like depression and being bullied were considered, said study author Mark Hatzenbuehler, a Columbia University psychologist and researcher.

Gee, I wonder why the author of this article didn’t mention that Mark Hatzenbuehler works for the university’s  Center for the Study of Social Inequality and Health?  Could it be that such an admission would color the message and cause the reader to view it with a jaundiced eye?

His study found a higher rate of suicide attempts even among kids who weren’t bullied or depressed when they lived in counties less supportive of gays and with relatively few Democrats. A high proportion of Democrats was a measure used as a proxy for a more liberal environment.

Hmmm…  Even in liberal, agenda-driven BS, you can find hidden nuggets.  I’ll file that one away for future reference…

The research focused only on the state of Oregon and created a social index to assess which outside factors might contribute to suicidal tendencies. Other teen health experts called it a powerful, novel way to evaluate a tragic social problem.


Okay, I can’t take anymore of this Liberal leg-humping, circle-jerk cr@p.  If you want to read the rest of it, CLICK HERE.

Explore posts in the same categories: academia, Liberals, politics

30 Comments on “Obviously Skewed “Study” Finds Gay and Teen Suicide Rates Higher in Conservative Environments than Liberal”

  1. Ronin Says:

    Like all the lefts lies the BS falls apart when someone stops and thinks.

    My favorite lie is the “gays are born that way.”

    I guess all the ones that leave the life are reborn. I am not sure how they pull it off but suddenly the way they were born appears to be changed. (that’s inductive reasoning for you city folk)

  2. PAM SHANKIN Says:


  3. islams not for me Says:

    Its suddenly the conservatives fault when so called ‘gay’ teens kill themselves. But they dont consider the flawed ideology they feed the ‘kids’ in Junior High & High school which corrupts thier young minds and makes them more willing to ruin thier minds and bodies for the sake of fornication pleasures..

  4. Big Frank Says:

    IMHO most studies are often biased an agenda driven.

  5. Jo Says:

    Interesting take. I’m a pretty left-leaning “libtard”, but hate junk science too. And of course statistics are used and abused for the purposes of headlines, which is why it’s imperative that all of us learn to think critically and not accept things on face value.

    I question one of your statements, however:

    “The author’s conclusion that a permissive school environment and liberal community would significantly reduce depression and suicide among gays is absolutely wrong. How do I know that? Because the the Netherlands, which has one of the most tolerant and permissive societies on planet Earth, has conducted its own studies which have found that homosexuals are almost twice as likely to suffer from major depression than their heterosexual counterparts”

    That’s certainly an interesting factoid, but it doesn’t prove much without a comparison to the non-“libtarded” areas. If the rates are 1000x what they are in the Netherlands, then that study proves the point of the original study that inspired the post. However, if the rates are pretty similar, then you make a valid point. A comparison to the states would significantly strengthen your argument.

    Statistics in a vacuum offer very little, which is ultimately the point you’re trying to make, I believe.

  6. FUNK Says:

    @Jo- the study in the Netherlands is one of the most extensive random cross-section studies ever conducted, and the Netherlands is considered the most pro-homosexual friendly nation in the world. So much so that I preacher was thrown in jail for preaching about homosexuality out of the Bible in his own church! They found that psychological problems such as depression and suicide ideation and attempts were 4-5 times greater than that of the average heterosexual. You can find a link to the Netherlands study on this site… http://www.truth4time.tumblr.com
    They also found, like in the U.S. and other countries, they still account for a disproportionate number of HIV and STD rates. “Homophobia” is a buzzword made up by homosexual activists…it’s really a non-existent word. The burden of proof to show correlation means causation is on them.

  7. @ jess whose comment was deleted.

    See what happens when you make dumb comments. Thank Ronin for removing your piss poor defense of political sodomy and lesbainism.

  8. sinmantyx Says:

    Your rebuttal doesn’t make sense. Gay teens are more prone to depression, even in societies that aren’t as hateful toward them as the U.S. Suicide rates are very high amongst transgender individuals as well, compared to the gender-normative population. What does that have to do with how living in a conservative area or liberal area effects suicide rates? Your implication here is that somehow conservative areas have fewer gay teens – which might be true to some degree due to them committing suicide – but essentially is a false assumption. A better way of interpreting the evidence presented would be to assert that although gay and trans teen experience more depression than hetero-gender-normative teens; both groups have lower suicide rates in areas that provide support and contain more Democrats (are more liberal).

  9. weirdly the article has disappeared from the sf website.

  10. Leatherneck Says:

    I was born a Lesbian, and no desire to off myself.

    I say, mow box, and swollow hair! Just like Chesty Puller!

  11. Jayhuck Says:

    I find it interesting that you latch onto the Netherlands study without reading any of the criticisms of it and pan the study that you don’t like. What sort of “methodology” is that?

