A Word from Our Alternate Sponsor
Factoid: The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. [source]
posted by Chuck Olsen @ 5:34 AM |
| 
10/06/2006 |
THE NEW PATRIOTSPREVIOUS POSTS
MINNESOTA BLOGSTHE LEFT WINGRULES OF ENGAGEMENT
|
12 Comments:
"The empirical research [of a homosexual advocacy group] does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children.Source
Unfortunately, the fact that one third of the self identified homosexuals in Congress are likely to molest children..and that two thirds have been linked to sexual scandals cast doubt on that "completely unbiased" research.
Pffft.
Hmm, who am I going to believe: Published research and the American Psychological Assocation, or anecdotes from a homophobe on a Harley?
I "pffft" on your myth.
OOOhhh, the American Psychological Association!
Aren't they the morons who published a paper that claimed there was no harm in a child having a sexual relationship with an adult, so long as the kid was willing?
Why yes, yes they are.
And didn't they fall over each other to refute their responsibility for publishing that steaming turd when the entire country stood up and said WHAT?
Why yes, yes they did.
And didn't Dr. Paul Fink, a past President of the APA say that he deeply regretted removing homosexuality from it's manual of mental disease?
Why yes, yes he did.
And didn't he also say that the only reason the APA delisted it in the first place was because they (the APA) were under outrageous pressure from gay rights groups and homosexual psycologists themselves?
Yup, he said that too.
No wonder you are relying on them to bolster your moronic delusions...
That's only one source of many, and all you can do is cite a different controversial study that was not shown to be scientifically invalid according to your link.
Again, all credible research shows that homosexuality DOES NOT EQUAL propensity for pedophilia. Feel free to find credible data that says otherwise.
i hear the blackies are here to take our women too!!!
but, call me old fashioned.
Well that's true. I recommend locking our women up for that very reason!
(This is a test to see if any women are reading this blog. This is only a test. Were this an actual comment, I would be severely disciplined by my gay-married wife.)
mmmk, swiftee... since the vast majority of in-the-closet gayness in dc happens to be from gay-bashing republicans, does that mean that "if you are a republican then you are gay"? no. it means being a self-hating gay is sufficient to becoming a gay-bashing republican (Jim West, Rep. Dreier, Rep. Schrock, Rep. Kolbe, Rep. Gunderson, Rep. Bauman, Rep. McCrery, Focus on the Family's Steve Wilsey, activist Stephen White).
it's a little different with child molestation, though. yes, male pedophiles are more likely to molest boys. HOWEVER, THAT DOESN'T MEAN: "gay men are more likely to abuse children than straight men."
it's tough to keep that logic straight though, as a gay-bashing conservative.
"and all you can do is cite a different controversial study that was not shown to be scientifically invalid according to your link."
OK, let me see if I have this straight.
Are you saying Chuck, that because the study I linked to was not disproven, you are ready to give credence to the notion that having a sexual relationship with a child is not damaging?
Is that what you're saying Chuck...'cause I sure don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth.
I linked to that report to show how the APA has been thouroughly discredited..both by it's own work and by it's former president who says it's research has been co-opted (and thereby corrupted) by special interest groups.
You know, Dr. Fink felt so guilty that he has devoted the balance of his career tryin to undo the damage the APA's de-listing has done to society. It's a fact.
But I suppose you'll just dismiss him as a gay bashing, homophobic bigot..right?
Chris says:
"it's a little different with child molestation, though. yes, male pedophiles are more likely to molest boys. HOWEVER, THAT DOESN'T MEAN: "gay men are more likely to abuse children than straight men."
Let's get our nomenclature straight here first. I am not talking about pedophiles, I'm talking about pederasts.
Pederasty is by it's very nature, a homosexual act.
97% of the abuse by Catholic priests (as well as other clergy) were cases of pederasty.
Incidents of pederasty occur at a rate that far outpaces pedophilia as a proportion of the homosexual presence in society...even if you give them the 10% they claim.
So yes Chris, it does mean that homosexual men are stastically more likely to abuse kids than heterosexual men or women.
If you knuckleheads choose to equate that fact with "the blackies are coming" that's your burden of ignorance to bear.
Well... to kinda nit pick... pederasty really only says that one likes boys. There's no age defnition (e.g. teens vs. children.)
Tehcnially pedophilia is about the age and the sex of the child is secondary (iirc the official definition.)
Pederasty is only shocking because our culture is still biased towards boys... Otherwise there would be more outcry for the the "ILikeTeenSluts.com" sites with "teenage" women. But since it's a "normal" heterosexual relation nobody cares.
What we really have, in the case of people like Foley, is somebody in such denial and/or fear they are unable to have normal adult relations. So they interact with teenagers, as it is "safer". Same for the priest issue... take your vows early, never experience a normal relationship, and you get pretty screwed up.
So I don't see where trying to lable it correctly really matters. We're dealing simply with a screwed up individual who abused his position of power. Just like a majority of heterosexual males do not want to have sex with teenage girls, I'm willing to bet that a majority of homosexual men do not want to have sex with teenage boys. In both cases it's a minority that does it beacuse of other issues.
But cause it's a _boy_ the crime is somehow worse.
(oh and since were dealling with teenagers, technically its ephebephilia not pedeophilia)
Boys, boys, boys:
All research is refutable. All statistics are refutable. Research is not a science, it's just research. I dropped out of doctrate programs for this reason. I have a personal bias against number-stacking of all kinds.
That being said, is there any research regarding republican congressmen being more likely to molest children? THAT I'd love to read.
(ps: let's avoid using Wikipedia as a scientific research site, shall we? Great!)
Ack! A girl!
Anything is refutable to some extent, but you can't just throw your hands up and say "we can't ever know anything" or "there are no such things as facts." Research is one of the ways we can know things about the world around us and advance human knowledge. Of course you have to take into consideration bias.
More disturbing is our ability to deflect facts and information because of emotional certainty in our worldview.
Wikipedia is a perfectly fine resource for purposes of discussion, MissB. But this was the first time I had a chance to use Google Scholar - very cool.
It's true...I admit to being a long-time hands-thrower-upper. Been working on it for years.
Never seen Google Scholar! It's a super nifty thing! I'm going to go play with it now!
Post a Comment
<< Home