Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next [Archive] - Page 2 - Debate Policy

musicman

02-22-2007, 04:50 AM

Oh, Christ, not this fucker again.

Yes - THIS fucker again. And, the only way to make this fucker go away is to refute his finding:

Although homosexuals comprise only 1-3% of the population, they account for 20-40% of child molestations.

That's going to be a tall order, Grump. It hasn't happened in the twenty-five years that his finding has stood. Oh, he's been attacked and vilified - not surprisingly. But, no one - NO ONE - has been able to refute his finding.

Refutation would read something like this:

"Dr. Cameron is wrong. It is untrue that 20-40% of child molestations are homosexual in nature."

Nothing else will do, my good Doctor. "Dr. Cameron is a bum and a dirty dog" refutes nothing. Attempting to muddy and obscure the meanings of the terms "homosexual", or "molestation", or "%", or "of" amounts to an admission of failure to refute. I say again: within those straightforward parameters, prove this:

"Dr. Cameron is wrong. It is untrue that 20-40% of child molestations are homosexual in nature."

Any attempt to deviate from or obscure that task must be reasonably interpreted as an admission that the finding remains - after 25 years - irrefutable. You might as well get used to that fucker, Grump. He's right.

Grumplestillskin

02-22-2007, 04:57 AM

Yes - THIS fucker again. And, the only way to make this fucker go away is to refute his finding:

Although homosexuals comprise only 1-3% of the population, they account for 20-40% of child molestations.

That's going to be a tall order, Grump. It hasn't happened in the twenty-five years that his finding has stood. Oh, he's been attacked and vilified - not surprisingly. But, no one - NO ONE - has been able to refute his finding.

Refutation would read something like this:

"Dr. Cameron is wrong. It is untrue that 20-40% of child molestations are homosexual in nature."

Nothing else will do, my good Doctor. "Dr. Cameron is a bum and a dirty dog" refutes nothing. Attempting to muddy and obscure the meanings of the terms "homosexual", or "molestation", or "%", or "of" amounts to an admission of failure to refute. I say again: within those straightforward parameters, prove this:

"Dr. Cameron is wrong. It is untrue that 20-40% of child molestations are homosexual in nature."

Any attempt to deviate from or obscure that task must be reasonably interpreted as an admission that the finding remains - after 25 years - irrefutable. You might as well get used to that fucker, Grump. He's right.

You haven't been around for a while MM. I have refuted those findings on this board and the USMB. In fact, it might be in this very thread. His sample is up the wazoo as is his methods. He was kicked out of the APA for a reason. Show me specifically the scientific method he used to come up with his conclusions. The sample rate, where they were from, what was he comparing his figures against? Again, again and again I have refuted - with evidence - his findings, and all I get is 'prove him wrong". Well I have. On many occasions. As stated, even King Neocon himself, Bill Bennett says his methods are crap. If you think he is some Messiah swimming against the tide, think again. Think Occam's razor. Just because he panders to you hard core religious adherents, doesn't mean he's right. It just means he panders.

BTW, you don't post nearly as much as you should! Too many gigs huh!

musicman

02-22-2007, 05:21 AM

You haven't been around for a while MM. I have refuted those findings on this board and the USMB. In fact, it might be in this very thread. His sample is up the wazoo as is his methods.

We're talking about different studies. A later study in which Dr. Cameron participated was found to have employed flawed methodology - a fact I've always conceded up front, and an honest mistake to which he owned up. I'm talking about his earlier finding - the one that so enraged the budding PC community - the awkward, irrefutable:

While homosexuals comprise only 1-3% of the population, they account for 20-40% of child molestations.

To review: refutation of this finding would read something like this:

"Dr. Cameron is wrong. It is untrue that 20-40% of child molestations are homosexual in nature."

Can you succeed, where all others have failed? I'll wait with 'bated breath...

He was kicked out of the APA for a reason.

TOO BLOODY RIGHT HE WAS!!! He exposed his peers as weaklings and political whores, resigning in disgust in November, 1982. Desperate to save face, the APA "kicked him out" thirteen months later. "You can't quit - you're fired" is some pretty lame shit, if you ask me.

Show me specifically the scientific method he used to come up with his conclusions. The sample rate, where they were from, what was he comparing his figures against? Again, again and again I have refuted - with evidence - his findings, and all I get is 'prove him wrong". Well I have. On many occasions. As stated, even King Neocon himself, Bill Bennett says his methods are crap. If you think he is some Messiah swimming against the tide, think again. Think Occam's razor. Just because he panders to you hard core religious adherents, doesn't mean he's right. It just means he panders.

"Dr. Cameron is wrong. It is untrue that 20-40% of child molestations are homosexual in nature". It just doesn't seem to roll trippingly off the tongue, does it? But, until it does, you have refuted nothing.

BTW, you don't post nearly as much as you should! Too many gigs huh!

Busier than a one-armed paperhanger these days - which is a good thing, of course. Thanks for the good thoughts!

Grumplestillskin

02-22-2007, 05:27 AM

In order to refute that study I need to see his methodology. Have you got a copy handy? I cannot outright refute it by doing a study of my own. Hey, look, if his methods are sound, shouldn't be a problem.

BS re the APA. They don't just kick anybody out. He resigned?? pppfffttt..the fact he has gone to work with nothing more than hardcore Christians indicates he had a bias from the start. Not exactly an endearing quality for an "independent" researcher...

Also, did you notice that in the link to the pamphlet that quite a few of the references were to his own research? That's like having the fox in the hen house.

musicman

02-22-2007, 05:46 AM

In order to refute that study I need to see his methodology. Have you got a copy handy? I cannot outright refute it by doing a study of my own. Hey, look, if his methods are sound, shouldn't be a problem.

I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, though, do you mean to aver that 20-40% of child molestations are NOT homosexual in nature? Because I don't think you want to do that.

BS re the APA. They don't just kick anybody out. He resigned?? pppfffttt..

Hate to break it to you, but that's the way it went down - it's a matter of public record. Again - I'll get to tracking some of this down for you.

the fact he has gone to work with nothing more than hardcore Christians indicates he had a bias from the start. Not exactly an endearing quality for an "independent" researcher...

That's not necessarily true. By that logic, why not say that the APA - suddenly switching horses, and saying that abortion and homosexuality were OK - indicates an anti-Christian bias on THEIR part, from the start? Kind of calls THEIR independence into question, doesn't it?

The APA changed the rules overnight; it stands to reason that Dr. Cameron would find himself unable to work with them.

Also, did you notice that in the link to the pamphlet that quite a few of the references were to his own research? That's like having the fox in the hen house.

Haven't paid this particular link too much mind, to be honest with you. It refs a different study from the one I cite, I believe.

musicman

02-22-2007, 06:27 AM

OK, Grump - thanks for your patience.

Got the link, re Dr. Cameron's resignation, and will post in a minute. Thought we'd better address first things first, though.

Question: when you speak of the REFUTED Cameron study - the one Bill Bennett speaks against - you're actually ref'ing the 1998 study concerning homosexual life expectancy, correct?

musicman

02-22-2007, 06:33 AM

Dr. Cameron's resignation letter - scroll down and enlarge.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_APA-rebuttal.html

glockmail

02-22-2007, 08:18 AM

Absolutely he is gay. Never said otherwise. It's your preposterous assertion that gays are more prevelent than straights at it that makes me laugh. I mean, men who rape girls are they called hetrosexual paedophiles or just paedophiles? So If I can prove that more males screw little boys than screw little girls then your on board with this?

glockmail

02-22-2007, 08:22 AM

.....
Also, did you notice that in the link to the pamphlet that quite a few of the references were to his own research? That's like having the fox in the hen house. Re-ing your own research is common and accepted practice.

Grumplestillskin

02-22-2007, 01:23 PM

So If I can prove that more males screw little boys than screw little girls then your on board with this?

Sure..

Grumplestillskin

02-22-2007, 01:26 PM

Re-ing your own research is common and accepted practice.

I don't think so. Not when you are trying to back up a piont and one of the few ways you can do that is by using your own research that has already been the subject of controversy..

Grumplestillskin

02-22-2007, 01:38 PM

Dr. Cameron's resignation letter - scroll down and enlarge.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_APA-rebuttal.html

Sorry MM, while it does look like he resigned, it looks like he went before he was pushed. Even in hsi letter to the editor he is moaning about liberalism.

Not too sure re Bennett. Would have to find the article. I have done this several times and am not gong through it again. I was done with this thread because it is at least the third time I have addressed. I only replied due to the poster being you...

glockmail

02-22-2007, 05:04 PM

I don't think so. Not when you are trying to back up a piont and one of the few ways you can do that is by using your own research that has already been the subject of controversy.. That's a cop-out G. All research on this subject is controversial. Heck, any subject can be.

Missileman

02-22-2007, 05:09 PM

A very detailed explanation of why anything Cameron purports should be closely examined, and why corroboration from a credible source should be sought before taking his findings as accurate.

http://www.geocities.com/ninure/cameron.html

glockmail

02-22-2007, 05:11 PM

Sure..

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

See references 9-17. Males on boys is approximatly 1/2 of the total number of ped cases studied. We all know that the % of gay in the population at large is well below that, probably between 1-2%. That means that homosexual pedophilia is 25-50 time more likely to occur that heterosexual pedophilia.

glockmail

02-22-2007, 05:12 PM

Missileman

02-22-2007, 05:14 PM

So If I can prove that more males screw little boys than screw little girls then your on board with this?

I asked you for proof of this a couple of times already. Still wishing you lots of luck in the attempt.

Missileman

02-22-2007, 05:17 PM

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

See references 9-17. Males on boys is approximatly 1/2 of the total number of ped cases studied. We all know that the % of gay in the population at large is well below that, probably between 1-2%. That means that homosexual pedophilia is 25-50 time more likely to occur that heterosexual pedophilia.

From my link: http://www.geocities.com/ninure/cameron.html

Cameron's findings are based in large part upon a review of other researchers' work on child molestation, but in order to get the results he wants, Cameron has to distort the findings of the original studies. For example, Cameron defines all cases of molestation between an adult male and a male child as molestations committed by homosexuals; however this definition is rejected by the very experts Cameron cites. One of these experts, Dr. A. Nicholas Groth, has in fact explicitly stated that the molestation of young boys by adult men has nothing to do with homosexuality:

"...(I)t is a faulty assumption that if an adult male selects a young boy as his victim, his sexual orientation is homosexual. We found that some (73, or 49%) offenders responded exclusively to children---boys, girls, or both---and showed no interest in adults or age-mates for sexual gratification. These men were pedophile in the true sense ofthe word.

"Other (75 or 51%) offenders showed no persistent sexual preference for children but turned to them as the result of conflicts or problems in their adult relationships. Although this group regressed to sexual encounters with children, their predominant sexual orientation was towards adults. In examining the adult sexual lifestyle of this latter group, it was found that the large majority (62, or 83%) of these subjects led exclusively heterosexual lives, and the remaining subjects (13, or 17%) were bisexually oriented that is, their adult sexual activities involved both male and female partners, although here, too, their preference was for women.

"It appears, then, that the heterosexual adult constitutes more of a threat of sexual victimization to the underage child than does the homosexual adult. The offender who selects young boys as his victims has either done that exclusively in his life or does so having regressed from adult heterosexual relationships. Offenders attracted to boy victims typically report that they are uninterested in or repulsed by adult homosexual relationships and find the young boy's feminine characteristics and absence of secondary sexual characteristics, such as body hair, appealing."

Missileman

02-22-2007, 05:18 PM

Without hitting the link, I'll stipulate on that.

Guess who wrote the pamphlet you linked to.

musicman

02-22-2007, 05:34 PM

Sorry MM, while it does look like he resigned, it looks like he went before he was pushed.

You're looking through rose-colored glasses, then. THIRTEEN MONTHS HAD ELAPSED. Looks more to me as if the APA entertained hopes of bringing Dr. Cameron back into the fold. When it became clear that that wasn't going to happen, they diligently set themselves to the tasks of saving face and smearing him.

Even in hsi letter to the editor he is moaning about liberalism.

Again - you're getting the timeline screwed up. Liberalism - and the APA's gutlessness before same - was the impetus behind Dr. Cameron's 1982 resignation. All the APA's subsequent actions were pathetic, retroactive, face-saving, band-aid measures.

Not too sure re Bennett.

But, being sure about Bennett is vital to your case. His criticism of Dr. Cameron's methodology is central to your argument. Not to worry; I am sure about Bennett.

He was ref'ing a different, 1998 study in which Cameron participated -

Dr. Cameron has acknowledged the errors in that study -

I have never made any bones about it -

it STILL in no way refutes the finding of Dr. Cameron's earlier study on homosexuality and pedophilia -

it is STILL the only - albeit disingenuous - weapon Dr. Cameron's detractors can offer by way of refutation of his initial finding -

it is, in fact, NO REFUTATION AT ALL, and -

it would not surprise me in the least to learn that Dr. Cameron had been sandbagged by his enemies on the 1998 study; their actions in every other respect of their dealings with Dr. Cameron show a marked propensity toward cowardice and lies.

Dr. Cameron's finding on homosexuality/pedophilia stands. The research I have done today compels me to follow his scrupulously honest example, and amend a timeline error I've been making:

Although homosexuals comprise only 1-3% of the population, they account for 20-40% of all child molestations is a truth that has stood, in the face of all that the enemies of truth have thrown at it - not for the twenty-five years I have previously stated, but for only fourteen. I apologize for my error.

Would have to find the article. I have done this several times and am not gong through it again. I was done with this thread because it is at least the third time I have addressed. I only replied due to the poster being you...