    • By all means, please feel free to enlighten us all with a link or two. Until then, you are just squeezing sour grapes.


      • sinmantyx Says:

        Again – the two studies that have been mentioned in this thread are NOT contradictory. Also, nobody has actually mentioned any reason that either of them should be completely dismissed other than ranting about an assumed bias of the researchers – which even if it were true, doesn’t necessarily point to methodological problems or bias in the DATA.

        You are not only ignoring one study and grasping onto another one for no defensible reason, you are misrepresenting what the study you aren’t ignoring actually says.

        One study compares gay teens with straight teens. The other study compares gay and straight teens in one environment with gay and straight teens in a different one.

        Do you see the difference there?

        • Of course I see it; Gays are more predisposed than heterosexuals to mental health issues—regardless of whether or not the environment is supportive of homosexuality.


          • sinmantyx Says:

            Do you know what a “control group” is? The Oregon study compared environments – the Netherlands study (and other studies like it) do not compare environments.

            A more reasonable conclusion considering the evidence is that homosexual youth are more prone to depression and suicide, and that a more supportive environment decreases their rates of suicide.

            Your logic is this: If gay teens have a higher prevalence of depression and suicide, they should just stop being gay and that would fix the problem. You’re making the assumption that gay teens would simply not be gay in an environment that is anti-gay, so they wouldn’t get depressed and commit suicide as much because now they would be magically straight. Thing is – that is contrary to observation. Even in extremely conservative areas – gay happens. Even in places where being gay will literally get you shot in the street – gay happens. People use to subject themselves to electro-shock treatment in order to “cure” their same-sex attraction. Your ideas just don’t make sense.

        • Thanks for the link. I particularly enjoyed this nugget:

          In this article I review research evidence on prevalences of mental disorders and show, using meta-analyses, that LGB people have higher prevalences of mental disorders than heterosexual people.

          Naturally, the author (Ilan Meyer) cites other studies along with the Sandfort study—which is the Netherlands study—then tries to imagine “possible” flaws with the methodology. Yet, when you take the time to scrutinize what the author is saying, you soon realize that he is hedging his bets and really isn’t saying anything. For instance:

          The problem of measurement could have increased potential error due to misclassification, which in turn could have led to selection bias. The direction of bias due to selection is unclear, but it is plausible that individuals who were more troubled by their sexuality would be overrepresented—especially as discussed above for youth—leading to bias in reported estimates of mental disorder. However, the reverse result, that people who were more secure and healthy were overrepresented, is also plausible.


          It should be noted, however, that if inconsistencies were the result of random error, one would expect that in some studies the heterosexual group would appear to have higher prevalences of disorders. This was not evident in the studies reviewed.

          In other words, the author is admitting that several different studies, which, when viewed separately, apparently don’t have a large enough sample size for his liking, yet, when all of them are lumped together as a whole, they offer the same conclusion: Homosexuals are more prone to mental health issues.

          Therefore, there is NO refutation of the Netherlands study. In fact, the author still uses it to bolster his “meta-analytic technique” which comes to the same conclusion: “LGB people have higher prevalences of mental disorders than heterosexual people.”

          However, the author’s report is flawed in that he has obviously presumed that prejudices against homosexuals are the cause of most mental health issues with gays.

          Such an assumption is inherently flawed. The Netherlands study is unique in that it concentrates on a population which celebrates and embraces homosexuality as others would embrace heterosexuality; having no stigmas concerning either such preference.

          If the author is to make the case that environmental factors are solely to blame for an increase in mental illnesses among homosexuals over that of heterosexuals, then he must prove that the Netherlands study is 100 percent wrong.

          I see nothing in his paper to suggest such a thing.

          So, here we are: The author uses the Netherlands study to bolster his position, yet neglects to take into account that the Netherlands study is centered on a society wherein gays who are experiencing “prejudice and social distress” are almost non-existent. Thereby, negating his own assertion that most of the mental health issues associated with homosexuals can be attributed to societal pressures.

          What the author REALLY needed to do was actually use the Netherlands study as a baseline for mental health issues among gays; Then, show that those studies—wherein the percentage of mental health issues were above the Netherlands baseline—might be more likely attributable to societal pressures.

          BTW – Both Theo Sandfort (Netherlands study) and Ilan Meyer (prejudice and social distress analysis) are both at Columbia University. So, it’s not like Ilan couldn’t just walk over to Theo’s office and hash this out.


          P.S. – From the same government website:


          • sinmantyx Says:

            First – admitting limitations is not “saying nothing” it just means that you aren’t being ridiculous.

            I never refuted the Netherlands study and there is no need to.

            The conclusion of the author is not that social environment is the sole cause for difficulties that some homosexuals have, only that it makes sense that it is a factor.

