LDS "Mormon" Bigot Red Davis Defame Gay Men
son
Vieira, says...
>DunnRon <dun...@aol.com> wrote:
...snip...
>: For example, I don't think you really care one way or another whether
>: those who deem themselves exclusively gay males are statistically more
>: inclined to commit CSAs than males generally, especially since the
>: numbers are so small [all males > pedophile males > pedophile males who
>: abuse boys > otherwise exclusively homosexual males who abuse boys]. Am
>: I right about how you think on this?
>
>Well, is this statment about exclusively homosexual men an accurate
>statement? I would disagree. After poking around Medline for a while,
>looking for a few more sources for Red, I found a really good one. Let me
>share the abstract:
>
>--begin quote--
>
>SEARCH STRING: su:(homosexual and pedophilia)
>
>DATABASE: Medline
>
> RECORD NO.: 94277737
> AUTHOR: Jenny C; Roesler TA; Poyer KL
> ADDRESS: Kempe Children's Center, Department of Pediatrics,
> University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver.
> TITLE: Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? [see
> comments]
> SOURCE: Pediatrics (OXV), 1994 Jul; 94 (1): 41-4
> LANGUAGE: English
> COUNTRY PUB.: UNITED STATES
> ANNOUNCEMENT: 9409
> PUB. TYPE: JOURNAL ARTICLE
> ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE. To determine if recognizably homosexual adults
> are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of
> children. DESIGN. Chart review of medical records of
> children evaluated for sexual abuse. SETTING. Child sexual
> abuse clinic at a regional children's hospital. PATIENTS.
> Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys) referred
> to a subspecialty clinic for the evaluation of suspected
> child sexual abuse. Mean age was 6.1 years (range, 7 months
> to 17 years). DATA COLLECTED. Charts were reviewed to
> determine the relationships of the children to the alleged
> offender, the sex of the offender, and whether or not the
> alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian, or
> bisexual. RESULTS. Abuse was ruled out in 35 cases.
Seventy-
> four children were allegedly abused by other children and
> teenagers less than 18 years old. In 9 cases, an offender
> could not be identified. In the remaining 269 cases, two
> offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian. In 82%
of
> cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual
> partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data
> from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk
> children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as
> the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are
> within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality
> in the general community. CONCLUSIONS. The children in the
> group studied were unlikely to have been molested by
> identifiably gay or lesbian people.
> NOTES: Comment in: Pediatrics, 1994 Jul;94(1):45-6
>MESH HEADINGS: Child Abuse, Sexual--epidemiology (EP)*;
> Homosexuality--psychology (*PX); Adolescence; Child; Child,
> Preschool; Infant; Pedophilia; Female; Human; Male
> STANDARD NO.: 0031-4005
> DATES: Entered 940719
>
>--end quote--
>
>You'll notice that everything I have said is reiterated in this journal
>article -- homosexuals are responsible for very little of the CSA, it is
>mostly done by heterosexuals, and family friends are the largest
>perpetrators. Consider that at most 3.1% of the victims of CSA were
>molested by homosexuals -- this fits in with the proportion of the
>population that is homosexual. Wouldn't we see a lot more of homosexual
>abuse if just about every homosexual were out molesting kids? I would
>think so.
>
>So if Red, or anyone else, has any scientific data to share, please do so.
>As I told Red, I am happy to discuss this topic on a scientific basis, put
>the polemics are getting nauseating. But dealing with Red always brings
>out polemics.
Thanks for Medline's abstract of the Jenny/ Pediatrics Study of the victims
of CAS in Denver. Is Medline's search engine available to the public?
You stated that most CAS offenders were family friends or Uncles. The Jenny
study deos not support this.
As you noted, overwhelmingly, most victims of child sexual abuse are girls,
40.2 % of the 206 girl victims in the study are abused by their fathers.
11.9% by mother's boyfriends, 6.4% by stepfathers, 5.9% by grandfathers,
--only 4.1% by friends of the family--, 3.2 % by uncles, 2.7% by a baby
sitter, 1.4% by strangers, 0.9% by a day care worker, 0.9% by a cousin,
0.9% by school personnel, 0.9% by a step grandfather, 0.5 % each by aunt's
boyfriend, brother-in-law, foster father, grandmother's boyfriend, group
home supervisor, minister, neighbor's boyfriend, sister's boyfriend, and
unknown. Only 8 or 3.7 % were abused by women. 5 or 2.3 % were abused by a
male and female couple: a mother and a father 1.4%, step mother step
father 0.5% or baby sistters 0.5%.
Of the male offenders who abused the 42 male victims, 36 % or 18 were
fathers, 16% or 8 were boyfriends of the mothers. A mother and father both
abused 10% or 5 of those male victims. The rest were abused by an aunt's
boyfriend 1, foster father 1, and a grandmother's boyfriend 1 . None were
unknown. 6% or 3 of the male victims were abused by women --2 by a mother
and 1 by a grandmother. Only 10% or 5 of the male victims had been abused
by a mother and father together.
It's unfortunate that real concerns about child sexual abuse have become
obfuscated by people like Ronn Dunn and Red Davis who will misrepresent
studies, including this Jenny Study, in their outrageous, insupportable
attempts to defame gay men and women.
smar...@my-dejanews.com
son _o-...@hotmail.com (SON O GOD) wrote:
> In article <7e1jvp$mik$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, dvi...@primenet.com, Daniel
> Vieira, says...
Let's again show where they are playing the word game in artificially
lowering the number of homosexual pedophiles:
We have a saying the computer idustry: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
What do they mean by "recognizably homosexual adults"?
What do they mean by "alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian or
bisexual"?
They mean to artificially lower the number of instances of men molesting
boys.
Homosexuality is defined as "same sex attraction". Homosexual acts are
sexual acts commited by a person of the same-sex.
Would not common sense and reason dictate that if a male adult commited
a sexual act on a male child - that such an act is a homosexual act?
Certainly.
Yet, the study does not site the number of male offenders who molested
male children. In fact, the abstract purposefully omitts how many
of the offenders were male - they only mention the sex of the victims.
Why? Agenda - not science.
I assert that a male committing a sexual act on a male is homosexual
behavior -- regardless of how the pedophile "feels about themself".
I guarantee you that if you were to review the study itself, you would
find that a very signficant portion of the offenders were males molesting
males, and instead of an artificially lowered finding of "0-3%", you
would find that the reall percentage of men having sex with boys is
in the range of 9-15%, if not higher.
So, again - its not science, its political agenda. No matter how
you slice it and dice it - its men molesting boys and that's a homosexual
offender.
-red davis
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Rasmus Neikes
>
> In article <7e2gue$b4r$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
> son _o-...@hotmail.com (SON O GOD) wrote:
> > Vieira, says...
>
> Let's again show where they are playing the word game in artificially
> lowering the number of homosexual pedophiles:
>
>
> What do they mean by "recognizably homosexual adults"?
> What do they mean by "alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian or
> bisexual"?
>
> They mean to artificially lower the number of instances of men molesting
> boys.
>
> Homosexuality is defined as "same sex attraction". Homosexual acts are
> sexual acts commited by a person of the same-sex.
>
> Would not common sense and reason dictate that if a male adult commited
> a sexual act on a male child - that such an act is a homosexual act?
> Certainly.
I would call it ABUSE! Why don't you?
<snip more babble effectivel arguing away heterosexual pedophilia>
How do you lseep at night?
Rasmus.
--
There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the
chronicler's mind. (D. Adams)
smar...@my-dejanews.com
Rasmus Neikes <rasmus...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> smar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <7e2gue$b4r$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
> > son _o-...@hotmail.com (SON O GOD) wrote:
Daniel
> > > Vieira, says...
> >
> > Let's again show where they are playing the word game in artificially
> > lowering the number of homosexual pedophiles:
> >
> >
> > What do they mean by "recognizably homosexual adults"?
> > What do they mean by "alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian or
> > bisexual"?
> >
> > They mean to artificially lower the number of instances of men molesting
> > boys.
> >
> > Homosexuality is defined as "same sex attraction". Homosexual acts are
> > sexual acts commited by a person of the same-sex.
> >
> > Would not common sense and reason dictate that if a male adult commited
> > a sexual act on a male child - that such an act is a homosexual act?
> > Certainly.
>
> I would call it ABUSE! Why don't you?
I do. Such is abuse committed by homosexual males.
>
> <snip more babble effectivel arguing away heterosexual pedophilia>
I have hardly argued away heterosexual pedophilia. However, using the
same definition for heterosexuals that they use for homosexuals in this
study would indeed equally remove all heterosexuals from being a pedophile.
If niether heterosexuals nor homosexuals are committing pedophilic acts,
who is? No one? Don't be stupid.
Homosexuals commit a disproportionate number of pedophilic acts. While
it is true that most such acts are committed by heterosexuals, that does
not mitigate the fact that homosexuals are overrepresented in the pedophilic
population by a factor of 4-7. A co-abnormal condition? Cause and effect?
-red davis
>
> How do you lseep at night?
>
> Rasmus.
> --
> There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the
> chronicler's mind. (D. Adams)
>
-Red Davis
Rasmus Neikes
>
> In article <3704F466...@bigfoot.com>,
> Rasmus Neikes <rasmus...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > smar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <7e2gue$b4r$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
> > > son _o-...@hotmail.com (SON O GOD) wrote:
> Daniel
> > > > Vieira, says...
> > >
> > > Let's again show where they are playing the word game in artificially
> > > lowering the number of homosexual pedophiles:
> > >
> > >
> > > What do they mean by "recognizably homosexual adults"?
> > > What do they mean by "alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian or
> > > bisexual"?
> > >
> > > They mean to artificially lower the number of instances of men molesting
> > > boys.
> > >
> > > Homosexuality is defined as "same sex attraction". Homosexual acts are
> > > sexual acts commited by a person of the same-sex.
> > >
> > > Would not common sense and reason dictate that if a male adult commited
> > > a sexual act on a male child - that such an act is a homosexual act?
> > > Certainly.
> >
> > I would call it ABUSE! Why don't you?
>
> I do. Such is abuse committed by homosexual males.
Again I ask: What is the relevant difference? Id it worse or better to
be abused by someone of the same sex thabn someone of the opposite sex?
>
> >
> > <snip more babble effectivel arguing away heterosexual pedophilia>
>
> I have hardly argued away heterosexual pedophilia. However, using the
> same definition for heterosexuals that they use for homosexuals in this
> study would indeed equally remove all heterosexuals from being a pedophile.
> If niether heterosexuals nor homosexuals are committing pedophilic acts,
> who is? No one? Don't be stupid.
Why not define sexuality in a meaningful way: relating to the peole you
have consentual sexual relationships with or would like to have them
with?
If we ignore pedophiali for a moment it does make sense, right? It is a
useful concept to describe wohm peole are attracted to. It makes sense
to emply that concepts independent from what peolpe actually do. Similar
approaches are taken all the time. (Economical predictions, etc.)
By defining homosexuality only by actions you _elimintate_ data that
could otherwise be used. Is it not interesting to know that a lot of men
who usually have sexual relationships only with women still abuse boys
rather than girls? If you refer to these as 'homosexual' just becasue of
the nature of the abuse they carry out you eliminate that pice of
information. Why?
>
> Homosexuals commit a disproportionate number of pedophilic acts.
Becasue of your definitoon of homosexuality. But that number is not
useful. Becasue if you wanted to talk about the group that commits those
crimes you would _still_ have to look at people who formerly had
relationships with women only.
While
> it is true that most such acts are committed by heterosexuals, that does
> not mitigate the fact that homosexuals are overrepresented in the pedophilic
> population by a factor of 4-7.
Cites? All the data I ever saw suggests that you are wrong. I@ll look it
up again if you like. Would have ot wait until the tuesday, though...
A co-abnormal condition? Cause and effect?
You tell me!
SON O GOD
smar...@my-dejanews.com, says...
>Homosexuals commit a disproportionate number of pedophilic acts. While
>it is true that most such acts are committed by heterosexuals, that does
>not mitigate the fact that homosexuals are overrepresented in the
pedophilic
>population by a factor of 4-7. A co-abnormal condition? Cause and effect?
>
>-red davis
Source please, Red!
All you have done, so far, is misrepresent and redefine terms presented in
numerous studies that other people have presented, like the well documented
Jenny study from Pediatrics July, 1994 that clearly demonstrated your
accusation is rubbish. Yet with no credible evidence to support your claim,
you still insist on repeating that discredited old chestnut that gay men are
more likely to molester children.
Please post a peer reviewed, scientific study that actually supports your
charge, not just more of your usual malicious flimflam.
Daniel Vieira
: Thanks for Medline's abstract of the Jenny/ Pediatrics Study of the victims
: of CAS in Denver. Is Medline's search engine available to the public?
Yes and no. I am a grad student at Cal State Univeristy Northridge here
in the San Fernando Valley, so I have full access to all search engines at
the college. However, anyone can walk into the libary and use the
computers there to access information (although, techincally, only CSUN
students are supposed to be using the computers.) I would assume any
large college (4 year or better) in your area is on Medline and
SocAbstracts and the other search engines available, and you should be
able to get on there.
: You stated that most CAS offenders were family friends or Uncles. The Jenny
: study deos not support this.
Are the stats you use here from the actual study? I'm heading up next
week to get the full article -- I only found the abstract.
And my stats show that family and family friends (which also would include
the child's friends) are the most usual perpetrators. Actually, all crime
data show that any crime is most likely to be committed by someone the
victim knows than a stranger.
: As you noted, overwhelmingly, most victims of child sexual abuse are girls,
: 40.2 % of the 206 girl victims in the study are abused by their fathers.
: 11.9% by mother's boyfriends, 6.4% by stepfathers, 5.9% by grandfathers,
: --only 4.1% by friends of the family--, 3.2 % by uncles, 2.7% by a baby
: sitter, 1.4% by strangers, 0.9% by a day care worker, 0.9% by a cousin,
: 0.9% by school personnel, 0.9% by a step grandfather, 0.5 % each by aunt's
: boyfriend, brother-in-law, foster father, grandmother's boyfriend, group
: home supervisor, minister, neighbor's boyfriend, sister's boyfriend, and
: unknown. Only 8 or 3.7 % were abused by women. 5 or 2.3 % were abused by a
: male and female couple: a mother and a father 1.4%, step mother step
: father 0.5% or baby sistters 0.5%.
: Of the male offenders who abused the 42 male victims, 36 % or 18 were
: fathers, 16% or 8 were boyfriends of the mothers. A mother and father both
: abused 10% or 5 of those male victims. The rest were abused by an aunt's
: boyfriend 1, foster father 1, and a grandmother's boyfriend 1 . None were
: unknown. 6% or 3 of the male victims were abused by women --2 by a mother
: and 1 by a grandmother. Only 10% or 5 of the male victims had been abused
: by a mother and father together.
: It's unfortunate that real concerns about child sexual abuse have become
: obfuscated by people like Ronn Dunn and Red Davis who will misrepresent
: studies, including this Jenny Study, in their outrageous, insupportable
: attempts to defame gay men and women.
My point to Red is that we should be concerned about ALL forms of child
sexual abuse, rather than castigating one group that is responisble for a
small amount of the violence.
Dan
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dan Vieira | dvi...@primenet.com | dsv2...@huey.csun.edu |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Faire et en faisant, se faire et n'etre rien que ce qu'il s'est fait."
-Jean Paul Sartre
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dan's Web Site | http://www.primenet.com/~dvieira/index.html |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moira de Swardt
son _o-...@hotmail.com (SON O GOD) wrote in message
<7e2gue$b4r$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>In article <7e1jvp$mik$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, dvi...@primenet.com, Daniel
>Vieira, says...
>
>>DunnRon <dun...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>: For example, I don't think you really care one way or another whether
>>: those who deem themselves exclusively gay males are statistically more
>>: inclined to commit CSAs than males generally, especially since the
>>: numbers are so small [all males > pedophile males > pedophile males who
>>: abuse boys > otherwise exclusively homosexual males who abuse boys]. Am
>>: I right about how you think on this?
The truth. I have two nieces, 9 and 5 years old. I, like their parents,
adore them and would do anything to protect them from anybody who could or
would abuse them in any way, physically, sexually, emotionally or socially.
On 19 December 1998 a gay male friend and I took our respective nieces to a
pantomime performance. I don't have a car so my sister delivered the
children to my apartment where we were met by my friend and his niece. We
walked to the theatre. Afterwards I phoned my sister to fetch the children,
or to make arrangements for her to give me a lift home from her place - as
my friend could drop my nieces and me there on the way home to his place.
My sister was puzzled. If my friend was passing her home, why didn't he
just drop her children off, leaving me at my home? I spelled out
"P-R-O-B-L-E-M with A-B-U-S-E" (as I said, we're very protective of the
children). She laughed and said "If it was the father of one of my
daughters' friends, I would insist that the children were together, but with
a gay man I can rest assured that nothing (*sexual* implied) will happen".
Perhaps my sister would not have been so complacent if she had sons rather
than daughters, but I still think that this indicates the valid and accurate
perception of all but the most homophobic parents 'out there'.
Moira de Swardt
smar...@my-dejanews.com
> > > > Would not common sense and reason dictate that if a male adult commited
> > > > a sexual act on a male child - that such an act is a homosexual act?
> > > > Certainly.
> > >
> > > I would call it ABUSE! Why don't you?
> >
> > I do. Such is abuse committed by homosexual males.
>
> Again I ask: What is the relevant difference? Id it worse or better to
> be abused by someone of the same sex thabn someone of the opposite sex?
It the difference were not relevant, they would not be playing word games
in order to artificially reduce the number of homosexual pedophiles.
There are many reasons why the homosexual community wants to artificially
lower the number of homosexual pedophiles:
1) Acknowledgement that there are disproportionately more homosexual
pedophiles is a significant marker that homosexual behavior is abnormal by
such being a possible finding of a co-existing disorder.
2) Acknowledgement that there are a significant number of homosexual
pedophiles would damn their continued insertion of homosexual related
curriculum into public elementary, middle, and high schools. For, one could
reasonably say that homosexual materials are a means for pedophiles to
prepare children for their solicitation. Indeed, homosexual magazines
themselves have spoke of how important to the homosexual community it is for
adults to have sex with children.
3) Acknowledgement that there are a significant number of homosexual
pedophiles undercuts their "no different than you" campaign.
4) Such sould also expose another consequence of more homosexual behavior:
more children will be molested.
Thus, they play word games refusing to acknowledge that when a man molests
a boy, that such is a homosexual act being committed by a male behaving
homosexually.
>
> >
> > >
> > > <snip more babble effectivel arguing away heterosexual pedophilia>
> >
> > I have hardly argued away heterosexual pedophilia. However, using the
> > same definition for heterosexuals that they use for homosexuals in this
> > study would indeed equally remove all heterosexuals from being a pedophile.
> > If niether heterosexuals nor homosexuals are committing pedophilic acts,
> > who is? No one? Don't be stupid.
>
> Why not define sexuality in a meaningful way: relating to the peole you
> have consentual sexual relationships with or would like to have them
> with?
I prefer to define sexuality in an *empirical way* - not a "meaningful way".
When one starts to talk about "meaninful ways", one starts to get into
those areas that depend upon "what the meaning of the word 'is' is".
You prefer to define away homosexual behavior to an area where only the
commissioners "feelings" can be used to define what is, or is not homosexual
behavior, who is, and who is not a homosexual. In such an area of
"meaningful" definition, homosexual behavior will only be defined in the
most positive and assertive ways and means. Not as it really stands.
That's not science - that's agenda.
>
> If we ignore pedophiali for a moment it does make sense, right? It is a
> useful concept to describe wohm peole are attracted to. It makes sense
> to emply that concepts independent from what peolpe actually do. Similar
> approaches are taken all the time. (Economical predictions, etc.)
I think that people describe for themself who they are attracted to by
the acts they commit. If a male commits a sexual act on a boy - that male
has just committed a homosexual act. When one behaves homosexually, one is
a homosexual.
If a male commits an act of arson - that male has just commited arson.
When one behaves as an arsonist, one is an arson.
Or, is this how low we must go to accept homosexuality? Where common sense
and language have to be so perverted and twisted as to have no reasonable
meaning? Yes, that is how low we must go, or else you would not be
attempting to redefine our entire language, experience and conceptualization
in order to turn black into white.
>
> By defining homosexuality only by actions you _elimintate_ data that
> could otherwise be used. Is it not interesting to know that a lot of men
> who usually have sexual relationships only with women still abuse boys
> rather than girls? If you refer to these as 'homosexual' just becasue of
> the nature of the abuse they carry out you eliminate that pice of
> information. Why?
A lot of men who usually have sexual relationships with men, still have
sexual relationships with women. A lot of men who usually have sexual
relationships with women, still have sexual relationships with men.
There are very, very few men who are strictly homosexual. Almost all
homosexuals have sex with men or women all the time, in verying degrees.
Thus, they choose all the time to behave homosexually or heterosexually.
If we refuse to define instances of sex between males as homosexual - than
the word homosexual no longer has any significance. Are you really trying
to asser that there are homosexuals out there who have never had sex with
another man? I guess there are also murderers out there who have never killed
anyone also. What rediculous ideas.
>
> >
> > Homosexuals commit a disproportionate number of pedophilic acts.
>
> Becasue of your definitoon of homosexuality. But that number is not
> useful. Becasue if you wanted to talk about the group that commits those
> crimes you would _still_ have to look at people who formerly had
> relationships with women only.
A male having sex with a male is a homosexual act. What part of common
sense are you missing?
>
> While
> > it is true that most such acts are committed by heterosexuals, that does
> > not mitigate the fact that homosexuals are overrepresented in the pedophilic
> > population by a factor of 4-7.
>
> Cites? All the data I ever saw suggests that you are wrong. I@ll look it
> up again if you like. Would have ot wait until the tuesday, though...
Read the thread, they have contained such citations, and search Dejanews.
>
> A co-abnormal condition? Cause and effect?
Psychologists have noted that where there is one abnormal condition, there
almost always are one other abnormal condition, and such is how the verify
their diagnosis that the first actually exists.
Thus, if we find pedophilia among homosexuals, where is the second abnormal
condition? Duh. Among "homosexuals" should give you a clue.
>
> You tell me!
I just did. Question is: are you capable of learning.
-red davis
>
> Rasmus.
>
> --
> There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the
> chronicler's mind. (D. Adams)
>
-Red Davis
smar...@my-dejanews.com
son_...@hotmail.com (SON O GOD) wrote:
> In article <7e3cs0$46k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, smar...@my-dejanews.com,
> smar...@my-dejanews.com, says...
>
> >it is true that most such acts are committed by heterosexuals, that does
> >not mitigate the fact that homosexuals are overrepresented in the
> pedophilic
> >
> >-red davis
>
> Source please, Red!
>
> All you have done, so far, is misrepresent and redefine terms presented in
> numerous studies that other people have presented, like the well documented
> Jenny study from Pediatrics July, 1994 that clearly demonstrated your
> accusation is rubbish.
Uh, Sherlock, in the Jenny study, how many males molested boys out of the
cases studied? Why, you can't tell from the abstract because the abstract
puposefully omitts the number of male perpetrators.
Why do they omitt such? Because, if they included the sex of the perpetrator
along with the sex of the victim - we could do a simple analysis to determine
the number of times a male adult molested a male child, and thus determine
how many pedophiles committed homosexual acts against children. Men who
commit homosexual acts are behaving homosexually. Thus, they are homosexuals.
In the study posted here, we found that instead of "0-3%" of the cases being
those of a male molesting a boy, the figure could have easily been at "25%".
When perported "studies" omitt critical data, we move them from "science"
to "agenda".
Any wager as to who funded and/or conducted the Jenny study? I bet the
farm it was either funded by $3 bills, or conducted by homosexuals.
Thus, I have demonstrated critical errors in the study, manipulation of
the data by omitting it, and pointed to a supsected bias of the researchers.
> Yet with no credible evidence to support your claim,
> you still insist on repeating that discredited old chestnut that gay men are
> more likely to molester children.
Uh, Sherlock, I have posted a tremendous amount of data - as that contained
from the NARTH posting. Also, I have a brother who is a doctor. He and his
wife used to work at the Methodist Home in Waco, Texas. The Methodist Home
is a home for abused children. He stated in unequivocal terms that almost
all of those children were sexually abused, and that a significant number
of the boys were molested by homosexuals.
The evidence is overwhelming as long as they don't play the word games
where they define away homosexual acts as heterosexual acts because of
the way someone "feels".
Now, do you disagree that every sexual act between humans is either
heterosexual or homosexual?
smar...@my-dejanews.com
"Moira de Swardt" <moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
>
> son _o-...@hotmail.com (SON O GOD) wrote in message
> <7e2gue$b4r$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
> >Vieira, says...
> >
> >>DunnRon <dun...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>: For example, I don't think you really care one way or another whether
> >>: those who deem themselves exclusively gay males are statistically more
> >>: inclined to commit CSAs than males generally, especially since the
> >>: numbers are so small [all males > pedophile males > pedophile males who
> >>: abuse boys > otherwise exclusively homosexual males who abuse boys]. Am
> >>: I right about how you think on this?
>
> adore them and would do anything to protect them from anybody who could or
> would abuse them in any way, physically, sexually, emotionally or socially.
> On 19 December 1998 a gay male friend and I took our respective nieces to a
> pantomime performance. I don't have a car so my sister delivered the
> children to my apartment where we were met by my friend and his niece. We
> walked to the theatre. Afterwards I phoned my sister to fetch the children,
> or to make arrangements for her to give me a lift home from her place - as
> my friend could drop my nieces and me there on the way home to his place.
> My sister was puzzled. If my friend was passing her home, why didn't he
> just drop her children off, leaving me at my home? I spelled out
> "P-R-O-B-L-E-M with A-B-U-S-E" (as I said, we're very protective of the
> children). She laughed and said "If it was the father of one of my
> daughters' friends, I would insist that the children were together, but with
> a gay man I can rest assured that nothing (*sexual* implied) will happen".
> Perhaps my sister would not have been so complacent if she had sons rather
> than daughters, but I still think that this indicates the valid and accurate
> perception of all but the most homophobic parents 'out there'.
Except that most people don't realize that supposed "gay men" will have
sex with anything that moves (and sometimes things that don't move) at the
drop of a hat. Most "gay men" have sex with both men and women all the time.
Sexual researchers use what is known at the "Kinsey Scale" to measure the
attraction of people to one sex or the other. The Kinsey Scale consists of
the values "0-6", with "0" being exclusively heterosexual, and "6" being
exclusively homosexual. Most "gay men" are not a "6", but rather are found
to be within the "4" to "5" range. That is, they have sex with women less
often then men, but most often with men. I have posted two different studies
that show that the common application of the scale is indeed valid.
Thus, given the fact that most "gay men" are attracted to women, that a
disproportionate number of gay men are pedophiles - and that most acts of
pedophilia are between men and girls - I would *never* let my daughter go
anywhere with a gay man.
First, the guy already has shown he particpates in the sexually deviant
behavior of homosexualiyt, and second - the statistics show that such an
individual is the most likely to molest a child - of any sex.
-red davis
>
> Moira de Swardt
SON O GOD
smar...@my-dejanews.com, says...
>It the difference were not relevant, they would not be playing word games
>in order to artificially reduce the number of homosexual pedophiles.