And I appreciate your time. I always enjoy our discussions.

glockmail

02-22-2007, 05:43 PM

Guess who wrote the pamphlet you linked to. Does not matter. All research should be closely examined, and corroboration from a credible source should be sought before taking the findings as accurate.

glockmail

02-22-2007, 05:44 PM

I asked you for proof of this a couple of times already. Still wishing you lots of luck in the attempt. Let's let G respond, shall we?

Missileman

02-22-2007, 05:50 PM

Let's let G respond, shall we?

He already did...now we're both waiting.

glockmail

02-22-2007, 07:04 PM

He already did...now we're both waiting. Not since 261.

Missileman

02-22-2007, 07:12 PM

Not since 261.

For clarification, was post 265 supposed to be your proof that the majority of pedophiles are homosexual?

glockmail

02-22-2007, 07:18 PM

For clarification, was post 265 supposed to be your proof that the majority of pedophiles are homosexual? No. Its a response to 260.

Missileman

02-22-2007, 07:30 PM

No. Its a response to 260.

Which was his reply to 258. So 265 is supposed to be proof for 258?

glockmail

02-22-2007, 08:12 PM

Which was his reply to 258. So 265 is supposed to be proof for 258?
Yup.

Missileman

02-22-2007, 08:16 PM

Yup.

Kewl...I anxiously await the corroboration of Cameron's opinions before we grant your link "proof" status.

glockmail

02-22-2007, 08:27 PM

Kewl...I anxiously await the corroboration of Cameron's opinions before we grant your link "proof" status. I'm not quoting him. I'm using his references.

Missileman

02-22-2007, 09:28 PM

I'm not quoting him. I'm using his references.

You're using his representations of his references which amounts to the same thing as quoting him. As was pointed out in the link I provided, some of the people who actually conducted the studies he is using, accuse Cameron of dishonest representation. It was those accusations that led to Cameron being investigated for ethics violations.

Why depend on the interpretation of someone whose credibility is questionable instead of looking at the original (unaltered?) findings?

musicman

02-22-2007, 09:43 PM

As was pointed out in the link I provided, some of the people who actually conducted the studies he is using, accuse Cameron of dishonest representation.

Ah, but the thrust of your provided link is that man-on-boy sex is - somehow - NOT homosexuality. As we've discussed before, purporting to refute Dr. Cameron's finding by doctoring the meaning of the terms contained therein is tantamount to an admission that the finding is irrefutable.

Let's review:

A refutation of Dr. Cameron's finding would read something like, "Dr. Cameron is wrong. It is untrue that 20-40% of child molestations are homosexual in nature."

"Dr. Cameron is wrong if we pretend that homosexuality means something else" refutes nothing.

"I loaned Dr. Cameron a '52 hubcap once, and he never thanked me. How are we to ever believe anything a man like that says?" refutes nothing.

"Dr. Cameron is wrong. It is untrue that 20-40% of child molestations are homosexual in nature" = refutation. Anything else is just noise - TELLING noise - noise that screams "I CANNOT REFUTE DR. CAMERON'S FINDINGS" from the rooftops. How's the weather up there, MM?

musicman

02-22-2007, 11:01 PM

Missileman

02-22-2007, 11:32 PM

Ah, but the thrust of your provided link is that man-on-boy sex is - somehow - NOT homosexuality. As we've discussed before, purporting to refute Dr. Cameron's finding by doctoring the meaning of the terms contained therein is tantamount to an admission that the finding is irrefutable.

Let's review:

A refutation of Dr. Cameron's finding would read something like, "Dr. Cameron is wrong. It is untrue that 20-40% of child molestations are homosexual in nature."

"Dr. Cameron is wrong if we pretend that homosexuality means something else" refutes nothing.

"I loaned Dr. Cameron a '52 hubcap once, and he never thanked me. How are we to ever believe anything a man like that says?" refutes nothing.

"Dr. Cameron is wrong. It is untrue that 20-40% of child molestations are homosexual in nature" = refutation. Anything else is just noise - TELLING noise - noise that screams "I CANNOT REFUTE DR. CAMERON'S FINDINGS" from the rooftops. How's the weather up there, MM?

What exactly, other than the fact he says what you want to hear, makes Cameron's opinion more valid than Groth's? Groth seems to think Cameron is full of shit and Groth is an expert on child molestation.

Missileman

02-22-2007, 11:37 PM

"Missileman has used data that I collected to advance his false assertion that a manned voyage to the Sun in a spaceship is impossible. I never said any such thing. In fact, I believe that a manned voyage to the Sun in a spaceship is QUITE possible - if we pretend that the Sun is not 93 million miles away and real hot. Hell, man - we could go at NIGHT!"

That's hilarious!

Not nearly as funny as your continued, "It doesn't matter that Cameron is a discredited charlatan and a proven liar, he's my expert and I'm sticking with him."

musicman

02-22-2007, 11:40 PM

What exactly, other than the fact he says what you want to hear, makes Cameron's opinion more valid than Groth's? Groth seems to think Cameron is full of shit and Groth is an expert on child molestation.

... Dr. A. Nicholas Groth, has in fact explicitly stated that the molestation of young boys by adult men has nothing to do with homosexuality...

musicman

02-22-2007, 11:41 PM

That's hilarious!

Not nearly as funny as your continued, "It doesn't matter that Cameron is a discredited charlatan and a proven liar, he's my expert and I'm sticking with him."

Refute his finding, then.

Missileman

02-22-2007, 11:42 PM

musicman

02-22-2007, 11:43 PM

On the subject of doctoring, perhaps you should consider the way Cameron doctored the results of the studies he cited which is the only way he came up with his bullshit statistics to begin with. The manner in which he dishonestly came up with his 20-40% figure was clearly detailed in my link.

Refute his finding.

Missileman

02-22-2007, 11:44 PM

... Dr. A. Nicholas Groth, has in fact explicitly stated that the molestation of young boys by adult men has nothing to do with homosexuality...

And?

Missileman

02-22-2007, 11:46 PM

Refute his finding.

Groth's conclusions are in direct contradiction to Cameron's, as are several other studies.

musicman

02-22-2007, 11:47 PM

Missileman

02-23-2007, 12:05 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by musicman View Post
... Dr. A. Nicholas Groth, has in fact explicitly stated that the molestation of young boys by adult men has nothing to do with homosexuality..

And, I consider that a sufficient epitath for the left's "refutation" of Dr. Cameron's findings. I invite any reasonable person to read this post and draw his own conclusions.

"Dr. Groth is wrong if we pretend that pedophilia means something else" refutes nothing.

"Dr. Groth is wrong if we pretend that a person's orientation is only determined by the gender of the child they molest" refutes nothing.

glockmail

02-23-2007, 08:41 AM

You're using his representations of his references which amounts to the same thing as quoting him. As was pointed out in the link I provided, some of the people who actually conducted the studies he is using, accuse Cameron of dishonest representation. It was those accusations that led to Cameron being investigated for ethics violations.

Why depend on the interpretation of someone whose credibility is questionable instead of looking at the original (unaltered?) findings?

The sections that I am relying on for my argument are simple statements of fact. Cameron's "findings" are in later sections of his report. I am not going to the original sources as they must be purchased or located in a research library somewhere. If you can find free links then I will work with you on those.

Meanwhile I patiently await Grumpelstillskin's comments.

glockmail

04-09-2007, 11:29 AM

*crickets chirping*

TheStripey1

04-20-2007, 01:06 PM

Yeah I get it... this kind of information just slaps you liberal homo enablers in the face. Kind of hard to perpetuate your tepid line of diatribe against this kind of evidence.

you certainly haven't forgotten about mark foley have you?

oh... I bet you did...

gabosaurus

04-22-2007, 11:38 AM

you certainly haven't forgotten about mark foley have you?

Not to mention all those Catholic priests.

glockmail

04-22-2007, 03:27 PM

Not to mention all those Catholic priests. More teachers are pedophiles than priests.

manu1959

04-22-2007, 03:52 PM

you certainly haven't forgotten about mark foley have you?

oh... I bet you did...

not me did you forget about...barney frank, gary condit, neil goldschmidt, david giles....

Pale Rider

04-23-2007, 03:16 AM

you certainly haven't forgotten about mark foley have you?

oh... I bet you did...

And this proves what? :dunno:

Pale Rider

04-23-2007, 03:18 AM

Study shows link between homosexuality and pedophilia

By Interim Staff

A new study by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey and the Washington D.C.-based Family Research Council recently confirmed what police and psychiatrists have known for decades: a definitive link exists between male homosexuality and pedophilia.

The report entitled Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, shows that while homosexual men make up less than three per cent of the adult male population, they commit a disproportionate number (one third or more) of child sexual molestations. Dailey's report is being sent to parents, youth groups, school administrators, Catholic bishops, and religious organizations.

Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse presents a number of controversial findings. The first is that a significant percentage of child sexual abuse victims are boys. The second finding of Dailey's report contradicts the "inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey" that homosexuals comprise at least 10 per cent of the population. Based upon a study of three large data sets, the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. Census, "a recent study in demography estimates the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population at 2.5 per cent, and the number of exclusive lesbians at 1.4 per cent," writes Dailey.

The FRC study also demonstrates, with a wealth of anecdotal evidence, that pedophile themes can be found throughout "mainstream" gay literature, including fiction anthologies such as: The Penguin Book on International Gay Writing, The Gay Canon: What Every Gay Man Should Read, and A History of Gay Literature:The Male Tradition. Interestingly, the late gay Beat poet Allen Ginsberg was a pedophile, and wrote articles for publications associated with the North American Man-Boy Love Association. "I reread Collected Poems and Ginsberg's two subsequent collections, surprised by the pattern of reference to anal intercourse and to pederasty that emerged," writes Dailey.

According to Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, pedophiles have long existed as a subculture within the gay rights movement. Dailey quotes David Thorstad, a homosexual activist and founding member of NAMBLA, to demonstrate that by 1985, pedophilia had gained acceptance within the homosexual movement, as it was in that year that NAMBLA was admitted as a member in New York's council of Lesbian and Gay Organizations and the International Gay Association. In the words of Jim Kepner, at one time the curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles: "A point I've been trying to make is that if we reject the boylovers in our midst today, we'd better stop waving the banner of the ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Horatio Alger, and Shakespeare. We'd better stop claiming them as part of our history unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay."

The link between homosexuality and pedophilia is rejected by many mainstream research groups, which have even begun to view pedophilia in value-neutral terms. The American Psychiatric Association removed pedophilia from its list of sexual perversions in 1994, while in 1999 the American Psychological Association published a report, "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples," which "claimed child sexual abuse could be harmless and beneficial," according to a 1999 WorldNetDaily column by noted researcher Dr. Judith Reisman.

"None of this is news in the sense that this information (the link between pedophilia and homosexuality) was fundamentally proven a long time ago," Canada Family Action head Brian Rushfeldt told The Interim, "but I'm glad to see the FRC reiterating it, especially at a time when the Catholic church is struggling with the pedophile priest issue."

Rushfeldt stresses that pedophiles come in both homosexual and heterosexual forms, but there are differences between the two that need to be understood. "Do you treat the cocaine addict the same way you treat the alcoholic? If a priest abuses young boys, that's a homosexual act, and we have to recognize it as such if we want to help him."

Asked why the link exists in the first place, Rushfeldt, a former addiction counsellor, says part of the answer lies in the availability of sex. "Sex addicts generally need instant gratification. They have a very low threshold for delaying gratification, and it's much easier to manipulate a young boy into having sex than it is to manipulate another man." He adds that homosexual pedophilia is influenced by other factors as well.

"There's a distinct quality about male homosexuality that gay men tend to be attracted to young, good-looking guys. Another part of pedophilia's appeal is the power the pedophile feels in manipulating the boy. It's a combination of things."

http://www.theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html

Pale Rider

04-23-2007, 03:25 AM

you certainly haven't forgotten about mark foley have you?

oh... I bet you did...

Homosexuality and Pedophilia

By Cliff Kincaid | November 2, 2006

In connection with media coverage of the Mark Foley sex scandal, the pro-homosexual media enforcers have been attempting to refute the idea that there is any connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Yet Foley targeted young boys. This is something you are not supposed to write or talk about because it undermines the cause of homosexual rights.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth says, "…isn't it telling most of the tiny number of homosexual male U.S. Congressmen have been caught in sex scandals-remember Barney Frank, who let his male lover, a hustler, run a prostitution ring out of his D.C. apartment? And Massachusetts Rep. Gerry Studds, who had sex with a 17-year-old boy and then turned his back on fellow House Members during the censure vote against him? And Bob Bauman, who in 1980 was charged with soliciting a 16-year-old boy for sex?"

Adding it up, LaBarbera says, "Let's see: three homosexual Congressmen involved in sexual seductions of minor boys-ages 16, 17, and 17 (Foley). And yet homosexual activists ridicule anyone who suggests there is a predatory or pedophilic component to male homosexuality…"

On October 2, when the supposed right-wing Fox News Channel aired a "debate" on the matter of the Foley scandal, the two sides were represented by liberal Democrat Bob Beckel, who got caught in a prostitution scandal, and lesbian Republican Tammy Bruce.

"Being homosexual has nothing to do with attraction to children," declared Bruce. "I agree. I agree," Beckel said.

But then she seemed to contradict herself, saying, "All I want frankly is a gay person in office who is not a sexual compulsive. I mean is that too much to ask for? I don't think it is."

Bruce has appeared at functions sponsored by the Log Cabin Republicans, the homosexual activist group whose executive director had defended Foley's refusal over the years to respond to questions about his homosexuality. Still, she recognized the "compulsive" nature of what has been happening on Capitol Hill.