            Your assumption that the Netherlands is some sort of crazy pro-gay hippie commune of a country is weird. Stop it. Even if the Netherlands did have zero minority and social stress for homosexuals (which is impossible since they are still a minority, but don’t let that stop you), that would NOT negate the results of the study you are blasting.

            The conclusion here is that IF the environment is more supportive for gay teens, suicides rates are less.

            Your idea is that because gays have more depression and suicide attempts than straights generally do – that a more supportive environment for gay teen does not decrease the prevalence of these problems – which MAKES NO SENSE.

          • sinmantyx Says:

            ..and NO – you can’t use the Netherland’s study as a “baseline” and then compare that group to other groups.

            That does not work, because the confounds between the groups would be much too significant and varied to account for. It would be like saying that Christianity is horrible because the U.S. has a higher crime rate than Germany.

            If you want me to do your work for you – you could always point out that the percentage of decrease of suicide rates among the teens was only 20% which might be insignificant compared to other factors difficult to adjust for (you know – confounds). At least then you would be making some sense.

          • “Your idea is that because gays have more depression and suicide attempts than straights generally do – that a more supportive environment for gay teen does not decrease the prevalence of these problems – which MAKES NO SENSE.”

            It makes no sense to you because you already assume that “bullying” causes teens and gays to kill themselves.

            I, on the other hand, asseverate that mollycoddling your children causes them harm later in life when a “bully” inevitably comes along and rocks their world.

            There will always be bullies, and no amount of Liberal fantasy land thinking will change that. If your children are properly reared and prepared for bullying, they will not be inclined to freak out and hang themselves—unless they are already mentally ill.

            Since the Netherlands study suggests that gays are more prone to mental illness than heterosexuals, it doesn’t matter if you and I are supportive or not; they’re going to do what they’re going to do.

            Anyway, that’s that. I have already taken too much of my family time following your link and reading and studying the immaterial material you linked. It was a waste of time.

            No amount of verbosity from you will change my personal observations which have borne out over the past half-century. If you cannot understand this, then I can’t help you.

            Bottom line: Rather than blaming “bullies” for an increase in suicide rates (after all, the bullies have always been there), we should be looking at how the children are being raised; are they overly cosseted, or are they properly prepared?


  12. sinmantyx Says:

    Ah – so you believe that being bullied is good for you because it prepares you for being bullied. In some respects, the person who wrote the article I linked agrees with that. There is some personal benefit to dealing with adversity. This is true, of course, only to an extent and bullying takes many forms.

    There is a reason we call it “adversity”.

    Also, never said that bullying always leads to suicide, only that it is a known contributor to suicide. I never said that it is the only factor in anyone’s life. You’re just arguing against a straw-man that you assume I’m propping up because you’ve already characterized my position based on what the hypothetical “libtard” thinks and not what I am actually saying.

    At least, in the end you’ve admitted that your stance is based on your own experience. That’s progress.

    The evidence presented does lead to the conclusion that homosexuals suffer from specific types of mental illness more than heterosexuals, but it doesn’t even come close to supporting your assertion that “it doesn’t matter if you and I are supportive or not”.

    Of course, my best hope is that you personally do not heap “character building” adversity on others by bullying them or creating an environment where persistent psychological abuse of children by their peers is encouraged. I mean, I guess I would rather my societal role be to help people through dealing with that sort of crap than being the big-bad that hopefully doesn’t kill them just to make them stronger.

    I respect that you have lived a while have a great deal of experience that you have learned from. However, I have also learned from my experience and it appears to be much different than yours.

    Studies are useful because they use large samples and look at data in ways that an individual cannot simply from their own perspective.

    They are not the end-all be-all however, especially considering their inherent limitations.

    Even if the studies said something different, empathy alone would compel me to support my best friend in high-school and my nephews. How could I not? This idea that it “doesn’t matter if you and I are supportive or not” is just a cop-out from your duties as a human being.

    • Glad we have reached common ground.


      • sinmantyx Says:

        Not very much common ground – only that when someone endures people being awful to them, they develop coping mechanism that might be useful in the future. Basically, “It get’s better.”

        Thing is, the study isn’t even about bullying. It attempted to correct for bullying, and concluded that even when a teen is NOT BULLIED socially conservative environments increase suicide rates of both gay and straight teens.

        Even if you take a hard-line completely indefensible view that “whatever does not kill me, makes me stronger” stance – more children literally DYING doesn’t make THOSE children stronger even years and years later. I think I am stronger because of some of the difficulties I’ve had in life, but if teens are being bullied and the school does little or nothing to communicate that this is unacceptable behavior, and the community isn’t just apathetic to the situation, but routinely justifies the psychological abuse of the students with their hateful rhetoric —- you don’t end up with strong kids, you end up with dead kids.

        The ones that do survive grow up to be able to leave their communities (and sometimes families) of origin – the strength they gain is by rejecting the validity of the words and actions of their abusers and in their attempt to help and strengthen others that are having similar experiences by changing societal norms that not only allow abuse, but encourage abuse.