>
>There are many reasons why the homosexual community wants to artificially
>lower the number of homosexual pedophiles:
>
>1) Acknowledgement that there are disproportionately more homosexual
>pedophiles is a significant marker that homosexual behavior is abnormal by
>such being a possible finding of a co-existing disorder.
Source please, Red!
I have asked you repetedly to provide a credible, peer reviwed replicable
studies to support your assertions that gay men are more likely to sexually
abuse children than anyopne else. So far you haven't provided any evidence
to support your accusations. You just keep repeating them.
>2) Acknowledgement that there are a significant number of homosexual
>pedophiles would damn their continued insertion of homosexual related
>curriculum into public elementary, middle, and high schools. For, one
could
>reasonably say that homosexual materials are a means for pedophiles to
>prepare children for their solicitation. Indeed, homosexual magazines
>themselves have spoke of how important to the homosexual community it is
for
>adults to have sex with children.
Source please, Red!
I have asked you repetedly to provide a credible, peer reviwed replicable
studies to support your assertions that gay men are more likely to sexually
abuse children than anyone else. So far you haven't provided any evidence
to support your accusations. You just keep repeating them.
>3) Acknowledgement that there are a significant number of homosexual
>pedophiles undercuts their "no different than you" campaign.
Source please, Red!
I have asked you repetedly to provide a credible, peer reviwed replicable
studies to support your assertions that gay men are more likely to sexually
abuse children than anyopne else. So far you haven't provided any evidence
to support your accusations. You just keep repeating them.
>4) Such sould also expose another consequence of more homosexual behavior:
>more children will be molested.
Source please, Red!
I have asked you repetedly to provide a credible, peer reviwed replicable
studies to support your assertions that gay men are more likely to sexually
abuse children than anyopne else. So far you haven't provided any evidence
to support your accusations. You just keep repeating them.
>Thus, they play word games refusing to acknowledge that when a man molests
>a boy, that such is a homosexual act being committed by a male behaving
>homosexually.
>
Source please, Red!
I have asked you repetedly to provide a credible, peer reviwed replicable
studies to support your assertions that gay men are more likely to sexually
abuse children than anyopne else. So far you haven't provided any evidence
to support your accusations. You just keep repeating them.
SON O GOD
smar...@my-dejanews.com, says...
>
>In article <7e3gqt$v9g$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
> son_...@hotmail.com (SON O GOD) wrote:
>> In article <7e3cs0$46k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, smar...@my-dejanews.com,
>> smar...@my-dejanews.com, says...
>>
>> >Homosexuals commit a disproportionate number of pedophilic acts. While
>> >it is true that most such acts are committed by heterosexuals, that does
>> >not mitigate the fact that homosexuals are overrepresented in the
>> pedophilic
>> >population by a factor of 4-7. A co-abnormal condition? Cause and
effect?
>> >
>> >-red davis
>>
>> Source please, Red!
>>
>> All you have done, so far, is misrepresent and redefine terms presented
in
>> numerous studies that other people have presented, like the well
documented
>> Jenny study from Pediatrics July, 1994 that clearly demonstrated your
>> accusation is rubbish.
>
>Uh, Sherlock, in the Jenny study, how many males molested boys out of the
>cases studied? Why, you can't tell from the abstract because the abstract
>puposefully omitts the number of male perpetrators.
Maybe you should go to the libray and read the study, instead of just the
abstract.
An abstract is a only summery in an index that describes a study in its most
basic detail. The abstract of the Jenny Study clearly says the study
clearly identified the sexual orienation of the perpetators:
"DATA COLLECTED. Charts were reviewed to
determine the relationships of the children to the alleged
offender, the sex of the offender, and whether or not the
alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian, or
bisexual."
The study specifically took into consider the sexual orientation of the
purpetrors; gay men and women were less than 1% of that group.
Just because you want to redifine all males who molested a boy as homosexual
doesn't make it so. The sexual abuse of children is not about sexual
attraction, it's an act of violence, a crimianl assault.
According to the Jenny study, less than 1 % of the identified men who
abused boys were involved in hemosexual realtionships. Here is a patial
breakdown of relationships to the victims extracted from a chart published
in the Jenny study:
Overwhelmingly, most victims of child sexual abuse were girls,
40.2 % of the 206 girl victims in the study were abused by their fathers.
11.9% by mother's boyfriends, 6.4% by stepfathers, 5.9% by grandfathers,
only 4.1% by friends of the family, 3.2 % by uncles, 2.7% by a baby
sitter, 1.4% by strangers, 5 or 2.3 % were abused by male and female
couples, a mother and a father 1.4%, step mother step father 0.5% or
baby sistters 0.5%. Only 8 or 3.7 % were abused by women.
Of the male offenders who abused the 42 male victims, 36 % or 18 were
fathers, 16% or 8 were boyfriends of the mothers. A mother and father
together abused 10% or 5 of those male victims. The rest were abused by an
aunt's boyfriend 1, foster father 1, and a grandmother's boyfriend 1 .
None were unknown.
6% or 3 of the male victims were abused by women, 2 by a mother and 1 by a
grandmother.
>Why do they omitt such? Because, if they included the sex of the
perpetrator
>along with the sex of the victim - we could do a simple analysis to
determine
>the number of times a male adult molested a male child, and thus determine
>how many pedophiles committed homosexual acts against children.
They omit so much because it's only an abstract of the study, not the study
itself.
>Men who
>commit homosexual acts are behaving homosexually. Thus, they are
>homosexuals.
There you go again, redefining the terms of the study to make it say what
ever you want it to say.
No, Red, the perpetrators are not homosexuals because they abuse male
childen. Your saying it simply does not make it so.
>In the study posted here, we found that instead of "0-3%" of the cases
being
>those of a male molesting a boy, the figure could have easily been at
"25%".
Once again you are redefining terms of the Jenny study to fit your
preconceptions. The abstract of Jenny study identified the sexual
orienation of the purpetrators as homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. It
concluded....
" Using the data
from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk
children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as
the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are
within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality
in the general community. CONCLUSIONS. The children in the
group studied were unlikely to have been molested by
identifiably gay or lesbian people."
>When perported "studies" omitt critical data, we move them from "science"
>to "agenda".
The study didn't omit any data, Red. You are confusing the abstract, with
the study iteself, which you haven't bothered to go to a library to read.
You are clearly the one who has the agenda. Your misrepresentingy the study,
without ever bothering to read it, is just more of your flim flam.
>Any wager as to who funded and/or conducted the Jenny study? I bet the
>farm it was either funded by $3 bills, or conducted by homosexuals.
The Jenny study is repilicable. Anyone repeating it would find the same
results. It was publshed a highly resected, peer reviewed medical journal,
Pediatrics July 1994.
Are you really going to claim that all the professional association for
pediatricians that published Pediatrics is a homosexual front organizaton?
>Thus, I have demonstrated critical errors in the study, manipulation of
>the data by omitting it, and pointed to a supsected bias of the
researchers.
>
You havn't demonstrated anything other than your ignorance.
You still haven't presented any credible, peer reviewed evidence to support
your claim, that gay men are more likely to molester children. The Jenny
study cited above indicates gay men are NOT more likely to abuse children.
>Uh, Sherlock, I have posted a tremendous amount of data - as that contained
>from the NARTH posting.
Your NARTH posting was not a peer reviewed, not replicable and not a
scientific study.
>Also, I have a brother who is a doctor. He and his
>wife used to work at the Methodist Home in Waco, Texas. The Methodist Home
>is a home for abused children. He stated in unequivocal terms that almost
>all of those children were sexually abused, and that a significant number
>of the boys were molested by homosexuals.
An anecdote from your brother is not a peer reviewed scientific study.
>The evidence is overwhelming as long as they don't play the word games
>where they define away homosexual acts as heterosexual acts because of
>the way someone "feels".
>
>Now, do you disagree that every sexual act between humans is either
>heterosexual or homosexual?
A sexual act does not define a person's sexual orienation. A sexual act may
or may not be relevant to the sexual orienation of the participant. Just ask
the heterosexual men who have sex with oither men in prison...or the gay
men who have married women.
In any case, the sexual abuse of a child is a criminal assault that has
nothing in common with a sexual realtionship between consenting adults
hetrosexual or homosexual.
Rasmus Neikes
Again I ask you: what does it tell you about adults who have sexual
relationship with other adult of their own gender? You stretch the
definition of homosexual to include a large section of pedophiles under
it and then apply your findings to the original group covered by the
definition.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <snip more babble effectivel arguing away heterosexual pedophilia>
> > >
> > > I have hardly argued away heterosexual pedophilia. However, using the
> > > same definition for heterosexuals that they use for homosexuals in this
> > > study would indeed equally remove all heterosexuals from being a pedophile.
> > > If niether heterosexuals nor homosexuals are committing pedophilic acts,
> > > who is? No one? Don't be stupid.
> >
> > Why not define sexuality in a meaningful way: relating to the peole you
> > have consentual sexual relationships with or would like to have them
> > with?
>
> I prefer to define sexuality in an *empirical way* - not a "meaningful way".
> When one starts to talk about "meaninful ways", one starts to get into
> those areas that depend upon "what the meaning of the word 'is' is".
How is it a *meaningful way*? The way you define the term a person that
_I_ would define as heterosexual (i.e. having adult-relationships with
peolpe of the opposite gender) would be labled a homosexual if they were
to abuse a child of their own gender. What does this get you? How can
you use the data you acciure with that method?
You have four classes of peolpe (ignoring the bisexual aspect)
1. Adults who have homosexual relationships with other adults.
2. Adults who have heterosexual relationships with other adults.
a. Adults who have homosexual "relationships" with children.
b. Adults wqho have heterosexual "relationships" with children.
c. Adults who don't have any "relationships" with children.
Now, there s no argument that a. and b. are both wrong, and that the
"relationships" are cases of abuse. [Using the term only for matters of
comparison.]
Thus we have a number of possible pedophiles: 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b.
You call 1a, 1b 1c and 2a homosexual, yet only 2b and 2c heterosexual
and then make conclusions about _all_ members of 1.
Thus you conclide from a large portion of "2"-people to all "1" peolpe,
specifically the "1c" peolpe. What is the purpose of that definition?
>
> You prefer to define away homosexual behavior to an area where only the
> commissioners "feelings" can be used to define what is, or is not homosexual
> behavior, who is, and who is not a homosexual.
I have nop problem of using the term "homosexual behaviour" for means of
referencce, but I don';t see why we should re-define 'homosexuality'.
In such an area of
> "meaningful" definition, homosexual behavior will only be defined in the
> most positive and assertive ways and means. Not as it really stands.
> That's not science - that's agenda.
>
How so? I define "sexuality" that way. That holds true for heterosexuals
as well as homosexuals. If there is a difference betwene the gender that
peolpe pick in their child-victims and adult partners I don't see why
you would want to use definitions that do not reflect that difference?
> >
> > If we ignore pedophiali for a moment it does make sense, right? It is a
> > useful concept to describe wohm peole are attracted to. It makes sense
> > to emply that concepts independent from what peolpe actually do. Similar
> > approaches are taken all the time. (Economical predictions, etc.)
>
> I think that people describe for themself who they are attracted to by
> the acts they commit. If a male commits a sexual act on a boy - that male
> has just committed a homosexual act. When one behaves homosexually, one is
> a homosexual.
Fine. Again: why would you want to use a defintion that deletes part of
thew available data? Your definition of homosexuality does not allow you
to make any conclusions about the people that would fall under my
definiton of homsoexu\lity, that you kepe making that step. Why?
>
> If a male commits an act of arson - that male has just commited arson.
> When one behaves as an arsonist, one is an arson.
blah blah blah...
>
> Or, is this how low we must go to accept homosexuality? Where common sense
> and language have to be so perverted and twisted as to have no reasonable
> meaning?
No. That's my opint: Your definitino of homosexuality is not useful in
determining any possible causes of pedophilia since it hides and deltes
available data.
Yes, that is how low we must go, or else you would not be
> attempting to redefine our entire language, experience and conceptualization
> in order to turn black into white.
Homosexuality _is_ defined the way I use it. Get a clue!
>
> >
> > By defining homosexuality only by actions you _elimintate_ data that
> > could otherwise be used. Is it not interesting to know that a lot of men
> > who usually have sexual relationships only with women still abuse boys
> > rather than girls? If you refer to these as 'homosexual' just becasue of
> > the nature of the abuse they carry out you eliminate that pice of
> > information. Why?
>
> A lot of men who usually have sexual relationships with men, still have
> sexual relationships with women. A lot of men who usually have sexual
> relationships with women, still have sexual relationships with men.
Bisexuals.
> There are very, very few men who are strictly homosexual. Almost all
> homosexuals have sex with men or women all the time, in verying degrees.
> Thus, they choose all the time to behave homosexually or heterosexually.
They are bisexuals. The "condition" is referred to as "bisexuality".
What's your problem?
>
> If we refuse to define instances of sex between males as homosexual - than
> the word homosexual no longer has any significance.
You are confuse. Get help. There is a differnece of describing an act as
homosexual in nature or descrinign a person as being homosexual.
Are you really trying
> to asser that there are homosexuals out there who have never had sex with
> another man? I guess there are also murderers out there who have never killed
> anyone also. What rediculous ideas.
Any virgin gay person falls under that defintion...
>
> >
> > >
> > > Homosexuals commit a disproportionate number of pedophilic acts.
> >
> > Becasue of your definitoon of homosexuality. But that number is not
> > useful. Becasue if you wanted to talk about the group that commits those
> > crimes you would _still_ have to look at people who formerly had
> > relationships with women only.
>
> A male having sex with a male is a homosexual act. What part of common
> sense are you missing?
Again: A man has sexual relationships _only_ with adult women. He then
abuses a boy. You would refer to him as homosexual. How do you think
that allows you to conclude a single thing about another men who has
only relationships with other adult men?
You can only do so by comparing the two directly. Ino rder to do that
you must invent a commohn labe "homosexual". But by doing so you ignore
the data that you have, namely that the first male is a pedophile (that
would otherwise be described as heterosexual) and the other is a
non-pedophile that would be described as homosexual.
Youy purposefully and intentionally hide that difference in order to be
able to blame non-pedophile homosexuals for pedohpilia nad thus declare
them as being evil, bad and immoral.
Not only is that a transparent and stupid technique, you also risk the
well-being if not life of children. How do _you_ slee at night, not
knowing how many children might coem to suffer becasue of your lies?
>
> >
> > While
> > > it is true that most such acts are committed by heterosexuals, that does
> > > not mitigate the fact that homosexuals are overrepresented in the pedophilic
> > > population by a factor of 4-7.
> >
> > Cites? All the data I ever saw suggests that you are wrong. I@ll look it
> > up again if you like. Would have ot wait until the tuesday, though...
>
> Read the thread, they have contained such citations, and search Dejanews.
>
> >
> > A co-abnormal condition? Cause and effect?
>
> Psychologists have noted that where there is one abnormal condition, there
> almost always are one other abnormal condition, and such is how the verify
> their diagnosis that the first actually exists.
Scientists have also found that homosexuality does not qualify as an
'abnormal condition'.
>
> Thus, if we find pedophilia among homosexuals, where is the second abnormal
> condition? Duh. Among "homosexuals" should give you a clue.
No, why? Just because you don't like it? Homosexuality is just as
"abnormal" as left-handedness.
>
> >
> > You tell me!
>
> I just did. Question is: are you capable of learning.
It doesn't appear as if you'd hgave enough of a clue to teach me
anything...
Ward Stewart
>
>A lot of men who usually have sexual relationships with men, still have
>sexual relationships with women. A lot of men who usually have sexual
>relationships with women, still have sexual relationships with men.
>There are very, very few men who are strictly homosexual. Almost all
>homosexuals have sex with men or women all the time, in verying degrees.
>Thus, they choose all the time to behave homosexually or heterosexually.
An interesting little thesis -- could you offer us a citation some
sort?
"Almost All," is an assertion beyond all reason.
>
>If we refuse to define instances of sex between males as homosexual - than
>the word homosexual no longer has any significance. Are you really trying
>to asser that there are homosexuals out there who have never had sex with
>another man? I guess there are also murderers out there who have never killed
>anyone also. What rediculous ideas.
You would seem to be suggesting that ANY male who has had ANY same-sex
activity is to be considered as homosexual -- even sillier than most
of your vapid assertions!
-----------------
Here comes a DOOZY!
>
>Psychologists have noted that where there is one abnormal condition, there
>almost always are one other abnormal condition, and such is how the verify
>their diagnosis that the first actually exists.
Once again, some sort of citation and preferrably from the literature
in which you "diagnose" one pathology and demonstrate this "diagnosis"
by the presence of another pathology.
To summarize, the Dx of appendicitis is confirmed by the presence of
fallen arches.
>
>Thus, if we find pedophilia among homosexuals, where is the second abnormal
>condition? Duh. Among "homosexuals" should give you a clue.
>
>>
>> You tell me!
>
>I just did. Question is: are you capable of learning.
It seems odd that your easy assumption that homosexuality is a
pathological state has eluded the attention of:
` The American Medical Association
The American Psychological Association
The American Psychiatric Association
The American Academy of Social work
Sigmund Freud,
and for good measure
The Roman Church.
Perhaps you should publish so as to inform these unhappy ignoramuses.
The American Medical Association
ward
----------------------------------------------------
"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be
ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an
illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function...
Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have
been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato,
Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to
persecute homosexuality as a crime -and a cruelty, too."
--Sigmund Freud
"To undertake to convert a fully developed homosexual into a
heterosexual does not offer much more prospect for success than the
reverse, except that for good practical reasons the latter is never
attempted."
--Sigmund Freud, 1856-1939
----------------------------------------------------
L. Michael Roberts
>
> In article <7e3gqt$v9g$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
> son_...@hotmail.com (SON O GOD) wrote:
> > In article <7e3cs0$46k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, smar...@my-dejanews.com,
> > smar...@my-dejanews.com, says...
> >
> > >it is true that most such acts are committed by heterosexuals, that does
> > >not mitigate the fact that homosexuals are overrepresented in the
> > pedophilic
> > >
> > >-red davis
> >
> > Source please, Red!
> >
> > All you have done, so far, is misrepresent and redefine terms presented in
> > numerous studies that other people have presented, like the well documented
> > Jenny study from Pediatrics July, 1994 that clearly demonstrated your
> > accusation is rubbish.
>
> Uh, Sherlock, in the Jenny study, how many males molested boys out of the
> cases studied? Why, you can't tell from the abstract because the abstract
> puposefully omitts the number of male perpetrators.
>
> along with the sex of the victim - we could do a simple analysis to determine
> the number of times a male adult molested a male child, and thus determine
> commit homosexual acts are behaving homosexually. Thus, they are homosexuals.
IF the male in question is married to a woman, and has children, how are
they homosexuals? The study indicates that a large number of molestation
were perpetrated by married men. Is your definition of sexual orientation
so flexible that the sex of the person one last had intimate relations with
the determining factor?
> In the study posted here, we found that instead of "0-3%" of the cases being
> those of a male molesting a boy, the figure could have easily been at "25%".
>
> When perported "studies" omitt critical data, we move them from "science"
> to "agenda".
Perhaps the abstract omits this data but I doubt the study would. Since I
have not read the actual study [only the abstract[ I can not comment. If
you would be kind enough to post a URL where the full study can be located,
then we can debate this in a fully informed manner.
>
> Any wager as to who funded and/or conducted the Jenny study? I bet the
> farm it was either funded by $3 bills, or conducted by homosexuals.
Do you have any proof of this assertion? If so, please post it. In
another post to this thread, you decry the personal attacks made on
Socarides, yet you indulge in the same activity here by attacking the
sexual orientation of the researchers. IF the researchers are indeed
homosexuals [an unproved assertion on your part] do you believe there is
something about homosexuals that makes them incapable of conducting
objective research? the study was peer reviewed - are you making the claim
that all the members of the review panel are gay?
You seem to speak out of both sides of you mouth here. You claim that
homosexuals are a tiny 2-3% of the population and yet at the same time,
claim that they have sufficient power and finances to influence the outcome
of peer reviewed scientific studies. Are you fond of conspiracy theories?
>
> Thus, I have demonstrated critical errors in the study, manipulation of
> the data by omitting it, and pointed to a supsected bias of the researchers.
YOu "demonstration" has consisted of a series of assertions without any
backing. A suitable demonstration would be to post a paragraph from the
study, then post a contradictory item from another peer reviewed study of
the same subject to demonstrate the fallacy in the first paragraph. Yes it
is a slow and tedious process requiring research rather then opinion but
that is how science is done!
>
> > Yet with no credible evidence to support your claim,
> > you still insist on repeating that discredited old chestnut that gay men are
> > more likely to molester children.
>
> Uh, Sherlock, I have posted a tremendous amount of data - as that contained
> from the NARTH posting.
It has been pointed out to you that NARTH lacks any scientific
credibility. They give opinions and conclusions - they do not make the
methodology and data from their "studies" available for peer review. Their
"studies" are not published in any of the peer reviewed scientific
journals. Good science requires that he researcher make known the
methodology, data collected, analysis methods as well as the conclusions.
Good science requires that other scientists in the field review this for
potential errors - most legitimate scientists are thankful for this process
as it prevents them for publishing erroneous information. Further,
providing the methodology and raw data allows other scientists to replicate
the test and see if they generate similar data and can reproduce the
results.
Why should NARTH be exempted from the accepted way of doing scientific
research? If their research and data is valid, they should be happy to
submit it to the rigours of peer review so as to validate the results.
> Also, I have a brother who is a doctor. He and his
> wife used to work at the Methodist Home in Waco, Texas. The Methodist Home
> is a home for abused children. He stated in unequivocal terms that almost
> all of those children were sexually abused, and that a significant number
> of the boys were molested by homosexuals.
This is called "anecdotal evidence". Your brother did not conduct a
scientific study.... "significant number" does not quantify the results in
any way. His information is not controlled for local/regional
discrepancies and there is no hard data that can re re-examined by other
scientists. I have no doubt that what he says is correct, I just point out
that it is not accurate and scientifically verifiable.
>
> The evidence is overwhelming as long as they don't play the word games
> where they define away homosexual acts as heterosexual acts because of
> the way someone "feels".
The evidence is far from overwhelming. I am NOT attempting on any way to
mitigate or minimize the harm caused by child sexual abuse. What I am
pointing out is that your attempt to tar the gay community with the
pedophile brush is weak and poorly presented. You lack the peer reviewed
data to make this case and you reply on unscientific sources, opinions and
assertions.
In you haste to vilify gays, you are neglecting the core of the problem.
Child sexual abuse is a crime against children. A crime that must be
reduced and finally eliminated through education and understanding of the
problem. In attempting to show that this is a "gay problem" you minimize
the very real damage being done to children by pedophiles - the vast
majority of whom are HETEROsexuals.
>
> Now, do you disagree that every sexual act between humans is either
> heterosexual or homosexual?
Yes. The acts themselves are gender neutral. All acts performed by
homosexuals are also performed by heterosexuals. Which of the following
acts are heterosexual and which are homosexual?
1/ Kissing
2/ Placing a penis into a mouth
3/ Placeing a penis into an anus
4/ Placing a tongue into a vagina
5/ Stimulating a penis with a hand
6/ Stimulating a vagina with a hand
I await your response with interest!
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada To reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my E-ddress
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+==================================================================+
L. Michael Roberts
>
> In article <7e5tg8$1e5d$3...@nntp01.global.co.za>,
> "Moira de Swardt" <moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote:
> >
> > son _o-...@hotmail.com (SON O GOD) wrote in message
> > <7e2gue$b4r$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
> > >Vieira, says...
> > >
> > >>DunnRon <dun...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>: For example, I don't think you really care one way or another whether
> > >>: those who deem themselves exclusively gay males are statistically more
> > >>: inclined to commit CSAs than males generally, especially since the
> > >>: numbers are so small [all males > pedophile males > pedophile males who
> > >>: abuse boys > otherwise exclusively homosexual males who abuse boys]. Am
> > >>: I right about how you think on this?
> >
> > adore them and would do anything to protect them from anybody who could or
> > would abuse them in any way, physically, sexually, emotionally or socially.
> > On 19 December 1998 a gay male friend and I took our respective nieces to a
> > pantomime performance. I don't have a car so my sister delivered the
> > children to my apartment where we were met by my friend and his niece. We
> > walked to the theatre. Afterwards I phoned my sister to fetch the children,
> > or to make arrangements for her to give me a lift home from her place - as
> > my friend could drop my nieces and me there on the way home to his place.
> > My sister was puzzled. If my friend was passing her home, why didn't he
> > just drop her children off, leaving me at my home? I spelled out
> > "P-R-O-B-L-E-M with A-B-U-S-E" (as I said, we're very protective of the
> > children). She laughed and said "If it was the father of one of my
> > daughters' friends, I would insist that the children were together, but with
> > a gay man I can rest assured that nothing (*sexual* implied) will happen".
> > Perhaps my sister would not have been so complacent if she had sons rather
> > than daughters, but I still think that this indicates the valid and accurate
> > perception of all but the most homophobic parents 'out there'.
>
> Except that most people don't realize that supposed "gay men" will have
> sex with anything that moves (and sometimes things that don't move) at the
> drop of a hat.
Post proof of your assertion...
> Most "gay men" have sex with both men and women all the time.
By your definition [posted in this thread] they are not gay. Weather they
are gay or not would depend on who they last had sex with - according to
you.
>
> Sexual researchers use what is known at the "Kinsey Scale" to measure the
> attraction of people to one sex or the other. The Kinsey Scale consists of
> the values "0-6", with "0" being exclusively heterosexual, and "6" being
> exclusively homosexual. Most "gay men" are not a "6", but rather are found
> to be within the "4" to "5" range. That is, they have sex with women less
> often then men, but most often with men. I have posted two different studies
> that show that the common application of the scale is indeed valid.
>
> Thus, given the fact that most "gay men" are attracted to women,
Are yo also prepared to assert that most heterosexual men are attracted to
other men? That not all heterosexuals are a a "0" on the Kinsey scale? If
your assertion is true for gay men, it must be true for heterosexual men.
> that a
> disproportionate number of gay men are pedophiles -
YOu have failed to provide any peer reviewed scientific studies that make
this case. What yo have presented are you assertions and opinions on the
matter without any shred of scientific fact to back your argument.
> and that most acts of
> pedophilia are between men and girls
By your own definition, posted in this thread, men who have sex with women
[or girls] are heterosexuals. Since you say that "most acts of pedophilia
are between men and girls" this would men that it is committed by
HETEROsexuals.
> - I would *never* let my daughter go
> anywhere with a gay man.
>
> First, the guy already has shown he particpates in the sexually deviant
> behavior of homosexualiyt, and second - the statistics show that such an
> individual is the most likely to molest a child - of any sex.
You have failed to provided the relevant peer reviewed statistics to make
your case. If you have these statistics, please fee free to post them.
By attempting to turn pedophilia into a "gay issue" you are ignoring and
excusing the very real damage done to children by pedophiles - how do you
live with yourself knowing this? How can you claim to be a "christian"
when you maliciously spread false wittiness about your gay neighbours?
Remember that lying [false witness] made it into the top 10 no-no list
while homosexuality is NOT mentioned.