On the O'Reilly Factor on October 9, homosexual activist Mike Rogers, a prominent advocate of "outing" secret gays, tried to deny the existence of any link between homosexuality and pedophilia. O'Reilly sounded dubious of that claim, at least in terms of what he said would be a public perception of the implications of the Foley case, but failed to cite any evidence to the contrary. However, Steven Baldwin wrote a scholarly piece for the Regent Law School review summarizing the evidence-mostly from the homosexual community-suggesting a strong link. Baldwin also tells me: "Proportionately, homosexual pedophiles are a far greater threat to society than are heterosexual pedophiles."

Yet the Washington Post, in an October 7 editorial, "Anti-Gay Ugliness," claimed that the "research on this topic, though small-scale and not recent, does not show that gay men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children." Significantly, it did not discuss or cite any research.

As bad as the Foley scandal is shaping up, it then turned out, according to the Washington Post itself, that homosexual Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe was close to several pages, and even opened his home to them (supposedly when he was away). This was reported in the process of disclosing that Kolbe knew of Foley's overtures to the pages six years ago. Kolbe's involvement with the pages was portrayed by the paper as entirely innocent, something that seems ridiculous on its face, considering the evidence already on the table.

The burden, it would seem, is on Kolbe to prove his hands are clean.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A4989_0_2_0_C/

Pale Rider

04-23-2007, 03:32 AM

Homosexual pedophiles know no bounds. They can be anyone, republican, democrat, priest, doesn't matter. They're all sick and need to be exposed.

Nuc

04-23-2007, 03:58 AM

Homosexual pedophiles know no bounds. They can be anyone, republican, democrat, priest, doesn't matter. They're all sick and need to be exposed.

You know you could remove the word "Homosexual" from that sentence and it would still be equally valid, don't you think?

Missileman

04-23-2007, 04:57 AM

You know you could remove the word "Homosexual" from that sentence and it would still be equally valid, don't you think?

Of course not! Everyone knows if it weren't for homosexuals, there wouldn't be any pedophilia or sexually transmitted diseases. :rolleyes:

Easy question PR...if there's a link between homosexuality and pedophilia, why are the majority (at least 60-75%...probably more) of pedophiles heterosexual? Wouldn't that mean there's a link between heterosexuality and pedophilia too?

Pale Rider

04-23-2007, 11:09 AM

Of course not! Everyone knows if it weren't for homosexuals, there wouldn't be any pedophilia or sexually transmitted diseases. :rolleyes:

Easy question PR...if there's a link between homosexuality and pedophilia, why are the majority (at least 60-75%...probably more) of pedophiles heterosexual? Wouldn't that mean there's a link between heterosexuality and pedophilia too?

You're trying to manipulate numbers. It's been tried before, (by you), and debunked. To put it simple, there's far more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual, but the occurance of child molestation, specifically man to boy, is far more prevalent, per incident, among homosexual pedophiles than hetero.

It still puzzles me to no end why you people will spin, twist, lie and distort, in an attempt to protect, support, or somehow otherwise enable such a vile and perverted sickness. You people are part of the problem.

gabosaurus

04-23-2007, 01:25 PM

theHawk

04-23-2007, 02:17 PM

Actually, it is the obsessed homophobes that are much of the problem. They take their sick, religious-based beliefs and attempt to force them on the majority of society that allows all people to live their own lives.
Homophobia is the deviant sickness, not homosexuality.

Great logic. Suppose that means those of us concerned about pedophiles are more of a problem than pedophiles themselves.

OCA

04-23-2007, 02:25 PM

Actually, it is the obsessed homophobes that are much of the problem. They take their sick, religious-based beliefs and attempt to force them on the majority of society that allows all people to live their own lives.
Homophobia is the deviant sickness, not homosexuality.

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: whhhoooey! gotta love libs!

Pale Rider

04-23-2007, 02:38 PM

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: whhhoooey! gotta love libs!

No shit aye. The garbage that little twirp spews is so twisted, well, let's just say I hope SHE doesn't own a gun, because she's certifiably nuts!

Birdzeye

04-23-2007, 02:44 PM

OCA

04-23-2007, 02:45 PM

No shit aye. The garbage that little twirp spews is so twisted, well, let's just say I hope SHE doesn't own a gun, because she's certifiably nuts!

Not stupid, just misguided is my guess. Comes from spending way too much time in Berkeley, CA......its a wasteland of lost potential.

OCA

04-23-2007, 02:47 PM

Family Research Council. LOL. You couldn't find a more impartial source than that. *snicker*

So, what peer-reviewed journal accepted this paper for publication? *snicker*

Attacking the source, clever, how about refuting the findings of this "biased" source.

*wink* *wink*.....i've asked this question of libs before and none will answer.

glockmail

04-23-2007, 03:11 PM

Family Research Council. LOL. You couldn't find a more impartial source than that. *snicker*

So, what peer-reviewed journal accepted this paper for publication? *snicker*

Shoot the messenger when you can't dispute the evidence. :pee:

Birdzeye

04-23-2007, 04:00 PM

Attacking the source, clever, how about refuting the findings of this "biased" source.

*wink* *wink*.....i've asked this question of libs before and none will answer.

Family Research Council has a track record for political (i.e., right wing) bias. Just as you wouldn't accept DU as a reliable source, neither should you expect me to accept FRC as one either.

Now, if you tell me that some peer-reviewed scientific journal has accepted this piece for publication, that would be a different matter. If you can't, or won't, then you have diddly squat.

Trigg

04-23-2007, 04:08 PM

Actually, it is the obsessed homophobes that are much of the problem. They take their sick, religious-based beliefs and attempt to force them on the majority of society that allows all people to live their own lives.
Homophobia is the deviant sickness, not homosexuality.

I never understood the word homophobia. A phobia is a fear of something. People aren't scared of homos they just think it's disgusting. :puke3: :puke3: :puke3:

Birdzeye

04-23-2007, 04:18 PM

I never understood the word homophobia. A phobia is a fear of something. People aren't scared of homos they just think it's disgusting. :puke3: :puke3: :puke3:

Then perhaps, for your benefit, we could come up with a different word to describe the feeling. Let's see, we have "racism," and "sexism." How about "homo-ism?"

:coffee:

Abbey Marie

04-23-2007, 04:25 PM

Then perhaps, for your benefit, we could come up with a different word to describe the feeling. Let's see, we have "racism," and "sexism." How about "homo-ism?"

:coffee:

Or we can go the other way, and start using the term Christianphobic to decribe all people who object to Christianity's values.

Trigg

04-23-2007, 04:41 PM

Then perhaps, for your benefit, we could come up with a different word to describe the feeling. Let's see, we have "racism," and "sexism." How about "homo-ism?"

:coffee:

Well, at least that would make more sense. Dontcha think?????????? :slap:

Trigg

04-23-2007, 04:41 PM

Or we can go the other way, and start using the term Christianphobic to decribe all people who object to Christianity's values.

Geez, no, we can't have that.

OCA

04-23-2007, 07:30 PM

Family Research Council has a track record for political (i.e., right wing) bias. Just as you wouldn't accept DU as a reliable source, neither should you expect me to accept FRC as one either.

Now, if you tell me that some peer-reviewed scientific journal has accepted this piece for publication, that would be a different matter. If you can't, or won't, then you have diddly squat.

Comparing FRC to DU is a joke, one is an organization that conducts research the other is a friggin messageboard for chrissakes! Thats like comparing FRC to here, we discuss not research and then present findings.

LMFAO! When does it end? When does the attack the messenger and not the message game end from libs? When will libs ever honestly engage on the battlefield of ideas?

Disprove their findings or forever shut the fuck up on this subject..............birdshit.

gabosaurus

04-24-2007, 01:00 AM

According to the FRC, the proportion of heterosexual pedophiles to homosexual pedophiles is 20:1. How does that prove that homosexuals are more prone to pedophilia than heterosexuals?

Nuc

04-24-2007, 01:41 AM

According to the FRC, the proportion of heterosexual pedophiles to homosexual pedophiles is 20:1. How does that prove that homosexuals are more prone to pedophilia than heterosexuals?

Look when the Bible was written homosexuality became a bad thing. But before that it was a good thing. That's what they're saying here. Considering that humanity existed for millions of years before the Bible was written, that means that homosexuality was OK for millions of years and bad for about a couple thousand. You were just born in the wrong time period, but there are certain plusses like for example you got to hear the Beatles. :fu:

musicman

04-24-2007, 03:47 AM

gabosaurus

04-24-2007, 11:35 AM

Because 20-40% of child molestations are homosexual in nature.

I would like to see documented proof of that.

-Cp

04-24-2007, 11:59 AM

The pure truth of the matter is, homosexuality is a deviant, perverted lifestyle choice. If someone is to think that a man ramming his johnson up another mans brown eye is NORMAL, then with that sort of sick thinking, CERTAINLY the leap from that to fondling minors is just a small detail, because in the twisted mind of the queer, there's NOTHING wrong with it.

I find people that defend faggots just as far out there and sick in the head as the faggot himself.

ROFLMAO!!!!

-Cp

04-24-2007, 12:00 PM

I would like to see documented proof of that.

Uhh.. .it's actually prolly higher.... as most child molesters are dudes... and I Bet over half of their victims are boys... that makes them homo's...

darin

04-24-2007, 12:19 PM

I would like to see documented proof of that.

Why? You wouldn't change your opinion. You'd simply ridicule the source; never ONCE would you attempt to invalidate the data. You'd dismiss it because the data wouldn't agree with your "opinion".

musicman

04-24-2007, 02:06 PM

I would like to see documented proof of that.

Before I expend my energy, I want you to talk to me. Do you find that statistic shocking? If true, would you agree that it sheds a new, disturbing light on the efforts to legitimize and mainstream homosexuality? Inspire me, gabby.

Missileman

04-24-2007, 02:21 PM

You're trying to manipulate numbers. It's been tried before, (by you), and debunked. To put it simple, there's far more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual, but the occurance of child molestation, specifically man to boy, is far more prevalent, per incident, among homosexual pedophiles than hetero.

It still puzzles me to no end why you people will spin, twist, lie and distort, in an attempt to protect, support, or somehow otherwise enable such a vile and perverted sickness. You people are part of the problem.

How is stating the plain fact that the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual manipulating the numbers? If pedophilia were the result of homosexuality, then it wouldn't exist in heterosexuality.

I have shown on countless occasions that the manipulation of the statistics is being perpetrated by the likes of Dr. Cameron. Here's a prime example:

"25-40% of all molestations are homosexual in nature"

Does anyone honestly believe that means 25-40% of all pedophiles are homosexuals?

You won't find that claimed by any reputable researcher, even the most strident anti-gay ones.

OCA

04-24-2007, 02:23 PM

According to the FRC, the proportion of heterosexual pedophiles to homosexual pedophiles is 20:1. How does that prove that homosexuals are more prone to pedophilia than heterosexuals?

Queers are about 2-3% of the population so that 1 in relation to their population percentage means that pedophilia happens at an astronomically higher rate among queers than among heteros.

You sure you went to Berkeley and not Alameda C.C.?

Missileman

04-24-2007, 02:29 PM

Because 20-40% of child molestations are homosexual in nature.

So it doesn't matter at all that the percentage of pedophiles among heterosexuals and homosexuals is nearly identical? Explain in detail exactly how a homosexual is more likely to be a pedophile if the percentages are the same.

OCA

04-24-2007, 02:42 PM

So it doesn't matter at all that the percentage of pedophiles among heterosexuals and homosexuals is nearly identical? Explain in detail exactly how a homosexual is more likely to be a pedophile if the percentages are the same.

20-40% of a 1-3% section of the poulation is VASTLY higher that 20-40% of the other 97-99%. This is simple ratios.

Missileman

04-24-2007, 03:10 PM

20-40% of a 1-3% section of the poulation is VASTLY higher that 20-40% of the other 97-99%. This is simple ratios.

Huh? Your statement makes no sense at all as written.

If the ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals is 20:1 and the ratio of heterosexual pedophiles to homosexual pedophiles is 20:1, then it's an undeniable fact that a homosexual is no more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual.

theHawk

04-24-2007, 03:15 PM

So it doesn't matter at all that the percentage of pedophiles among heterosexuals and homosexuals is nearly identical? Explain in detail exactly how a homosexual is more likely to be a pedophile if the percentages are the same.

Basic arithmetic. If homosexuals are only 1-3% of the population, shouldn't only 1-3% of pedophiles be homosexual? If 2-6% of pedophiles are homos, that means a homo is twice as likely to be a pedophile than any given hetrosexual...so on and so forth...

Pale Rider

04-24-2007, 03:19 PM

Then perhaps, for your benefit, we could come up with a different word to describe the feeling. Let's see, we have "racism," and "sexism." How about "homo-ism?"

:coffee:

How about we start calling you all "heterophobic", or "normalohpobic"?

Missileman

04-24-2007, 03:20 PM

Basic arithmetic. If homosexuals are only 1-3% of the population, shouldn't only 1-3% of pedophiles be homosexual? If 2-6% of pedophiles are homos, that means a homo is twice as likely to be a pedophile than any given hetrosexual...so on and so forth...

Estimates are around 5% as far as I know.

theHawk

04-24-2007, 03:25 PM

Estimates are around 5% as far as I know.

5% of the overall population is gay? I'd believe that. My 2-6% was just an example to show you how ratios work.

So if 5% of all people are gay, then only 5% of molesations should be homosexual in nature. If its 25-40% like some studies claim, that would mean homos are 5 to 8 times more likely to commit pedophila than a hetrosexual.

musicman

04-24-2007, 03:26 PM

How is stating the plain fact that the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual manipulating the numbers? If pedophilia were the result of homosexuality, then it wouldn't exist in heterosexuality.

I have shown on countless occasions that the manipulation of the statistics is being perpetrated by the likes of Dr. Cameron. Here's a prime example:

"25-40% of all molestations are homosexual in nature"

Does anyone honestly believe that means 25-40% of all pedophiles are homosexuals?

You won't find that claimed by any reputable researcher, even the most strident anti-gay ones.

