Restating the point does not constitute a rebuttal. I understand that there is a myth along these lines. The myth, of course, specifies that homosexuals feel op

Restating the point does not constitute a rebuttal. I understand that there is a myth along these lines. The myth, of course, specifies that homosexuals feel oppression, which causes them to commit suicide. I also understand that people have published documents to attempt to give support to this myth that suicide is correlated with the quantity of social approval. This has several loose ends, like "How are LGBT youth identified, and is that method reliable, particularly with reference to the effect of puberty and hormonal changes on sexual inclinations?", "Are there other regional factors that are better explanations for the increased teen suicide rate? [e.g., areas with 'less social acceptance' for LGBT may also have increased poverty, decreased access to mental health services, etc.]", "Do we see this affect of suicide motivated solely by social approval among other groups, including those whose oppression and/or isolation is much more serious or intense?", and so on. As with most publications dealing with controversial issues in the soft sciences, there is plenty of room for disagreement, and on inspection, it usually becomes clear that the publication is intended to promote a particular agenda or conclusion rather than to break through to new objective understandings or research. This is true across the spectrum, and it's why you have both left-wing and right-wing "think tanks". This myth is a transparent political device intended to humiliate and silence those who'd disagree, and we've had weak enough backbones the last 30 years or so that we've allowed it to work. EDIT: Your edit is a good example of the lecturing, elitist tone used in shame-based political opposition. It's funny that you single out the term "commit suicide" as some type of indicator, like we're to believe that suicide is not something that someone does, but rather a random accidental event. Again, I fully understand that there are people who will wrap such absurd conclusions in dense, self-indulgent academic babble and pretend like this grants it credibility, but most people have a sense of connection to reality, a limit on their willing suspension of disbelief invoked by the academic credential, that disallows such disconnected, convoluted logic from taking hold. The funny thing here is that the purveyors of these theories hardly realize the vast amount of religiosity that goes into their willingness to believe not just the unfalsifiable and supernatural, but the clearly hysterical and nonsensical conclusions that these groups and organizations emit.