Joe Steve Swick III
___Ward Quotes___
"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed
of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness; we
consider it to be a variation of the sexual function... Many highly
respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals,
several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da
Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a
crime -and a cruelty, too." --Sigmund Freud
I have addressed the distinction between "vice" and "crime" in my postings.
My point is that by NO stretch can homosexuality be considered a crime; if
it is contrary to one individual's morals and therefore a "vice," this does
not give individuals the right to enact "anti-gay" legislation. Even if we
assume that homosexual behavior is entirely a matter of choice (highly
unlikely), as a Mormon, Red has attended plenty of Sunday School lessons on
Free Agency. Mormons are taught that REAL FREE CHOICE is necessary for moral
development and the perfection of human character. Mormons agree with Alan
Burris that:
"Not only is liberty moral, but there can be no morality without liberty. If
one is not free to choose, one cannot be moral or immoral. Those who would
regulate the conduct of others by force to "improve their morals" are
self-defeating. Even if one concedes that there is such a thing as absolute
right and absolute wrong, laws should be framed not to coerce "right"
choice, but to ensure the fundamental freedom to choose.
I personally do not care about Red's view of homosexuality, but I fear what
he might advocate doing, based upon that view.
JSW
Bruce Garrett
RD> There are many reasons why the homosexual community wants to
RD> artificially lower the number of homosexual pedophiles:
It's pretty hard to kick innocent people in the face without
making yourself look like a vicious predator, isn't it Red? So you have to
justify your attacks on others, your blatant incitements of mob passions
and violence, by turning the innocent into scarecrows. You paint a picture
of Gay people as diseased sexual monsters, which you hope will make it
possible for you to victimize us, without being held accountable for it.
But in the process you find that ultimately it isn't Gay people who are
your biggest enemy, but all those things you claim for yourself, that you
have no right to speak of: Truth. Morality. Decency. You're not in
denial here Red, you're have a great big laugh at the expense of Truth, at
the expense of Morality, at the expense of Decency. The wolf in
sheep's clothing never lived, that had as good a time as you're having
now...
RD> Thus, they play word games refusing to acknowledge that when a man
RD> molests a boy, that such is a homosexual act being committed by a male
RD> behaving homosexually.
It's called dealing with something for what it is, as opposed to
pretending it's something that it's not. That's how science goes about
it's business Red, and it's the people doing this research, whose work you
are tactically distorting and misrepresenting, who are making this
distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia...not the world wide
militant homosexual conspiracy of your imagination. It's not the Gay
community that's saying that homosexuality and pedophilia are not in any
way related...it's the people who have actually studied pedophilia. As I
said, your ultimate enemy here isn't Gay people, but honest and decent
heterosexuals, who care deeply about putting a stop to child sexual abuse.
You masquerade as someone who gives a shit about that, but it's
transparently bogus. You couldn't care less about the victims of sexual
abuse, children or otherwise. They're merely tools by which you hope to
demonize Gay people. Your conscience is an open sewer Red, your sympathy
for the victims of sexual predators as thin as your scruples.
RD> I prefer to define sexuality in an *empirical way* - not a "meaningful
RD> way".
No. You don't. Empericisim is far removed from anything you're
capable of Red. You choose the meaning of words to suit your purpose of
the moment, not to illuminate but for their tactical value. A homosexual
is someone who has ever had homosexual sex when it suits you. A homosexual
is someone who seldom if ever has sex with the opposite sex when it suits
you. A homosexual isn't necessarily someone who has sex with a member of
the same sex when it suits you. It is the hidden meaning, more then the
observable fact, that defines homosexuality in your lexicon: A homosexual
is whatever a homosexual must be, to make homosexuality seem monstrous.
RD> If a male commits an act of arson - that male has just commited arson.
RD> When one behaves as an arsonist, one is an arson.
When one behaves as if they were right handed, they are right
handed. Even a drooling moron like you wouldn't actually believe that, and
without a doubt this isn't what you believe about homosexuality.
RD> Or, is this how low we must go to accept homosexuality? Where common
RD> sense and language have to be so perverted and twisted as to have no
RD> reasonable meaning?
Low? How low to you have to go to make what happened to Matthew
Shepard, Nicolas West, Billy Jack Gaither, will happen to others? How low
do you have to go to make sure that more Gay churches will go up in
flames? How low do you have to go to make sure teachers will turn their
backs when students beat the living hell out of their Gay peers? However
low it is Red, it's not nearly as low as you can go, is it?
RD> A male having sex with a male is a homosexual act. What part of common
RD> sense are you missing?
What part of it do you need people to let go of Red? The part that
tells them that they knew they desired men or women, and would continue to,
regardless of whether or not they ever actually had sex at all? Maybe when
your balls drop Red, you might understand how that works yourself.
RD> Psychologists have noted that where there is one abnormal condition,
RD> there almost always are one other abnormal condition, and such is how
RD> the verify their diagnosis that the first actually exists.
It's a bromide, but a true one nonetheless, that where there is one
hatred of a minority group, there are almost always others. I bet we
wouldn't have to dig too deeply into that open sewer you call a
consciousness, to find a host of prejudices, for all kinds of people, eh
Red? Hate comes easy with practice, doesn't it?
---
-Bruce Garrett \ http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
Cockeysville, MD. / \ Ex-BETAMAX Ministries: If Sony can change,
so can you
Bruce Garrett
>> All you have done, so far, is misrepresent and redefine terms presented
>> in numerous studies that other people have presented, like the well
>> documented Jenny study from Pediatrics July, 1994 that clearly
>> demonstrated your accusation is rubbish.
RD> Uh, Sherlock, in the Jenny study, how many males molested boys out of
RD> the cases studied? Why, you can't tell from the abstract because the
RD> abstract puposefully omitts the number of male perpetrators.
You're saying that the abstract says one thing, and the document
itself say another? And you know that for a fact I suppose, the same way
you know all your other facts about homosexuality...your jerking knee tells
you...
RD> Why do they omitt such? Because, if they included the sex of the
RD> perpetrator along with the sex of the victim - we could do a simple
RD> analysis...
This would be the same simple analysis you use to determine who is
a homosexual one way, when you're counting the pedophiles, and another way,
when you're counting them as a percentage of the population...?
RD> Any wager as to who funded and/or conducted the Jenny study? I bet the
RD> farm it was either funded by $3 bills, or conducted by homosexuals.
Perhaps it was funded by the international zionist consperacy...or
maybe the trilateral commission. Ever think of that?
RD> Also, I have a brother who is a doctor. He and his wife used to work
RD> at the Methodist Home in Waco, Texas. The Methodist Home is a home for
RD> abused children. He stated in unequivocal terms that almost all of
RD> those children were sexually abused, and that a significant number of
RD> the boys were molested by homosexuals.
How many of them were Gay kids abused by parents who beat the
living crap out of them because they were taught to hate them by sickos
like you Red? Or couldn't your brother have cared less about them? It
probably does run in the family after all...
---
-Bruce Garrett \ http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
Cockeysville, MD. / \ In spite of everything I still believe that
people are good at heart. - Anne Frank
smar...@my-dejanews.com
son_...@hotmail.com (SON O GOD) wrote:
> In article <7e83q8$qj1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, smar...@my-dejanews.com,
> smar...@my-dejanews.com, says...
>
> >in order to artificially reduce the number of homosexual pedophiles.
> >
> >There are many reasons why the homosexual community wants to artificially
> >lower the number of homosexual pedophiles:
> >
> >1) Acknowledgement that there are disproportionately more homosexual
> >pedophiles is a significant marker that homosexual behavior is abnormal by
> >such being a possible finding of a co-existing disorder.
>
>
> I have asked you repetedly to provide a credible, peer reviwed replicable
> studies to support your assertions that gay men are more likely to sexually
> abuse children than anyopne else. So far you haven't provided any evidence
> to support your accusations. You just keep repeating them.
And, I have said repeatedly that this thread discusses several peer reviewed
sources which show that the number of men who molest boys is between 9-15%,
and perhaps as high as 25% - just by doing simple interpolation of the data.
Get off your keyboard and search for them. Also, I just posted this snippet
based on even more studies from the NARTH site, which include a study
published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy:
"While no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, some studies indicate
that approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual (9). Further, since
homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual
pedophiles (10), it is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophilic victims
are boys who have been molested by adult males (11).
(8) Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and
Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory
Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.
(9) K. Freund et al., Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197.
(10) Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and
Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory
Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.
(11) Schmidt, Thomas (1995). Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in
the Homosexuality Debate. Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, p. 114.
Now, on top of what has been posted, what has been reposted, here is some new
material I am now posting showing that homosexuals are disproportionately
pedophiles, some from peer reviewed journals, others from experts in the
realm:
Finkelhor, D. (1994). The international epidemiology of child sexual abuse.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 18:5 409-417.
L. S. Doll et al., "Self-Reported Childhood and Adolescent Sexual Abuse Among
Adult Homosexual Bisexual Men," Child Abuse and Neglect 16, no. 6 (1992), pp.
855-64.
D. M. Greenberg, J. M. Bradford, and S. Curry, "A Comparison of Sexual
Victimization in the Childhoods of Pedophiles and Hebephiles," Journal of
Forensic Science (United States) 38, no. 2 (March 1993), pp. 432-36.
Freund, K., & Blanchard, R. (1983). Is The Distant Relationships of Fathers
and Homosexual Sons Related To the Sons' Erotic Preference for Male
Partners, Or To The Sons' Atypical
Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., Lewis. I., & Smith, C. (1990). Sexual Abuse In A
National Survey of Adult Men and Women: Prevalence, Characteristics, and
Risk Factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, pp. 19-28.
> >2) Acknowledgement that there are a significant number of homosexual
> >pedophiles would damn their continued insertion of homosexual related
> >curriculum into public elementary, middle, and high schools. For, one
> could
> >reasonably say that homosexual materials are a means for pedophiles to
> >prepare children for their solicitation. Indeed, homosexual magazines
> >themselves have spoke of how important to the homosexual community it is
> for
> >adults to have sex with children.
>
> Source please, Red!
>
> I have asked you repetedly to provide a credible, peer reviwed replicable
> studies to support your assertions that gay men are more likely to sexually
> abuse children than anyone else. So far you haven't provided any evidence
> to support your accusations. You just keep repeating them.
Again, the sources have already been posted. In fact, they were the major
discussion of this thread. Again, get off your lazy keyboard and search
for them. It is rude to jump into the middle of a conversation and say, "I
am too lazy to catch up where you are, say everything again." I reposted
the sources from the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy for the THIRD time in
less than one day just for you. Now, if you want to know what has been said
the past week - go search.
Now, I challenge you to provide a "credible, peer reivewed replicable study"
that has found that the number of men who molest boys is equal to or less
than 2.3% - the incidence of homosexuality in society.
In the mean time, here are some more showing the link between homosexuality
and pedophilia:
DeCecco is Editor of Gay Relationships: NYC; Harrington Park Press (1988),
Editor of the Journal of Homosexuality, and Editor of Paidika, Journal of
Paedophilia, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. He self identifies as a pedophile in
the first edition of the pederast/pedophile journal; "The ground on which we
stand is the emergence and evolution of paedophile consciousness and identity
in history . . . we intend to demonstrate that paedophilia has been, and
remains, a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human
experience. The Editors." (Summer 1987) pp. 2-3.
Ibid. See DeCecco, Gay Relationships, for reports by these researchers in
their The Advocate Classifieds studies, largely confirming the data found in
the Reisman and Johnson research. See especially John Alan Lee and Malcom
Lumby analyses and findings. Also, see Herdt in Gay and Lesbian Youth, NYC:
Harrington Park Press: (1989) who warns young boys "now shun older gays as
role models or even friends. . . .fear of AIDS contact has seemingly
alienated teenagers from younger and middle aged adults." Herdt notes that
"one in four" teenagers will die of AIDS for "Teenagers tend to be very
susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases." Knowing this, Herdt notes,
"gay culture began to institutionalize ‘socialization techniques for the
transmission of its cultural knowledge to a younger generation." Gays, he
says "are focusing upon gay youth. . . . and the coming out process in
teens."
-red davis
smar...@my-dejanews.com
> >Uh, Sherlock, in the Jenny study, how many males molested boys out of the
> >cases studied? Why, you can't tell from the abstract because the abstract
> >puposefully omitts the number of male perpetrators.
>
> Maybe you should go to the libray and read the study, instead of just the
> abstract.
Again - where is the number of men who molested boys? That is the true
count of how many homosexuals in the study were pedophiles.
>
> An abstract is a only summery in an index that describes a study in its most
> basic detail. The abstract of the Jenny Study clearly says the study
> clearly identified the sexual orienation of the perpetators:
I understand fully what an abstract is. An abstract should contain the
main pertinent data. In this case, it only contained the sex of the children.
It omitted the sex of the offenders. Why?
>
> "DATA COLLECTED. Charts were reviewed to
> determine the relationships of the children to the alleged
> offender, the sex of the offender, and whether or not the
> alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian, or
> bisexual."
>
> The study specifically took into consider the sexual orientation of the
> purpetrors; gay men and women were less than 1% of that group.
How did they determine the so-called "sexual orientation of the
purpetrors[sic]"?
If a male chooses to have sex with another male - is not the very action
of doing so demonstrating that such a person is attracted to the same sex,
and thus is engaging in homosexual behavior? Are not those who engage
in homosexual behavior homosexuals?
We already went through the Jenny numbers and found that as many as 25% of
the perpetrators could have been men molesting boys - thus were homosexuals.
>
> Just because you want to redifine all males who molested a boy as homosexual
> doesn't make it so. The sexual abuse of children is not about sexual
> attraction, it's an act of violence, a crimianl assault.
I say its about both: sexual attraction and the power of the abusive act.
It is well noted that pedophiles will molest either all boys, all girls,
and some will molest both. Sounds to any reasonable person like the sex
of the victim is important to pedophiles.
>
> According to the Jenny study, less than 1 % of the identified men who
> abused boys were involved in hemosexual realtionships. Here is a patial
> breakdown of relationships to the victims extracted from a chart published
> in the Jenny study:
How do they know that? They asked the perpetrator and received an honest
answer? Oh, please. How many of the pedophiles were in their teens and
early twenties - thus all of their sexual contact may well have been with
young boys due to their ages? No answer from the study.
As we sort through the data, it sound like the Jenny study is more and more
biased in selectively weeding out as many homosexuals as possible by
redifining our language and shifting responsibility of defining behavior
the the patient instead of the researcher.
>
> Overwhelmingly, most victims of child sexual abuse were girls,
> 40.2 % of the 206 girl victims in the study were abused by their fathers.
> 11.9% by mother's boyfriends, 6.4% by stepfathers, 5.9% by grandfathers,
> only 4.1% by friends of the family, 3.2 % by uncles, 2.7% by a baby
> sitter, 1.4% by strangers, 5 or 2.3 % were abused by male and female
> couples, a mother and a father 1.4%, step mother step father 0.5% or
> baby sistters 0.5%. Only 8 or 3.7 % were abused by women.
>
> Of the male offenders who abused the 42 male victims, 36 % or 18 were
> fathers, 16% or 8 were boyfriends of the mothers. A mother and father
> together abused 10% or 5 of those male victims. The rest were abused by an
> aunt's boyfriend 1, foster father 1, and a grandmother's boyfriend 1 .
> None were unknown.
>
> 6% or 3 of the male victims were abused by women, 2 by a mother and 1 by a
> grandmother.
Again - where is the total number of male who abused boys? From the data
we find that 36 of the predators were male who abused boys.
Given that there were about 200 girls in the study, and girls are more
likely to be reported victims then boys, the number of boys would be about
150 max. Thus, at least 24% of the pedophiles were male homosexuals.
We can't know exactly, because again - the number of males molesting boys
is not stated as raw data.
>
> >Why do they omitt such? Because, if they included the sex of the
> perpetrator
> >along with the sex of the victim - we could do a simple analysis to
> determine
> >the number of times a male adult molested a male child, and thus determine
> >how many pedophiles committed homosexual acts against children.
>
> They omit so much because it's only an abstract of the study, not the study
> itself.
The omitt such because it overturns their silly word game.
>
> >Men who
> >commit homosexual acts are behaving homosexually. Thus, they are
> >homosexuals.
>
> There you go again, redefining the terms of the study to make it say what
> ever you want it to say.
>
> No, Red, the perpetrators are not homosexuals because they abuse male
> childen. Your saying it simply does not make it so.
No. Reason, common sense, empiricism state it so. A male who commits
a sexual act on another male is a homosexual. Plain and simple.
But I keep forgetting, you are one of those people that doesn't know
that the meaning of the word "is" is.
>
> >In the study posted here, we found that instead of "0-3%" of the cases
> being
> >those of a male molesting a boy, the figure could have easily been at
> "25%".
>
> Once again you are redefining terms of the Jenny study to fit your
> preconceptions. The abstract of Jenny study identified the sexual
> orienation of the purpetrators as homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. It
> concluded....
How could it make such a distinction when such a distinction is completely
contrary to the facts at hand?
Are you really trying to assert that there they have a male who engages in
sex with another male - and that that male is *not* homosexual because
he doesn't state that he is homosexual? That is completely stupid.
Since when did psychologists turn over the responsibility for diagnosing
conditions to the whimsical statements of patients? Oh, I forget, 1973
is the year.
[nip]
> In any case, the sexual abuse of a child is a criminal assault that has
> nothing in common with a sexual realtionship between consenting adults
> hetrosexual or homosexual.
Sure it does, I have posted some 13 sources demonstrating that it does.
The "Jenny" study posted here is problematic in all respects as I have
pointed out. Not only that, but we have the official relationships between
homosexual right's groups (like ILGA and GLAAD) and pedophile right's groups
(like NAMBLA) and a number of leading homosexual advocates all fighting for
the normalization of pedophilia.
Case in point is this study as reported in the Journal of Homosexuality.
Did you know that they joined up with pedophile groups to make the study?
Here, just more evidence that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked:
Letter by David A Mrazek, MD in response to Bauserman concerning
the Sandfort/Netherland study.
"Bauserman has reviewed my critique of the work of Theo Sandfort as well as a
critique by Finkelhor and one by Masters and Johnson.
Unfortunately, his review is based more on emotion than reason. Sandfort's
study is methodologically weak based on inherent sample bias, demand
characteristics of the questions, and unchecked bias of the interviewers.
While generalizability of these results is acknowledged to be completely
unwarranted, such generalizations are made despite the author's stated
disclaimer. Sandfort reported that selected young boys did describe enjoying
sex with adult men, but such an assertion could have been made based on a
series of self reports. In some ways, this is a good way to describe this
'study' which is the compilation of solicited testimonials. These points
were all made succinctly in my original one page review of Sandfort's book
and remain valid criticisms.
The ethical problems of this study are particularly disturbing.
The basic question is whether appropriate human subject safeguards were a part
of this research. This question must be addressed concretely in proposing any
research in the U.S. Research involving children requires particularly
scrupulous attention to human subject concerns.
In this study, the researchers joined with the members of the National
Pedophile Workshops to 'study' the boys who were the sexual 'partners' of its
members. Both this study and the National Pedophile Workshops were
financially supported by the Netherlands Association for Sexual Reform. There
is no evidence that human subject safeguards were a paramount concern.
However, there is ample evidence that the study was politically motivated to
'reform' legislation. Specific risks that are not even acknowledged in the
book include contracting sexually transmitted diseases, legal prosecution,
and breached confidentiality leading to peer discrimination and family
disruptions. These researchers knowingly colluded with the perpetuation of
secret illegal activity. External review of their activities was minimal.
Possible negative consequences of their course of action were minimized
despite the reality that some of these boys were as young as eleven years of
age. In this majority of cases, these boys' parents were unaware of these
sexual activities with adult men, and the researchers contributed to this
deception by their actions. These ethical concerns lead to the crux of the
matter. Even if this study was methodologically sound, which it certainly is
not, on moral grounds alone such 'research' cannot be sanctioned.
Children are not developmentally prepared to enter into sexual relationshpis
on an informed and equal basis with adults. It is a basic responsibility of
society to protect children and foster their development. These children were
not adequately protected."
-red davis
>
>
-Red Davis
SON O GOD
smar...@my-dejanews.com, says...
>And, I have said repeatedly that this thread discusses several peer
> reviewed sources which show that the number of men who molest boys
>is between 9-15%, and perhaps as high as 25% - just by doing simple
>interpolation of the data.
There-in lies the problem.
What you call "interpolating the data" from the Jenny / Pediatrics study ,
actually involves your redefining the very premise of the study, the actual
data collected about the sexual orienation of the abusers. This is no mere
interpolation. This is a gross misrepresntions of the study with conclusions
exactly the opposite to what the research actually concludes.
>Get off your keyboard and search for them. Also, I just posted this
snippet
>based on even more studies from the NARTH site, which include a study
>published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy:
Nothing you presented, especially the arcticle from NARTH, has been peer
reviewed. The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy is not a peer reviewed
journal. Quoting summaries of questioable studies as relayed through
fotnotes in an essay published by NARTH is not presenting a peer reviewed
study.
We're still waiting for you to produce a peer reviewed study.
>"While no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, some studies indicate
>that approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual (9). Further, since
>homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual
>pedophiles (10), it is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophilic
victims
>are boys who have been molested by adult males (11).
>
>(8) Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and
>Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory
>Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.
>
>(9) K. Freund et al., Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,
>Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197.
>
>(10) Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and
>Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory
>Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.
>
>(11) Schmidt, Thomas (1995). Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in
>the Homosexuality Debate. Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, p. 114.
Sorry, Red, you've been told cutting and pasting footnotes from NARTH
isn't presenting a peer reviewed study!
>Now, on top of what has been posted, what has been reposted, here is some
new
>material I am now posting showing that homosexuals are disproportionately
>pedophiles, some from peer reviewed journals, others from experts in the
>realm:
>
>Finkelhor, D. (1994). The international epidemiology of child sexual abuse.
>Child Abuse & Neglect, 18:5 409-417.
>
>L. S. Doll et al., "Self-Reported Childhood and Adolescent Sexual Abuse
Among
>Adult Homosexual Bisexual Men," Child Abuse and Neglect 16, no. 6 (1992),
pp.
>855-64.
>
>D. M. Greenberg, J. M. Bradford, and S. Curry, "A Comparison of Sexual
>Victimization in the Childhoods of Pedophiles and Hebephiles," Journal of
>Forensic Science (United States) 38, no. 2 (March 1993), pp. 432-36.
>
>Freund, K., & Blanchard, R. (1983). Is The Distant Relationships of Fathers
>and Homosexual Sons Related To the Sons' Erotic Preference for Male
>Partners, Or To The Sons' Atypical
>
>Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., Lewis. I., & Smith, C. (1990). Sexual Abuse In
A
>National Survey of Adult Men and Women: Prevalence, Characteristics, and
>Risk Factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, pp. 19-28.
This isn't peer a reviewed study either. These are just more footnotes from
NARTH.
>> I have asked you repetedly to provide a credible, peer reviwed replicable
>> studies to support your assertions that gay men are more likely to
sexually
>> abuse children than anyone else. So far you haven't provided any
evidence
>> to support your accusations. You just keep repeating them.
>
>Again, the sources have already been posted. In fact, they were the major
>discussion of this thread.
That discussion has amounted to everyone asking you, repeatedly, to
produce peer reviwed studies.
All you have provided are long cuttings from NARTH's webpage. NARTH's
interest is ideological, religious and political. It has not, to date,
published a single peer reviewed article in support of its many overtly
hostile claims about gay men.
>Again, get off your lazy keyboard and search
>for them. It is rude to jump into the middle of a conversation and say, "I
>am too lazy to catch up where you are, say everything again." I reposted
>the sources from the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy for the THIRD time
in
>less than one day just for you. Now, if you want to know what has been
said
>the past week - go search.
You made the appearantly insupportable claim that gay men were more likely
to molest childen. You are the one who is ogligated to substantiate your
accusations. None of the sources you have posted over the past week have
been peer reviewed, certainly not anything you brought from NARTH.
--It kind of makes me wonder, do you even know what independent peer review
is?
Your so called interpolation of the Jenny study completely ignores the
data the Jenny study collected on the sexual orienation of abusers.
You have grosly misreperatated that study by redefining the data then
pretending the study actually supports your accusations. The fact is the
Jenny study strongly refutes your accusation.
>Now, I challenge you to provide a "credible, peer reivewed replicable
study"
>that has found that the number of men who molest boys is equal to or less
>than 2.3% - the incidence of homosexuality in society.
The Jenny Study from Pediatrics July 1994 refutes your claim:
DATABASE: Medline
smar...@my-dejanews.com
> smar...@my-dejanews.com, says...
>
> >And, I have said repeatedly that this thread discusses several peer
> > reviewed sources which show that the number of men who molest boys
> >is between 9-15%, and perhaps as high as 25% - just by doing simple
> >interpolation of the data.
>
> There-in lies the problem.
Nope. Your refusal to examine the evidence and use common sense is the
problem.
You just finished pounding the table for sources (even though I had
posted a number of sources to support my position). I post *ten* new
sources, including those from peer reviewed journals - and all you
do is ignore them. Ignoring fact is the root of ignorance.
>
> What you call "interpolating the data" from the Jenny / Pediatrics study ,
> actually involves your redefining the very premise of the study, the actual
They had a faulty premise. Wouldn't you say a premise that redefined
sexual behavior between a man and a boy as "heterosexual" is faulty?
Is sexual act committed by one male upon another really heterosexual behavior?
Wake up, McFly!
> data collected about the sexual orienation of the abusers. This is no mere
> interpolation. This is a gross misrepresntions of the study with conclusions
> exactly the opposite to what the research actually concludes.
The abusers demonstrated their sexual orientation when they chose the sex
of the person they abused. Duh.
No matter how desparately the biased pro-homosexual researcher wanted to
redefine away the number of homosexuals acts involved in the child
molestations - we found the truth when we compared the sex of the perpetrator
with the sex of the victim.
>
> >Get off your keyboard and search for them. Also, I just posted this
> snippet
> >based on even more studies from the NARTH site, which include a study
> >published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy:
>
> Nothing you presented, especially the arcticle from NARTH, has been peer
> reviewed. The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy is not a peer reviewed
Wake up, McFly! The article from NARTH contained peer reviewed sources.
Duh! Did you forget your brain again? I also posted other peer reviewed
sources besides that. Duh, again.
> journal. Quoting summaries of questioable studies as relayed through
> fotnotes in an essay published by NARTH is not presenting a peer reviewed
> study.
"Questionable studies". Why don't you get off your keyboard and use
your brain. "Questionable" because I posted a huge list of studies showing
where homosexuals are disproportionately pedophiles?
You pounded the table for sources. I delievered more than you could ever
read. And all you do is sit there and dismiss them out of hand. What
an ignorant, intolerant, misquided person.
>
> We're still waiting for you to produce a peer reviewed study.
Uh, I just posted such. How many times are those who support the
homosexual position going to play this game of being blind to source posting?
>
> >"While no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, some studies indicate
> >that approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual (9). Further, since
> >homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual
> >pedophiles (10), it is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophilic
> victims
> >are boys who have been molested by adult males (11).
> >
> >(8) Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and
> >Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory
> >Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.
> >
> >(9) K. Freund et al., Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,
> >Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197.
> >
> >(10) Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and
> >Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory
> >Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.
> >
> >(11) Schmidt, Thomas (1995). Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in
> >the Homosexuality Debate. Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, p. 114.
>
> Sorry, Red, you've been told cutting and pasting footnotes from NARTH
> isn't presenting a peer reviewed study!
Uh, Sherlock - please note the sources from "Journal of Sex and Marital
Therapy". That is a peer reviewed journal. Go read.
>
> >Now, on top of what has been posted, what has been reposted, here is some
> new
> >material I am now posting showing that homosexuals are disproportionately
> >pedophiles, some from peer reviewed journals, others from experts in the
> >realm:
> >
> >Finkelhor, D. (1994). The international epidemiology of child sexual abuse.
> >Child Abuse & Neglect, 18:5 409-417.
> >
> >L. S. Doll et al., "Self-Reported Childhood and Adolescent Sexual Abuse
> Among
> >Adult Homosexual Bisexual Men," Child Abuse and Neglect 16, no. 6 (1992),
> pp.
> >855-64.
> >
> >D. M. Greenberg, J. M. Bradford, and S. Curry, "A Comparison of Sexual
> >Victimization in the Childhoods of Pedophiles and Hebephiles," Journal of
> >Forensic Science (United States) 38, no. 2 (March 1993), pp. 432-36.
> >
> >Freund, K., & Blanchard, R. (1983). Is The Distant Relationships of Fathers
> >and Homosexual Sons Related To the Sons' Erotic Preference for Male
> >Partners, Or To The Sons' Atypical
> >
> >Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., Lewis. I., & Smith, C. (1990). Sexual Abuse In
> A
> >National Survey of Adult Men and Women: Prevalence, Characteristics, and
> >Risk Factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, pp. 19-28.
>
> This isn't peer a reviewed study either. These are just more footnotes from
> NARTH.
Uh, I noticed you didn't comment on the study from the Journal of Forensic
Science - a peer reviewed journal. And such are not simply "footnotes" -
they are sources citing studies that found that pedophilia is disproporionate
among homosexuals.
>
> >> I have asked you repetedly to provide a credible, peer reviwed replicable
> >> studies to support your assertions that gay men are more likely to
> sexually
> >> abuse children than anyone else. So far you haven't provided any
> evidence
> >> to support your accusations. You just keep repeating them.
> >
> >Again, the sources have already been posted. In fact, they were the major
> >discussion of this thread.
>
> That discussion has amounted to everyone asking you, repeatedly, to
> produce peer reviwed studies.
Nope - just you. You aren't "everyone"
Still waiting for you to post a peer reviewed source.
>
> All you have provided are long cuttings from NARTH's webpage. NARTH's
> interest is ideological, religious and political. It has not, to date,
> published a single peer reviewed article in support of its many overtly
> hostile claims about gay men.
What subjectivity without any basis of fact in a single paragraph. But,
such is much of what you write.
Please post a source showing that NARTH member has enver published in a peer
reviewed journal, that their interest is skewed by "ideaological, religous
and political" agendas (while, of course, yours is not), and that NARTH is
"overtly hostile" in its "claims about gay men".
That's just your opinion. The opinion of a person that defines a sexual
act commited by a male on another male as "heterosexual".
>
> >Again, get off your lazy keyboard and search
> >for them. It is rude to jump into the middle of a conversation and say, "I
> >am too lazy to catch up where you are, say everything again." I reposted
> >the sources from the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy for the THIRD time
> in
> >less than one day just for you. Now, if you want to know what has been
> said
> >the past week - go search.
>
> You made the appearantly insupportable claim that gay men were more likely
> to molest childen. You are the one who is ogligated to substantiate your
Uh, Sherlock. You can keep saying it all you want. I just posted over
10 sources (and over 5 peer reviewed sources have been posted since this
thread started) that support the claim that gay men are more likely to
molest children.
The fact that you simply want to ignore over *ten* sources just shows how
you allow your own personal subjectivity to rule out any study of fact.
> accusations. None of the sources you have posted over the past week have
> been peer reviewed, certainly not anything you brought from NARTH.
Uh, what part of "peer review" don't you understand? The NARTH quotations
referenced several peer reviewed studies. I also posted others. Now, go
read. You might learn something. But I doubt it. You have convinced
yourself otherwise and don't want to learn the truth.
> --It kind of makes me wonder, do you even know what independent peer review
> is?
I knew your mind wandered. ;^)
>
> Your so called interpolation of the Jenny study completely ignores the
> data the Jenny study collected on the sexual orienation of abusers.
The fact that a male molested a male tells us about their sexual orientation
more than any thing the pedophile can say.
> You have grosly misreperatated that study by redefining the data then
> pretending the study actually supports your accusations. The fact is the
> Jenny study strongly refutes your accusation.
The Jenny study (I bet the farm the investigators were mainly homosexual)
practically redefined the English language in order to minmize the number
of homosexual pedophiles. Aren't you the one claiming that the study
defines the instance where a male commits a sexual act with another male
as "heterosexual"? Yep. And you are right. The study can't be believed
in its synthesis of the data due that outrage. Thus, we must take the raw
data and complete an accurate synthesis - which we determined that over 25%
of the pedophiles committed homosexual acts on children, and thus engaged
in homosexual behavior. People who engage in homosexual behavior are
homosexuals.
>
> >Now, I challenge you to provide a "credible, peer reivewed replicable
> study"
> >that has found that the number of men who molest boys is equal to or less
> >than 2.3% - the incidence of homosexuality in society.
>
> The Jenny Study from Pediatrics July 1994 refutes your claim:
Oh, you mean the study that defined a sexual act committed by one male
on another male as "heterosexual" and which could not determine whether
"29%" of their pedophiles were either homosexual or heterosexual? The same
study we have demonstrated to show at least 25% of the pedophiles were gay?
The same study that is the *only* study ever quoted by homosexualists in
a vain attempt to minimize the number of homosexual pedophiles? (and yes,
I did a thorough search, and the study done by Dr. Carole Jenny is the only
one homosexuals quote. Hmmm. The Jenny study is all along among all the
studies, it uses word games to misconstrue the data, and that's the one
homosexuals use. Now, I bet my farm and my neighbors that the researchers
were mostly homosexual.
Oh, good job. You're a smart one.
-Red Davis
L. Michael Roberts
<snip>
> And, I have said repeatedly that this thread discusses several peer reviewed
> sources which show that the number of men who molest boys is between 9-15%,
> and perhaps as high as 25% - just by doing simple interpolation of the data.
Herein lies the problem. Your "simple interpolation of the data" is
actually a redefinition of the data to suit your agenda of demonizing
gays. How is it that you, who claim to be an engineer, have expertise in
the field of medical and psychological data acquisition and
interpretation? How can you claim to find the opposite conclusion to the
researchers in data from a peer reviewed study? Have you submitted your
"simple interpolation of the data" for peer review? If you can find these
researchers wrong using the methodology of science, I am sure we would all
be interested in reading your analysis. When will you peer reviewed
analysis be published and in which journal?
> Get off your keyboard and search for them. Also, I just posted this snippet
> based on even more studies from the NARTH site,
You have been told repeatedly that NARTH is not a credible source due to
the lack of peer reviewed studies. If you have a peer reviewed study
published by NARTH, by all means cite it.
<snip cites of non peer reviewed studies>
smar...@my-dejanews.com
> smar...@my-dejanews.com, says...
> The Jenny Study from Pediatrics July 1994 refutes your claim:
>
Uh, did you know that Carole Jenny is actively involved in the fight
for gay rights? Not only is she a noted militant activist, but she
actually testified in court against Colorado's Ammendment 2 which outlawed
special rights for homosexuals:
From the court we read:
"If the compelling interest relates to protecting children physically from
pedophiles, the testimony of plaintiffs' witness Dr. Carole Jenny is more
persuasive than anything presented by defendants. Dr. Jenny practices at
Denver's Children's Hospital and made a study of persons who sexually abused
children who were brought to that hospital. She indicated that pedophiles are
predominately heterosexuals not homosexuals. If the compelling interest is in
protecting the psychological well being of homosexual youth, the Court is
unable to discern how allowing discrimination against them by virtue of the
Colorado Constitution promotes their welfare. Defendants have failed to
present sufficient evidence to support this claimed compelling interest."
Please note that in her court testimony she testified that "pedophiles are
predominately heterosexuals". That is a change from her study you quote
here where supposedly she found that there were almost *no* homosexual
pedophiles. Should we wonder why she did not stand behind her study in
court where she is subject to perjury?
We know that pedophiles are predominately heterosexual - heterosexuals
are 97.7% of the population, homosexuals are only 2.3%. Yet, she
testified that pedophiles were only "predominately heterosexual".
Given that her raw data shows that at least 24% of the pedophiles
are homosexual - it seems that she changed her militant study findings
in open court - less her objectivity be challenged.
My, how the plot thickens. We again find a study way out in left field
that supports the homosexual agenda, and we again find the author is
a militant activists crusading for homosexual rights. Question: is Carole
Jenny herself lesbian? Anyone know? Its a fair question considering the
two main studies of the past: Dean Hamer and Simon LeVay. It turned out
that they were not only militant homosexual activists, but that they
themselves were homosexual, and thus had a deep personal bias in the
outcome of the study.
RavensHeart
<mercy snip>
Cutting and pasting footnotes from NARTH
isn't presenting a peer reviewed study!
Steven
RavensHeart
RavensHeart
You'll have to excuse red. During the last round of dunking he
engaged in to save all his dead relatives, they kept him under a bit
too long.
Then, too, the decided to attached live wires to the electric bolts on
his jesus-jammies. That didn't help either.
Red, your passion is suspect.
Steven
RavensHeart
lpau...@my-dejanews.com
Daniel Vieira <dvi...@primenet.com> wrote:
> SON O GOD <son_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Thanks for Medline's abstract of the Jenny/ Pediatrics Study of the victims
> : of CAS in Denver. Is Medline's search engine available to the public?
>
> Yes and no. I am a grad student at Cal State Univeristy Northridge here
> in the San Fernando Valley, so I have full access to all search engines at
> the college. However, anyone can walk into the libary and use the
> computers there to access information (although, techincally, only CSUN
> students are supposed to be using the computers.)
You got the Internet, you got Medline. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/
Use the GratefulMed search engine--it's very good. You can also search
Toxline, AIDSLINE, etc.
One of the most useful government sites ever.
Regards,
Lee Paulson
**Orohippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Protohippus, Pliohippus, Equus.
Evolution is just a theory. So is gravity.**
Rasmus Neikes
Haole
wrote:
(snip)
Ahhhh.
Finally.
And I thought I would NEVER see the day!
Someone responds to a 'call for references' in an appropriate way.
Okay, now it is Red's turn.....
> DATABASE: Medline
> RECORD NO.: 94277737
> LANGUAGE: English
> COUNTRY PUB.: UNITED STATES
> ANNOUNCEMENT: 9409
> PUB. TYPE: JOURNAL ARTICLE
> STANDARD NO.: 0031-4005
> DATES: Entered 940719
-Haole,
--
It's something to see videos connect white kids in Utah to black kids in South Chicago to Croats and Brazilians.
-Chuck D.
Fenris
> If a male chooses to have sex with another male - is not the very action
> of doing so demonstrating that such a person is attracted to the same sex,
> and thus is engaging in homosexual behavior? Are not those who engage
> in homosexual behavior homosexuals?
They may well not be. Aside from cultures which prescribe the behavior or
regard it as a normal variation in which anyone might engage, you might
want to be aware of the behavior of those deprived of the company of their
own genders, as in prisons and ships at sea.
> We already went through the Jenny numbers and found that as many as 25% of
> the perpetrators could have been men molesting boys - thus were homosexuals.
The conclusion does not follow. Molestation, like rape, is about power, not sex.
And I speak from personal experience, having been molested twice in early
childhood, both times by very heterosexual men, who would never have
engaged in homosexual relations with peers.
> > No, Red, the perpetrators are not homosexuals because they abuse male
> > childen. Your saying it simply does not make it so.
>
> No. Reason, common sense, empiricism state it so. A male who commits
> a sexual act on another male is a homosexual. Plain and simple.
Utter nonsense. Many children experiment with their own genders; that does
not make them homosexual. There are cultures which have insitutionalized
homosexuality in rites of passage and which have made universal
prescriptions of same-sex marriage for a particular period in life, or
which permit the inclusion of third-gender spouses in polygamous
marriages, and that tells us absolutely nothing about the sexual
orientations of those people. Sexual orientation is not a universal
cultural concept.
Do get an education.
--
To e-mail me replace "spamsucks" with "azstarnet.com"
Juan Liberale
I think Red is just trying to find his way out of the
closet. His posting here is just his first attempt at
an interaction with other gay men. Help him discover
his true sexuality!
--
In the early days, when most of the human race still lived
in caves, there were two tribes. When a family in the first
tribe lost the breadwinner, the rest of the tribe pitched in
and shared their meager resources with the less fortunate
members of the society. This tribe evolved into the liberals
of today.
The second tribe was different. When one of their own lost the
food gatherer, the remainder of the family was cast into the
elements to perish. This tribe evolved not at all, and became
the conservatives of today.
L. Michael Roberts
>
> On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 09:20:46 GMT, "L. Michael Roberts"
> <News...@laserfx.SpanSux.com> -- wrote:
>
> >You have been told repeatedly that NARTH is not a credible source due to
> >the lack of peer reviewed studies. If you have a peer reviewed study
> >published by NARTH, by all means cite it.
>
> that homosexuals so often quote (and it is your "ONLY" basis for the
> claim that homosexuality is not a mental disorder), is not a credible
> source
Hello? Not a credible source? The world's largest professional
association of mental health professionals not a credible source? What
have you been smoking? Please post proof of this assertion.
> because of the lack of peer review studies.
The "jenny" study in question WAS peer reviewed. AFAIK ALL of the
official association journals ARE peer reviewed. Please provide a list of
association journals that are NOT peer reviewed.
> It appears that you
> find it very convenient "not" to point out that the "Association" has
> no recognition in the field of psychology, what so ever.
No recognition? Do enlighten us then as to who the world's foremost
recognized authority in the field might be.
>
> What is that old saying: "It depends on whose ox..."?
>
> ><snip cites of non peer reviewed studies>
>
> Yeah!
vody...@yahoo.com
> The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy is not a peer reviewed
> journal.
I would be interested in knowing what you base this on. You told me that you
were unable to find a copy of the journal, so it would seem reasonable that
you have no idea what their policies are in regards to publishing articles.
Geoff Matthews
vody...@yahoo.com
son_...@hotmail.com (SON O GOD) wrote:
> The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy is not a peer reviewed
> journal.
Went and checked the journal of sex and marital therapy out, and apparently
it IS a peer reviewed journal. Not only that, but it is now (since '95?) the
offical journal for American Sexoligists. So, here we have a agrajag claiming
something that is false, which he initially claimed he was unable to get
access to. Is this a lie?
Geoff Matthews, unamused.
Moira de Swardt
>RD> Also, I have a brother who is a doctor. He and his wife used to work
>RD> at the Methodist Home in Waco, Texas. The Methodist Home is a home for
>RD> abused children. He stated in unequivocal terms that almost all of
>RD> those children were sexually abused, and that a significant number of
>RD> the boys were molested by homosexuals.
I have extensive 'knowledge' gleaned from colleagues who have been the
Principals or Matrons or House Parents at Children's Homes. What Red says
is true. Where children are sufficiently physically abused for it to come
to the attention of teachers, neighbours and social workers and these
children are removed by the courts from there primary care givers (usually
their parents or one parent and that parent's new spouse or lover) the abuse
usually (but not always) includes sexual abuse by the parent or the parent's
spouse or lover (heterosexual male). There is a significant percentage of
boys who were molested by homosexuals and have been placed in Children's
Homes - this significant percentage is less than 1% of boys, who make up
less than 40% of abused children in Children's Homes. Thus girls are far
more likely to be abused than boys. Where abuse does take place it tends to
be sexual for girls and non-sexual for boys. Where sexual abuse of boys
takes place is is still usually the heterosexual father or father substitute
who abuses the boy. While sexual abuse of boys by homosexuals does take
place the percentages are significantly low.
Children's Homes are usually run by caring Christians (often the
fundamentalist Christians), who, with the best intentions in the world, do
not wish these 'significant percentages' to be revealed - they would rather
have people believe (and believe themselves) that father figures and
families are not that bad and that gays are actually responsible for the
tragic cases in the homes. Therefore no studies on this subject are
encouraged.
I would love to see some studies conducted along these lines.
Moira de Swardt
Captain
The Salvation Army
SON O GOD
vody...@yahoo.com, says...
>
>In article <7e9n6b$3qm$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,><snip>
>
>> The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy is not a peer reviewed
>> journal.
>
you
>were unable to find a copy of the journal, so it would seem reasonable that
>you have no idea what their policies are in regards to publishing articles.
It isn't necesary to see a copy to know that a journal is or isn't peer
reviewed. Although I did finally locate a copy at a large university health
sciences library, I haven't yet had a chance to review the article in
question or compare it to NARTH's Red's or your representation of it. I
did notice that its editorial board listed Ph.Ds and MD.s, as editors, but
the magazine made no mention any peer review prior to publication.
I also found and visited the publishers' website:
http://38.231.202.2/JNLS/smt.htm. It said....
Now in its 22nd year, the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
remains one of the top independent journals in the field. JSMT
keeps breaking new ground with innovative research and clinical
writing. "The editors are committed to showcasing the most
far-reaching traditional and contemporary thinking from all sources."
Notice that the journal has no affiliation with any professional
organizations. Next, notice use of the words ALL sources. They seem to be
publishing anything, no matter how controversial or unsubstaciated. There is
nothing about peer review there.
I also noticed the conspicuous absence of any requirement for scientific
peer review of studies before publication under "Instructions for Authors":
http://38.231.202.2/AUTHORS/SMTinstrc.htm
To erase all doubt, I called the publisher/editors to ask if The Journal
required scientific peer review for the articles it published. The answer
was no. Its publishers neither required, nor even provided that service.
They were intertested in "showcasing all kinds of thinking on the subject."
SON O GOD
vody...@yahoo.com, says...
>
>In article <7e9n6b$3qm$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
>> journal.
>
>it IS a peer reviewed journal. Not only that, but it is now (since '95?)
the
>offical journal for American Sexoligists. So, here we have a agrajag
claiming
>something that is false, which he initially claimed he was unable to get
>access to. Is this a lie?
>
>Geoff Matthews, unamused.
>
Oh and what makes you believe it's peer reviewed?
Although I did finally locate a copy at a large university health
sciences library, I haven't yet had a chance to review the article in
question or compare it to NARTH's Red's or your representation of it. I
did notice that its editorial board listed Ph.Ds and MD.s, as editors, but
the magazine made no mention any peer review prior to publication.
I also found and visited the publishers' website:
http://38.231.202.2/JNLS/smt.htm. It said....
"Now in its 22nd year, the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
remains one of the top independent journals in the field. JSMT
keeps breaking new ground with innovative research and clinical
writing. "The editors are committed to showcasing the most
far-reaching traditional and contemporary thinking from all sources."
Notice that the journal lists no affiliation with any recognized
professional organizations. --Note that sexology is not a licensed
profession nor do any universtities have deparmnts of sexology-- Next,
Hung T. Long
Elizabeth & Dale wrote:
>
>
> I'll probably hate myself in the morning for breaking in on your important
> discussion like this -- but you appear to be talking around the fringes of
> a problem, er, challenge I've come across recently.
>
> It has to do with a six-year-old girl whom I'll call "Linda."
>
> Linda is obviously "different" from most other little girls. She hates
> to wear dresses. She won't play with dolls. And she likes to win at
> playing marbles with the little boys in the Catholic school first
> grade (where she's at the top of her class in learning, and at the
> bottom in obedience to the nuns).
>
> Linda's mother and father are in massive denial of their daughter's
> behavior. They call her a "tom-boy" and say that she'll "grow out of
> it." In the meantime she's out climbing trees, shooting a bee-bee gun,
> and catching lizards. When I last saw Linda she told me that she likes
> to sleep up close to her cousin Maria when they take naps at school, but
> now, in the second semester they've stopped having nap-time and she mad
> about that.
>
> Freud says that kids of this age are in a "latency period" and that
> they have no conscious sexuality now until puberty.
Freud was wrong on this it was a symptom of the Victorian era,where if you tell a child enough times
to get their hand out of their
pants, or worse they will stop until puberty.
> But Linda is so
> obviously same-sex attracted that you can't be around her an hour
> without seeing considerable evidence of that fact.
>
> I have no idea how she'll turn out. I'm close enough to see what
> is happening, but not so close as to have any input into any of this.
>
> Assuming that Linda's behavior continues to develop in the direction
> where it now appears to be going, what should her parents and teachers
> be doing?
>
> 1. Ignore the whole situation until she's a teenager
> 2. Make her play with dolls, wear dresses, and not compete with boys.
> 3. Teach her more complicated prayers, so she can ask God to make her
> be like the other little girls.
> 4. Get her a brain operation to "fix" any possible homosexual organ
> development within her skull.
> 5. Celebrate Linda as a unique, beautiful child who has the rest of
> her life ahead of her, and leave it at that.
>
> Not trying to cause trouble -- this time.
>
> Dale
Rasmus Neikes
I'd like to see how you expalin how their intentions could be good?
Anyways, I recently saw a study mentiond that suggested that some 70% of
sexually abused boys have been abused by females. which would further
discredid the claim that homosexuals would constitute a major part of
the problem. I'll try to find it again...
L. Michael Roberts
>
> In article <7e9n6b$3qm$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
> > smar...@my-dejanews.com, says...
>
> >
>
> for gay rights? Not only is she a noted militant activist,
Post proof! NOTE: YOu assertions and assumptions will not do here...
something like a mainstream press article or web page in which she
identifies herself as a "homosexual activist" would be acceptable.
> but she
> actually testified in court against Colorado's Ammendment 2
So ALL witnesses who testified against Amendment 2 in court are "noted
militant activists"? You have proof of this assertion?
> which outlawed
> special rights for homosexuals:
Please post the relevant section of the Colorado Amendment that gave
special rights to homosexuals...
>
> From the court we read:
> "If the compelling interest relates to protecting children physically from
> pedophiles, the testimony of plaintiffs' witness Dr. Carole Jenny is more
> persuasive than anything presented by defendants. Dr. Jenny practices at
> Denver's Children's Hospital and made a study of persons who sexually abused
> children who were brought to that hospital. She indicated that pedophiles are
> predominately heterosexuals not homosexuals. If the compelling interest is in
> protecting the psychological well being of homosexual youth, the Court is
> unable to discern how allowing discrimination against them by virtue of the
> Colorado Constitution promotes their welfare. Defendants have failed to
> present sufficient evidence to support this claimed compelling interest."
>
> Please note that in her court testimony she testified that "pedophiles are
> predominately heterosexuals".
Which are the facts of the matter....
> That is a change from her study you quote
> here where supposedly she found that there were almost *no* homosexual
> pedophiles. Should we wonder why she did not stand behind her study in
> court where she is subject to perjury?
If she found even 1 homosexual pedophile.. then her statement "pedophiles
are predominantly heterosexuals" is factually correct. Her statement would
only be incorrect [and perjurious] if the study found NO homosexual
pedophiles.
>
> We know that pedophiles are predominately heterosexual - heterosexuals
> are 97.7% of the population, homosexuals are only 2.3%.
YOu keep throwing these percentages around and yet you have not backed
them up with any peer reviewed sources.
> Yet, she
> testified that pedophiles were only "predominately heterosexual".
> Given that her raw data shows that at least 24% of the pedophiles
> are homosexual - it seems that she changed her militant study findings
> in open court - less her objectivity be challenged.
Despite your flawed analysis fo the data {BTW When will your peer reviewed
analysis of the data be published?], even if she found that 40% of of the
pedophiles were homosexuals, the statement that pedophiles are
predominantly heterosexual would still be factually correct.
>
> My, how the plot thickens. We again find a study way out in left field
> that supports the homosexual agenda,
Please post copies of this agenda... I have been unable to obtain a copy.
> and we again find the author is
> a militant activists crusading for homosexual rights.
... only you have found such based on unsubstantiated opinions. You have
yet to post any proof of this.
Q> Question: is Carole
> Jenny herself lesbian? Anyone know?
Who cares? Does being gay prevent a person from doing science? If so
better put away your computer as Allen Touring - a gay man - was the father
of modern computing and his Touring test has yet to be beaten.
The study in question was co-authored by others alongside Dr Jenny are you
now accusing ALL of the researchers of being homosexuals? What about the
peer review panel that vetted the study? Do you now claim they were ALL
homosexuals?
> Its a fair question considering the
> two main studies of the past: Dean Hamer and Simon LeVay. It turned out
> that they were not only militant homosexual activists, but that they
> themselves were homosexual, and thus had a deep personal bias in the
> outcome of the study.
But studies done about the sexual activities of heterosexuals - by
heterosexuals - are not to be impugned on the basis that the researchers
were heterosexual? The Hamner and LeVay studies are flawed - LeVay
admitted so himself in his study. They do point out some intriguing
possibilities that need further investigation.
Rasmus Neikes
>
> smar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
<snip>
You really shouldn't confuse him with so complicated issuessuch as
maths, logic or statistics...
Rasmus,
whom you wouldn't find dead in anything red ever build.
(If I got in there alive I'd be dead pretty soon - you still wouldn't be
able to find let alone identify me die to piles of scrap and collapsed
briog walls which "all should have been just fine! Here, the numbers
prove it!")
Zepp
>In article <7e9n6b$3qm$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
> son_...@hotmail.com (SON O GOD) wrote:
>
>> The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy is not a peer reviewed
>> journal.
>
>Went and checked the journal of sex and marital therapy out, and apparently
>it IS a peer reviewed journal. Not only that, but it is now (since '95?) the
>offical journal for American Sexoligists. So, here we have a agrajag claiming
>something that is false, which he initially claimed he was unable to get
>access to. Is this a lie?
I checked a couple of search engines, and found no mention of it. And
usually something like that pops right up, because there ARE a lot of
papers on line these days, and finding cites is pretty easy. So where
did you locate it?
>
>Geoff Matthews, unamused.
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
*********************************************************************
http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Now mirrored at: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
http://resurgent.virtualave.net
http://home.att.net/~Resurgence
http://
WARNING: Contains ideas.
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
smar...@my-dejanews.com
"L. Michael Roberts" <News...@laserfx.SpanSux.com> wrote:
> smar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <7e9n6b$3qm$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
> > son_...@hotmail.com (SON O GOD) wrote:
> > > In article <7e9hf0$uod$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, smar...@my-dejanews.com,
> > > smar...@my-dejanews.com, says...
> >
> > > The Jenny Study from Pediatrics July 1994 refutes your claim:
> > >
> >
> > Uh, did you know that Carole Jenny is actively involved in the fight
> > for gay rights? Not only is she a noted militant activist,
>
> Post proof! NOTE: YOu assertions and assumptions will not do here...
> something like a mainstream press article or web page in which she
> identifies herself as a "homosexual activist" would be acceptable.
Uh, Sherlock - I just did. What part of her testifying against Colorado's
Ammendment 2 did you miss? There she was, Ms. Militant, engaging in her
political war against a law that simply stated that all people should
be treated equal - and that no group should have special ritght's not
afforded to other groups.
You know - equal protection under the law - an American principle.
Again, did you note how she changed her tune about the incidence of
homosexual pedophiles in her testimony? She went from having found "0"
in her "objective study" (where should didn't even make a determination
on 1 out of 3 subjects), to stating that pedophiles are
simply "predominately heterosexual".
That is a very significant change in language, and indeed, she undercut
the credibility of her own study by not standing by its supposed finding
in her court testimony.
That is very similar to the very different tune that LeVay sang with
reference to his supposed "objective study" (where he used the most
inaccurate and subjective method possible to measure difference in tissue)
about the INAH-3 region of the brain. He went from suggesting that
such caused homosexuality, to denying he had every said such a thing.
>
> > but she
> > actually testified in court against Colorado's Ammendment 2
>
> So ALL witnesses who testified against Amendment 2 in court are "noted
> militant activists"? You have proof of this assertion?
Here, we supposedly have an objective researcher choosing sides in a political
debate, and testifying against a law that simply said that all people should
be treated equal. Such testimony, under such circumstances is indicative of
an activist.
>
> > which outlawed
> > special rights for homosexuals:
>
> Please post the relevant section of the Colorado Amendment that gave
> special rights to homosexuals...
Uh, Sherlock, Ammendment 2 simply stated that all people should be treated
equal. I repealed special right's laws passed by various cities within
Colorado that elevated homosexuals to "protected minority" status, and
afforded them attendent special rights.
If you don't even know the issues, go read.
>
> >
> > From the court we read:
> > "If the compelling interest relates to protecting children physically from
> > pedophiles, the testimony of plaintiffs' witness Dr. Carole Jenny is more
> > persuasive than anything presented by defendants. Dr. Jenny practices at
> > Denver's Children's Hospital and made a study of persons who sexually abused
> > children who were brought to that hospital. She indicated that pedophiles
are
> > predominately heterosexuals not homosexuals. If the compelling interest is
in
> > protecting the psychological well being of homosexual youth, the Court is
> > unable to discern how allowing discrimination against them by virtue of the
> > Colorado Constitution promotes their welfare. Defendants have failed to
> > present sufficient evidence to support this claimed compelling interest."
> >
> > Please note that in her court testimony she testified that "pedophiles are
> > predominately heterosexuals".
>
> Which are the facts of the matter....
No. That was not the supposed finding of her study, the only study ever
quoted by homophiles with respect to pedophilia among homosexuals. Her study
had found "0%" incidence of pedophiles among homosexuals. Here, she regressed
to stating that pedophiles were simply "predominately heterosexual".
Again, given heterosexuals are 97.7% of the population - one hardly needs
her testimony on a reasonable conclusion. Left unsaid is the fact that
homosexuals are disproportionately pedophiles, and make up (according to
her own studies' raw data) perhaps as much as 24% of the pedophile population.
A group that is only 2.3% of the general population making up 24% of the
pedophile population shows that there is a problem within that group of
molesting children. A huge, significant, and ecompassing problem.
One that merely cannot be dissociated from the groups behavior at ease.
Such a problem is witnessed when ILGA (International Gay and Lesbian
Association) had admitted as many as four pedophile groups into its
membership, including the largest one - NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love
Association). Or, how GLAAD was founded by money from pedophiles. Or, as Gay
Day Parade organizers allow pedophile groups to march in their parades.
A consistent and constanct relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia.
Officially, individually, and collectively.
>
> > That is a change from her study you quote
> > here where supposedly she found that there were almost *no* homosexual
> > pedophiles. Should we wonder why she did not stand behind her study in
> > court where she is subject to perjury?
>
> If she found even 1 homosexual pedophile.. then her statement
"pedophiles
> are predominantly heterosexuals" is factually correct. Her statement would
> only be incorrect [and perjurious] if the study found NO homosexual
> pedophiles.
Oh, I forget. You are one of the one's that believes that President Clinton
and Monica Lewinsky were never "alone" together - because all those other
people were on the same planet they were on.
What a day we live in when we no longer tell "the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth". Why didn't she go in there and say, "Your honor,
my study found but one homosexual pedophile because I defined sexual acts
committed on boys by men as "heterosexual" because the pedophile felt that
way. I also didn't make a determination on one out of every three pedophiles
because they didn't know how they felt, thus, I defined them all as "fixated"
or "heterosexual". That's me, Ms. Militant. I take the facts wherever they
may go - unless it is in the direction of homosexual pedophihlia".
What do you think the judge would have done if he knew that she had defined
homosexual acts as heterosexual and thus had only found "1" homosexual
pedophile in her study? He would have determined her to be a nut.
Tell me, do you believe her study? That there were only 1 homosexual and
1 lesbian out of all those child molestors? That lesbians are just as likely
to molest children as homosexual males are? That homosexual acts are
really heterosexual acts because of the way the person who committed the
act "feels"?
Of course you do. You are a silly goose.
>
> >
> > We know that pedophiles are predominately heterosexual - heterosexuals
> > are 97.7% of the population, homosexuals are only 2.3%.
>
> YOu keep throwing these percentages around and yet you have not backed
> them up with any peer reviewed sources.
Uh, McFly, we have been there, and done that. I have posted a number of
sources on those figures - several times. These are the figures as posted
by the Guttmacher Insitute, the Battelle Institute, and six other studies.
Go search on "2.3%".
Even the most radical homophiles admit that the incidence of homosexuality
in the population is less than 3%. But, then there is you. Go search.
Can you post one single peer reviewed study that has found different?
You know, the made up "10%" figure that was used to mislead the public for
so long?
Nope. I have also put that challenge on the Internet for six years. There
isn't one.
Here is the white space for you to post it. (Hint, Hint, another white space
that will go unfilled)
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
>
> > Yet, she
> > testified that pedophiles were only "predominately heterosexual".
> > Given that her raw data shows that at least 24% of the pedophiles
> > are homosexual - it seems that she changed her militant study findings
> > in open court - less her objectivity be challenged.
>
> Despite your flawed analysis fo the data {BTW When will your peer
reviewed
> analysis of the data be published?], even if she found that 40% of of the
> pedophiles were homosexuals, the statement that pedophiles are
> predominantly heterosexual would still be factually correct.
Yep, and one may look at ice, and testify to a judge "all I found was water"
when I went looking for an igloo."
>
> >
> > My, how the plot thickens. We again find a study way out in left field
> > that supports the homosexual agenda,
>
> Please post copies of this agenda... I have been unable to obtain a
copy.
Uh, Sherlock:
1. The "10%" lie.
2. The "born that way" lie.
3. Science has "proven a genetic basis for homosxuality" lie.
4. "We aren't promiscuious" lie.
5. The "we can't change" lie.
6. "We are discriminated in employment lie" - homosexuals make more money
than the typical American, and are better edcuated.
7. The "we don't have anything to do with pedophilia" lie.
8. The infusion of homosexual materials into public schools.
That's enough for now.
>
> > and we again find the author is
> > a militant activists crusading for homosexual rights.
>
> ... only you have found such based on unsubstantiated opinions. You
have
> yet to post any proof of this.
Again, try her actions as noted in her fight against Ammendment 2.
>
> Q> Question: is Carole
> > Jenny herself lesbian? Anyone know?
>
> Who cares? Does being gay prevent a person from doing science? If so
> better put away your computer as Allen Touring - a gay man - was the father
> of modern computing and his Touring test has yet to be beaten.
> The study in question was co-authored by others alongside Dr Jenny are
you
> now accusing ALL of the researchers of being homosexuals? What about the
> peer review panel that vetted the study? Do you now claim they were ALL
> homosexuals?
You know, the same thing used be said about D. Michael Quinn: What does his
being gay have to do with his work?
Simple answer: subjectivity, deep and personal bias. Quinn lied for years
about being homosexual while he attacked the LDS Church on gender issues,
feigning that he had no disagreement with the Church on doctrinal or personal
issues.
I suppose you would accept at face value those studies complete by the tobacco
industry that smoking wasn't harmful?
Of, the study that began this all: The APA accepting and publishing a study
minimizing the evil of pedophilia - when it turns out the study was done
in partnership with a group of pedophiles fighting for the removal of legal
protection to children from their behavior.
Why is it she refused to identify a 1 out of 3 of her subjects with any
meaningful language? Did she build a big closet for homosexual pedophiles
to hide in, and place "fixated" over the door?
I think so. How else did she only find "1" homosexual pedophile?
She manipulated the data. Motive - she is a homosexual activist. Now,
the question is -- is she also lesbian, thus having an even deeper personal
bias and stake in the outcome of here study?
>
> > Its a fair question considering the
> > two main studies of the past: Dean Hamer and Simon LeVay. It turned out
> > that they were not only militant homosexual activists, but that they
> > themselves were homosexual, and thus had a deep personal bias in the
> > outcome of the study.
>
> But studies done about the sexual activities of heterosexuals - by
> heterosexuals - are not to be impugned on the basis that the researchers
> were heterosexual? The Hamner and LeVay studies are flawed - LeVay
> admitted so himself in his study. They do point out some intriguing
> possibilities that need further investigation.
Wat their hetoersexuality motive for their using questionable methodologies,
faking data, and misdescribing their data?
LeVay admitted that his study was fatally flawed and not worth the paper
it was printed on - only after his peers literally laughed him out of research
by demonstrating in empirical basis how he let his homosexuality get the
best of his scientific objectivity.
One could not find the name "LeVay" without it being closely associated with
"homosexual agenda" as his peers shreaded his study on the INAH-3 region (a
region of the brain known to have nothing to do with sexual behavior at all).
-red davis
>
> +==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
> This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
> Burlington, Ont, Canada To reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my E-ddress
> "Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
> +==================================================================+
>
-Red Davis
Elizabeth & Dale
> smar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> : > > Please note that in her court testimony she testified that "pedophiles are
> : > > predominately heterosexuals".
> : >
> : > Which are the facts of the matter....
>
> : No. That was not the supposed finding of her study, the only study ever
> : quoted by homophiles with respect to pedophilia among homosexuals. Her study
> : had found "0%" incidence of pedophiles among homosexuals. Here, she regressed
> : to stating that pedophiles were simply "predominately heterosexual".
>
> up to 3.1% had been molested by a homosexual.
>
> : Again, given heterosexuals are 97.7% of the population - one hardly needs
> : her testimony on a reasonable conclusion. Left unsaid is the fact that
> : homosexuals are disproportionately pedophiles, and make up (according to
> : her own studies' raw data) perhaps as much as 24% of the pedophile population.
>
> article? Just curious.
>
> Dan
I'll probably hate myself in the morning for breaking in on your important
discussion like this -- but you appear to be talking around the fringes of
a problem, er, challenge I've come across recently.
It has to do with a six-year-old girl whom I'll call "Linda."
Linda is obviously "different" from most other little girls. She hates
to wear dresses. She won't play with dolls. And she likes to win at
playing marbles with the little boys in the Catholic school first
grade (where she's at the top of her class in learning, and at the
bottom in obedience to the nuns).
Linda's mother and father are in massive denial of their daughter's
behavior. They call her a "tom-boy" and say that she'll "grow out of
it." In the meantime she's out climbing trees, shooting a bee-bee gun,
and catching lizards. When I last saw Linda she told me that she likes
to sleep up close to her cousin Maria when they take naps at school, but
now, in the second semester they've stopped having nap-time and she mad
about that.
Freud says that kids of this age are in a "latency period" and that
they have no conscious sexuality now until puberty. But Linda is so
Daniel Vieira
: > > Please note that in her court testimony she testified that "pedophiles are
: > > predominately heterosexuals".
: >
: > Which are the facts of the matter....
: No. That was not the supposed finding of her study, the only study ever
: quoted by homophiles with respect to pedophilia among homosexuals. Her study
: had found "0%" incidence of pedophiles among homosexuals. Here, she regressed
: to stating that pedophiles were simply "predominately heterosexual".
A small correction, Red. According to the abstrat, she stated that
up to 3.1% had been molested by a homosexual.
: Again, given heterosexuals are 97.7% of the population - one hardly needs
: her testimony on a reasonable conclusion. Left unsaid is the fact that
: homosexuals are disproportionately pedophiles, and make up (according to
: her own studies' raw data) perhaps as much as 24% of the pedophile population.
Did your analysis of the data come from the abstract, or the full text
article? Just curious.
Dan
---
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dan Vieira | dvi...@primenet.com | dsv2...@huey.csun.edu |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Faire et en faisant, se faire et n'etre rien que ce qu'il s'est fait."
-Jean Paul Sartre
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dan's Web Site | http://www.primenet.com/~dvieira/index.html |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rasmus Neikes
>
> >
> > smar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > : > > Please note that in her court testimony she testified that "pedophiles are
> > : > > predominately heterosexuals".
> > : >
> > : > Which are the facts of the matter....
> >
> > : No. That was not the supposed finding of her study, the only study ever
> > : quoted by homophiles with respect to pedophilia among homosexuals. Her study
> > : had found "0%" incidence of pedophiles among homosexuals. Here, she regressed
> > : to stating that pedophiles were simply "predominately heterosexual".
> >
> > up to 3.1% had been molested by a homosexual.
> >
> > : her testimony on a reasonable conclusion. Left unsaid is the fact that
> > : homosexuals are disproportionately pedophiles, and make up (according to
> > : her own studies' raw data) perhaps as much as 24% of the pedophile population.
> >
> > article? Just curious.
> >
> > Dan
>
> discussion like this -- but you appear to be talking around the fringes of
> a problem, er, challenge I've come across recently.
Keep in mind that you first said "problem"... I fele highly justified in
flaming you but will try not to...
>
> It has to do with a six-year-old girl whom I'll call "Linda."
>
> Linda is obviously "different" from most other little girls. She hates
> to wear dresses. She won't play with dolls. And she likes to win at
> playing marbles with the little boys in the Catholic school first
> grade (where she's at the top of her class in learning, and at the
> bottom in obedience to the nuns).
>
> Linda's mother and father are in massive denial of their daughter's
> behavior. They call her a "tom-boy" and say that she'll "grow out of
> it." In the meantime she's out climbing trees, shooting a bee-bee gun,
> and catching lizards. When I last saw Linda she told me that she likes
> to sleep up close to her cousin Maria when they take naps at school, but
> now, in the second semester they've stopped having nap-time and she mad
> about that.
>
> Freud says that kids of this age are in a "latency period" and that
> they have no conscious sexuality now until puberty. But Linda is so
> obviously same-sex attracted that you can't be around her an hour
> without seeing considerable evidence of that fact.
>
> I have no idea how she'll turn out. I'm close enough to see what
> is happening, but not so close as to have any input into any of this.
>
> Assuming that Linda's behavior continues to develop in the direction
> where it now appears to be going, what should her parents and teachers
> be doing?
First of all: It looks as if the girl is a lesbian if it is at all
possible to make such judgements at such an early time. (A friend of
mine used to do just that when she was much younger than 6... haven't
seen her since I was 8 except maybe once or twice ever since - the last
time she had a boyfriend)
Try to say it: Les-bi-an.
>
> 1. Ignore the whole situation until she's a teenager
"Situation"? It is NOT a situation. It's a six year old girl for F***'s
sake! I guess the answer most parents would give if one suggested
anything of the sort would involve a club with spikes..?
> 2. Make her play with dolls, wear dresses, and not compete with boys.
Better still: Chain her to a pipe in the basement!
> 3. Teach her more complicated prayers, so she can ask God to make her
> be like the other little girls.
Why shoukd she be more like other girls? Thee is nothing wrong with her!
> 4. Get her a brain operation to "fix" any possible homosexual organ
> development within her skull.
If you are a troll I'd kindly ask someone to give _me_ an answer
involving a club with spikes...
> 5. Celebrate Linda as a unique, beautiful child who has the rest of
> her life ahead of her, and leave it at that.
>
> Not trying to cause trouble -- this time.
Since you offered #5 - why do you think there is an actual question?
Isn't that how children are supposed to be treated?
Rasmus.
L. Michael Roberts
> > : > > predominately heterosexuals".
> > : >
> > : > Which are the facts of the matter....
> >
> > : No. That was not the supposed finding of her study, the only study ever
> > : quoted by homophiles with respect to pedophilia among homosexuals. Her study
> > : had found "0%" incidence of pedophiles among homosexuals. Here, she regressed
> > : to stating that pedophiles were simply "predominately heterosexual".
> >
> > up to 3.1% had been molested by a homosexual.
> >
> > : her testimony on a reasonable conclusion. Left unsaid is the fact that
> > : homosexuals are disproportionately pedophiles, and make up (according to
> > : her own studies' raw data) perhaps as much as 24% of the pedophile population.
> >
> > article? Just curious.
> >
> > Dan
>
> I'll probably hate myself in the morning for breaking in on your important
> discussion like this -- but you appear to be talking around the fringes of
> a problem, er, challenge I've come across recently.
>
>
> Linda is obviously "different" from most other little girls. She hates
> to wear dresses. She won't play with dolls. And she likes to win at
> playing marbles with the little boys in the Catholic school first
> grade (where she's at the top of her class in learning, and at the
> bottom in obedience to the nuns).
>
> Linda's mother and father are in massive denial of their daughter's
> behavior. They call her a "tom-boy" and say that she'll "grow out of
> it." In the meantime she's out climbing trees, shooting a bee-bee gun,
> and catching lizards. When I last saw Linda she told me that she likes
> to sleep up close to her cousin Maria when they take naps at school, but
> now, in the second semester they've stopped having nap-time and she mad
> about that.
>
> Freud says that kids of this age are in a "latency period" and that
> they have no conscious sexuality now until puberty. But Linda is so
> obviously same-sex attracted that you can't be around her an hour
> without seeing considerable evidence of that fact.
>
> I have no idea how she'll turn out. I'm close enough to see what
> is happening, but not so close as to have any input into any of this.
>
> Assuming that Linda's behavior continues to develop in the direction
> where it now appears to be going, what should her parents and teachers
> be doing?
>
> be like the other little girls.
> development within her skull.
> her life ahead of her, and leave it at that.
I vote for option 5 followed by option 1. This is the most Christian and
pragmatic approach since se is indeed a unique and beautiful child and
further, sex is not of any importance in her life so wait till she is a
teen and let her make her own decisions.
John Wilkinson
>Uh, Sherlock - I just did. What part of her testifying against Colorado's
>Ammendment 2 did you miss? There she was, Ms. Militant, engaging in her
>political war against a law that simply stated that all people should
>be treated equal - and that no group should have special ritght's not
>afforded to other groups.
You mean like the right to petition the legislature for redress? The right that
Amendment 2 specifically withheld from lesbian/gay citizens? The amendment that
targeted a small group of citizens for **special discrimination**?
---
__ John G. Wilkinson (jw...@eskimo.com)
\/ Seattle, Washington, USA
http://www.eskimo.com/~jwilk/
Copperhead
>
>
>Elizabeth & Dale wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I'll probably hate myself in the morning for breaking in on your important
>> discussion like this -- but you appear to be talking around the fringes of
>> a problem, er, challenge I've come across recently.
>>
>> It has to do with a six-year-old girl whom I'll call "Linda."
>>
>> Linda is obviously "different" from most other little girls. She hates
>> to wear dresses. She won't play with dolls. And she likes to win at
>> playing marbles with the little boys in the Catholic school first
>> grade (where she's at the top of her class in learning, and at the
>> bottom in obedience to the nuns).
>>
>> Linda's mother and father are in massive denial of their daughter's
>> behavior. They call her a "tom-boy" and say that she'll "grow out of
>> it." In the meantime she's out climbing trees, shooting a bee-bee gun,
>> and catching lizards. When I last saw Linda she told me that she likes
>> to sleep up close to her cousin Maria when they take naps at school, but
>> now, in the second semester they've stopped having nap-time and she mad
>> about that.
>>
>> Freud says that kids of this age are in a "latency period" and that
>> they have no conscious sexuality now until puberty.
>
>Freud was wrong on this it was a symptom of the Victorian era,where if you tell a child enough times
>to get their hand out of their
>pants, or worse they will stop until puberty.
>
>> But Linda is so
>> obviously same-sex attracted that you can't be around her an hour
>> without seeing considerable evidence of that fact.
>>
>> I have no idea how she'll turn out. I'm close enough to see what
>> is happening, but not so close as to have any input into any of this.
>>
>> Assuming that Linda's behavior continues to develop in the direction
>> where it now appears to be going, what should her parents and teachers
>> be doing?
>>
>> 1. Ignore the whole situation until she's a teenager
>> 2. Make her play with dolls, wear dresses, and not compete with boys.
>> 3. Teach her more complicated prayers, so she can ask God to make her
>> be like the other little girls.
>> 4. Get her a brain operation to "fix" any possible homosexual organ
>> development within her skull.
>> 5. Celebrate Linda as a unique, beautiful child who has the rest of
>> her life ahead of her, and leave it at that.
>>
>> Not trying to cause trouble -- this time.
>>
>> Dale
>
This is a no-brainer. 5.
Agkistrodon
>
smar...@my-dejanews.com
Daniel Vieira <dvi...@primenet.com> wrote:
> smar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> : > > Please note that in her court testimony she testified that "pedophiles
are
> : > > predominately heterosexuals".
> : >
> : > Which are the facts of the matter....
>
> : No. That was not the supposed finding of her study, the only study ever
> : quoted by homophiles with respect to pedophilia among homosexuals. Her
study
> : had found "0%" incidence of pedophiles among homosexuals. Here, she
regressed
> : to stating that pedophiles were simply "predominately heterosexual".
>
> up to 3.1% had been molested by a homosexual.
Nope. She said that the figure could be as high as "3.1%", but that
only 1 homosexual had molested children. Here, let me give you the
exact detail - a direct quote from the study abstract:
"In the remaining 269 cases, two offenders were identified as being gay or
lesbian."
Now, detail from the study as posted by "The Lord":
"Two cases, only 0.7%, involved a perpetrator who could be identified as
being involved in same sex relationships. One child's mother identified her
child's perpetrator as "a lesbian". In the other the perpetrator was
identified as the man "living with" the father of the child. It was
"standard practice" in evaluating child abuse victims in emergency rooms and
clinics to ask if the perpetrator lived in a same sex relationship, or had
engaged in homosexual relations."
What part of her only finding "1" homosexual pedophile didn't you understand?
That means that out of her study, only 0.35% (statistically "0") were
homosexual.
Is her finding believable? No.
Now, what is important here is how they were obtaining the information
of whether or not someone was homosexual:
A child is brought in, sexual child abuse is suspected (but not admitted to).
The Emergency room asks, "Are you homosexual, or do you live in a same-sex
relationship?" as they look at the evidence of child sexual abuse.
Do you think that the adult, seeing that sexual abuse by them is suspected,
is going to admit that they are homosexual or that they are engaged in
a same-sex relationship?
If you do - such a person is the most militant homosexual right's activist
this world has ever seen. To admit to deviant sexual behavior while a child
is being examined for sexual abuse? Surely "Dr." Jenny is a moron to think
that a person would tell the truth under such circumstances.
Nope. she's not a moron - she's a someone with an agenda.
The only homosexual identified in the study came about most probably due
to the father of the child blaming his live-in male lover in order to
possibly cover his own actions.
My, no wonder they found "0%". They held a shotgun to their heads before
they asked the question.
Given this information - the Jenny "study" must be dismissed as fatally
flawed. I am putting it on the junk pile along with LeVay and Hamer.
No wonder she change her testimony in open court: it was a junk study.
My, my, my. The deceit from the left.
>
> : Again, given heterosexuals are 97.7% of the population - one hardly needs
> : her testimony on a reasonable conclusion. Left unsaid is the fact that
> : homosexuals are disproportionately pedophiles, and make up (according to
> : her own studies' raw data) perhaps as much as 24% of the pedophile
population.
>
> Did your analysis of the data come from the abstract, or the full text
> article? Just curious.
Both. As posted in the words of those of your ilk, one "The Lord".
-red davis
>
> Dan
> ---
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Dan Vieira | dvi...@primenet.com | dsv2...@huey.csun.edu |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Faire et en faisant, se faire et n'etre rien que ce qu'il s'est fait."
>
> -Jean Paul Sartre
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Dan's Web Site | http://www.primenet.com/~dvieira/index.html |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
-Red Davis
smar...@my-dejanews.com
> >Ammendment 2 did you miss? There she was, Ms. Militant, engaging in her
> >political war against a law that simply stated that all people should
> >be treated equal - and that no group should have special ritght's not
> >afforded to other groups.
>
that
> Amendment 2 specifically withheld from lesbian/gay citizens? The amendment
that
> targeted a small group of citizens for **special discrimination**?
Uh, Sherlock, post the words of Ammendment 2. It simply stated that all
people should be treated equally.
-red davis
>
> ---
> __ John G. Wilkinson (jw...@eskimo.com)
> \/ Seattle, Washington, USA
> http://www.eskimo.com/~jwilk/
>
-Red Davis
Rasmus Neikes
> What part of her only finding "1" homosexual pedophile didn't you understand?
> That means that out of her study, only 0.35% (statistically "0") were
> homosexual.
*ROTFLMAO*
Guess how most of your statisticla findings will be answered from now
on...
What was the margin of error connected that number? And _YOU_ accuse
others of denying the existance of homosexual pedophilia? "They only
found one, that means - statisitically speaking - that there aren't
any!"
Anne Marie
>
> What part of her only finding "1" homosexual pedophile didn't you understand?
> That means that out of her study, only 0.35% (statistically "0") were
> homosexual.
>
.35% is the same as 0.0%? Neat! So if I make a dish containing only .35%
chili pepper I can claim there is no chili in it? I`m not sure my mom
would agree.
anne
Rasmus Neikes
Why don't you serve your mom a dish containing _nothing but_ chili
pepper?
(0.35% * 2857.143 = 100% [= 0% * 2857.143 = 0% according to Red])
James Doemer
Anne Marie <Anne.Mari...@psych.uib.no> wrote in message
news:370B6D...@psych.uib.no...
> smar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:(snip)
> >
> > What part of her only finding "1" homosexual pedophile didn't you
understand?
> > That means that out of her study, only 0.35% (statistically "0") were
> > homosexual.
> >
> As I am doing statistical work at the moment, this rather interested me:
> .35% is the same as 0.0%? Neat! So if I make a dish containing only .35%
> chili pepper I can claim there is no chili in it? I`m not sure my mom
> would agree.
> anne
Perhaps you should have that little talk with your mom.. Ask her to
explain
the terms, "Rounding", and "Statistical Significance", to you... Also ask
her what social orientated research and cooking might have in common...
Like Nothing....
L. Michael Roberts
>
> In article <7eeedg$sed$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>,
> Daniel Vieira <dvi...@primenet.com> wrote:
> > smar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> are
> > : > > predominately heterosexuals".
> > : >
> > : > Which are the facts of the matter....
> >
> > : No. That was not the supposed finding of her study, the only study ever
> > : quoted by homophiles with respect to pedophilia among homosexuals. Her
> study
> > : had found "0%" incidence of pedophiles among homosexuals. Here, she
> regressed
> > : to stating that pedophiles were simply "predominately heterosexual".
> >
> > up to 3.1% had been molested by a homosexual.
>
> Nope. She said that the figure could be as high as "3.1%", but that
> only 1 homosexual had molested children. Here, let me give you the
> exact detail - a direct quote from the study abstract:
>
> "In the remaining 269 cases, two offenders were identified as being gay or
> lesbian."
>
> Now, detail from the study as posted by "The Lord":
> "Two cases, only 0.7%, involved a perpetrator who could be identified as
> being involved in same sex relationships. One child's mother identified her
> child's perpetrator as "a lesbian". In the other the perpetrator was
> identified as the man "living with" the father of the child. It was
> "standard practice" in evaluating child abuse victims in emergency rooms and
> clinics to ask if the perpetrator lived in a same sex relationship, or had
> engaged in homosexual relations."
>
The part where you left out the lesbian! ["In the remaining 269 cases,
two offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian." I gay + 1 lesbian
= 2 homosexuals.]
<snip 2 end>
Bruce Garrett
>>> There she was, Ms. Militant, engaging in her political war against a
>>> law that simply stated that all people should be treated equal - and
>>> that no group should have special ritght's not afforded to other
>>> groups.
>> You mean like the right to petition the legislature for redress? The
>> right that Amendment 2 specifically withheld from lesbian/gay citizens?
>> The amendment that targeted a small group of citizens for **special
>> discrimination**?
RD> Uh, Sherlock, post the words of Ammendment 2.
Your wish is my command Red...
"No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual
Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its
branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political
subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact,
adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy
whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct,
practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the
basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or
claim any minority status quota preferences, protected status or
claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall
be in all respects self-executing."
The amendment prohibits the state and any municipality within the
state from passing laws that ban discrimination against homosexuals,
lesbians and bisexuals specifically....but not discrimination against
heterosexuals. They could have written it to prohibit the enactment of
laws against discrimination based on "sexual orientation", which would
not have singled out anyone...but that was not their intent.
RD> It simply stated that all people should be treated equally.
No. It didn't. Now we have three examples of your blatant lying
about the contents of a document. Your misrepresentation of the Bell and
Weinberg study...your misrepresentation of the Guttmacher, pointed out to
us by John Wilkinson, where you claimed a figure of "hundreds" of sex
partners and the study actually said a mean of 42.8...and now this. If
anyone still reading this thread is still entertaining doubts that you
really are the brazen lying thug you look like, they're probably the sort
that still has doubts that the earth isn't flat.
You lie. It's as simple as that Red. You lie. Everybody knows
it now. All these facts and figures you've been pumping into this thread
are bogus, false, worthless. Red...even a gutter crawling maggot like you
has to understand, that when the only weapon you have left against your
enemies are lies, the war is over. The allies are across the Rhine, Red.
The Russians are in Berlin. It's over. You gonna let your country burn
down around your head before you admit it? Of course you will...
---
-Bruce Garrett \ http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
Cockeysville, MD. / \ In spite of everything I still believe that
people are good at heart. - Anne Frank
Rasmus Neikes
>
> Anne Marie <Anne.Mari...@psych.uib.no> wrote in message
> news:370B6D...@psych.uib.no...
> > smar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:(snip)
> > >
> understand?
> > > homosexual.
> > >
> > As I am doing statistical work at the moment, this rather interested me:
> > .35% is the same as 0.0%? Neat! So if I make a dish containing only .35%
> > chili pepper I can claim there is no chili in it? I`m not sure my mom
> > would agree.
> > anne
>
> Perhaps you should have that little talk with your mom.. Ask her to
> explain
> the terms, "Rounding", and "Statistical Significance", to you... Also ask
> her what social orientated research and cooking might have in common...
>
> Like Nothing....
erm... she was actually dissagreeing with something dumbred said... in
my book that's pretty good evidence that she must be correct or at least
has a point somewhere...
Red did NOT say that it would be insignificant or could be rounded to
zero, he claimed that it WAS zero.
Michael A. Kraemer
"homosexuality" we are forgetting the fact that in the Scriptures (1
Corinthians 6:9) it unequivocally states that NO ONE involved in that
practice, lifestyle or whatever you want to call it, will EVER SEE HEAVEN!!!
Moira de Swardt <moira.d...@global.co.za> wrote in message
news:7ec2es$17td$2...@nntp01.global.co.za...
K. Knopp
<ahall-...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >>>>> smartred writes:
<SNIP
> smartred> on 1 out of 3 subjects), to stating that pedophiles are
> smartred> simply "predominately heterosexual".
>
> Yes, one study of about 249 pedophiles found 2 that were gay.
>
> There is simply no evidence that there is a higher incidence
> of gays in the pedophile population.
I think his point is that the people doing the survey had a very
selectively biased defintion as to what made a person "gay". From what
I understand, if a person wasn't in a relationship with a member of
their own sex in their own age group, or didn't self identify as gay,
they wouldn't be considered homosexual even if they prefered pedophilic
relations with the same sex. That makes little logical sense.
I think his point was that the percentage of pedophilic relations with
the same sex (according to research) as it relates to the percentage of
homosexuals verus heterosexuals, was greater then it should be if all
else were equal. While that doesn't mean that homosexual=pedophile,
explanations for such a discreprancy would be a worthwhile research
topic so that it might be possible to isolate the cause for underage
sexual abuse.
> Even if there were such evidence, it would not justify treating
> gays as second class citizens (unless all gays were pedophiles,
> which is of course absurd).
Agreed.
<SNIP>
Rasmus Neikes
>
> This is my first time doing this. But, I think in regard to this subject
> "homosexuality" we are forgetting the fact that in the Scriptures (1
> Corinthians 6:9) it unequivocally states that NO ONE involved in that
> practice, lifestyle or whatever you want to call it, will EVER SEE HEAVEN!!!
Fine. Now you've done it. May I suggest that you never od it again?
What makes you think we could not possibly hve heared that particular
interpretation of your favourite collection of fairy-tales before?
Your point is far from being new to people and we don't care.
If you think that your interpretation _must_ be right and that you could
not possibly mistaken about it I'd suggest you deliver the standart
proof for your infailability.
Other than that I suggest you re-consider your postion in the light of
the followingh facts:
* Your "texts" have been passed on and re-told for hundreds of years
before they were first written down.
* Once your texts were actual texts they have bene copied for hundereds
of years.
All of this has been done by failable men - and itr was men who came up
with the texts in the firat place. (Possibly inspired by God - if you
want to insist they were dictated by God I'd like you to explain the
dicrepany with free will)
After that the texts have been translated. Do you too want to tell me
how it is impossible to change the meaning of tets by translating them?
Go ahead...
And finally: You will find that people dissagree with your interpreation
- people who know far more about htsese texts than I ever will - and I'd
guess they know more about them than you do, too. (Or do you read them
in Hebrew and Greek?)
smar...@my-dejanews.com
Rasmus Neikes <rasmus...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Anne Marie wrote:
> >
> > smar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:(snip)
> > >
> > > What part of her only finding "1" homosexual pedophile didn't you
understand?
> > > That means that out of her study, only 0.35% (statistically "0") were
> > > homosexual.
> > >
> > As I am doing statistical work at the moment, this rather interested me:
> > .35% is the same as 0.0%? Neat! So if I make a dish containing only .35%
> > chili pepper I can claim there is no chili in it? I`m not sure my mom
> > would agree.
> > anne
Anne, if you are doing statistical work and sampling a population, then
you have a confidence interval, correct?
Now, Carole Jenny reported in her study that her confidence limit was
"95%".
Her finding of "0.35%" homosexual pedophiles, thus, is statistically
zero.
I can't help but notice that the homophile crowd has no responde to
the fact that "Dr." Jenny based her determination of whether or not
a person was homosexual by their answer to a question about their
sexual behavior, while the child was being examined for sexual
abuse in an emergency room of a hospital or clinic.
That is, man brings in a boy, the boy has been sexually abused,
the Dr. asks the man, "are you homosexual, or do you live in a
same-sex relationship?"
The man, knowing that the child was sexually abused - that hospitals
must report all cases of suspected sexual abuse to the police, and
knowing the reason for the question is to determine if they might
be the culprit, is assumed to answer the question honestly and correctly.
Who is kidding who?
The Jenny study is junk. Pure adulterated agenda committed by a militant
homosexual activist.
-red davis
>
> Why don't you serve your mom a dish containing _nothing but_ chili
> pepper?
>
> (0.35% * 2857.143 = 100% [= 0% * 2857.143 = 0% according to Red])
>
> Rasmus.
>
> --
> There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the
> chronicler's mind. (D. Adams)
>
-Red Davis
smar...@my-dejanews.com
Anne Marie <Anne.Mari...@psych.uib.no> wrote:
> smar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:(snip)
> >
> > What part of her only finding "1" homosexual pedophile didn't you
understand?
> > That means that out of her study, only 0.35% (statistically "0") were
> > homosexual.
> >
> As I am doing statistical work at the moment, this rather interested me:
> .35% is the same as 0.0%? Neat! So if I make a dish containing only .35%
> chili pepper I can claim there is no chili in it? I`m not sure my mom
> would agree.
Have you ever heard of confidence intervals, margin of errors? Jenny's
study had a confidence error of "95%". Thus, her finding of "0.35%"
homosexual pedophiles (that is, exactly one (1) homosexual pedophile) is
indeed statisticlly "0".
If you are doing "statitical work at the moment" - it must be volunteer work,
for you apparently lack the basic understanding of statistics.
BTW, why no comments to the facts of how Jenny determined if the pedophiles
were homosexual?
Her method was, quite frankly, the most subjective and unbelievable method
I have ever seen.
-red davis
> anne
Dionisio
> Uh, Sherlock, post the words of Ammendment 2. It simply stated that all
> people should be treated equally.
NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION. Neither
the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its
agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall
enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby
homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships
shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any person or class of
persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status
or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all
respects self-executing.
"Equal"? If everybody were to be treated equal, then "heterosexuality" would have
been included in there too.
This was the first -- the very first -- piece of legislation ever crafted wherein
select groups of people were told that the government would ignore them, even if
they could PROVE that they were a minority, or that they were discriminated
against. It set aside a definable group of people and stated that the government
wasn't concerned about their Constitutional rights to redress of grievances. It
made no case as to why the state might be justified in turning a deaf ear to
those US citizens, nor were there any cogent arguments as to why such a course of
action might be prudent or in the state's interest.
It attempted to close off the courts to those people. "Equality" indeed.
(I'd like to note however that I do agree with the bit about not having quotas.
Homosexuals should have to compete for state contracts just like everybody else.)
--
HTTP://www.infinet.com/~dionisio -- Snookems, the white kitty.
"I will oppose measures that divide, disrespect or diminish our
humanity. Our overarching principle should be to promote civility,
mutual respect and unity. This legislation fails to meet this test."
--Washington Gov. Gary Locke Feb. 21, 1997 in vetoing a ban on gay
marriage passed by the state legislature.
Dionisio
> As I am doing statistical work at the moment, this rather interested me:
> .35% is the same as 0.0%? Neat! So if I make a dish containing only .35%
> chili pepper I can claim there is no chili in it? I`m not sure my mom
> would agree.
Well, if your mom can detect 0.35% chili pepper -- that's properly expressed as
0.0035 when you write it without the percent sign -- then she is wasting her talent
if she's not in some "quality control" kitchen for some major food corporation or
vinter. People with taste buds that good command salaries in the 6 figures.
Consider, if she could correctly name the amount of chilli powder present in a
single-serving size of Hormel chilli, she'd be detecting all of about 1/20th of
1/8th of a teaspoon of it. Mere grains. If she could do that, she'd doubtlessly
reward you with the all-expense-paid month-long vacation of your choice. (Once the
first few paychecks came in.)
smar...@my-dejanews.com
Bruce Garrett <bgar...@pobox.com> wrote:
> smar...@my-dejanews.com
>
> RD> Uh, Sherlock, post the words of Ammendment 2.
>
> Your wish is my command Red...
>
> "No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual
> Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its
> branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political
> subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact,
> adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy
> whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct,
> practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the
> basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or
> claim any minority status quota preferences, protected status or
> claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall
> be in all respects self-executing."
>
> The amendment prohibits the state and any municipality within the
> state from passing laws that ban discrimination against homosexuals,
How are homosexuals discrimanted against? You know as well as I do
that homosexuals have a higher per capita income then heterosexuals,
and a higher level of education. (Which makes sense, given they don't
have kids that need their time)
As I said, the law only states that all people will be treated equally.
Homosexuals will not be given "minority status quota preferences" or
"protected status". Both are special rights - not equal rights.
> lesbians and bisexuals specifically....but not discrimination against
> heterosexuals. They could have written it to prohibit the enactment of
> laws against discrimination based on "sexual orientation", which would
> not have singled out anyone...but that was not their intent.
What a dumb statement. You really think that heterosexuals are going
to be made a protected minority group? Duh.
The phrase "sexual orientation" is not explicit enough to prevent cases
of judicial activism by liberal judges.
>
> RD> It simply stated that all people should be treated equally.
>
> No. It didn't. Now we have three examples of your blatant lying
> about the contents of a document. Your misrepresentation of the Bell and
Lying? The ammendment said that homosexuals could not be given special
rights, specifically - "minority status qoutas" and "protected status".
That is simply stating that all people will be treated equally regardless
of sexual behavior.
Please don't accuse me of lying becuase you do not have the ability to
grasp legal concepts.
Thus, no lie there. "Three" supposed lies drops to two, the two shall
be proven wrong also. Read on.
> Weinberg study...your misrepresentation of the Guttmacher, pointed out to
> us by John Wilkinson, where you claimed a figure of "hundreds" of sex
> partners and the study actually said a mean of 42.8...and now this. If
You really can't read, can you? I *never* said, posted, or
implied anything about *any* Guttmacher Institute study having said anything
about the number of sex partners of homosexuals. *Never*. The only
Guttmacher Institute study I have every quoted reported that "2.3%" of
men are homosexual, and that that figure is the same as found in other
studies (which other studies I have also posted) along with the fact
that the Guttmacher Institute found that the typical heterosexual
male had had "7" different sexual partners.
Here are my exact words:
"like the one reported by the Guttmacher Institute that found that a typical
heterosexual has had about "7" different sexual partners".
What John Wilkinson did was report to quote a *different* part of the study
about the number of different sexual partners of *homosexuals* - not
heterosexuals.
Said John:
"From table 8.4 on page 315.
Men self-identifying as homo/bisexual, partners since age 18:
Mean -- 42.8.
Low confidence interval -- 12.4.
High confidence interval -- 73.1."
When I have quoted "hundreds" of different sexual partners, I have quoted
several many other studies, with reference and page number. I have not
quoted this study, nor was I even aware that this study contained this data.
I read the primary source of this study one time, only to verify the existence
of the "7" and "2.3%" figures within the study.
So, John has posted a singular cite showing that homosexuals are about
7 times more promisuious then heterosexuals. Is this your victory bell?
(BTW, I have posted some 10 studies to support the "2.3%" figure).
Thus, two supposed lies drops to one. The one was dropped yesterday when
I demonstratd again that you do not have very good reading skills - as you
falsely asserted that I had "quoted" a statistic from the Bell study, when
I had not, nor had I attributed it to the Bell study.
Strike 1, 2, 3. Sorry to leave you whiffing at the plate.
Will you ever have anthing intelligent to add to our discussion besides
ad hominem attacks?
BTW, here is something for you. A militant homosexual activist *admits* that
they exploited the inflated Kinsey figures for political reasons. `We used
that figure when most gay people were entirely hidden to try to create an
impression of our numerousness,' says Tom Stoddard, former member of the
Lambda Legal Defense Fund [a sort of gay ACLU]'" ("The Homosexual Numbers,"
March 22, 1993, p. 37).
Talk about "lying". That's lying. "10%". It was a "Big Lie" propagand
campaign.
> anyone still reading this thread is still entertaining doubts that you
> really are the brazen lying thug you look like, they're probably the sort
> that still has doubts that the earth isn't flat.
>
> You lie. It's as simple as that Red. You lie. Everybody knows
> it now. All these facts and figures you've been pumping into this thread
> are bogus, false, worthless. Red...even a gutter crawling maggot like you
Considering you have shown where one single figure is "bogus" or "false"
or "worthless".
In all of our exhanges, only one figure I have posted has been reasonably
challenged, and that is John's posting a source that homosexual males are
only 7 times more promisuious then heterosexual males, instead of 60 times.
Thus, that's one study that has found that homosexuals are seven times
more promiscuious then heterosexuals, 10 that have found about 60 times
more promiscuious, and *none* that have found that homosexual males are
no more promiscuious then heterosexual males.
Hmmm. Sounds like homosexuals don't have a leg to stand their agenda on.
That's why they act like you: they call people "liars" who simply disagree
with them, along with "homophobe", "bigot" and "hateful".
Wouldn't it make more sense to post sources like John did? Oh, it
really didn't help that much - did it?
-red davis
> has to understand, that when the only weapon you have left against your
> enemies are lies, the war is over. The allies are across the Rhine, Red.
> The Russians are in Berlin. It's over. You gonna let your country burn
> down around your head before you admit it? Of course you will...
>
> ---
> -Bruce Garrett \ http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
> Cockeysville, MD. / \ In spite of everything I still believe that
> people are good at heart. - Anne Frank
>
>
-Red Davis
Anne Marie
>
> Anne Marie <Anne.Mari...@psych.uib.no> wrote in message
> news:370B6D...@psych.uib.no...
> > >
> > > What part of her only finding "1" homosexual pedophile didn't you
> understand?
> > > That means that out of her study, only 0.35% (statistically "0") were
> > > homosexual.
> > >
> > .35% is the same as 0.0%? Neat! So if I make a dish containing only .35%
> > chili pepper I can claim there is no chili in it? I`m not sure my mom
> > would agree.
>
> Perhaps you should have that little talk with your mom.. Ask her to
> explain
> the terms, "Rounding", and "Statistical Significance", to you... Also ask
> her what social orientated research and cooking might have in common...
>
> Like Nothing....
rounding of numbers and statistical significance can cause serious
problems in both areas ;-) (and you can`t have a "not statistically
significant" number of participants/subjects/objects or whatever - you
can say there were so few x-es among your y-s that you can`t claim your
findings hold for them as well, but that`s different)
annemarie
John De Salvio
> This is my first time doing this. But, I think in regard to this subject
> "homosexuality" we are forgetting the fact that in the Scriptures (1
> Corinthians 6:9) it unequivocally states that NO ONE involved in that
> practice, lifestyle or whatever you want to call it, will EVER SEE HEAVEN!!!
You will note that Paul was NOT God, and never met Jesus in person, and
believed differently from Jesus' own family and followers, and believed
that Jesus was going to return within Paul's lifetime.
Now, hopefully you will learn more about Paul's times and use of language,
and about the true origin and meaning of the so-called anti-homosexual
quotes of the Bible.
And stop prooftexting. It's not nice.
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
desalvio["AT" SYMBOL]monitor.net
John Wilkinson
smar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <370cca9c...@eskinews.eskimo.com>,
> jw...@eskimo.com wrote:
> > In <7ee1n1$ndq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, smar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > >Uh, Sherlock - I just did. What part of her testifying against Colorado's
> > >political war against a law that simply stated that all people should
> > >be treated equal - and that no group should have special ritght's not
> > >afforded to other groups.
> >
> > You mean like the right to petition the legislature for redress? The right
> that
> > Amendment 2 specifically withheld from lesbian/gay citizens? The amendment
> that
> > targeted a small group of citizens for **special discrimination**?
>
> people should be treated equally.
By now, you will have seen the text posted by others.
The EFFECT of the text was to target one group of citizens by raising the bar
for legislative remedies higher for them than for other citizens.
Unconstitutional. Period.
---
jw...@eskimo.com
web page: www.eskimo.com/~jwilk
Seattle, Washington, USA
Rasmus Neikes
>
> In article <sodr9pw...@world.std.com>, Andrew Hall
> <ahall-...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> smartred writes:
>
> <SNIP
>
> > smartred> on 1 out of 3 subjects), to stating that pedophiles are
> > smartred> simply "predominately heterosexual".
> >
> > Yes, one study of about 249 pedophiles found 2 that were gay.
> >
> > There is simply no evidence that there is a higher incidence
> > of gays in the pedophile population.
>
> I think his point is that the people doing the survey had a very
> selectively biased defintion as to what made a person "gay". From what
> I understand, if a person wasn't in a relationship with a member of
> their own sex in their own age group, or didn't self identify as gay,
> they wouldn't be considered homosexual even if they prefered pedophilic
> relations with the same sex. That makes little logical sense.
Yes, it does since the word 'gay; is usually understood to mean just
that. And if you lump in all those men that molest boys but aren't gay
you delete availalbe information. Why should one want to do that?
>
> I think his point was that the percentage of pedophilic relations with
> the same sex (according to research) as it relates to the percentage of
> homosexuals verus heterosexuals, was greater then it should be if all
> else were equal. While that doesn't mean that homosexual=pedophile,
> explanations for such a discreprancy would be a worthwhile research
> topic so that it might be possible to isolate the cause for underage
> sexual abuse.
Yes, very much so. But by declaring all tohse poeple "gay" one makes it
extremely difficult to conduct further research...
>
> > Even if there were such evidence, it would not justify treating
> > gays as second class citizens (unless all gays were pedophiles,
> > which is of course absurd).
>
> Agreed.
>
> <SNIP>
Rasmus.
Rasmus Neikes
>
> In article <7eg46t$6...@edrn.newsguy.com>,
> Bruce Garrett <bgar...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > smar...@my-dejanews.com
>
> >
> > RD> Uh, Sherlock, post the words of Ammendment 2.
> >
> > Your wish is my command Red...
> >
> > "No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual
> > Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its
> > branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political
> > subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact,
> > adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy
> > whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct,
> > practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the
> > basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or
> > claim any minority status quota preferences, protected status or
> > claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall
> > be in all respects self-executing."
> >
> > The amendment prohibits the state and any municipality within the
> > state from passing laws that ban discrimination against homosexuals,
>
> How are homosexuals discrimanted against? You know as well as I do
> that homosexuals have a higher per capita income then heterosexuals,
> and a higher level of education. (Which makes sense, given they don't
> have kids that need their time)
Cites? And iven if you were right:
How does that justifies to deprive them of their status as equal
citicens before the law?
>
> As I said, the law only states that all people will be treated equally.
> Homosexuals will not be given "minority status quota preferences" or
> "protected status". Both are special rights - not equal rights.
But homosexuals are singled out in the law. Heterosexuals could stil lbe
given that status, blond people could and people over 6'2 in height,
could too.
>
> > lesbians and bisexuals specifically....but not discrimination against
> > heterosexuals. They could have written it to prohibit the enactment of
> > laws against discrimination based on "sexual orientation", which would
> > not have singled out anyone...but that was not their intent.
>
> What a dumb statement. You really think that heterosexuals are going
> to be made a protected minority group? Duh.
But they _could_ whilst homosexuals would be denied the right to even
try. How is that equal?
>
> The phrase "sexual orientation" is not explicit enough to prevent cases
> of judicial activism by liberal judges.
>
Yes, it is.
> >
> > RD> It simply stated that all people should be treated equally.
> >
> > No. It didn't. Now we have three examples of your blatant lying
> > about the contents of a document. Your misrepresentation of the Bell and
>
> Lying? The ammendment said that homosexuals could not be given special
> rights, specifically - "minority status qoutas" and "protected status".
Yes, but it did NOT include heterosexuals. Is that what you consider to
be _equal_?
>
> That is simply stating that all people will be treated equally regardless
> of sexual behavior.
No - it sngles out heterosexuals and makes it possible tio treat them
_better_ if one so chose.
<snip>
Keep talknig, Rewd., It mkaes you look stupid. You and all those that
agree with you. Keep talking...
John Wilkinson
>So, John has posted a singular cite showing that homosexuals are about
>7 times more promisuious then heterosexuals. Is this your victory bell?
You asked for "a single study" showing that homosexuals don't have "hundreds" of
partners over a lifetime. You clearly believed that no such study existed . . .
a belief that was obviously unfounded.
>In all of our exhanges, only one figure I have posted has been reasonably
>challenged, and that is John's posting a source that homosexual males are
>only 7 times more promisuious then heterosexual males, instead of 60 times.
>Thus, that's one study that has found that homosexuals are seven times
>more promiscuious then heterosexuals, 10 that have found about 60 times
>more promiscuious, and *none* that have found that homosexual males are
>no more promiscuious then heterosexual males.
Unlike the other studies you've cited, that study is recent, representative, and
thereby generalizable. Quality counts . . . yet another fact that doesn't seem
to have dawned on you.
The study authors also gave a reason *why* the remaining difference between
partner rates might exist. That reason bears directly on the social conditions
that you create and support, and that you seem unwilling to address in your
drive to vilify your fellow citizens.
The study I cited, "The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in
the United States," by Edward Laumann, John Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and
Stuart Michaels, also happens to be the one that is most often referenced as
being a reliable source of homosexual prevalence in the population by those who
wish to debunk the Kinsey estimates. I assume that you accept that figure from
this study, and will not wish to undermine its accuracy by attacking the study
as being methodologically flawed. Right?
John Wilkinson
>So, John has posted a singular cite showing that homosexuals are about
>7 times more promisuious then heterosexuals. Is this your victory bell?
You asked for "a single study" showing that homosexuals don't have "hundreds" of
partners over a lifetime. You clearly believed that no such study existed . . .
a belief that was obviously unfounded.
>In all of our exhanges, only one figure I have posted has been reasonably
>challenged, and that is John's posting a source that homosexual males are
>only 7 times more promisuious then heterosexual males, instead of 60 times.
>Thus, that's one study that has found that homosexuals are seven times
>more promiscuious then heterosexuals, 10 that have found about 60 times
>more promiscuious, and *none* that have found that homosexual males are
>no more promiscuious then heterosexual males.
Unlike the other studies you've cited, that study is recent, representative, and
K. Knopp
<rasmus...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> K. Knopp wrote:
> >
> > In article <sodr9pw...@world.std.com>, Andrew Hall
> > <ahall-...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >>>>> smartred writes:
> >
> > <SNIP
> >
> > > smartred> on 1 out of 3 subjects), to stating that pedophiles are
> > > smartred> simply "predominately heterosexual".
> > >
> > > Yes, one study of about 249 pedophiles found 2 that were gay.
> > >
> > > There is simply no evidence that there is a higher incidence
> > > of gays in the pedophile population.
> >
> > I think his point is that the people doing the survey had a very
> > selectively biased defintion as to what made a person "gay". From what
> > I understand, if a person wasn't in a relationship with a member of
> > their own sex in their own age group, or didn't self identify as gay,
> > they wouldn't be considered homosexual even if they prefered pedophilic
> > relations with the same sex. That makes little logical sense.
>
> Yes, it does since the word 'gay; is usually understood to mean just
> that. And if you lump in all those men that molest boys but aren't gay
I'm pretty sure that if you did a survey, most people would say that
the term "gay" meant being attracted to members of your own sex. I
don't think that they'd break it down into various sub-categories. I
don't believe most people would deny that a man who is attracted to
pre-pubescent girls would be engaging in a heterosexual form of lust.
> you delete availalbe information. Why should one want to do that?
>
> >
> > I think his point was that the percentage of pedophilic relations with
> > the same sex (according to research) as it relates to the percentage of
> > homosexuals verus heterosexuals, was greater then it should be if all
> > else were equal. While that doesn't mean that homosexual=pedophile,
> > explanations for such a discreprancy would be a worthwhile research
> > topic so that it might be possible to isolate the cause for underage
> > sexual abuse.
>
> Yes, very much so. But by declaring all tohse poeple "gay" one makes it
> extremely difficult to conduct further research...
Someone who is attracted to members of their same sex is a homosexual.
It makes no sense to break it down by age, race, hair color, weight or
any other arbitrary factors.
Bruce Garrett
>> "No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual
>> Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its
>> branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political
>> subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact,
>> adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy
>> whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct,
>> practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the
>> basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or
>> claim any minority status quota preferences, protected status or
>> claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall
>> be in all respects self-executing."
>> The amendment prohibits the state and any municipality within the
>> state from passing laws that ban discrimination against homosexuals,
RD> How are homosexuals discrimanted against?
You're begging the question. You said, "Uh, Sherlock, Amendment 2
simply stated that all people should be treated equal." ...and we can see
here when we actually read the text that it simple doesn't. There isn't
even a way you can stretch it to mean that, because it's language is pretty
blunt. The amendment prohibits Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual people from
seeking redress for discrimination on the basis of their sexual
orientation at the state or municipality level, but does not also prohibit
heterosexuals from doing the same. Since there were already laws on the
books in some Colorado municipalities, banning discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation, which applies to everyone Gay or straight, those
laws would have applied only to heterosexuals, and no one else, had the
amendment been upheld. That's simply stating that all people should be
treated equal, like Protocols of the Elders of Zion simply stated that Jews
were nice people just like everyone else.
RD> You know as well as I do that homosexuals have a higher per capita
RD> income then heterosexuals, and a higher level of education.
What was it you were saying a while back about self selected
studies? The studies you're basing this claim on drew their data from Gay
men and Lesbians who were not only willing to self identify as Gay men and
Lesbians, they had subscribed to one or more of several Gay publications,
which meant they weren't afraid of getting stuff like that in the mail.
So all those surveys are saying is that having more money then the average
American, and a better education, makes a Gay person more comfortable with
being out. Say Red...I had no idea that money and education could do that
to someone...did you...?
RD> As I said, the law only states that all people will be treated equally.
RD> Homosexuals will not be given "minority status quota preferences" or
RD> "protected status". Both are special rights - not equal rights.
It's fun watching you selectively quote material Red. Really. The
amendment also said that Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual people cannot be
entitled to any claim of discrimination, and since laws that protect
against such discrimination apply to all people, not just some, that's not
a special right. There were no laws on the books in Colorado that gave Gay
people quota preferences or any special protected status, nor were there
any contemplated. There were only a few laws banning discrimination on the
basis of "sexual orientation". That applies to everyone. The verbiage
entered into the amendment referring to quotas and protected status were
rhetorical, designed not to address any actual laws, since there were none,
but to enable the amendment's backers to raise phony issues and inflame
voter passions against Gay people.
>> They could have written it to prohibit the enactment of laws against
>> discrimination based on "sexual orientation", which would not have
>> singled out anyone...but that was not their intent.
RD> What a dumb statement. You really think that heterosexuals are going
RD> to be made a protected minority group? Duh.
The laws should apply to everyone equally Red...isn't that what
you've been saying? But it's not what you really mean though, is it?
RD> The phrase "sexual orientation" is not explicit enough to prevent cases
RD> of judicial activism by liberal judges.
Fine, then they could have specified heterosexuals in the amendment
too. They didn't because they wanted the amendment to apply only to Gay,
Lesbian and Bisexual people. The amendment singled out a group of people,
and placed a heavier legislative burden on them then any other group of
citizens. And there is no way, listening to the hate rhetoric toward
homosexual people coming from it's defenders, that this wasn't the
intention. There is no pretense of equality here...they wanted
non-heterosexuals to be denied the protection of the law...and only
non-heterosexuals.
>> No. It didn't. Now we have three examples of your blatant lying about
>> the contents of a document.
RD> Lying? The amendment said that homosexuals could not be given special
RD> rights, specifically - "minority status qoutas" and "protected status".
And...?
RD> That is simply stating that all people will be treated equally
RD> regardless of sexual behavior.
No. Heterosexuals, in that amendment, are allowed access to all
the legal remedies against discrimination based on sexual orientation, but
only heterosexuals. That's equality for all, only if you think Gay people
don't make up a part of "all"...which of course you do Red. Let's face it
Red...you don't think Gay and Lesbian people belong on this earth at all,
do you...let alone should be considered part of this country...
>> Weinberg study...your misrepresentation of the Guttmacher, pointed out
>> to us by John Wilkinson, where you claimed a figure of "hundreds" of
>> sex partners and the study actually said a mean of 42.8...and now this.
RD> You really can't read, can you? I *never* said, posted, or implied
RD> anything about *any* Guttmacher Institute study having said anything
RD> about the number of sex partners of homosexuals. *Never*.
Bullshit Red. You were using it to reinforce your similar claim
about the Bell and Weinberg study.
"The heterosexual comparision group is unimportant in determining the
number of different sexual partners that homosexuals have. It is
only important in determining the number of different sexual
partners that heterosexuals have. Given that the Guttmacher
Institute did a far more extensive study then the Bell study and
found that the typical heterosexual male averaged just "7" different
sexual partners - where's your beef?"
So once again we see that you're willing to manipulate the work of
other people to make claims they don't themselves make at all. Guttmacher
did a far more extensive study then Bell and Weinberg you said. But
Guttmacher's figures and Bell and Weinberg's aren't even in the same ball
park. Yet here you are claiming that one agrees with and verifies the
other. They don't. Firstly, Bell and Weinberg stated specifically that
their work wasn't intended to draw a generalized picture of anyone,
secondly Guttmacher doesn't support your claims about Gay promiscuity.
You've been claiming, with calculated, deliberate dishonesty, that Bell
and Weinberg Did make claims about Gay behavior in general, and to back
that up you've been saying that other studies, Guttmacher included, agree
with their findings. None of it is true. It's a complete fabrication of
lies and deceptions from start to finish.
You lie Red. You lie to incite hate. You lie to incite violence.
You lie to poison the relations between Gay and Straight Americans, to
dig a no mans land between them so barren and ugly hardly anyone will want
to cross it. But not everyone thinks that fear and loathing and mutual
suspicion and hatred are a normal way of life Red. They may be yours, but
they are not everyone's.
RD> When I have quoted "hundreds" of different sexual partners, I have
RD> quoted several many other studies, with reference and page number.
RD> I have not quoted this study, nor was I even aware that this study
RD> contained this data. I read the primary source of this study one time,
RD> only to verify the existence of the "7" and "2.3%" figures within the
RD> study.
You never read it. Here, at last, you admit it. You've been
yapping at us for days about this study and you never actually read it.
All this research you claim to have done regarding homosexuality...it's
just a lot of hot air isn't it Red? You've been pulling out facts and
figures you got second hand, most likely from your pet anti Gay hate
machines and presenting them to us as your research. And here I'd thought
that you had at least read the books from which you were selectively, and
dishonestly quoting. But it was all lies from the beginning, wasn't it
Red? All lies...
RD> Thus, two supposed lies drops to one. The one was dropped yesterday
RD> when I demonstratd again that you do not have very good reading skills -
RD> as you falsely asserted that I had "quoted" a statistic from the Bell
RD> study, when I had not, nor had I attributed it to the Bell study.
You attributed it not just to Homosexualites, but to a specific
page...page 85. Yet when we look at page 85 we find that it not only says
nothing about Lesbians, as you said it did, but it doesn't say that they
"typical" homosexual male has over 500 sex partners in his lifetime. Bell
and Weinberg said at the beginning of their book that the data couldn't be
used to make general claims about the behavior of any group they looked at,
and on page 85 the statistic they give is for less then half of all the
people they surveyed...and even that had a disclaimer attached to it, that
the numbers could have been exaggerated by their respondents. That's all
in just the chapter title, and the first paragraph Red. You lied brazenly
about it's contents, and you have to think that you were counting on nobody
actually bothering to read them for themselves. Certainly your pals in the
kook pews wouldn't have bothered...most of them wouldn't pick up a science
book unless they needed a beer coaster.
But there's a even bigger joke here Mr. Engineer sir...and that's
that none of these studies are actually reporting the kind of sex people
are having. They're reporting the kind of sex people Say they are having.
When you do an analysis of a structure, how do you know what loads which
materials will bear? We know what the tensile strength of steel is...how?
A building or a bridge is the product of many generations of work, all
based on actual observation of how materials actually behave.
We know that one half of the white male respondents in the Bell and
Weinberg study, and one third of the black male respondents, had "at least"
500 sexual partners...how? Because they said they did. We know that 2.3
percent of the respondents in the Guttmacher study were homosexual...how?
Because they said they were. Mr. Engineer sir...do you see any problems
with making decisions based on this kind of data? You've been making a lot
of inflammatory claims about homosexual people in here...and it's all based
on...what? On what people were willing to say to strangers about the kind
of sex they've been having.
Admittedly, this may be the only way we can ever get any idea about
what people are doing behind closed doors...but data like this needs to be
treated with a lot more humility then you're running on here. You're
engaging in a smear campaign against Gay and Lesbian people using
selectively quoted facts and figures that you've patched together from
wholly disparate studies, using completely different methodologies, and
examining many different things about human sexuality. You're not just
mixing apples and oranges here, but building a Frankenstein monster from
parts you've gutted from random sources. There is nothing honest, or even
naive, about what you're doing.
RD> In all of our exhanges, only one figure I have posted has been
RD> reasonably challenged, and that is John's posting a source that
RD> homosexual males are only 7 times more promisuious then heterosexual
RD> males, instead of 60 times.
As opposed to what, my direct quoting from the Bell and Weinberg
study that showed you were a brazen liar? You lied about Homosexualites,
you lied about Guttmacher, you lied about Colorado Amendment 2...golly Mr.
Engineer sir...every time we look at one of your sources it flat out
contradicts what you're saying it says. Can you even stop lying if you
wanted to?
---
-Bruce Garrett \ http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
Cockeysville, MD. / \ "You know...Frederic fucking Chopin."
-Kevin Jarre, "Tombstone"
Rasmus Neikes
That's not the bloody point!
The point is that there are men who have relationships with women _and_
molest boys - dumbred wants to cound these as homosexual, too. Yes, if a
man dates other men and then molests little boys I have no problem in
referring to that person as homosexual. But if someone has exlusivlely
opposite-sex relationships and then goes after children who are of the
same sex it is NOT the same thing. And thus to call it by the same name
is either stupid or - if done the way red does it - blatant lying.
>
> > you delete availalbe information. Why should one want to do that?
> >
> > >
> > > I think his point was that the percentage of pedophilic relations with
> > > the same sex (according to research) as it relates to the percentage of
> > > homosexuals verus heterosexuals, was greater then it should be if all
> > > else were equal. While that doesn't mean that homosexual=pedophile,
> > > explanations for such a discreprancy would be a worthwhile research
> > > topic so that it might be possible to isolate the cause for underage
> > > sexual abuse.
> >
> > Yes, very much so. But by declaring all tohse poeple "gay" one makes it
> > extremely difficult to conduct further research...
>
> Someone who is attracted to members of their same sex is a homosexual.
> It makes no sense to break it down by age, race, hair color, weight or
> any other arbitrary factors.
I think _age_ does make a difference, but I wasn't arguing the pount you
are arguing...
James Doemer
And if the study claimed that, you would have something to worry about, but
since it didn't, you don't...
Eric Bohlman
: smar...@my-dejanews.com...
: RD> You know as well as I do that homosexuals have a higher per capita
: RD> income then heterosexuals, and a higher level of education.
: What was it you were saying a while back about self selected
: studies? The studies you're basing this claim on drew their data from Gay
: men and Lesbians who were not only willing to self identify as Gay men and
: Lesbians, they had subscribed to one or more of several Gay publications,
: which meant they weren't afraid of getting stuff like that in the mail.
: So all those surveys are saying is that having more money then the average
: American, and a better education, makes a Gay person more comfortable with
: being out. Say Red...I had no idea that money and education could do that
: to someone...did you...?
It's actually worse than that. Magazine subscribers, regardless of the
focus of the magazines, tend to have higher incomes and be more educated
than non-subscribers. The median income of African-American subscribers
to Time or Newsweek would be higher than the median income of white
Americans in general, but nobody would take that as an indication that
black people were economically better-off than white people in the US.
Furthermore, the magazines whose subscribers were sampled in the
Overlooked Opinions research are oriented toward affluent readers in the
first place. While they all have some news content, they've got a lot
more entertainment, arts, travel and product-review content. They cater
to people who have money to spend. It should be noted that Overlooked
Opinions never represented their research as anything other than an
attempt to identify certain sub-groups of the gay population as desirable
marketing demographics; it was sloppy reporting and word-of-mouth
retransmission that created the urban legend that gay people in general
were more affluent and educated.
Incidentally, Jews tend to be more educated than the general population,
and have some highly affluent subgroups. They're also a people who
*really* know what it means to face discrimination. Civil-rights laws
are not anti-poverty programs, and inclusion of categories in them is not
based on means-testing.
K. Knopp
<rasmus...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
That would be incorrect. Technically, they should be termed bisexual.
What percentage of the US is thought to be bisexual? Is it part of the
2-3% or is it just a smaller subset?
> man dates other men and then molests little boys I have no problem in
> referring to that person as homosexual. But if someone has exlusivlely
> opposite-sex relationships and then goes after children who are of the
> same sex it is NOT the same thing. And thus to call it by the same name
Sure it is. Attraction to the same sex is homosexuality (or
bisexuality if it's paired with a sexual attraction for the opposite
sex as well). It matters not if the person is young, old, fat, skinny,
red haired, irish, black, rich or poor. Suggesting otherwise is
intellectually dishonest.
> is either stupid or - if done the way red does it - blatant lying.
>
> >
> > > you delete availalbe information. Why should one want to do that?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I think his point was that the percentage of pedophilic relations with
> > > > the same sex (according to research) as it relates to the percentage of
> > > > homosexuals verus heterosexuals, was greater then it should be if all
> > > > else were equal. While that doesn't mean that homosexual=pedophile,
> > > > explanations for such a discreprancy would be a worthwhile research
> > > > topic so that it might be possible to isolate the cause for underage
> > > > sexual abuse.
> > >
> > > Yes, very much so. But by declaring all tohse poeple "gay" one makes it
> > > extremely difficult to conduct further research...
> >
> > Someone who is attracted to members of their same sex is a homosexual.
> > It makes no sense to break it down by age, race, hair color, weight or
> > any other arbitrary factors.
>
> I think _age_ does make a difference, but I wasn't arguing the pount you
> are arguing...
I disagree. The thing that is being defined by the term
"homosexuality" is only the sex to which the person engaged in the
activity is attracted. If Dr. Jenny's study does lable those engaged
in sexual relations with those who are underage and of the same sex as
"heterosexual", there's a huge flaw in her research. If there is an
attraction to the same sex, regardless of age, that is a homosexual
attraction. I believe that Red was trying to point out this flaw
(among other things), though I'm not sure how clear he was because he
seemed to be getting into irrelevant side issues. If it is true that
there is a greater then 2-3% (by population) occurence of same sex
molestation, then suggesting that there may be some kind of correlation
between homosexuality or bisexuality to pedophilia would be a fair
observation.
That being said, it wouldn't logically be the basis of a claim to a
homosexual=pedophile argument, much in the same way that studies that
show a disproportionate amount of crimes are committed by minorities
wouldn't be the logical basis to state that a typical black person is a
criminal and shouldn't be trusted.
K. Knopp
<ahall-...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >>>>> K Knopp writes:
>
> K> In article <sodr9pw...@world.std.com>, Andrew Hall
> >> ahall-...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>> smartred writes:
>
> >> SNIP
>
> smartred> on 1 out of 3 subjects), to stating that pedophiles are
> smartred> simply "predominately heterosexual".
> >>
> >> Yes, one study of about 249 pedophiles found 2 that were gay.
> >>
> >> There is simply no evidence that there is a higher incidence
> >> of gays in the pedophile population.
>
> K> I think his point is that the people doing the survey had a very
> K> selectively biased defintion as to what made a person "gay". From what
>
> They used the correct definition.
Your opinion is noted.
> K> I understand, if a person wasn't in a relationship with a member of
> K> their own sex in their own age group, or didn't self identify as gay,
> K> they wouldn't be considered homosexual even if they prefered pedophilic
> K> relations with the same sex. That makes little logical sense.
>
> But it is the definition of homosexual.
You can desire sexual relations from members of your own sex, and not
be homosexual or bisexual?
> Even if you try to expand the definition, the new members
> are not the ones who deserve equal rights, as pedophiles
> create victims, while homosexuals restricting their sexual
> activity to adults do not create victims.
I never claimed that they didn't. You seem to be arguing ahead of
yourself, against an imaginery person whom you believe you know there
view.
> It is a common tactic of the religious right propagandists
> to try to expand the definition there, but I will stick to
> the definitions of the psychological community.
>
> K> I think his point was that the percentage of pedophilic relations with
> K> the same sex (according to research) as it relates to the percentage of
> K> homosexuals verus heterosexuals, was greater then it should be if all
> K> else were equal. While that doesn't mean that homosexual=pedophile,
> K> explanations for such a discreprancy would be a worthwhile research
> K> topic so that it might be possible to isolate the cause for underage
> K> sexual abuse.
>
> The explanation is that pedophiles (people that desire sex
> with children before puberty) generally do not care what the
> sex of their victim is. For one prominent example see Father
> Porter who molested a number of girls and boys. Later he
> married and had kids. A heterosexual pedophile who preyed
> on both sexes.
He either had a sexual attraction to both sexes, or he didn't. If he
did, then he'd rationally be labeled a bisexual.
> >> Even if there were such evidence, it would not justify treating
> >> gays as second class citizens (unless all gays were pedophiles,
> >> which is of course absurd).
>
> K> Agreed.
>
> But unless you have changed your mind you do treat gays
> as second class citizens by having the government not give
> them equal marriage rights.
No more then we make a father and daughter who wish to marry "second
class citizens".
smar...@my-dejanews.com
John Wilkinson <jw...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> In article <7efar6$og6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>
> By now, you will have seen the text posted by others.
>
> The EFFECT of the text was to target one group of citizens by raising the bar
> for legislative remedies higher for them than for other citizens.
> Unconstitutional. Period.
Wrong. It simply said that all people are equal under the law, that
homosexuals could not be given special rights (ie, forced hiring quotas,
minority status, etc) simply because of whom *they say* they have sex with.
After all, isn't that how you claim a person can be identified as homosexual:
If they say thay have sex with their own sex, and they say they have such
sex because they feel that way.
What is Unconstitutional, "period", is any group or individual being elevated
above any other group of individual with special laws protecting that group.
Such violates the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution.
Should it be more of a crime to puch a homosexual,
then it is to punch a person who is Asian? I say they are both wrong,
and both deserving of the same punishment.
Look, the cat is out of the bag -- all of these supposed "hate crimes" laws
are nothing more than legal standing for homosexuals to force their lifestyles
into some sort of legitimacy. Period.
-red davis
>
> ---
> jw...@eskimo.com
> web page: www.eskimo.com/~jwilk
> Seattle, Washington, USA
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
-Red Davis
smar...@my-dejanews.com
Anne Marie <Anne.Mari...@psych.uib.no> wrote:
> James Doemer wrote:
[nip]
> > > As I am doing statistical work at the moment, this rather interested me:
> > > .35% is the same as 0.0%? Neat! So if I make a dish containing only .35%
> > > chili pepper I can claim there is no chili in it? I`m not sure my mom
> > > would agree.
> > > anne
> >
> > Perhaps you should have that little talk with your mom.. Ask her to
> > explain
> > the terms, "Rounding", and "Statistical Significance", to you... Also ask
> > her what social orientated research and cooking might have in common...
> >
> > Like Nothing....
> Well, actually, one thing they DO have in common is that improper use of
> rounding of numbers and statistical significance can cause serious
A big thing that "cooking" and "social orientated research" have in common
in this specific case is the fact that the researcher, Carole Jenny,
did some "home cooking" in her study to distort the results to fit her
political agenda.
How else could a reasonable person view a "study" done where a question
was asked that had dire consequences for one of its bi-polar answers:
Answer with "yes" - and get a ticket to jail. Answer with "no"
and go free. Is it really a wonder under such circumstances that there
was only *one* "yes"?
That is exactly how "Dr." Jenny found exactly "one" homosexual in
her study of pedophiles: "Excuse me, are you a homosexual that just brought
this male child in that was sexually molested?" said Jenny. The homosexual
pedophile said, "No. I don't watch Ellen". Jenny concludes, "Another
heterosexual. Why, I'm shocked".
That's not science: That's agenda.
-red davis
> problems in both areas ;-) (and you can`t have a "not statistically
> significant" number of participants/subjects/objects or whatever - you
> can say there were so few x-es among your y-s that you can`t claim your
> findings hold for them as well, but that`s different)
> annemarie
>
-Red Davis
smar...@my-dejanews.com
Rasmus Neikes <rasmus...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> smar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <7eg46t$6...@edrn.newsguy.com>,
> > Bruce Garrett <bgar...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > smar...@my-dejanews.com
> >
> > >
> > > RD> Uh, Sherlock, post the words of Ammendment 2.
> > >
> > > Your wish is my command Red...
> > >
> > > "No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual
> > > Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its
> > > branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political
> > > subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact,
> > > adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy
> > > whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct,
> > > practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the
> > > basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or
> > > claim any minority status quota preferences, protected status or
> > > claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall
> > > be in all respects self-executing."
> > >
> > > The amendment prohibits the state and any municipality within the
> > > state from passing laws that ban discrimination against homosexuals,
> >
> > How are homosexuals discrimanted against? You know as well as I do
> > that homosexuals have a higher per capita income then heterosexuals,
> > and a higher level of education. (Which makes sense, given they don't
> > have kids that need their time)
>
> How does that justifies to deprive them of their status as equal
> citicens before the law?
Sorry, but "protected minority status" is not an equal status under law.
It is a *preferred* status used in affirmative action, and allowing
less stringent rules regarding burden of proof to be used in civil actions.
Such a status elevates a group above "equal protection".
Question: why would we ever want to elevate a group of people based on
whom they say they have sex with?
The special privileges have nothing to do with protecting homosexuals from
employment discrimination (they make more money than the average),
discrimination in education (they are better educated on average), or
protecting them from violent acts (as homosexuals actually commit more
acts of violence and death on homosexuals - then heterosexuals do).
It has to do with giving those pushing the homosexual agenda the legal
muscle to force their agenda on sociey via judicial activism. It is
the proverbial "camel's nose under the tent".
Tell us, do current laws state "It is a Class C felony to knowingly
commit harm on a person that causes serious injury unless such person
is a member of the class under section 121 B.
Section 121 B - homosexuals - such can be beaten at will"?
Nope. Current laws include all citizens. Homosexuals or heterosexuals.
Homosexuals want special rights that will act as a springboard for
even more special rights.
>
> >
> > As I said, the law only states that all people will be treated equally.
> > Homosexuals will not be given "minority status quota preferences" or
> > "protected status". Both are special rights - not equal rights.
>
> But homosexuals are singled out in the law. Heterosexuals could stil lbe
> given that status, blond people could and people over 6'2 in height,
> could too.
>
Homosexuals were given special rights. The law simply removed the special
rights and required all people - heterosexual or homosexual -- to be treated
equally under the law.
> >
> > > lesbians and bisexuals specifically....but not discrimination against
> > > heterosexuals. They could have written it to prohibit the enactment of
> > > laws against discrimination based on "sexual orientation", which would
> > > not have singled out anyone...but that was not their intent.
> >
> > What a dumb statement. You really think that heterosexuals are going
> > to be made a protected minority group? Duh.
>
> But they _could_ whilst homosexuals would be denied the right to even
> try. How is that equal?
They could? A *majority* of people "could" be made a "protected minority
group". Is English a second language for you?
Me thinks he is a cup and saucer short of a full set.
-red davis
Dionisio
> How are homosexuals discrimanted against? You know as well as I do
> that homosexuals have a higher per capita income then heterosexuals,
> and a higher level of education. (Which makes sense, given they don't
> have kids that need their time)
Smile. Fallen for misrepresented studies have you? Well, I specialize in setting
those wrong impressions right.
The truth is that, on average, gays make less than heterosexuals in any given
field, and when compared against heterosexuals of the same experience levels and
seniority.
As for where the myth originated, the Wall Street Journal commissioned a study of
its readership. Not only does the average subscriber of the WSJ make more than
comparable non-subscribers, they also found -- of all the astonishing things --
that such trends continued with respect to their homosexual readers.
If you would like more information:
http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio/queer/a-study-gay-pay.html
> As I said, the law only states that all people will be treated equally.
> Homosexuals will not be given "minority status quota preferences" or
> "protected status". Both are special rights - not equal rights.
That's what it looks like on the surface. One question: If the state were so
interested in not giving special rights, why did it not include heterosexuals and
asexuals too? They left out some people. They also restricted the ability of the
people who they listed to seek redress for wrongs due to any discrimination they
might encounter. Equality? How so? Equality requires that all be treated to the
same restrictions, or some are not equal and others are priviledged.
The law gave priviledges to heterosexuals which were not also afforded to
homosexuals. The priviledge to go to before the magistrate and set right any
wrongs. If society can't afford the court costs imposed by a few homosexuals
pleading their cases before a judge, why not just eliminate marriage, and thus
save all that money spent of divorce, custody battles, and the like? It would save
more money.
--
HTTP://www.infinet.com/~dionisio -- Snookems, the white kitty.
Your horoscope:
Your day will start out dull and boring until you discover that your stuffed
animals can be posed in some amusing sexual positions. Things will brighten
considerably more on your lunch break when you wander past a blond Klingon fortune
teller as she leaves a Star Trek convention. She will tell you that "Today is a
good day to dye!" (She's right, your roots are starting to show.) The rest of the
afternoon will go smoothly, and this evening you will experience a deep, healing
sleep... From which you will suddenly awaken to discover that you have one hell of
a hangover, and are covered with broken bits of what used to be your windshield.
Rasmus Neikes
Tell us again how many of the peolpe who brough children to the hospital
have actually been the abusers, red? Where in the stud is that data
mentioned?
And how many heterosexual abusers do you think they'd let get away with
it, Red?
Do you think it is okay for hgeterosexuals to abuse children and not put
them in jail for it that you make the assumption that this is what would
have happened?
Keep talknig Red... keep talking...
Rasmus Neikes
a) homosexuality is NOT defined by behaviour. It just isn't no matter
how much or little sense it would make.
b) Red woudl claim that all those who look black during the bankrobbery
are actually black - that does of course include all those who have
blakc socks or stockings pulled over hteir head...
c) Take the following peolpe:
1 - A man who has adult relationships only with women but abuses boys.
2 - A man who has adult relationships only with women but abuses girls.
3 - A man who has adult relationships only with women but abuses boys
and girls.
4 - A man who has adult relationships only with men but abuses boys.
5 - A man who has adult relationships only with men but abuses girls.
6 - A man who has adult relationships only with men but abuses boys and
girls.
7 - A man who has adult relationships with men and women but abuses
boys.
8 - A man who has adult relationships with men and women but abuses
girls.
9 - A man who has adult relationships with men and women but abuses boys
and girls.
All of these are _different_. They have an observable difference in
their sexuhal behaviour, but you insist that they be grouped as follows:
1 - bisexual
2 - heterosexual
3 - bisexual
4 - homosexual
5 - bisexual
6 - bisexual
7 - bisexual
8 - bisexual
9 - bisexual
--------------
Heterosexuals 1
Homosexuals 1
Bisexuals 7
Why do you want to delete all the availalbe data about them rather than
use it to assess the problem of pedophilia? Note that Red argues that
all bisexuals are actualyl homosexuals...
Rasmus Neikes
>
> In article <sodwvzn...@world.std.com>, Andrew Hall
> <ahall-...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> K Knopp writes:
> >
> > K> In article <sodr9pw...@world.std.com>, Andrew Hall
> > >> ahall-...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> >>>>> smartred writes:
> >
> > >> SNIP
> >
> > smartred> on 1 out of 3 subjects), to stating that pedophiles are
> > smartred> simply "predominately heterosexual".
> > >>
> > >> Yes, one study of about 249 pedophiles found 2 that were gay.
> > >>
> > >> There is simply no evidence that there is a higher incidence
> > >> of gays in the pedophile population.
> >
> > K> selectively biased defintion as to what made a person "gay". From what
> >
> > They used the correct definition.
>
> Your opinion is noted.
It is NOT an opinion. Sexuality is understood in terms of desires and
attractions towards gender.
>
> > K> I understand, if a person wasn't in a relationship with a member of
> > K> their own sex in their own age group, or didn't self identify as gay,
> > K> they wouldn't be considered homosexual even if they prefered pedophilic
> > K> relations with the same sex. That makes little logical sense.
> >
> > But it is the definition of homosexual.
>
> You can desire sexual relations from members of your own sex, and not
> be homosexual or bisexual?
Since sexuality is also defined as referring to other _adults_, yes you
can if you the desires you refer to are targeted on children - that is
for the simple reason that pedophilia is not about love but about power
and abuse.
A man loves a man.
A man likes to dominate male children.
Do you see the difference?
>
> > Even if you try to expand the definition, the new members
> > are not the ones who deserve equal rights, as pedophiles
> > create victims, while homosexuals restricting their sexual
> > activity to adults do not create victims.
>
> I never claimed that they didn't. You seem to be arguing ahead of
> yourself, against an imaginery person whom you believe you know there
> view.
The person is dumbred, and you are arguing his side at the moment - not
fully but in parts.
>
> > It is a common tactic of the religious right propagandists
> > to try to expand the definition there, but I will stick to
> > the definitions of the psychological community.
> >
> > K> I think his point was that the percentage of pedophilic relations with
> > K> the same sex (according to research) as it relates to the percentage of
> > K> homosexuals verus heterosexuals, was greater then it should be if all
> > K> else were equal. While that doesn't mean that homosexual=pedophile,
> > K> explanations for such a discreprancy would be a worthwhile research
> > K> topic so that it might be possible to isolate the cause for underage
> > K> sexual abuse.
> >
> > The explanation is that pedophiles (people that desire sex
> > with children before puberty) generally do not care what the
> > sex of their victim is. For one prominent example see Father
> > Porter who molested a number of girls and boys. Later he
> > married and had kids. A heterosexual pedophile who preyed
> > on both sexes.
>
> He either had a sexual attraction to both sexes, or he didn't. If he
> did, then he'd rationally be labeled a bisexual.
He didn't _care_ for the gender of the children. Are you unable to grasp
that point? What a pedophile likes is the power he can exercise,
possible the innocence of his victims. Young childsren do not _have_ a
gender. They have a biological sex, but that's not quite the same.
>
> > >> Even if there were such evidence, it would not justify treating
> > >> gays as second class citizens (unless all gays were pedophiles,
> > >> which is of course absurd).
> >
> > K> Agreed.
> >
> > But unless you have changed your mind you do treat gays
> > as second class citizens by having the government not give
> > them equal marriage rights.
>
> No more then we make a father and daughter who wish to marry "second
> class citizens".
... and no more than we make a black woman and a white man who want ot
marry second class citicens.
But thnak you for showing us your true colours... it didn't take quite
as long as I would have epxected...
smar...@my-dejanews.com
"In vivid contrast to the dignified non-violence which characterized the
African American civil rights movement as led by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King,
gay extremist attempts to ride the civil rights bandwagon have been anything
but civil.
Recently, gay activists vandalized California State office buildings. Burned
State flags and California's governor in effigy after his veto of a special
gay advantage bill. And pelted the governor himself with garbage at a
speaking engagement following his veto.
In 1989, gay "AIDS activists" invaded a Roman Catholic mass at New York
City's St. Patrick's Cathedral, shouting obscenities and defiling Communion
elements. A few participants in this blatant desecration incurred slight legal
penalties.
On Saturday, November 16, 1991, "A group of AIDS demonstrators dressed in
suits and ties infiltrated the Family Concerns Conference brunch Saturday at
First Baptist Church of Atlanta, then peppered the diners with hundreds of
condoms while chanting `Safer sex saves lives.' The demonstrators were
removed by church security guards and police. Outside, 90 placard-waving
protesters marched in front of the church at Peachtree and Fifth streets,
chanting and waving at automobiles as drivers honked and waved. There were no
arrests.
"The action was staged by the National Organization for Women, Atlanta
Pro-Choice Action Committee, and ACTUP/Atlanta [a radical gay activist
organization]. The groups oppose the conservative Christian group's stands
against both abortion and high school sex education courses that provide
information about the use of condoms to prevent AIDS transmission" ("AIDS
activists crash church brunch," Atlanta Journal Constitution, Sun., Nov. 17,
1991, emphasis added).
"A catalogue to an AIDS art show, partly funded by the National Endowment for
the Arts, reflects the general tone [of gay "arts" attacks against the Roman
Catholic Church]: [New York's] Cardinal O'Connor is a `fat cannibal in
skirts' and his cathedral is a `house of walking swastikas'... Savage mockery
of Christianity is now a conventional part of the public gay culture. A
ridiculous looking Jesus figure carrying a cross is always featured in the
gay Halloween parade in New York..." ("The gay tide of Catholic-bashing,"
U.S. News and World Report, April, 1991, p. 15.)
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has given generous grants to
homophile "works of art" which blatantly blaspheme traditional religious and
family values -- to the applause of liberal gay advantage supporters who would
doubtless fight any suggestion of federal funding for religious art "tooth and
claw."
Gay activists' behavior at non-violent, pro-life Operation Rescue protests has
been notoriously violent and even obscene. The Los Angeles Times, October 6,
1991, reported:
"Members of ACT UP, the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power,
spit on, kiss and stick needles into Operation Rescue members
and then shout `Welcome to the world of AIDS,' claims Bill
Soucie, a Glendale abortion foe. Some ACT UP members push
and shove Operation Rescue members, while others drop their
trousers and moon their opponents or lift T-shirts to expose their
breasts, he said...
About the nudity, ACT UP member David Barton is quoted:
"`Sure, it's militant behavior,' he said. `These people are so
offensive to us, we do whatever we can to offend them.' Nudity is
sometimes just a spontaneous action, said [ACT UP member
Judy] Kristel, who exposed her breasts at [a] June 29
demonstration. Her action and that of three others who exposed
themselves was videotaped and the tape given to El Monte police
for possible prosecution."
It is surely a measure of gay activists' political power that no arrests were
made and no charges were filed. Nor were charges filed or arrests made at San
Francisco's 1990 and 1991 Gay and Lesbian Pride Parades, of which we have
video footage depicting:
Public nudity, both male and female. Lewd and lascivious acts, including
public fondling of genitalia and several acts of what appears to be public
anal sex between homosexuals. Transvestism, "leather culture,"
sadomasochistic paraphernalia, open promotion of pedophilia and savage
ridicule of religious objects and symbols. Clear evidence of police presence,
plus footage of San Francisco's mayor, who rode in and endorsed these
parades. San Francisco police authorities were contacted and asked why no
arrests were made. Their explanations were as follows:
1. Police officers present "may not have seen indecent behavior or received
formal complaints." 2. Police "may have seen such behavior," but primary
responsibility on that date was to "reflect community standards and maintain
crowd control." 3. Mayor Art Agnos endorsed and participated in the parade,
and the police department had to assume that his sanction was on anything
that took place. 4. "These people [gays present] have shown they will riot at
the drop of a hat, and it was the primary responsibility of police officers
to keep the peace, even at the possible cost of tolerating public
indecencies." In Madison, Wisconsin, on Sunday, September 8, 1991: "About 100
ACT Up protesters charged the Capitol... defacing the hallway leading to the
governor's office with food and stickers and staging a `die-in' in the
rotunda. They were protesting what they call `criminal' state policies
against prison inmates with AIDS... The protesters were met by Capitol police
and security officers, who closed the governor's office and blocked the
group's entry. The protesters then tossed sandwiches and towels toward the
door, and left numerous ACT Up stickers on the walls that portray
[Wisconsin's governor Tommy] Thompson as a public health menace because of
the prison policies. Other protesters used some type of black marker to write
on the marble floor..." ("AIDS protesters deface Capitol," The Capital Times,
September 9, 1991)."
Anne Marie
>
> Anne Marie <Anne.Mari...@psych.uib.no> wrote in message
> news:370C77...@psych.uib.no...
> > James Doemer wrote:
> > >
> > > Anne Marie <Anne.Mari...@psych.uib.no> wrote in message
> > > news:370B6D...@psych.uib.no...
> > > > smar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:(snip)
> > > > >
> > > > > What part of her only finding "1" homosexual pedophile didn't you
> > > understand?
> > > > > That means that out of her study, only 0.35% (statistically "0")
> were
> > > > > homosexual.
> > > > >
> me:
> > > > .35% is the same as 0.0%? Neat! So if I make a dish containing only
> .35%
> > > > chili pepper I can claim there is no chili in it? I`m not sure my mom
> > > > would agree.
> > > > anne
> > >
> > > Perhaps you should have that little talk with your mom.. Ask her to
> > > explain
> > > the terms, "Rounding", and "Statistical Significance", to you... Also
> ask
> > > her what social orientated research and cooking might have in common...
> > >
> > > Like Nothing....
> > Well, actually, one thing they DO have in common is that improper use of
> > rounding of numbers and statistical significance can cause serious
> > significant" number of participants/subjects/objects or whatever - you
> > can say there were so few x-es among your y-s that you can`t claim your
> > findings hold for them as well, but that`s different)
> > annemarie
>
> since it didn't, you don't...
more text, but then I have trouble posting ... _Of course_ the original
study never claimed anything so preposterous, but the poster I responded
to (calls him?self smartred for some reason)_did_(saying they found so
few gays that "statistically" there werent any at all),and as I was
working w/studies, data, statistics etc. that day this caught my
attention. OK now?
Annemarie
smar...@my-dejanews.com
Dionisio <dion...@infinet.com> wrote:
> Smile. Fallen for misrepresented studies have you? Well, I specialize in
> setting those wrong impressions right.
Nope. I think that what is about to follow is another homosexual researcher
doing some "home cooking".
>
> The truth is that, on average, gays make less than heterosexuals in any given
> field, and when compared against heterosexuals of the same experience levels
> and seniority.
That's the truth, ehh? Maybe in fairyland. Now, let's have a dose of
reality:
Even people in fairyland claim that gays are wealthier than most: "10
Percent, a gay magazine, quotes current HRCF Executive Director Tim McFeeley
as follows: "`By conservative estimates, the [gay] people who went to
[Washington] D.C. [for the 1993 March on Washington] spent $100 million.
That's the kind of money our community spends and [our political]
organizations so desperately need'" ("Capital Gains," Fall 1993, p. 76). The
Washington, D.C., Convention and Visitors Association's official estimate was
"that the event brought more money to the capital -- $177 million -- than any
other single event they'd tracked. Bill Clinton's inauguration, by contrast,
brought in just $65 million" (Out, op. cit., p. 91, emphasis added)"
Again, from fairyland: "Gay writer Ed Mickens admitted gays don't suffer much
in the workplace: "Today, it's rare that anyone gets fired just for being
gay" ("Can I come out at work and be secure?" The Advocate, March 22, 1994,
p. 20).
And again, from fairyland:
"As more and more homosexuals come out of hiding, the reality of gay
economic and political and education achievement becomes more evident. And
as that happens, gay people who insist they are oppressed will increasingly,
and not always unfairly, come off asyuppie whiners, 'victims' with $50,000
incomes and vacations in Europe. They may feel they are oppressed, but they
will have a harder and harder time convincing the public."
-Jonathan Rauch, "Beyond Oppression," The New Republic, May 10, 1993, 23.
(This author is a homosexual; The New Republic is a liberal publication.)
"Time magazine has commented: "Because [homosexuals] are highly mobilized and
tend to have more discretionary income, gays have an impact on elections that
is disproportionate to their number." Highlighting gay militants' sizeable
donation to the Clinton presidential campaign, Time adds: "This power has
even greater effect on the congressional level" ("The Shrinking Ten Percent,"
April 26, 1993, p. 29)."
"F. Tom Duran, Director of Regional Offices, the Colorado Civil Rights
Division, has said, "I think there is a tremendous difference between gays
and lesbians and the traditional protected class minorities... I don't see
gay ghettoes, I don't see gays [being] homeless, I don't see gays being
disadvantaged politically or economically... I think they have tremendous
power, they have tremendous economic control, and I don't think that they are
in the same disadvantaged class as blacks, American Indians, Hispanics, women
and other minority groups." Ignacio Rodriguez, also a Past Chairman of the
Colorado Civil Rights Commission, has commented: "If you are economically
viable, you can obtain certain things that those who are economically
disadvantaged cannot... For all practical purposes, [gays] as a group, are in
the advantaged category. So I would not anticipate that anyone would identify
this group in those arenas with other, ethnic minorities. For [gays] to
indicate that at any time they, as a group, have suffered the consequences of
discrimination that ethnic minorities have suffered is ludicrous."
Now, question time: Do homosexuals have a higher income, and a higher level
of education then most, or are all of the preceding comments just another
lie in the homosexual "Big Lie" campaign?
That is, did the militant homophiles falsely claim wealth and education to
advance their agenda (as witnessed by all these gay writers asserting such),
and are now claiming the opposite because the claim now hurts their agenda?
One thing is for sure: Never, but never believe a homosexual right's group.
Their life is a lie, they lie. If they don't lie about "10%" and "born
that way", they lie about income when it suits their purpose, or lie about
their orientation (a.k.a. D. Michael Quinn) when it suits their purpose.
Stayed tuned. I'm personally popping the Big Lie campaign.
-red davis
big_...@my-dejanews.com
smar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <370C77...@psych.uib.no>,
> Anne Marie <Anne.Mari...@psych.uib.no> wrote:
> > James Doemer wrote:
> [nip]
> > > > .35% is the same as 0.0%? Neat! So if I make a dish containing only .35%
> > > > chili pepper I can claim there is no chili in it? I`m not sure my mom
> > > > would agree.
> > > > anne
> > >
> > > Perhaps you should have that little talk with your mom.. Ask her to
> > > explain
> > > the terms, "Rounding", and "Statistical Significance", to you... Also
ask
> > > her what social orientated research and cooking might have in common...
> > >
> > > Like Nothing....
> > Well, actually, one thing they DO have in common is that improper use of
> > rounding of numbers and statistical significance can cause serious
>
> in this specific case is the fact that the researcher, Carole Jenny,
> did some "home cooking" in her study to distort the results to fit her
> political agenda.
Then I suppose that you are prepared to cite the specific instances of, "Home
Cooking"??
>
> How else could a reasonable person view a "study" done where a question
> was asked that had dire consequences for one of its bi-polar answers:
> Answer with "yes" - and get a ticket to jail. Answer with "no"
> and go free. Is it really a wonder under such circumstances that there
> was only *one* "yes"?
Hmmm.... How odd.. The dire consequences would have been the same regardless
of sexual orientation.. The crime is the abuse, not the sexual orientation
of the criminal. So, to recap your statement.. The abusers would not answer
the question because of dire consequences.. More dire than the consequences
for the abuse, of which they are already accused?? The ticket to jail, on
receipt of a guilty verdict, was already purchased. Doesn't seem that they
had anything more to lose at that point.
>
> That is exactly how "Dr." Jenny found exactly "one" homosexual in
> her study of pedophiles: "Excuse me, are you a homosexual that just brought
> this male child in that was sexually molested?" said Jenny. The homosexual
> pedophile said, "No. I don't watch Ellen". Jenny concludes, "Another
> heterosexual. Why, I'm shocked".
The study doesn't mention whether the person admitting the victim was the
abuser in any case. The study did specifically mention case workers and
other investigators... Your facts of the study seem faulty at best.
>
> That's not science: That's agenda.
>
And what is your agenda with the above distortions?
Mr. Horrible
>
> From the Leadership University website:
>
> "In vivid contrast to the dignified non-violence which characterized the
> African American civil rights movement as led by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King,
> gay extremist attempts to ride the civil rights bandwagon have been anything
> but civil.
Not all black civil rights activists were non-violent.
And not all gay rights activists are violent.
This post is completely irrelevant.
Mr. H
K. Knopp
<rasmus...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> K. Knopp wrote:
<SNIP>
> > That being said, it wouldn't logically be the basis of a claim to a
> > homosexual=pedophile argument, much in the same way that studies that
> > show a disproportionate amount of crimes are committed by minorities
> > wouldn't be the logical basis to state that a typical black person is a
> > criminal and shouldn't be trusted.
>
> a) homosexuality is NOT defined by behaviour. It just isn't no matter
> how much or little sense it would make.
I never said that it would. Homsexuality is defined by the sex of the
people you are attracted to. Being attracted to those of your same sex
makes you a homosexual, regardless of age, race, religion, job, hair
color, or height. You don't have to engage in any particular behavior
to be a homosexual, though engaging in homosexual behavior (sexual
activity among those of the same sex) is a clear indicator of likely
homosexuality, if those involved are actually sexually attracted, and
not just engaging in some type of curious experimenting.
> b) Red woudl claim that all those who look black during the bankrobbery
> are actually black - that does of course include all those who have
> blakc socks or stockings pulled over hteir head...
True.
> c) Take the following peolpe:
>
> 1 - A man who has adult relationships only with women but abuses boys.
A man who is bisexual.
> 2 - A man who has adult relationships only with women but abuses girls.
A man who is heterosexual.
> 3 - A man who has adult relationships only with women but abuses boys
> and girls.
Bisexual. If he has a physical attraction to both males and females,
it doesn't make a difference if he chooses to "engage in behavior" with
only adult females. Remember, you can have sex with women, and never
have had sex with a man, and still be gay. If you have sexual
attraction for those of your same sex, as well as the opposite sex (as
evidence by a desire to have sexual relations with members of both
sexes), then you have a bisexual inclination.
> 4 - A man who has adult relationships only with men but abuses boys.
Homosexual.
> 5 - A man who has adult relationships only with men but abuses girls.
Bisexual.
> 6 - A man who has adult relationships only with men but abuses boys and
> girls.
Bisexual.
> 7 - A man who has adult relationships with men and women but abuses
> boys.
Bisexual.
> 8 - A man who has adult relationships with men and women but abuses
> girls.
Bisexual.
> 9 - A man who has adult relationships with men and women but abuses boys
> and girls.
Bisexual.
> All of these are _different_. They have an observable difference in
As would a list were instead of age, you replaced the sub determining
factor as "hair color". To suggest that a man is a heterosexual
because they have only heterosexual sex with women who are blondes, but
will engage in intercourse with red headed men, because they are
attracted to them, is just as absurd.
> their sexuhal behaviour, but you insist that they be grouped as follows
>
> 1 - bisexual
> 2 - heterosexual
> 3 - bisexual
> 4 - homosexual
> 5 - bisexual
> 6 - bisexual
> 7 - bisexual
> 8 - bisexual
> 9 - bisexual
> --------------
> Heterosexuals 1
> Homosexuals 1
> Bisexuals 7
>
> Why do you want to delete all the availalbe data about them rather than
> use it to assess the problem of pedophilia? Note that Red argues that
I didn't suggest that all data be deleted, just that it's
intellectually dishonest to seperate the different sexual orientations
in the way that they were done, if you truly are looking for answers.
> all bisexuals are actualyl homosexuals.
I'd disagree with Red.
big_...@my-dejanews.com
> > news:370C77...@psych.uib.no...
> > > James Doemer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Anne Marie <Anne.Mari...@psych.uib.no> wrote in message
> > > > news:370B6D...@psych.uib.no...
> > > > > smar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:(snip)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What part of her only finding "1" homosexual pedophile didn't you
> > > > understand?
> > > > > > That means that out of her study, only 0.35% (statistically "0")
> > were
> > > > > > homosexual.
> > > > > >
> > me:
> > > > > .35% is the same as 0.0%? Neat! So if I make a dish containing only
> > .35%
> > > > > chili pepper I can claim there is no chili in it? I`m not sure my mom
> > > > > would agree.
> > > > > anne
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you should have that little talk with your mom.. Ask her to
> > > > explain
> > > > the terms, "Rounding", and "Statistical Significance", to you... Also
> > ask
> > > > her what social orientated research and cooking might have in common...
> > > >
> > > > Like Nothing....
> > > Well, actually, one thing they DO have in common is that improper use of
> > > rounding of numbers and statistical significance can cause serious
> > > significant" number of participants/subjects/objects or whatever - you
> > > can say there were so few x-es among your y-s that you can`t claim your
> > > findings hold for them as well, but that`s different)
> > > annemarie
> >
> > And if the study claimed that, you would have something to worry about, but
> > since it didn't, you don't...
> Huh? Sorry, I`m afraid you missed my point. I guess I should quote
> more text, but then I have trouble posting ... _Of course_ the original
> study never claimed anything so preposterous, but the poster I responded
> to (calls him?self smartred for some reason)_did_(saying they found so
> few gays that "statistically" there werent any at all),and as I was
> working w/studies, data, statistics etc. that day this caught my
> attention. OK now?
> Annemarie
>
Ok.. So, to recap.. Essentially we agree and I'm jumping into the middle of
a thread and being stupid... :c) (I really should read the entire thread
before jumping in... Damned jerking knees!!)
SON O GOD
smar...@my-dejanews.com, says...
>Stayed tuned. I'm personally popping the Big Lie campaign.
>
>-red davis
You certainly are, Red! Soon, every single one of your malicious
misrepresenations of other peopls' studies about gay men will be exposed
for the lie it is.
Rasmus Neikes
>
> In article <370DFFFF...@bigfoot.com>, Rasmus Neikes> <SNIP>
>
> > > That being said, it wouldn't logically be the basis of a claim to a
> > > homosexual=pedophile argument, much in the same way that studies that
> > > show a disproportionate amount of crimes are committed by minorities
> > > wouldn't be the logical basis to state that a typical black person is a
> > > criminal and shouldn't be trusted.
> >
> > a) homosexuality is NOT defined by behaviour. It just isn't no matter
> > how much or little sense it would make.
>
> people you are attracted to. Being attracted to those of your same sex
> makes you a homosexual, regardless of age, race, religion, job, hair
> color, or height. You don't have to engage in any particular behavior
> to be a homosexual,
right.
though engaging in homosexual behavior (sexual
> activity among those of the same sex) is a clear indicator of likely
> homosexuality, if those involved are actually sexually attracted, and
> not just engaging in some type of curious experimenting.
wrong. You have to relaize that the others do in fact _represent_ the
gender that they have. Sex in prisons or on ships would be one exmaple
here: There are no females availalbe, thus one uses other mails. And
pedophilia is yet another example, since little boys and girls _lack_
all the features that one would usual;y attriobuter to gender. What the
pedohile is looknig for is the 'age', not the gender. Thus most of them,
at least would have to be considered asexuel in their desire for
children.
>
> > b) Red woudl claim that all those who look black during the bankrobbery
> > are actually black - that does of course include all those who have
> > blakc socks or stockings pulled over hteir head...
>
> True.
Ah :o)
>
> > c) Take the following peolpe:
> >
> > 1 - A man who has adult relationships only with women but abuses boys.
>
> A man who is bisexual.
>
> > 2 - A man who has adult relationships only with women but abuses girls.
>
> A man who is heterosexual.
>
> > 3 - A man who has adult relationships only with women but abuses boys
> > and girls.
>
> Bisexual. If he has a physical attraction to both males and females,
> it doesn't make a difference if he chooses to "engage in behavior" with
> only adult females. Remember, you can have sex with women, and never
> have had sex with a man, and still be gay. If you have sexual
> attraction for those of your same sex, as well as the opposite sex (as
> evidence by a desire to have sexual relations with members of both
> sexes), then you have a bisexual inclination.
Why is it not equalyl possible to be heterosexual but have sex with
someone your own gender? And why should one not assume _just that_ in
the case of a pedophile who must have massive difficulties finding his
victims? If I am right in assuming that the gender of his victim doesn't
really matter the accurate description would be asexual more than
anytnigh else.
>
> > 4 - A man who has adult relationships only with men but abuses boys.
>
> Homosexual.
>
> > 5 - A man who has adult relationships only with men but abuses girls.
>
> Bisexual.
>
> > 6 - A man who has adult relationships only with men but abuses boys and
> > girls.
>
> Bisexual.
>
> > 7 - A man who has adult relationships with men and women but abuses
> > boys.
>
> Bisexual.
>
> > 8 - A man who has adult relationships with men and women but abuses
> > girls.
>
> Bisexual.
>
> > 9 - A man who has adult relationships with men and women but abuses boys
> > and girls.
>
> Bisexual.
>
> > All of these are _different_. They have an observable difference in
>
> As would a list were instead of age, you replaced the sub determining
> factor as "hair color". To suggest that a man is a heterosexual
> because they have only heterosexual sex with women who are blondes, but
> will engage in intercourse with red headed men, because they are
> attracted to them, is just as absurd.
But that is NOT what I am doing, since haircolour doesn't affect your
gender. Age, however, does. (Which is why all babies are equally cute,
yet most men would find young girls more attractive than boys at an age
where it is first reasonable to think of them as sexual partners.)
>
> > their sexuhal behaviour, but you insist that they be grouped as follows
> >
> > 1 - bisexual
> > 2 - heterosexual
> > 3 - bisexual
> > 4 - homosexual
> > 5 - bisexual
> > 6 - bisexual
> > 7 - bisexual
> > 8 - bisexual
> > 9 - bisexual
> > --------------
> > Heterosexuals 1
> > Homosexuals 1
> > Bisexuals 7
> >
> > Why do you want to delete all the availalbe data about them rather than
> > use it to assess the problem of pedophilia? Note that Red argues that
>
> I didn't suggest that all data be deleted, just that it's
> intellectually dishonest to seperate the different sexual orientations
> in the way that they were done, if you truly are looking for answers.
I _am_ looknig for answers. The answer is NOT to refer to pedophiles as
having a sexual orientation. Or do you claim al lyou look for in a
partner is a vagina?
>
> > all bisexuals are actualyl homosexuals.
>
> I'd disagree with Red.
Well, that's something, I guess...
R. L. Measures
wrote:
€ Let me see if I've got this straight: Past persecution of Mormons
proves that God approves of mormonism?
--
- Rich... - 805-386-3734, take away plus from e-mail address
Bruce Garrett
RD> Stayed tuned. I'm personally popping the Big Lie campaign.
Bard...is that you...?
---
-Bruce Garrett \ http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
Cockeysville, MD. / \ "...that poor unfortunate boy in, where was it?
South Dakota? That man was a predator to
heterosexual men."
-Anthony Falzarano, President, PFOX