The only one trying to do any manipulating around here is you, Missile Man - and you're failing miserably at it. The only weapon you've got left in your quiver is the disingenuous debate gambit known as the false conclusion - to wit:

By saying that 20-40%* of child molestations are homosexual in nature, Dr. Cameron is stating that 20-40% of pedophiles are homosexuals.

That is patently, blatantly untrue. You know this. You are demonstrating that you are perfectly willing to descend into intellectual dishonesty in your desperation. You ran out of gas on this topic 150 miles back; why don't you just admit it gracefully?

*Dr. Cameron revised his numbers downward, remember - in the interest of accuracy.

Pale Rider

04-24-2007, 03:28 PM

How is stating the plain fact that the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual manipulating the numbers? If pedophilia were the result of homosexuality, then it wouldn't exist in heterosexuality.

I have shown on countless occasions that the manipulation of the statistics is being perpetrated by the likes of Dr. Cameron. Here's a prime example:

"25-40% of all molestations are homosexual in nature"

Does anyone honestly believe that means 25-40% of all pedophiles are homosexuals?

You won't find that claimed by any reputable researcher, even the most strident anti-gay ones.

You're showing me facts and figures proving that the "vast majority" of pedophiles are hetero. Granted, there are more hetero pedophiles than homo, but the "simple majority" of man, boy molestation is done by homosexuals, thus making them the prime offender to molestation to little boys. It simple reason, but you'll never admit it. I know you won't admit it. The fact of the matter is, a homo pedophile will NOT molest a little girl. It will ALWAYS be a little boy.

If this were not true, then why does NAMBLA have the support of the faggot nation?

Pale Rider

04-24-2007, 03:29 PM

20-40% of a 1-3% section of the poulation is VASTLY higher that 20-40% of the other 97-99%. This is simple ratios.

Superbly put... even a CAVE MAN can understand it. :D

Missileman

04-24-2007, 03:29 PM

5% of the overall population is gay? I'd believe that. My 2-6% was just an example to show you how ratios work.

So if 5% of all people are gay, then only 5% of molesations should be homosexual in nature. If its 25-40% like some studies claim, that would mean homos are 5 to 8 times more likely to commit pedophila than a hetrosexual.

If 5% of all people are gay, then only 5% of pedophiles would be gay...which is exactly the figure Gabby got from the FRC.

An individual homosexual is mathematically no more likely to molest a child than any individual heterosexual.

Pale Rider

04-24-2007, 03:34 PM

If 5% of all people are gay, then only 5% of pedophiles would be gay...which is exactly the figure Gabby got from the FRC.

An individual homosexual is mathematically no more likely to molest a child than any individual heterosexual.

You're acting so dishonest, it's hard to watch. Do you relieve believe that this ignorant game you're playing isn't seen through by all?

It's painfully obvious you are NOT admitting the thruth. You're playing dumb, real dumb. Are you really that dumb, or do genuinely feel homosexuality deserves that much protection from you?

OCA

04-24-2007, 03:35 PM

OCA

04-24-2007, 03:36 PM

Huh? Your statement makes no sense at all as written.

If the ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals is 20:1 and the ratio of heterosexual pedophiles to homosexual pedophiles is 20:1, then it's an undeniable fact that a homosexual is no more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual.

Sure it does, your being obtuse or willfully blind, which is it?

Missileman

04-24-2007, 04:40 PM

You're acting so dishonest, it's hard to watch. Do you relieve believe that this ignorant game you're playing isn't seen through by all?

It's painfully obvious you are NOT admitting the thruth. You're playing dumb, real dumb. Are you really that dumb, or do genuinely feel homosexuality deserves that much protection from you?

Your opinioin that it's a dishonest argument means absolutely nothing. Call any math teacher of your choosing and ask them if my argument is true or not.

musicman

04-24-2007, 04:50 PM

Your opinioin that it's a dishonest argument means absolutely nothing. Call any math teacher of your choosing and ask them if my argument is true or not.

May I pose that same question to an ethics teacher?

Missileman

04-24-2007, 04:56 PM

May I pose that same question to an ethics teacher?

If he's been through at least 6th grade math, he'll agree with me.

Pale Rider

04-24-2007, 04:57 PM

Your opinioin that it's a dishonest argument means absolutely nothing. Call any math teacher of your choosing and ask them if my argument is true or not.

You need the math teacher, not I or anyone else. You're the one that fails to understand basic percentages.

But to ask again, can you give a good reason why you so vehemently defend a sickness? Are you sick yourself?

musicman

04-24-2007, 05:04 PM

If he's been through at least 6th grade math, he'll agree with me.

That obfuscation and misdirection in the face of the truth is - somehow - refutation of that truth? That, "I'm not telling an outright, provable lie" is the same as "I'm telling the truth?" Where the hell did our teacher study ethics - the Arkansas State House?

Missileman

04-24-2007, 05:06 PM

You need the math teacher, not I or anyone else. You're the one that fails to understand basic percentages.

You're the one trying to argue that one thing that happens 5% of the time occurs more frequently than something else that happens 5% of the time.

But to ask again, can you give a good reason why you so vehemently defend a sickness? Are you sick yourself?

Are you senile or a hypocrit?

Missileman

04-24-2007, 05:11 PM

That obfuscation and misdirection in the face of the truth is - somehow - refutation of that truth? That, "I'm not telling an outright, provable lie" is the same as "I'm telling the truth?" Where the hell did our teacher study ethics - the Arkansas State House?

It's not my fault that reality doesn't fit your imagination. Demonstrate the falseness of the following statement: Given that 5% of the general population and 5% of pedophiles are homosexual, any single homosexual has the same probablility of molesting a child as any single heterosexual.

musicman

04-24-2007, 05:24 PM

It's not my fault that reality doesn't fit your imagination. Demonstrate the falseness of the following statement: Given that 5% of the general population and 5% of pedophiles are homosexual, any single homosexual has the same probablility of molesting a child as any single heterosexual.

You're trying to bog down the discussion in mathematical equations which are immaterial to - and a clever distraction from - the sad, ugly, central truth of this matter:

20-40% of child molestations are homosexual in nature.

I've had respect for you in the past, Missileman - but it's dying fast. Your fundamental dishonesty on this question is tragic.

Missileman

04-24-2007, 05:35 PM

You're trying to bog down the discussion in mathematical equations which are immaterial to - and a clever distraction from - the sad, ugly, central truth of this matter:

20-40% of child molestations are homosexual in nature.

I've had respect for you in the past, Missileman - but it's dying fast. Your fundamental dishonesty on this question is tragic.

Your renaming of "facts" as "mathematical equations" doesn't alter their validity. If my argument is untrue, all you have to do is demonstrate so to win the argument. Your constant repeating of the one statistic to the exclusion of the REST of the information proves nothing. It sure as hell doesn't prove my argument untrue.

musicman

04-24-2007, 05:50 PM

Your renaming of "facts" as "mathematical equations" doesn't alter their validity. If my argument is untrue, all you have to do is demonstrate so to win the argument. Your constant repeating of the one statistic to the exclusion of the REST of the information proves nothing. It sure as hell doesn't prove my argument untrue.

The "one statistic" I "constantly repeat" is the heart and soul of the argument. You don't like how that comes out, so you'd like to steer the conversation toward the toenails. It's pathetic and dishonest, MM. "I'm not lying" is not the same as "I'm telling the truth". You know this.

Missileman

04-24-2007, 06:08 PM

The "one statistic" I "constantly repeat" is the heart and soul of the argument. You don't like how that comes out, so you'd like to steer the conversation toward the toenails. It's pathetic and dishonest, MM. "I'm not lying" is not the same as "I'm telling the truth". You know this.

No it's not. It's only one piece of the puzzle, not the entire picture. You want to use pedophilia as an indictment against homosexuals. It is an indisputeable fact that a homosexual is no more likely than a heterosexual to molest a child. That's the truth, plain and simple. It's not colored or twisted or slanted or biased, it's the truth. It's not half-true or kinda-true or partially-true, it's wholly true. Refute it if you can.

musicman

04-24-2007, 06:35 PM

No it's not. It's only one piece of the puzzle, not the entire picture.

Wrong. At issue is the relationship of homosexuality to pedophilia. That a behavior engaged in by 1-3% of the population accounts for 20-40% of child molestations IS the heart of the matter.

You want to use pedophilia as an indictment against homosexuals.

No, I don't. But, the indictment against the BEHAVIOR already exists. There are those - weilding political power, mind you - who seek to mainstream and legitimize homosexuality. How can we even think of doing such a thing without a frank, open discussion of this damning indictment? And, how can we discuss it when people won't even FACE it? Every tragicomically frantic, desperate misdirection and obfuscation flung by you and others illuminates the problem more. So, have at it.

It is an indisputeable fact that a homosexual is no more likely than a heterosexual to molest a child. That's the truth, plain and simple. It's not colored or twisted or slanted or biased, it's the truth. It's not half-true or kinda-true or partially-true, it's wholly true. Refute it if you can.

Prove it, first.

Missileman

04-24-2007, 07:20 PM

Prove it, first.

I already have. And it was with information supplied by the FRC.

musicman

04-24-2007, 07:27 PM

I already have. And it was with information supplied by the FRC.

Indulge me, please. Direct me to your proof. Before you do, though, please explain to me how it mitigates the awful truth - that a behavior engaged in by 1-3% of the population accounts for 20-40% of child molestations. That is the heart of the matter, as you would secretly admit, if you were honest with yourself. We're talking about the safety of our children; what else could possibly matter?

Missileman

04-24-2007, 07:51 PM

Indulge me, please. Direct me to your proof. Before you do, though, please explain to me how it mitigates the awful truth - that a behavior engaged in by 1-3% of the population accounts for 20-40% of child molestations. That is the heart of the matter, as you would secretly admit, if you were honest with yourself. We're talking about the safety of our children; what else could possibly matter?

First of all, most figures I've seen place the percentage of homosexuals in the U.S. at around 5%. Gabby referenced a statistic from the FRC that places the ratio of heterosexual pedophiles to homosexual pedophiles at 20:1. That ratio corresponds to 4.7%. If the percentages are approximately the same within both pedophile and non-pedophile populations, then the odds, likelihood, probability, or chance of an individual committing a molestation are the same. The number of victims has no bearing on the probability of individuals committing a molestation.

The "25-40% of molestations" statistics does indeed point to homosexual pedophiles being more dangerous, but since it can be (and has been) shown that the incidence of pedophilia among homosexuals and heterosexuals shares a similar prevalence, it does not point to homosexuals being more dangerous to children.

musicman

04-24-2007, 08:27 PM

First of all, most figures I've seen place the percentage of homosexuals in the U.S. at around 5%. Gabby referenced a statistic from the FRC that places the ratio of heterosexual pedophiles to homosexual pedophiles at 20:1. That ratio corresponds to 4.7%. If the percentages are approximately the same within both pedophile and non-pedophile populations, then the odds, likelihood, probability, or chance of an individual committing a molestation are the same. The number of victims has no bearing on the probability of individuals committing a molestation.

The "25-40% of molestations" statistics does indeed point to homosexual pedophiles being more dangerous, but since it can be (and has been) shown that the incidence of pedophilia among homosexuals and heterosexuals shares a similar prevalence, it does not point to homosexuals being more dangerous to children.

None of which mitigates the awful truth - the plain, bald evidence that a behavior some seek to call normal now - instead of a perversion, as it has been regarded for centuries of Western civilization - accounts for a danger to our children astronomically out of proportion to the numerical representation of its practitioners in the population.

In other words, while our children are being homosexually raped at a rate that would scare any sane person to death, the politically correct push for tolerance marches merrily on - without even the mildest curiosity as to why this phenomenon exists! Or, even the acknowledgement that it DOES exist!

If you, and others like you, don't see the problem with that, Missileman, I honestly don't know what to tell you. Your heart's in the wrong place, and your priorities are screwed. I wish you peace and wisdom. But, I'm damned if I understand you.

glockmail

04-24-2007, 08:49 PM

glockmail

04-24-2007, 08:50 PM

No it's not. It's only one piece of the puzzle, not the entire picture. You want to use pedophilia as an indictment against homosexuals. It is an indisputeable fact that a homosexual is no more likely than a heterosexual to molest a child. That's the truth, plain and simple. It's not colored or twisted or slanted or biased, it's the truth. It's not half-true or kinda-true or partially-true, it's wholly true. Refute it if you can. Pure bull.

gabosaurus

04-24-2007, 08:56 PM

OCA

04-24-2007, 08:58 PM

Sounds like we are doing fuzzy math here. Since there are way less homosexuals, of course there will be a higher percentage of deviants than heterosexuals.
How about the number of homosexual Catholic priests? There must be a HUGE percentage that are pedophiles! Not to mention gay Republican congressmen that are pedophiles!

How about the number of junkie Berkeley graduates? Surely there must be shitloads of them what with the availability of drugs and the do whatever you want mindset of the cesspool known as Berkeley, CA.

gabosaurus

04-24-2007, 09:00 PM

How about the number of junkie Berkeley graduates? Surely there must be shitloads of them what with the availability of drugs and the do whatever you want mindset of the cesspool known as Berkeley, CA.

Getting desperate now, aren't we? :lol: :laugh2:

musicman

04-24-2007, 09:23 PM

Sounds like we are doing fuzzy math here. Since there are way less homosexuals, of course there will be a higher percentage of deviants than heterosexuals.

Huh??!! Now I think I know how the AFLAC duck felt, trying to make sense out of Yogi Berra.

Of course - to coin a phrase - many a truth spoken in stark lunacy, or whatever the hell language it its you speak, gabby. If we accept the old-fashioned, spot-on definition of homosexuality as deviancy - in and of itself - then you're right on the money! I may have misjudged you!

I doubt it, though...

theHawk

04-24-2007, 09:42 PM

How about the number of homosexual Catholic priests? There must be a HUGE percentage that are pedophiles! Not to mention gay Republican congressmen that are pedophiles!

You seem to like attacking priests every chance you get. I've asked you before when you did this and I'll ask it again because you've never answered it, do you have any proof about the number of Priests being pedophiles? We've all heard of a few cases, but considering the vast number of Churches and priests around the world, what is the proportion?

gabosaurus

04-24-2007, 09:42 PM

What else can you be born with that would be considered "deviancy?" Do you have any deviant mentally challenged children? How about any with a deviant cancer or deviant birth defect?
Do you have any relatives that died of deviant lung cancer? Or perhaps deviant liver diseases? It's a choice to die that way, ya know.

theHawk

04-24-2007, 09:48 PM

Well accoring to wiki, at one point up to 4% of priests in the US were accused of molestaton, the vast majority being boys. Which further supports what we've been saying that homos are more likely to moleste children than hetros are. And the study found that teachers, coaches, substitute teachers are the worst offenders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

theHawk

04-24-2007, 09:50 PM

Seems to be a common tactic used by pedophiles, get a profession that puts you in a position of power over young kids. Easy prey....

Missileman

04-24-2007, 10:21 PM

None of which mitigates the awful truth - the plain, bald evidence that a behavior some seek to call normal now - instead of a perversion, as it has been regarded for centuries of Western civilization - accounts for a danger to our children astronomically out of proportion to the numerical representation of its practitioners in the population.

In other words, while our children are being homosexually raped at a rate that would scare any sane person to death, the politically correct push for tolerance marches merrily on - without even the mildest curiosity as to why this phenomenon exists! Or, even the acknowledgement that it DOES exist!

If you, and others like you, don't see the problem with that, Missileman, I honestly don't know what to tell you. Your heart's in the wrong place, and your priorities are screwed. I wish you peace and wisdom. But, I'm damned if I understand you.

How many more times do you have to be shown that a homosexual is no more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual before you acknowledge the fact exists? If there were a link between homosexuality and pedophilia as you keep insisting, the number of homosexual pedophiles would be out of whack with their representation in the general population. That's NOT the case.

Any reference to a push for tolerance of pedophilia is disingenuous and you know it. You say my heart is in the wrong place, I'll say that your head appears to be in an anatomically incorrect placement.

Missileman

04-24-2007, 10:22 PM

Queers are around 1 to 1.5%, no more.

You're wrong.

Missileman

04-24-2007, 10:23 PM

Pure bull.

And wrong again!

musicman

04-25-2007, 01:17 AM

How many more times do you have to be shown that a homosexual is no more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual before you acknowledge the fact exists? If there were a link between homosexuality and pedophilia as you keep insisting, the number of homosexual pedophiles would be out of whack with their representation in the general population. That's NOT the case.

You're a completely lost cause, Missileman. I was determined to write you off and have done with you - but,then I read THIS garbage:

Any reference to a push for tolerance of pedophilia is disingenuous and you know it.

This is the lowest you've ever sunk, Missileman. The truth is simply not in you. Out of curiosity, though - just how stupid do you think everyone on this board is?

You say my heart is in the wrong place, I'll say that your head appears to be in an anatomically incorrect placement.

You'll forgive me if I don't worry about that too much, then - since it is the view through your grievously untrustworthy eyes.

Pale Rider

04-25-2007, 02:11 AM

You're the one trying to argue that one thing that happens 5% of the time occurs more frequently than something else that happens 5% of the time.

Are you senile or a hypocrit?

OK, real quick, I'll explain this to you ONE MORE TIME, so as ANY IDIOT can understand it... K? Now this is on a 2nd graders level, so I HOPE you can grasp it...

5% of 1000 is 50

5% of 100 is 5

Say the number 50 is hetero pedophiles, and of those fifty, two of them molested little boys.

Now, the number 5 is the homo pedophiles, and of those five, every one of them molested little boys, because they're not attracted to little girls.

That's 100% of homo pedophiles molesting little boys, and 4% of the hetero pedophiles molesting little boys.

Now if you can't see that, you need to go back to school. GRADE SCHOOL!

And this is also what has slapped you in the face, and you've denied it completely. Denied it so completely as to the wonder of everyone reading your garbage... except maybe jihadosaurus... who no one takes seriously anyway. She's just as crazy and in denial as you are....

Goals of the Gay Movement

The gay movement is forthright about seeking to legitimize child-adult homosexual sex. In 1987, The Journal of Homosexuality – the scholarly organ of the gay rights movement – published "Pedophilia and the Gay Movement." (29) Author Theo Sandfort detailed homosexual efforts to end "oppression towards pedophilia." In 1980 the largest Dutch gay organization (the COC) "adopted the position that the liberation of pedophilia must be viewed as a gay issue... [and that] ages of consent should therefore be abolished... by acknowledging the affinity between homosexuality and pedophilia, the COC has quite possibly made it easier for homosexual adults to become more sensitive to erotic desires of younger members of their sex, thereby broadening gay identity."

In 1990 COC achieved a significant victory: lowering of the age of consent for homosexual sex in Holland to 12 (unless the parents object, in which case it goes up to 15). (30) In the U.S. and Canada, the North American Man-Boy Love Association marches proudly in many gay pride parades with the stated goal of removing the barriers to man-boy sex. Note the phrases "oppression towards pedophilia" and "liberation of pedophilia." It is clear that those who advocate the legalization of sex between adults and children intend to argue that such conduct is a "civil right," deserving of the same legal protections afforded to other minorities. A large proportion of Americans regard that argument as a mere pretext to giving "sexual predators" free reign to take advantage of vulnerable children.

Conclusion

Not only is the gay rights movement upfront in its desire to legitimize sex with children, but whether indexed by population reports of molestation, pedophile convictions, or teacher-pupil assaults, there is a strong, disproportionate association between child molestation and homosexuality. Ann Landers’ claim that homosexuals molest children at no higher a rate than heterosexuals do is untrue. The assertion by gay leaders and the American Psychological Association that a homosexual is less likely than a heterosexual to molest children is patently false.

Pale Rider

04-25-2007, 02:28 AM

I can come to no other conclusion than that MM, jihadosaurus, and their legion of liberal followers are firm supporters of homosexuality and NAMBLA.

What filthy, vile and perverted things to support, and to have such a twisted and polluted mind to do so. Pitiful.

STAY AWAY FROM MY KIDS!

glockmail

04-25-2007, 06:09 AM

Sounds like we are doing fuzzy math here. Since there are way less homosexuals, of course there will be a higher percentage of deviants than heterosexuals.
How about the number of homosexual Catholic priests? There must be a HUGE percentage that are pedophiles! Not to mention gay Republican congressmen that are pedophiles! A Catholic basher- whouda thunk? The percentage of Catholic Priests that are pedophiles is less than other clergy, and less than that for teachers.

glockmail

04-25-2007, 06:09 AM

You're wrong. It is a scientific fact.

glockmail

04-25-2007, 06:10 AM

And wrong again!
Yes, pure bull and wrong.

Missileman

04-25-2007, 08:13 AM

You're a completely lost cause, Missileman. I was determined to write you off and have done with you - but,then I read THIS garbage:

This is the lowest you've ever sunk, Missileman. The truth is simply not in you. Out of curiosity, though - just how stupid do you think everyone on this board is?

You'll forgive me if I don't worry about that too much, then - since it is the view through your grievously untrustworthy eyes.

And yet, over and over and over again, you fail to refute my argument. The 25-40% statistic has no bearing on the probability of homosexuals to molest children. Are you even going to attempt to prove otherwise or just continue the theatrics?

Missileman

04-25-2007, 08:25 AM

OK, real quick, I'll explain this to you ONE MORE TIME, so as ANY IDIOT can understand it... K? Now this is on a 2nd graders level, so I HOPE you can grasp it...

5% of 1000 is 50

5% of 100 is 5

Say the number 50 is hetero pedophiles, and of those fifty, two of them molested little boys.

Now, the number 5 is the homo pedophiles, and of those five, every one of them molested little boys, because they're not attracted to little girls.

That's 100% of homo pedophilEs molesting little boys, and 4% of the hetero pedophiles molesting little boys.

Now if you can't see that, you need to go back to school. GRADE SCHOOL!

And this is also what has slapped you in the face, and you've denied it completely. Denied it so completely as to the wonder of everyone reading your garbage... except maybe jihadosaurus... who no one takes seriously anyway. She's just as crazy and in denial as you are....

Are you upset because you think I'm arguing that homosexual pedophiles don't molest boys? I guess we can add illiterate to either senile or hypocritical. I've made no such argument.

Pay closer attention this time. My argument has been and still is this: If homosexuals are represented in similar percentages in both the general population and the numbers of pedophiles then homosexuals are not over-represented in the number of pedophiles as you would like to believe.

If 5% of Chinese people are left-handed and 5% of U.S. citizens are left- handed, the probability of someone being left-handed in both populations is 1 in 20, despite the differences in population size.

Missileman

04-25-2007, 08:28 AM

glockmail

04-25-2007, 08:56 AM

Go fuck yourself retard! You can't point to a single post where I've advocated pedophilia.
As you have resorted to insults it appears that you have lost the argument.

Missileman

04-25-2007, 09:01 AM

As you have resorted to insults it appears that you have lost the argument.

I was in fact returning an insult for an insult.

It's pretty hard to lose an argument when noone even attempts to refute it.

glockmail

04-25-2007, 09:06 AM

I was in fact returning an insult for an insult.

It's pretty hard to lose an argument when noone even attempts to refute it.
I don't see where he insulted you, but I do see where he sucessfully refuted your argument. :laugh2:

Missileman

04-25-2007, 09:11 AM

I don't see where he insulted you, but I do see where he sucessfully refuted your argument. :laugh2:

Are you illiterate too?

glockmail

04-25-2007, 09:12 AM

Are you illiterate too? Exactly. :rolleyes:

Missileman

04-25-2007, 09:18 AM

Exactly.

Kudos for admitting it!

glockmail

04-25-2007, 09:20 AM

Kudos for admitting it! Dude, don't be gay. :pee:

Missileman

04-25-2007, 09:25 AM

Dude, don't be gay. :pee:

You first!

darin

04-25-2007, 09:41 AM

This has turned AWAY from debating facts, to bitchin about who insulted whom first :)

glockmail

04-25-2007, 09:44 AM

This has turned AWAY from debating facts, to bitchin about who insulted whom first :) Because the facts are dammning to queers.

Pale Rider

04-25-2007, 10:39 AM

Are you upset because you think I'm arguing that homosexual pedophiles don't molest boys? I guess we can add illiterate to either senile or hypocritical. I've made no such argument.

Pay closer attention this time. My argument has been and still is this: If homosexuals are represented in similar percentages in both the general population and the numbers of pedophiles then homosexuals are not over-represented in the number of pedophiles as you would like to believe.

If 5% of Chinese people are left-handed and 5% of U.S. citizens are left- handed, the probability of someone being left-handed in both populations is 1 in 20, despite the differences in population size.

You need to just shut the fuck up. You fucking imbicile.

darin

04-25-2007, 10:48 AM

Because the facts are dammning to queers.

More accurately - the facts show how queers damage society. :)

Missileman

04-25-2007, 10:56 AM

You need to just shut the fuck up. You fucking imbicile.

Is that the best you can come up with for an argument? Seriously. Put your fingers to your keyboard and formulate a response that disproves what I said.

glockmail

04-25-2007, 10:56 AM

You first!
So are you a queer or just a sympathizer?

Missileman

04-25-2007, 11:08 AM

So are you a queer or just a sympathizer?

I am neither.

Pale Rider

04-25-2007, 11:18 AM

Is that the best you can come up with for an argument? Seriously. Put your fingers to your keyboard and formulate a response that disproves what I said.

I've calmly and successfully argued my points, right up to the point where you started your insults. I give what I get is what I always say. That's why I've insulted you back, and this case, it felt good. You are a complete ignoramous....

I am neither.
... and a liar.

Pale Rider

04-25-2007, 11:20 AM

Is that the best you can come up with for an argument? Seriously. Put your fingers to your keyboard and formulate a response that disproves what I said.

I have... over and over and over and over again.

Heeeeeeeeere's your picture MM....

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/3680/yikeskv6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Missileman

04-25-2007, 11:22 AM

I've calmly and successfully argued my points, right up to the point where you started your insults. I give what I get is what I always say. That's why I've insulted you back, and this case, it felt good. You are a completely ignoramous.

I consider being called a sick, twisted, proponent of pedophilia an insult, especially when it's wholly unfounded. Therefore, you fired the first shot...care to deny it?

Missileman

04-25-2007, 11:25 AM

I have... over and over and over and over again.

Except you haven't, not once.

Pale Rider

04-25-2007, 11:25 AM

I consider being called a sick, twisted, proponent of pedophilia an insult, especially when it's wholly unfounded. Therefore, you fired the first shot...care to deny it?

Well in this case, it's a classic case of, "the truth hurts". Not my problem. You are what you are, and you ARE the biggest defender of faggots and pedophilia this board has.

Deny that.

Pale Rider

04-25-2007, 11:26 AM

Except you haven't, not once.

Heeeeeeeeere's your picture....

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/3680/yikeskv6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Missileman

04-25-2007, 11:28 AM

Well in this case, it's a classic of, "the truth hurts". Not my problem. You are what you are, and you ARE the biggest defender of faggots and pedophilia this board has.

Deny that.

Come up with one quote where I've defended pedophiles or SHUT YOUR LYING MOUTH and demonstrate you have any balls at all by apologizing.

Pale Rider

04-25-2007, 11:38 AM

Come up with one quote where I've defended pedophiles or SHUT YOUR LYING MOUTH and demonstrate you have any balls at all by apologizing.

Put down the crack pipe dimwit. You only get apologies for something deserving of one, and the last thing you deserve is an apology.

If you're not defending homosexuality, which has been proven has a link to pedophilia, then what are you doing here? You certainly are against it. You are an avid supporter of homosexuality, and when you lose an arguement, which is every time, you get all sassy and call names just like the little bitch you are.

You've been drug through the dirt and exposed with every turn in this thread, yet you act as though no one knows what you're doing. News flash MM, we ALL know what you're doing, and you look very foolish doing it. But, that's up to you.

Missileman

04-25-2007, 01:11 PM

Put down the crack pipe dimwit. You only get apologies for something deserving of one, and the last thing you deserve is an apology.

If you're not defending homosexuality, which has been proven has a link to pedophilia, then what are you doing here? You certainly are against it. You are an avid supporter of homosexuality, and when you lose an arguement, which is every time, you get all sassy and call names just like the little bitch you are.

You've been drug through the dirt and exposed with every turn in this thread, yet you act as though no one knows what you're doing. News flash MM, we ALL know what you're doing, and you look very foolish doing it. But, that's up to you.

IOW, you're a gutless eunich as well as a bald-faced liar.

Pale Rider

04-25-2007, 01:24 PM

IOW, you're a gutless eunich as well as a bald-faced liar.

Sure... whatever... :fu:

Missileman

04-25-2007, 01:26 PM

Sure... whatever... :fu:

You made a false accusation and when called on it, you turned into a giant dancing pussy...:lmao:

gabosaurus

04-25-2007, 01:29 PM

You made a false accusation and when called on it, you turned into a giant dancing pussy...:lmao:

http://www.thecatgallery.com/images/dancing-white-cat.jpg

Missileman

04-25-2007, 01:31 PM

http://www.thecatgallery.com/images/dancing-white-cat.jpg

Purrrfect! :laugh2:

Pale Rider

04-25-2007, 02:19 PM

You made a false accusation and when called on it, you turned into a giant dancing pussy...:lmao:

I nailed your faggot loving ass to the floor, made you mad, you had nothing to counter with since you were exposed as an idiot with empty rants, so you started in with your sassy little cake hole.

You're just a garden variety, poor loser, mouth breathing, liberal anal worshipper. :321:

Missileman

04-25-2007, 02:26 PM

I nailed your faggot loving ass to the floor, made you mad, you had nothing to counter with since you were exposed as an idiot with empty rants, so you started in with your sassy little cake hole.

You're just a garden variety, poor loser, mouth breathing, liberal anal worshipper. :321:

In your dreams! Everyone can plainly see you lack the integrity to admit you made a false accusation and apologize for it.

Pale Rider

04-25-2007, 02:40 PM

In your dreams! Everyone can plainly see you lack the integrity to admit you made a false accusation and apologize for it.

You need to apologize for being born shit for brains. You offend humanity.

Missileman

04-25-2007, 02:43 PM

You need to apologize for being born shit for brains. You offend humanity.

Keep on dancing...you look ridiculous! :dance:

theHawk

04-25-2007, 02:59 PM

The 25-40% statistic has no bearing on the probability of homosexuals to molest children.

25%-40% of molestations being homosexual in nature has "no bearing" on the probability of homos to molest children? WHY? Just because you say so? lol.

Missileman

04-25-2007, 03:05 PM

25%-40% of molestations being homosexual in nature has "no bearing" on the probability of homos to molest children? WHY? Just because you say so? lol.

It has no bearing on the probability of any single homosexual molesting a child. The probability that any single homosexual will molest a child is the same as any single heterosexual.

Pale Rider

04-25-2007, 03:09 PM

It has no bearing on the probability of any single homosexual molesting a child. The probability that any single homosexual will molest a child is the same as any single heterosexual.

No... see... here is where you jump track misslehead, the numbers have been laid out to you over and over and over again to your utter denial. Why should anyone at this point bother explaining it to you again. You'll just deny it over and over and over as you've been doing.

You're just in denial, and an idiot.

Missileman

04-25-2007, 03:15 PM

No... see... here is where you jump track misslehead, the numbers have been laid out to you over and over and over again to your utter denial. Why should anyone at this point bother explaining it to you again. You'll just deny it over and over and over as you've been doing.

You're just in denial, and an idiot.

If only 5% of pedophiles are homosexual and 5% of the general population is homosexual, the chances of a homosexual being a pedophile are the same as a heterosexual. None of your bluster has proven that wrong.

Pale Rider

04-25-2007, 03:24 PM

If only 5% of pedophiles are homosexual and 5% of the general population is homosexual, the chances of a homosexual being a pedophile are the same as a heterosexual. None of your bluster has proven that wrong.

Yes it has, over and over, in terms so simple a grade schooler could understand them. You're in denial, period. You're a liar and a fake.

I'm convinced there is nothing on this earth, either in print or otherwise, that could convince you you're wrong, even though you are. You'll just deny the facts, the logic, the truth. You're oblivious act is tiresome, and your arguement is schizophrenic.

glockmail

04-25-2007, 03:35 PM

If only 5% of pedophiles are homosexual and 5% of the general population is homosexual, the chances of a homosexual being a pedophile are the same as a heterosexual. None of your bluster has proven that wrong. Wrong and wrongo. First of all, ALL MEN WHO MOLEST BOYS ARE HOMOS. Second, as I have stated before, the actual population of queers is 1 to 1.5%.

Missileman

04-25-2007, 03:40 PM

Yes it has, over and over, in terms so simple a grade schooler could understand them. You're in denial, period. You're a liar and a fake.

I'm convinced there is nothing on this earth, either in print or otherwise, that could convince you you're wrong, even though you are. You'll just deny the facts, the logic, the truth. You're oblivious act is tiresome, and your arguement is schizophrenic.

When it comes to numbers I am rarely wrong and in this case definitely NOT wrong.

Missileman

04-25-2007, 03:41 PM

Wrong and wrongo. First of all, ALL MEN WHO MOLEST BOYS ARE HOMOS. Second, as I have stated before, the actual population of queers is 1 to 1.5%.

You haven't provided anything to show 1-1.5% is anything but your imagination.

Missileman

04-25-2007, 03:46 PM

First of all, ALL MEN WHO MOLEST BOYS ARE HOMOS.

Explain how this has any effect on what I said. The FRC puts the ratio of heterosexual pedophiles to homosexual pedophiles at 20:1. I'm sure that they are counting ALL MEN WHO MOLEST BOYS as homosexual.

Pale Rider

04-25-2007, 04:18 PM

When it comes to numbers I am rarely wrong and in this case definitely NOT wrong.

Yup... yur wrong. Period. End of discussion.

theHawk

04-25-2007, 04:31 PM

If only 5% of pedophiles are homosexual and 5% of the general population is homosexual, the chances of a homosexual being a pedophile are the same as a heterosexual. None of your bluster has proven that wrong.

If those statistics were true then yes.

After reading through several websites on the subject, it seems most studies have found that only 2-3% of the population consider themselves gay. Its also virtually undistputed that 95-96% of all child sexual abuse offenders are male, female child molesters are extremely rare. With that statistic alone, according to our liberal friends' logic, that should mean that 92-93% of all children abused should be girls that were abused by males. However, studies have shown that up to 33% of the abused children were male. Obviously a male commiting the crime on a boy is homosexual, so that pretty much ends the arguement there. Homosexuals are much more likely to be child molesters than hetrosexuals.

Pale Rider

04-25-2007, 04:34 PM

glockmail

04-25-2007, 04:43 PM

You haven't provided anything to show 1-1.5% is anything but your imagination. Its based on the latest scientific polls, which are well known and should be obvious to you. Perhaps you could show us your proof that the number is higher.

glockmail

04-25-2007, 04:44 PM

Explain how this has any effect on what I said. The FRC puts the ratio of heterosexual pedophiles to homosexual pedophiles at 20:1. I'm sure that they are counting ALL MEN WHO MOLEST BOYS as homosexual. Already done by Hawk, post 426.

Missileman

04-25-2007, 05:43 PM

If those statistics were true then yes.

After reading through several websites on the subject, it seems most studies have found that only 2-3% of the population consider themselves gay. Its also virtually undistputed that 95-96% of all child sexual abuse offenders are male, female child molesters are extremely rare. With that statistic alone, according to our liberal friends' logic, that should mean that 92-93% of all children abused should be girls that were abused by males. However, studies have shown that up to 33% of the abused children were male. Obviously a male commiting the crime on a boy is homosexual, so that pretty much ends the arguement there. Homosexuals are much more likely to be child molesters than hetrosexuals.

The 20:1 ratio of heterosexual pedophile to homosexual pedophile indicates that only 4.7% of pedophiles are homosexual. That ratio was supplied by the FRC, which will never be accused of a pro-gay slant.

As to the bolded part, it should mean that 92-93% of all pedophiles should be heterosexual. The 33% male victim statistic in no way means that 33% of all pedophiles are homosexual. If that were true, the pedophile ratio would be 2:1 not 20:1. You can bet that if the ratio were 2:1, the good folks at the FRC would say so.

Missileman

04-25-2007, 05:43 PM

Its based on the latest scientific polls, which are well known and should be obvious to you. Perhaps you could show us your proof that the number is higher.

It's your claim, you back it up.

Pale Rider

04-25-2007, 06:23 PM

Yup... and there it is... the denial. How did I know that was coming?

Hey MM, 2+2=4. You want to try and tell me it's 5? You may as well. You've been doing the same thing now for five pages.

Missileman

04-25-2007, 06:30 PM

Yup... and there it is... the denial. How did I know that was coming?

Hey MM, 2+2=4. You want to try and tell me it's 5? You may as well. You've been doing the same thing now for five pages.

So you believe that 33% of pedophiles are homosexual? Even the great Dr. Cameron didn't dare make that argument.

Pale Rider

04-25-2007, 06:40 PM

So you believe that 33% of pedophiles are homosexual? Even the great Dr. Cameron didn't dare make that argument.

No, this is what I know, and believe. Homosexuals are deviants. They make no distinction in right from wrong between sex with men, and sex with women. Their mind is already perverted. So the step from having sex with men to having sex with boys is a non issue. They don't really see anything wrong with it, since their sense of right and wrong is already distorted. It's different for a heterosexual. At least they know that same sex sex is wrong. Most probably also feel that molesting a child is wrong too, but they do it anyway. So there's the major difference. The homo see's nothing wrong with molesting a little boy, while the hetero does see it's wrong to molest a child, but does it anyway.

Go to nambla.com MM, and ask them how they feel about homosexuality and molesting little boys. They'll tell you they think they should be allowed to do so. "THEY SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH IT". NAMBLA also has the backing of the homo and lesbian nation. Why you argue in their defense is beyond me. They won't deny they think molesting little boys should be allowed, and they're not asking for your help. It's like you're arguing for your own pleasure, just to be indifferent.

Missileman

04-25-2007, 07:06 PM

No, this is what I know, and believe. Homosexuals are deviants. They make no distinction in right from wrong between sex with men, and sex with women. Their mind is already perverted. So the step from having sex with men to having sex with boys is a non issue. They don't really see anything wrong with it, since their sense of right and wrong is already distorted. It's different for a heterosexual. At least they know that same sex sex is wrong. Most probably also feel that molesting a child is wrong too, but they do it anyway. So there's the major difference. The homo see's nothing wrong with molesting a little boy, while the hetero does see it's wrong to molest a child, but does it anyway.

Go to nambla.com MM, and ask them how they feel about homosexuality and molesting little boys. They'll tell you they think they should be allowed to do so. "THEY SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH IT". NAMBLA also has the backing of the homo and lesbian nation. Why you argue in their defense is beyond me. They won't deny they think molesting little boys should be allowed, and they're not asking for your help. It's like you're arguing for your own pleasure, just to be indifferent.

I've never nor will I ever try to claim that homosexuality is normal. I find the thought of 2 guys going at it as repulsive as you do. Where we disagree is in the alleged relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. You argue that homosexuality leads to pedophilia, yet don't believe that heterosexuality does. You argue that homosexuals are promiscuous and if they feel the need, they run to the nearest bathhouse and jump into a pile of bodies. You then also argue that with all of this sex available to them, they decide to go after little kids and risk the chance of winding up in prison. That scenario makes no sense. Pedophiles are monsters that need to be hunted down and terminated. It's not right to judge homosexuals for the actions of homosexual pedophiles anymore than it would be to judge heterosexuals for the actions of heterosexual pedophiles.

Your own sources place the ratio of pedophiles at 20 heterosexual to 1 homosexual. If homosexuality leads to pedophilia, that ratio would be much smaller.

I don't believe that NAMBLA represents the majority of homosexuals any more than Phelps represents the majority of Christians or the KKK represents the majority of caucasians. BTW, any idea where I can pick up a NAMBLA member hunting license?

glockmail

04-25-2007, 07:26 PM

It's your claim, you back it up. Actually you were the one to falsely claim 5%, and did so first. The burden of proof is yours.

Missileman

04-25-2007, 07:31 PM

Actually you were the one to falsely claim 5%, and did so first. The burden of proof is yours.

I don't believe I claimed 5% was a scientific fact as you claimed 1-1.5% is, the burden is still yours.

OCA

04-25-2007, 07:38 PM

Missileman

04-25-2007, 07:39 PM

All male on male molestation is homosexual, homo is as homo does.

Okay, that still means, according to the FRC, that over 95% of pedophiles are heterosexual

Yurt

04-25-2007, 07:42 PM

All male on male molestation is homosexual, homo is as homo does.

I think this is a good point. It should be clarified.

What is your view of men who have anal sex with women? Hetro? Homo?

glockmail

04-25-2007, 07:43 PM

I don't believe I claimed 5% was a scientific fact as you claimed 1-1.5% is, the burden is still yours. You claimed 5% as a fact. Obviously you can't back that up. Whouda thunk? :laugh2:

glockmail

04-25-2007, 07:44 PM

I think this is a good point. It should be clarified.

What is your view of men who have anal sex with women? Hetro? Homo? Shit stabbers.

Missileman

04-25-2007, 07:47 PM

Obviously you can't back that up. Whouda thunk? :laugh2:

Pot-kettle

Yurt

04-25-2007, 07:50 PM

Shit stabbers.

Are they akin to fudge packers?

CockySOB

04-25-2007, 09:12 PM

25%-40% of molestations being homosexual in nature has "no bearing" on the probability of homos to molest children? WHY? Just because you say so? lol.

Actually, it doesn't unless a definitive link can be established. Until then all that can be said is that these two statistics exist. Unless causality can be proven, all that can be said of these statistics is coincidence.

CockySOB

04-25-2007, 09:16 PM

Someone asked for citations supporting the proposition that only 1-2% of the general population is homosexual. I pulled this post of mine from USMB and just didn't feel like re-typing the whole thing yet again.

Here's information (http://cloud9.norc.uchicago.edu/faqs/sex.htm) regarding studies supporting the 1-2% figures for homosexual popluation density in the USA.

Here's information (http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040615/d040615b.htm) regarding recent (2003) surveys in Canada which support figures lower than the 1-2% figures cites above for homosexual population density. the figures in this survey indicate percentages between 0.7% and 1.5% (0.2% claimed bisexual orientation).

BTW, the variance between the two studies is believed to come from sampling methods used and not from any perceived difference in societal makeup. Specifically, the first study was specifically targetted towards discerning sexual orientation, while the second study only observed sexual orientation among a group of other attributes.

These would constitute a couple of the more prominent studies on sexual orientation in the last 10 years. Kinsey's research comes from well over 50 years ago and exhibits questionable methodology as a matter of relational set theory. The Kinsey group made consistent errors in their approach to determining supersets and subsets based on their survey responses.

---- truncated for brevity ----

Missileman

04-25-2007, 10:36 PM

Someone asked for citations supporting the proposition that only 1-2% of the general population is homosexual. I pulled this post of mine from USMB and just didn't feel like re-typing the whole thing yet again.

From your link:

Results reported from the study, and included in The Social organization of sexuality, include those related to sexual practices and sexual relationships, number of partners, the rate of homosexuality in the population (which the study reported to be 1.3% for women within the past year, and 4.1% since 18 years; for men, 2.7% within the past year, and 4.9% since 18 years; in all, much lower than the Kinsey report of 10%; pp. 293-296), formative sexual experiences, sexually transmitted diseases, fertility, cohabitation and marriage.

This says 4.1% of women and 4.9% of men.

CockySOB

04-25-2007, 11:07 PM

This says 4.1% of women and 4.9% of men.Actually, the study reports two figures per gender, one for the percentage of respondents who had homosexual relations in the past year, and another which indicated respondents who had at least one homosexual incident since turning 18 years of age.

You are correct that 4.1% of female respondents had at least one homosexual experience since turning 18 years of age, and 4.9% of men did the same. However, a single experience does not a behaviour pattern make. Take the figures for recently practicing homosexuals, and the percentages are in the 1-2% range for practicing homosexuals as percentage of the general population (extrapolated from the respondents' answers).

Results reported from the study, and included in The Social organization of sexuality, include those related to sexual practices and sexual relationships, number of partners, the rate of homosexuality in the population (which the study reported to be 1.3% for women within the past year, and 4.1% since 18 years; for men, 2.7% within the past year, and 4.9% since 18 years; in all, much lower than the Kinsey report of 10%; pp. 293-296), formative sexual experiences, sexually transmitted diseases, fertility, cohabitation and marriage.

glockmail

04-26-2007, 07:32 AM

Pot-kettle Bull. I've linked to a study on other boards, and I'm fairly certain that you saw that. YOU HAVE NO DATA TO SUPPORT YOUR ASERTION. :poke:

glockmail

04-26-2007, 07:35 AM

CockySOB = 1; Missleman = 0. The question now is, will MM be a man and admit that he is wrong, or a lib and dig himself deeper?

CockySOB

04-26-2007, 07:49 AM

CockySOB = 1; Missleman = 0. The question now is, will MM be a man and admit that he is wrong, or a lib and dig himself deeper?

At least I bother to go get the information and post it rather than shrug it off by saying, "I've linked to a study on other boards, and I'm fairly certain that you saw that."

glockmail

04-26-2007, 08:01 AM

At least I bother to go get the information and post it rather than shrug it off by saying, "I've linked to a study on other boards, and I'm fairly certain that you saw that." I have a fairly long history with missleman about this subject and I'm getting tired of him ignoring facts that I have taken the time to spoon feed him, then conveniently forgetting about them in another venue. If that annoys you them I’m sorry, but I only have so much patience.

theHawk

04-26-2007, 08:07 AM

The 20:1 ratio of heterosexual pedophile to homosexual pedophile indicates that only 4.7% of pedophiles are homosexual. That ratio was supplied by the FRC, which will never be accused of a pro-gay slant.

As to the bolded part, it should mean that 92-93% of all pedophiles should be heterosexual. The 33% male victim statistic in no way means that 33% of all pedophiles are homosexual. If that were true, the pedophile ratio would be 2:1 not 20:1. You can bet that if the ratio were 2:1, the good folks at the FRC would say so.

With all due respect, where are getting this "20:1" ratio from? You seem to be pulling it out of thin air.
The FRC does NOT supply that ratio. According to their own website the 20:1 ratio represents Hetros verses Homos in all of society, NOT pedophiles.

According to the FRC:

Almost all Pedophiles are Males

An essay on adult sex offenders in the book Sexual Offending Against Children reported: "It is widely believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males. Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!"[3] This finding was echoed in a report by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, which stated: "In both clinical and non-clinical samples, the vast majority of offenders are male."[4]

A Significant Percentage of Pedophile Victims are Boys

According to the Journal of Child Psychiatry, "contemporary studies now indicate that the ratio of girls to boys abused has narrowed remarkably. . . . The majority of community studies suggest a . . . ratio . . . in the order of 2 to 4 girls to 1 boy."[5] Indeed, the same study reports that there is likely "under-reporting of the incidence and prevalence of sexual abuse in boys."[6]

Only a Small Percentage of the Population are Homosexuals

Relying upon three large data sets--the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. Census--a recent study in Demography reported that only 4.7 percent of men and 3.6 percent of women in the United States had had even one same-sex sexual experience since age eighteen, and only 3.1 percent of men and 1.8 percent of women had had more same-sex than opposite-sex partners.[7] Even lower figures were reported in a study of the sexual behavior of men in the United States based on the National Survey of Men (a nationally representative sample comprised of 3,321 men aged twenty to thirty-nine, published in Family Planning Perspectives). The study found that "2 percent of sexually active men aged twenty to thirty-nine . . . had had any same-gender sexual activity during the last ten years."[8]

Homosexual Pedophiles are Overrepresented in Child Sex Abuse Cases

Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. A study of 457 male sex offenders against children in Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy found that "approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males."[9] The author of the same study noted in a later article in the Journal of Sex Research: "Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1."[10]

In other words, although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.

Its right there, in plain English. Ratio of hetros vs homos in society is 20:1, yet homos commit 1/3 of child sex offenses. And the FRC says so.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA03I35

CockySOB

04-26-2007, 08:29 AM

I have a fairly long history with missleman about this subject and I'm getting tired of him ignoring facts that I have taken the time to spoon feed him, then conveniently forgetting about them in another venue. If that annoys you them I’m sorry, but I only have so much patience.

So have I. In fact, the content I just posted was pulled from one such discussion. Don't apologize, I just was letting you know my opinion. It's worth what you paid for it.

darin

04-26-2007, 08:38 AM

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA03I35

People will only attack the source, regardless of what the data shows.

Missileman

04-26-2007, 09:30 AM

Actually, the study reports two figures per gender, one for the percentage of respondents who had homosexual relations in the past year, and another which indicated respondents who had at least one homosexual incident since turning 18 years of age.

You are correct that 4.1% of female respondents had at least one homosexual experience since turning 18 years of age, and 4.9% of men did the same. However, a single experience does not a behaviour pattern make. Take the figures for recently practicing homosexuals, and the percentages are in the 1-2% range for practicing homosexuals as percentage of the general population (extrapolated from the respondents' answers).

Is a non-practicing homosexual no longer one? I don't think it's accurate to extrapolate a 1-2.7% estimate based on one years activity out of a lifetime. A year's inactivity doesn't necessarily equal a single experience. Do we just ignore the fact that nearly 5% of the men had engaged in homosexual activity?

The problem is the lack of any concrete figures on which to base an opinion. Surveys can give misleading results based on survey size and geographic location. For instance, the percentage of gays in San Francisco would more than likely be higher than Witchita, KS.

Missileman

04-26-2007, 09:31 AM

Bull. I've linked to a study on other boards, and I'm fairly certain that you saw that. YOU HAVE NO DATA TO SUPPORT YOUR ASERTION. :poke:

I didn't see it, link it.

CockySOB

04-26-2007, 09:44 AM

Is a non-practicing homosexual no longer one? I don't think it's accurate to extrapolate a 1-2.7% estimate based on one years activity out of a lifetime. A year's inactivity doesn't necessarily equal a single experience. Do we just ignore the fact that nearly 5% of the men had engaged in homosexual activity?

The problem is the lack of any concrete figures on which to base an opinion. Surveys can give misleading results based on survey size and geographic location. For instance, the percentage of gays in San Francisco would more than likely be higher than Witchita, KS.

This kinda relates to the debate on whether homosexuality is a chosen action, or a genetic (biologically determined) fact. If you believe that homosexuality is biologically-based, then you would argue that the ~5% figure is accurate. However, I still believe that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore I consider the 2.7% to be more accurate. Again, the citation does not differentiate a one-time experience versus a long drought (as it were), so the only conclusion which CAN be drawn from the larger figure is that ~5% have had at least one homosexual experience, but there is no logical way to draw anything more from the statistics.

And while your move to discussing location of the sample is interesting, it is a deflection from the fact that the cited studies show an active homosexual population density around 2% in the general population at best. For fairness, if a similar study were conducted on heterosexuality I would assert that only active heterosexuals (within a 12-month period) were in fact practicing heterosexuals, while the others claiming a heterosexual experience would not be able to be determined to be heterosexually active.

theHawk

04-26-2007, 09:52 AM

People will only attack the source, regardless of what the data shows.

Its the source Missleman was using.

Missileman

04-26-2007, 10:28 AM

With all due respect, where are getting this "20:1" ratio from? You seem to be pulling it out of thin air.

It was posted in #322. It looks like Gabo was lying. The FRC site does indeed NOT have that ratio. I retract all of my arguments related to that ratio.

As for the claims in the FRC article, I did find this: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Missileman

04-26-2007, 10:36 AM

This kinda relates to the debate on whether homosexuality is a chosen action, or a genetic (biologically determined) fact. If you believe that homosexuality is biologically-based, then you would argue that the ~5% figure is accurate. However, I still believe that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore I consider the 2.7% to be more accurate. Again, the citation does not differentiate a one-time experience versus a long drought (as it were), so the only conclusion which CAN be drawn from the larger figure is that ~5% have had at least one homosexual experience, but there is no logical way to draw anything more from the statistics.

And while your move to discussing location of the sample is interesting, it is a deflection from the fact that the cited studies show an active homosexual population density around 2% in the general population at best. For fairness, if a similar study were conducted on heterosexuality I would assert that only active heterosexuals (within a 12-month period) were in fact practicing heterosexuals, while the others claiming a heterosexual experience would not be able to be determined to be heterosexually active.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003432940_gays16m.html

12.9% gay population in Seattle...15.4 in San Fran

Atlanta- 12.8%
Minneapolis 12.5%
Boston 12.3%

Those are just the top 5

Imagine how many podunk counties in Kansas it would take to offset those percentages.

CockySOB

04-26-2007, 11:10 AM

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003432940_gays16m.html

12.9% gay population in Seattle...15.4 in San Fran

Atlanta- 12.8%
Minneapolis 12.5%
Boston 12.3%

Those are just the top 5

Imagine how many podunk counties in Kansas it would take to offset those percentages.

Another deflection, this time under the color of science, but lacking the substance. Specifically, you are trying to focus on some of the cities (proper) which have higher proportions of homosexuals rather than access the broader metropolitan-area or state-based figures. Perhaps you would like to read the actual source for the article you cited (http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute//publications/SameSexCouplesandGLBpopACS.pdf) sometime.

On page 5 of the report, you can see that Washington state has a mere 5.7% population density for gays, lesbians and bisexuals (GLB). That alone throws your post into the toilet where it belongs.

On page 7, the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue samples had an average GLB density of 6.5% with only the largest of the three actually exhibiting a 12.9% density for the city proper. Your assertion plays games with percentages which cannot stand up to even cursory examination. 1,290 GLB out of a set of 10,000 respondents will garner the 12.9% yet the percentage is disingenuous when compared to larger population sizes indicative of wider geographic distribution. Specifically, the number you cite (12.9%) is most certain to reference the density of a city proper which has a thriving homosexual community.

What I'm saying is this: you're being intellectually dishonest while trying to promote your own viewpoint. Forget the "podunk counties in Kansas" Toto, you're still off in Oz.

theHawk

04-26-2007, 11:49 AM

It was posted in #322. It looks like Gabo was lying. The FRC site does indeed NOT have that ratio. I retract all of my arguments related to that ratio.

As for the claims in the FRC article, I did find this: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Nice pathetic deflection. So your first source turns out to say exactly the opposite of what you argued, so you "retract" your statements and find another source.

And your new source only cite polls of people and if they fear homosexuals, it has nothing to do with raw data concerning the numbers of child sex offenders and how many were boys.

Example from your new source:

By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters.

Consistent with these findings, Gallup polls have found that an increasing number of Americans would allow gay people to be elementary school teachers. For example, the proportion was 61% in 2003, compared to 27% in 1977.
Polls asking people about how they feel about gay people and if they feel safe with them around there children have absolutely NO bearing on factual data of child molesters and child victims. Clearly this website has an agenda.

Here is another disturbing quote from your new source, downplaying many cases of pedophilia:

Pedophilia and child molestation are used in different ways, even by professionals. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty.

Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.
Sick, absolutely sick.

Here's another pathetic attempt by this source of yours:

Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).
Here they are argueing that these men didn't have "exlusive" homosexual "adult" sexual orientation. Its as if they are saying if a man molests only boys and doesn't have sex with an adult male, he isn't "gay". And sorry, but if someone is "bi-sexual", that means he engages in homosexual activity. Again, these are all silly classifications trying to deflect from the fact that many of these men molested boys.

Here again, there is no inherent connection between an adult's sexual orientation and her or his propensity for endangering others.
Hello, its quite possible alot of these homos only act out their homosexual tendancies towards boys, which still makes them fags, and pedophiles.

Missleman just look at the hard facts. The raw numbers of convicted child sex abusers and how many of the victims are boys. Using these types of "sources" that do nothing but make excuses and refuse to acknowledge factual data shows that you are looking at this subject with bias instead of looking at the truth.

theHawk

04-26-2007, 12:03 PM

Here's another great tidbit from your "source"

For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of "heterosexual" (i.e., female victim) to "homosexual" (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that "54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners" (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. The "54%" statistic reported by Cameron doesn't appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation.
Once again the webiste is trying to argue that these men who molested young boys never had an exclusive homosexual "adult" orientation. As if molesting boys isn't a homosexual act. How fucking twisted can these people be???
And none of the bi-sexuals were "more" attracted to males than they were females. What the fuck does that have to do with the fact they those men still engage in HOMOSEXUAL sex with other males. That makes them HOMOS!

Pale Rider

04-26-2007, 12:04 PM

The numbers PROVE that a homosexual is three times more likely to molest a little boy than a hetero is of molesting either sex.

It's as simple as this, and that is that a homo is sick in the head. In their perverted mind, same sex sex is acceptable, so the jump from sex with over eighteen males to little boys is a non issue. They may know that they would be breaking the law to do so, but in their perverted mind, THEY SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH IT.

And yes MM, I NAMBLE DOES have the support of the homosexual and lesbian community, which IS the majority of them. Why is that?

Pale Rider

04-26-2007, 12:08 PM

Here's another great tidbit from your "source"

Once again the webiste is trying to argue that these men who molested young boys never had an exclusive homosexual "adult" orientation. As if molesting boys isn't a homosexual act. How fucking twisted can these people be???
And none of the bi-sexuals were "more" attracted to males than they were females. What the fuck does that have to do with the fact they those men still engage in HOMOSEXUAL sex with other males. That makes them HOMOS!

It's all propaganda printed and distributed by the homosexual community. The web is FULL of it. Seeing as google, yahoo, ask.com, etc., the largest search engines are all known VERY liberal, their search engines are going to be chocked full of this kind of faggot enabling, twisted, anti-hetero, immoral garbage.

Missileman

04-26-2007, 01:12 PM

Another deflection, this time under the color of science, but lacking the substance. Specifically, you are trying to focus on some of the cities (proper) which have higher proportions of homosexuals rather than access the broader metropolitan-area or state-based figures. Perhaps you would like to read the actual source for the article you cited (http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute//publications/SameSexCouplesandGLBpopACS.pdf) sometime.

On page 5 of the report, you can see that Washington state has a mere 5.7% population density for gays, lesbians and bisexuals (GLB). That alone throws your post into the toilet where it belongs.

On page 7, the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue samples had an average GLB density of 6.5% with only the largest of the three actually exhibiting a 12.9% density for the city proper. Your assertion plays games with percentages which cannot stand up to even cursory examination. 1,290 GLB out of a set of 10,000 respondents will garner the 12.9% yet the percentage is disingenuous when compared to larger population sizes indicative of wider geographic distribution. Specifically, the number you cite (12.9%) is most certain to reference the density of a city proper which has a thriving homosexual community.

What I'm saying is this: you're being intellectually dishonest while trying to promote your own viewpoint. Forget the "podunk counties in Kansas" Toto, you're still off in Oz.

I think you misunderstand the point I'm trying to make. I wasn't presenting those percentages as evidence of the numbers of gays. All I'm saying is small regional surveys could inaccurately represent the bigger picture depending on where those surveys are conducted.

glockmail

04-26-2007, 01:23 PM

I didn't see it, link it. No more spoon for you boy. Time to feed yourself.

glockmail

04-26-2007, 01:25 PM

glockmail

04-26-2007, 01:29 PM

Another deflection, ......

Nice pathetic deflection. ....

Here's another great tidbit from your "source"....

The numbers PROVE that a homosexual is three times more likely to molest a little boy than a hetero is of molesting either sex......

CockySOB = 2
theHawk = 2
Pale Rider = 1
MissleMan = 0

:clap:

Missileman

04-26-2007, 01:43 PM

Here's another great tidbit from your "source"

Once again the webiste is trying to argue that these men who molested young boys never had an exclusive homosexual "adult" orientation. As if molesting boys isn't a homosexual act. How fucking twisted can these people be???
And none of the bi-sexuals were "more" attracted to males than they were females. What the fuck does that have to do with the fact they those men still engage in HOMOSEXUAL sex with other males. That makes them HOMOS!

So a guy with a wife and kids gets caught molesting a boy. Should he be counted as a homosexual or heterosexual?

Missileman

04-26-2007, 01:45 PM

CockySOB = 2
theHawk = 2
Pale Rider = 1
MissleMan = 0

:clap:

Who knew you could count?

Don't gloat too loudly, they may have succeeded where you never have. :poke:

theHawk

04-26-2007, 01:59 PM

So a guy with a wife and kids gets caught molesting a boy. Should he be counted as a homosexual or heterosexual?

He is a homosexual. Any man who is going to do something sexual to another man is a homosexual, period. Its an act, not a "lifestyle". A man molesting a boy is a homosexual act, no matter what prior or future hetrosexual acts he has done with women.

Missileman

04-26-2007, 02:11 PM

He is a homosexual. Any man who is going to do something sexual to another man is a homosexual, period. Its an act, not a "lifestyle". A man molesting a boy is a homosexual act, no matter what prior or future hetrosexual acts he has done with women.

Even if 99% of the time he leads a heterosexual life? Do you believe that a single experience makes someone a homosexual forever?

glockmail

04-26-2007, 04:06 PM

Who knew you could count?

Don't gloat too loudly, they may have succeeded where you never have. :poke:
Oh I succeeded here as well as before. You just aren't man enough to admit it. Libs rarely are.

raylander

04-26-2007, 04:08 PM

It's remarkable how so many resist change and growth in our society. Do we not all remember a time when so very similar arguments were used to oppose the rights of women to vote. The rights of "colored people" to integrate our communities?

I'm a straight man who has lived, worked and done business in the gay and lesbian community for years. Their interests, their lives, families, values and life styles are as moral, centered, loving and caring as any.
There is no "gay agenda". And with respect to what this specific poster states, he is absolutely wrong. Truth is pedophilia incidents are in no way linked to the 'gay community". Interestingly enough statistics point to religeous leaders ( preists, rabbis) and they are inclusive of the catagory of abusive people. Nothing to do with homosexuality.
You are defining the singular act, and linking that to a way of being. Sort of like saying that "meat eaters" or "vegetarians" behave a certain way, as a collective by pointing to an act done by someone.

I suggest it is fear and ignorance that continues for some, to fuel the fires of division in our great country.
Whether it's Dick Cheney's daughter, or Nathan Lane in Hollywood, or the person that repairs your car, each has the right to be who they are.

Missileman

04-26-2007, 04:19 PM

Oh I succeeded here as well as before. You just aren't man enough to admit it. Libs rarely are.

Are you still maintaining that you have scientific proof that gays only number 1-1.5% ?

OCA

04-26-2007, 04:22 PM

Pale Rider

04-26-2007, 04:45 PM

Even if 99% of the time he leads a heterosexual life? Do you believe that a single experience makes someone a homosexual forever?

It would make him bi.

Missileman

04-26-2007, 04:54 PM

It would make him bi.

I'm not sure I disagree. Should this type offender be used as evidence against homosexuals?

CockySOB

04-26-2007, 07:04 PM

He is a homosexual. Any man who is going to do something sexual to another man is a homosexual, period. Its an act, not a "lifestyle". A man molesting a boy is a homosexual act, no matter what prior or future hetrosexual acts he has done with women.

I disagree here. Molestation is similar to rape (the same in many cases) and that brings in the possibility that the act isn't about sexual gratification at all, but power and dominance.

When we talk of homosexuality and heterosexuality, we should be talking about consensual relationships between adults, not about criminal activities wherein the perpetrator uses sexual means to assault their victim. Unless of course, someone can provide solid evidence to indicate a causal relationship between the two - and I haven't seen anything SOLID yet.

CockySOB

04-26-2007, 07:06 PM

Are you still maintaining that you have scientific proof that gays only number 1-1.5% ?

Whether glock does or not, I think I provided ample evidence that the GLB population in the USA is well under the 5% figured bandied about recently.

Missileman

04-26-2007, 07:29 PM

Whether glock does or not, I think I provided ample evidence that the GLB population in the USA is well under the 5% figured bandied about recently.

It's also well over the 1-1.5% figure.

There are around 300 million people in the U.S.

According to this study: http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute//publications/SameSexCouplesandGLBpopACS.pdf

There are an estimated 8.8 million gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) persons in the U.S.

That's just under 3.5%

Of course Glock is now free to put up his scientific facts that might dispute this.

CockySOB

04-26-2007, 07:31 PM

Missileman

04-26-2007, 07:39 PM

As to the other thing, good luck. :salute:

It will never happen. I predict more "go find my proof yourself" type responses.

emmett

04-26-2007, 07:42 PM

A rapist or molester is still a fag only sicker!

glockmail

04-26-2007, 08:35 PM

Are you still maintaining that you have scientific proof that gays only number 1-1.5% ? I'm still waiting for yours that says the percentage is 5. :pee:

glockmail

04-26-2007, 08:58 PM

It's also well over the 1-1.5% figure.

There are around 300 million people in the U.S.

According to this study: http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute//publications/SameSexCouplesandGLBpopACS.pdf

That's just under 3.5%

Of course Glock is now free to put up his scientific facts that might dispute this.
Census 2000 enumerated 105.5 million households in the United States, of which the majority (52 percent) were maintained by married couples (54.5 million). A reflection of changing life styles is mirrored in Census 2000’s enumeration of 5.5 million couples who were living together but who were not married, up from 3.2 million in 1990. These unmarried-partner households were self-identified on the census form as being maintained by people who were sharing living quarters and who also had a close personal relationship with each other. The majority of these unmarried-partner households had partners of the opposite sex (4.9 million) but about 1 in 9 (594,000) had partners of the same sex.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf

Do the math:

594,000 / 105,000,000 = 0.57%.

glockmail

04-26-2007, 09:03 PM

"A study by the National Assn. of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality makes the point that homosexual men appear to be three times more likely than straight men to have sex with minors, counting only cases that are reported."

Yurt

04-26-2007, 09:05 PM

I disagree here. Molestation is similar to rape (the same in many cases) and that brings in the possibility that the act isn't about sexual gratification at all, but power and dominance.

When we talk of homosexuality and heterosexuality, we should be talking about consensual relationships between adults, not about criminal activities wherein the perpetrator uses sexual means to assault their victim. Unless of course, someone can provide solid evidence to indicate a causal relationship between the two - and I haven't seen anything SOLID yet.

This is a fair point. I am not sure where I stand on it. Not to be crude, but Andrew Dice Clay (http://www.andrewdiceclay.com/) used to say in his comedic rants (paraphrased):

Hey, there ain't no "bi", yuz either suck dick or yuz don't

Crude, but it is an interesting piont. You either commit a sexual act with another man/boy or not.

I do though see the point is differentiating between molesters and rapists (men who molest/rape boys/men). The intent is different. What I have not been able to resolve though:

Is the "act" itself different?

glockmail

04-26-2007, 09:11 PM

USA Today, in its April 15, 1993 issue published the following statistics from a Planned Parenthood/Alan Guttmacher Institute study:

Only 2.3% of males ages 20 to 39 said they had experienced a same-sex relationship in the past decade. Only 1.1% said they were exclusively gay.

A 1989 U.S. survey indicated that no more than 6% of adults had any kind of same-sex experience. Less than 1% said they were exclusively gay.

A 1992 French study found that only 1.4% of men and 0.4% of women said they had any same-sex contact in the past five years.

In 1991, the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) provided data indicating that of the 6% who have ever experienced same-sex relations, the number of currently active homosexuals (at that time) was .06-0.7%. The source for this is: T.W. Smith, Planning Perspectives 23, May/June 1991).

The Wall Street Journal shed more light on the 10% urban legend in its March 31, 1993 issue:

A survey conducted by the Minnesota Adolescent Health Survey (1986-86) of public school students indicated that only 0.6% of boys and 0.2% of girls identified themselves "mostly or 100% homosexual"-which is less than one percent!

In Canada, a 1988 survey of first-year college students under 25 indicated that 98% were heterosexual; 1% bisexual; and 1% homosexual. (Source: King, et al. Canada, Youth and AIDS Study, Kingston, Ontario: Queen's University.)