        In essence, the strength that is gained by enduring, is the strength to realize that you aren’t that scary – that people who would justify abuse and who spread ignorance can be marginalized and defeted.

  13. Hmmm….

    Check out the bio on this link:


    “Mark Hatzenbuehler recently completed his doctoral degree in psychology at Yale University. As a Health & Society Scholar he intends to continue his studies related to mental health disparities among lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. He examines how environmental events, e.g., stigma, lead to psychopathology. His research has documented that discrimination at the structural level may be harmful for the mental health of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community. He received a National Research Service Award from the National Institute of Mental Health to study the mechanisms that link stigma to psychopathology. He also received an award from the American Psychological Association and the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. ”

    Which of course means that he is not a un-biased researcher but in the same ideological bandwagon and more than likely a propagandaist. After all what are the benefits if any… living under a pro-gay enviroment? I doubt he’ll research that with science and not a pro-gay stance.

    Of course any serious study of this article means that you have to pay to view it.


    Meanwhile his article is already in the miles of pro-gay blogs and so forth.

    It will be of interest to see how many suicides and suicide attempts happen under a leftist section of the USA or elsewhere. After all growing up in a leftist enviroment is not any better than right or conservative.

    • sinmantyx Says:

      So – if someone is studying something and they go to school to learn about it – they are incredibly bias and any study they do should be disregarded completely? Is that what you are saying? None of those institutions are lobbying or even gay rights organizations. Yale and UCLA? That’s your version of propaganda mills? The APA? The National Institute of Mental Health?

      What would someone’s credentials have to look like in order for you to not assume they were a left-wing propagandist? Regent U?

      Then, you just assert that the opposite of his conclusion is true – without even giving your reasoning, much less backing up your claim with any evidence at all.

      Yeah, you actually have to pay for journals. Most universities have a large number of agreements and subscriptions so that they are available to students. I would love for all the top tier journals to be free to the public. I think that would be completely awesome. However, any push for that to become reality, in this extremely conservative climate, would certainly brand me a crazy progressive socialist or something.

      I may have access to it at work, I’ll find out if it is against our subscription agreement to share it with you electronically.

  14. Actually sinmantyx

    Why is it that Mr. Hatzenbuehler findings are promoted on pro-gay blogs and the like? It seems to me that those naughty leftists are promoting his findings.

    Like here:


    And meanwhile you defend his study but for what purpose? To show how horrible conservatives are?

    • sinmantyx Says:

      I’m not even defending the study. The study could be complete crap. I haven’t read the whole thing or analyzed his methodology and actually am not qualified to independently review or criticize it. I have friends that are qualified, and I could look it over because they have expertise in sociology and psychology, but that’s sort of what the peer review process is for.

      I feel perfectly qualified however, to point out that the arguments that have been made to dismiss it here are really really stupid. More importantly though, some of the statements made that don’t even really concern the study made by various individuals here, are simply untrue at best and hateful at worst.

      Of course the people who believe the study is a validation of what they already believe are going to spread this information to others as evidence that they are correct. That also isn’t evidence that the study itself is flawed.

      I also have no desire to show that conservatives are horrible people. I do however, strongly believe that the typical socially conservative stances concerning sexual minorities is harmful and misguided. I believed that, however, long before this study was done – due to growing up in a very socially conservative environment myself and essentially escaping it.

  15. In these studies about suicide amoung gay teens they dont observe whether or not they live in ‘conservative areas’ or blame conservatives for gay suicide.



    It seems suspicious to me that conservatives are blamed for gay suicide or worse. This is why I have doubts about studies like this. And like you I will no doubt be doing more research to verify others online published reports like this.

    • sinmantyx Says:

      The socially conservative stance is that being gay is a destructive behavior that teens must be protected from.

      So, teens (who sometimes haven’t been exposed to different ideas and are trusting of authority) internalize this stance and it causes them all sorts of self-hate and inner turmoil. This is something many sexual minorities have lived through first-hand, so a study that confirms their suspicions is going to be latched onto, but is not the reason they believe this to begin with.

      They believe it because so many have lived it. They know that being gay or transgender is something they discovered about themselves and not something they decided – but because of the attitudes of those around them, they were many times convinced that not being able to change was a horrible sin or deficiency.

      Even when people who see same-sex attraction as a sin act in a loving way toward gays (loving the sinner, not the sin sort of thing), it can be psychologically damaging because in a great number of cases you might as well tell someone with brown hair to start growing black hair because brown hair is an abomination. Then the person just gets some black hair dye and claims to be “cured” in order to be accepted in the community. That just doesn’t seem very healthy – y’know.

      The mechanism that these dynamics might lead to suicide is certainly reasonable, and so for many people this study is absolutely no surprise at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: