planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:54 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:44 am
Posts: 260
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mac_d wrote:
If people want gay marriage, I'm cool with it as long as they allow Civil partnerships to straight people, or otherwise completely make all benefits, tax issues, medical, legal etc issues for both the same.

I don't see why gay marriage etc would bother anyone really. But perhaps it's because I grew up in a pretty accepting time, and if I had grown up more used to an anti-gay world, I might have been shaped into disagreement. I'd like to think I still wouldn't, but who knows.

The "Straight people are also discriminated against because they can't get a civil partnership" is a bogus argument trotted out by homophobes who have a deliberately short term memory. Civil partnerships only exist because they were created as a means for gay people to be able to do something similar to marriage without calling it marriage and bringing out the full wrath of organised religion and bigots. It was an intermediate step to test the water, and allow the general public to get used to the idea of gay couples having legally formalised relationships so when the idea of gay marriage was suggested ordinary people didn't see what the big deal was because gay people were essentially already getting married in a different name.

It's the "Butt Buddies" solution from the South Park episode "follow that egg" - I don't see a need for civil partnerships to continue once gay marriage is legalised. Existing civil partnerships should just be recognised as marriages once the law is passed.

And really, we should stop calling it "Gay Marriage" and just call it marriage. By calling it "Gay Marriage" it implies there is something different about it.



I'm straight and would like a civil partnership with my partner. We both think that marriage is too much about the man owning the woman and I'm into equality for everyone. We'd also like a civil partnership for legal reasons. If my partner and I split up, the Courts and CSA will presume that I am the parent and make me pay for the children because my name is on the birth certificate. Yet, if my partner dies, I would have to adopt my own children to look after them, because we're not married.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1486
fitjiffa wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mac_d wrote:
If people want gay marriage, I'm cool with it as long as they allow Civil partnerships to straight people, or otherwise completely make all benefits, tax issues, medical, legal etc issues for both the same.

I don't see why gay marriage etc would bother anyone really. But perhaps it's because I grew up in a pretty accepting time, and if I had grown up more used to an anti-gay world, I might have been shaped into disagreement. I'd like to think I still wouldn't, but who knows.

The "Straight people are also discriminated against because they can't get a civil partnership" is a bogus argument trotted out by homophobes who have a deliberately short term memory. Civil partnerships only exist because they were created as a means for gay people to be able to do something similar to marriage without calling it marriage and bringing out the full wrath of organised religion and bigots. It was an intermediate step to test the water, and allow the general public to get used to the idea of gay couples having legally formalised relationships so when the idea of gay marriage was suggested ordinary people didn't see what the big deal was because gay people were essentially already getting married in a different name.

It's the "Butt Buddies" solution from the South Park episode "follow that egg" - I don't see a need for civil partnerships to continue once gay marriage is legalised. Existing civil partnerships should just be recognised as marriages once the law is passed.

And really, we should stop calling it "Gay Marriage" and just call it marriage. By calling it "Gay Marriage" it implies there is something different about it.



I'm straight and would like a civil partnership with my partner. We both think that marriage is too much about the man owning the woman and I'm into equality for everyone. We'd also like a civil partnership for legal reasons. If my partner and I split up, the Courts and CSA will presume that I am the parent and make me pay for the children because my name is on the birth certificate. Yet, if my partner dies, I would have to adopt my own children to look after them, because we're not married.


How about a registry office wedding? My wife and I did because we are not religious. We created our own vows which were as far away from a man owning women as you could get. The reading at the ceremony was a passage from a book written by the Dalia Lama. It was not a Buddhist reading but simply one about forming friendships and being kind to the world.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1973
fitjiffa wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
The "Straight people are also discriminated against because they can't get a civil partnership" is a bogus argument trotted out by homophobes who have a deliberately short term memory. Civil partnerships only exist because they were created as a means for gay people to be able to do something similar to marriage without calling it marriage and bringing out the full wrath of organised religion and bigots. It was an intermediate step to test the water, and allow the general public to get used to the idea of gay couples having legally formalised relationships so when the idea of gay marriage was suggested ordinary people didn't see what the big deal was because gay people were essentially already getting married in a different name.

It's the "Butt Buddies" solution from the South Park episode "follow that egg" - I don't see a need for civil partnerships to continue once gay marriage is legalised. Existing civil partnerships should just be recognised as marriages once the law is passed.

And really, we should stop calling it "Gay Marriage" and just call it marriage. By calling it "Gay Marriage" it implies there is something different about it.

I'm straight and would like a civil partnership with my partner. We both think that marriage is too much about the man owning the woman and I'm into equality for everyone. We'd also like a civil partnership for legal reasons. If my partner and I split up, the Courts and CSA will presume that I am the parent and make me pay for the children because my name is on the birth certificate. Yet, if my partner dies, I would have to adopt my own children to look after them, because we're not married.

As I said in my original post, "Civil Partnership" was just a new name given to marriage at the time it was introduced because the government knew that there would be a much bigger backlash from the groups opposed (they could basically trot out the arguments they used then AND the arguments they are bringing out now)

Changing it from 'Civil Partnership' to 'Marriage' is just a rebranding exercise. It's like Jif to Cif.

It wasn't ideal - for the 'Butt Buddies' South Park reasons - but unfortunately probably necessary. It allowed us to have a few years to show Gay Civil Partnerships didn't destroy society so people aren't afraid that will happen when it gets rebranded as marriage.

If you want a Straight Civil Partnership, just call your marriage a "Civil Partnership", remove all of the references to it being a marriage in the invitations, literature and vows. Problem solved. It's exactly the same thing.

And don't do it in a church. Obviously.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 4:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am
Posts: 124
Johnston wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
Can you please post a link to these findings? Thanks.


I googled it

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... t-that-way

Quote:
The Australian Federation for the Family in the latter part of 1990 submitted a 46-page document on homosexuality to the Criminal Justice Commission in Queensland. This was in response to a government inquiry into whether to decriminalize homosexuality. Federation spokesman Jack Sonnemann says homosexuality is devastating to any culture that encourages its lifestyle. He says, ‘People with an alcohol problem do not need more ready availability of drink, they need to learn to run dry.’ His meticulously documented submission points out some frightening facts apart from the horrifying spread of AIDS among homosexuals:

Homosexuals commit between 33% and 50% of all recorded instances of child molestation.
Homosexual teachers have been involved in 80% of recorded teacher-pupil sexual interactions.
Homosexuals have accounted for about half of all molestations among those who work with children.
You are 15 times more likely to be murdered by a homosexual than a heterosexual during a sexual murder spree.
Most victims of sex murders die at the hands of a homosexual.



Those responsible can be found at http://www.ausfamily.org/index.html

Having a quick look, it looks like the Australian version of the Westboro Baptist. So 22 years old and by what I would consider Religious nut jobs. so I guess highly credible.

..and based on information derived from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Institute of Criminology. Plus being advocated in Gay literature such as the Journal of Homosexuality in papers such as "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" and in a 1995 edition of 'The Guide' with "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality … we must do it for the children's sake.".

Simply ignoring the data because you despise these lobbyists, their beliefs/religious affiliations and/or because its from the 1990's is just being willfully blind.

_________________
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am
Posts: 124
Denorth wrote:
how about this for a 'natural' thing:

how can homosexuality be considered unnatural, when Christianity teaches that world was created in six days and all species were created by god. Any trip to a Natural History Museum prove them wrong.
So, if homosexuality is 'unnatural' by believes of the religion that goes against natural history, then who can establish that the religious definition of 'natural' relatively homosexuality is correct?
Church was never against slavery. it was perfectly 'natural' for them. Until civil society moved against slavery. Only after that slavery became 'unnatural' for church. Although, it might be difficult to find actual statement from different type of churches stating that slavery is 'unnatural'.
They are the biggest hypocrites, those guys promoting religion.

The first part of your post is incoherent.

As for slavery, you are clearly just throwing around silly claims which have no historical support. A Christian - William Wilberforce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce- led the British empire in abolishing slavery in 1807. One commentator on the excellent research 'Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire’s Slaves' by Adam Hochschild (2005) wrote "‘The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called “the religious right”.
Other Christian activists included Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson.

Care to revise your statement?

_________________
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:12 am
Posts: 575
It's clear that the catholic church has a poor record on slavery. Their leaders clearly had qualms about slavery back in the 6th century but they didn't introduce a ban on it until the middle of the 19th century. furthermore they didn't completely condem all who practice slavery unitl 1965


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C ... nd_slavery


Probably best to leave the slavery debate and get back on topic of Cardinal Nichols thoughts on homosexuality


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am
Posts: 124
Laura23 wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
Brain of Ireland has either attempted to use stupid stats to make a point and not realized the kind of people behind the stats or he is happy with the stats and the people who are claiming them and has now associated himself with their way of thinking............

Either way I am astounded that anyone would use "stats" like that to prove a point.

Just because you have sex with someone of the same sex as you doesn't mean you'll be more likely to murder them. It just doesn't. Just like if you are a Catholic it doesn't make you more likely to get a sudden urge to look at kiddie porn.

Anyway, continue the topic, I'm finding it interesting reading even if I don't feel able to contribute much!

Laura, this thread started to (justifiably) rail on the Catholic church for their appalling record of child abuse. No argument from me, I'm not Catholic nor a Catholic apologist - I agree, its disgraceful. Nonetheless, to simply ignore the massive over-representation (statistically) of crimes against children committed by homosexuals (these stats show a correlation, like the correlation that smoking increases risks of ill-health) is just burying one's head in the sand. Try reading 'Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences' or 'Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement'.
Other forumers take exception with the credibility of the stats, or the lobbyist behind them, but the fact remains they were formally presented (and defended) in a legal setting to the Criminal Justice Commission of Queensland - not just on a F1 off-topic forum. Gay rights organizations such as the ILGA had NAMBLA as associate members until as recently as 1994, and even if they've expelled them, they are still on record for lobbying to lower or even abolishing the age of consent with minors.

My dog in this fight is to expose the hypocrisy in using broad strokes to label organized religion as a virtual haven of child molesters - whilst willfully ignoring the very, very high statistical instances of child abuse among the homosexual community. You can't have it one way without the other.

_________________
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:00 am
Posts: 477
Location: Running wide at Bergwerk
Brian, can you prove a culture of secrecy exists within the homosexual community in order to protect child molesters? Stop me if I'm wrong but you appear to be comparing systemic institutional abuse - the extent of which is only just recently becoming clear - by the catholic church with actual reported crime figures, which is kind of silly.

_________________
I watch the people in their cars in slow motion they're beautiful like breaking glass, not yet broken...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:17 am
Posts: 660
But They are two different things. The homosexual community are not in the business of claiming to KNOW absolute morality, nor do they endeavour to spread the idea that they are the sole owners of this morality, to which believers must adhere or suffer eternity in damnation. Homosexuals as a societal group are not forcing children to adhere to their morality, nor are they seeking, as a group, to systematically cover up hienous crimes committed by influencial and apparently specially chosen members of their group. Surely you can see the point here?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:00 am
Posts: 477
Location: Running wide at Bergwerk
What domdonald said ^^^

_________________
I watch the people in their cars in slow motion they're beautiful like breaking glass, not yet broken...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am
Posts: 124
So let me understand you better...
You can freely demonize one group (lets say the Catholic Church - of which I am not a member) for their terrible child abuse conduct but turn a blind eye to another group (Homosexuals) who are also are shown to be heavily involved (statistically) in child abuse? And if that statement is kind of correct, then the only differentiation is that the Church positions itself as moral, right?

Also, the Gay Liberation Front manifesto clearly states its aim as "we are not in fact being idealistic to aim at abolishing the family" and "The end of the...the family will benefit all women, and gay people" and that Christianity is "archaic and irrational" are exactly the same flavor of forcing people to 'adhere to their morality' (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/glf-london.asp) as the organized religion is accused of, right? If you don't think anyone is being forced to adhere here, just post comments that are seen as anti-gay - the howls of homophobia and humans rights violations are deafening.

_________________
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?


Last edited by BRAIN OF IRELAND on Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am
Posts: 124
jono794 wrote:
Brian, can you prove a culture of secrecy exists within the homosexual community in order to protect child molesters? Stop me if I'm wrong but you appear to be comparing systemic institutional abuse - the extent of which is only just recently becoming clear - by the catholic church with actual reported crime figures, which is kind of silly.


You're not really reading me correctly. No one is defending the Catholic churches abuses.

_________________
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:12 am
Posts: 575
Brain I think your slightly missing the point on the child abuse thing. I am prepared to bet that 90+% percent of all homosexuals would report a child abuser to the police. Regardless of the abusers orientation.

The RC church leadership on the other hand deliberately covered up when they knew it was going on in their ranks. Looking after your own doesnt come in to it when such serious crimes are commited. I would shop my own family if I knew they were a sex offender.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
..and based on information derived from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Institute of Criminology. Plus being advocated in Gay literature such as the Journal of Homosexuality in papers such as "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" and in a 1995 edition of 'The Guide' with "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality … we must do it for the children's sake.".

Simply ignoring the data because you despise these lobbyists, their beliefs/religious affiliations and/or because its from the 1990's is just being willfully blind.


Not ignoring the data. Just when it comes from nutjobs you have to question it's accuracy or how it was gathered. For example the You're more likely to be killed by a homosexual killer than a Heterosexual killer.

Remember even the best statistics in the world can be manipulated, if you don't include the figures for the reader to see how you are basing your findings.

Politicians make a living from it.

Just like basing one badly worded line in one article that could be taken in other ways other than "Lets go hump kids" to label all Gays Kiddy fiddlers. If you want to get into the sexualising kids, that isn't a gay thing it's a society thing. Look at the clothes available for 8 year olds, I've seen parents allow their kids to wear things a prostitute wouldn't be seen wearing. Not too long ago Tesco were caught selling a pole dancing outfit for kids.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... g-toy.html

There was an article last week about how kids were sending each other nude photographs before dating and it was becoming increasingly common and seen as normal.

But then I guess it's all a big homosexual conspiracy that Jimmy Saville was in on.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1362
Location: Wrexham, UK
Johnston wrote:
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
..and based on information derived from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Institute of Criminology. Plus being advocated in Gay literature such as the Journal of Homosexuality in papers such as "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" and in a 1995 edition of 'The Guide' with "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality … we must do it for the children's sake.".

Simply ignoring the data because you despise these lobbyists, their beliefs/religious affiliations and/or because its from the 1990's is just being willfully blind.


Not ignoring the data. Just when it comes from nutjobs you have to question it's accuracy or how it was gathered. For example the You're more likely to be killed by a homosexual killer than a Heterosexual killer.

Remember even the best statistics in the world can be manipulated, if you don't include the figures for the reader to see how you are basing your findings.

Politicians make a living from it.

Just like basing one badly worded line in one article that could be taken in other ways other than "Lets go hump kids" to label all Gays Kiddy fiddlers. If you want to get into the sexualising kids, that isn't a gay thing it's a society thing. Look at the clothes available for 8 year olds, I've seen parents allow their kids to wear things a prostitute wouldn't be seen wearing. Not too long ago Tesco were caught selling a pole dancing outfit for kids.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... g-toy.html

There was an article last week about how kids were sending each other nude photographs before dating and it was becoming increasingly common and seen as normal.

But then I guess it's all a big homosexual conspiracy that Jimmy Saville was in on.

I missed the pole dancing outfit story, that's quite ridiculous. The world is more sexually open and far less private these days isn't it?

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1486
Another view point.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Brain of Ireland, do you have lots of stats from other, none extremist organisations to back up the stats you presented to us?

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am
Posts: 124
MrMuttley wrote:
Brain I think your slightly missing the point on the child abuse thing. I am prepared to bet that 90+% percent of all homosexuals would report a child abuser to the police. Regardless of the abusers orientation.
Indeed, gay workmates and friends of mine would do the same.
The RC church leadership on the other hand deliberately covered up when they knew it was going on in their ranks. Looking after your own doesnt come in to it when such serious crimes are commited. I would shop my own family if I knew they were a sex offender.


I'm just going to assume that you (and others) are not suggesting that child abuse by a RC priest/worker is 'worse' than child abuse by a lay-person simply because the former also promote morality.

_________________
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?


Last edited by BRAIN OF IRELAND on Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am
Posts: 124
Asphalt_World wrote:
Another view point.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Brain of Ireland, do you have lots of stats from other, none extremist organisations to back up the stats you presented to us?


I read that article, however the thrust of the argument is that opinion (not hard data) has shown a decline in the belief that gay people are more statistically likely to abuse a child. Then, it gets rather wishy-washy about terminology and lack of research. Naturally, no papers which are contrary to their position are cited.

Some other research (not affiliated with religious organizations):

1. 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with on adolescent or younger boys (The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles [Simon and Schuster, 1979], page 275)
2. Homosexual males are 3 times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia (K. Freund & R.I. Watson. “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study.” 18 34, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 34-43 (1992)
3. 25% of (white) homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years or younger (Alan P.Bell, et. al., Institute for Sex Research. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women [Simon and Schuster, 1980)
4. 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children less than 17 years old (P.H. Gebhard and A.B. Johnson. The Kinsey Data. Saunders Publishing, 1979 Table 443, “Homosexual Sample: Age at First Post pubertal Homosexual Contact,” and Table 444, “Homosexual Sample: Age of Partner in First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact)

_________________
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:35 pm
Posts: 1066
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
Denorth wrote:
how about this for a 'natural' thing:

how can homosexuality be considered unnatural, when Christianity teaches that world was created in six days and all species were created by god. Any trip to a Natural History Museum prove them wrong.
So, if homosexuality is 'unnatural' by believes of the religion that goes against natural history, then who can establish that the religious definition of 'natural' relatively homosexuality is correct?
Church was never against slavery. it was perfectly 'natural' for them. Until civil society moved against slavery. Only after that slavery became 'unnatural' for church. Although, it might be difficult to find actual statement from different type of churches stating that slavery is 'unnatural'.
They are the biggest hypocrites, those guys promoting religion.

The first part of your post is incoherent.

As for slavery, you are clearly just throwing around silly claims which have no historical support. A Christian - William Wilberforce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce- led the British empire in abolishing slavery in 1807. One commentator on the excellent research 'Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire’s Slaves' by Adam Hochschild (2005) wrote "‘The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called “the religious right”.
Other Christian activists included Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson.

Care to revise your statement?



The first part of my post stays correct. It is a great example where church is intentionally incorect in the way they describe natural things. Thus, how can one trust church to be a competent judge on other natural/unnatural things in this life, when they reject to admit facts on natural history.
If you don't like my example, doesn't mean it's not right.

Give you another one - church as an organisation never claimed Nazism was unnatural. They played well together until their political gamble with Nazi failed.

Second part. Please, do not play old trick by replacing the thing I was talking about (church) by the other that suits you better (Christianity). Two things are similar but not the same.
I was not talking about people leading to the abolishing of the slavery being non-Christians. (At the same time I am sure that part of them weren't Christians since slavery was not happening only in UK, but in many other countries as well, and some of the activists were Muslim, Buddhists etc. but this is technicality, so I won't use it). Back to my point of view. I was talking about the church as organisation, not religion as personal believe.
And my statement stays correct - church never claimed that slavery was unnatural and you will struggle to find any official statement by church top representatives (not only Roman Catholic, try others as well) blaming slavery as unnatural and pushing people to abolishing of it. Example you gave (William Wilberforce) just a proof of this - he wasn't a church official. He was a politician, philanthropist and Christian.

This whole topic is about top brass of church as organisation making a statement against normal people around Christmas day fueling hate and separation.
It is not about personal faith and believe. Please, remember about it. I write my posts in this topis from this point of view.

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 7335
Location: London
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
Another view point.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Brain of Ireland, do you have lots of stats from other, none extremist organisations to back up the stats you presented to us?


I read that article, however the thrust of the argument is that opinion (not hard data) has shown a decline in the belief that gay people are more statistically likely to abuse a child. Then, it gets rather wishy-washy about terminology and lack of research. Naturally, no papers which are contrary to their position are cited.

Some other research (not affiliated with religious organizations):

1. 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with on adolescent or younger boys (The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles [Simon and Schuster, 1979], page 275)
2. Homosexual males are 3 times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia (K. Freund & R.I. Watson. “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study.” 18 34, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 34-43 (1992)
3. 25% of (white) homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years or younger (Alan P.Bell, et. al., Institute for Sex Research. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women [Simon and Schuster, 1980)
4. 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children less than 17 years old (P.H. Gebhard and A.B. Johnson. The Kinsey Data. Saunders Publishing, 1979 Table 443, “Homosexual Sample: Age at First Post pubertal Homosexual Contact,” and Table 444, “Homosexual Sample: Age of Partner in First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact)

Some of those stats are ridiculous. You can't say 73% of ALL homosexuals have had sex with adolescent or younger boys. Did they speak to every homosexual on the planet? Or just use a minority to project onto a majority? I know which I'd favour.

Also those stats are over 30 years old. The world has changed a lot in the last 30 years.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:35 pm
Posts: 1066
Laura23 wrote:
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
Another view point.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Brain of Ireland, do you have lots of stats from other, none extremist organisations to back up the stats you presented to us?


I read that article, however the thrust of the argument is that opinion (not hard data) has shown a decline in the belief that gay people are more statistically likely to abuse a child. Then, it gets rather wishy-washy about terminology and lack of research. Naturally, no papers which are contrary to their position are cited.

Some other research (not affiliated with religious organizations):

1. 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with on adolescent or younger boys (The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles [Simon and Schuster, 1979], page 275)
2. Homosexual males are 3 times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia (K. Freund & R.I. Watson. “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study.” 18 34, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 34-43 (1992)
3. 25% of (white) homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years or younger (Alan P.Bell, et. al., Institute for Sex Research. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women [Simon and Schuster, 1980)
4. 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children less than 17 years old (P.H. Gebhard and A.B. Johnson. The Kinsey Data. Saunders Publishing, 1979 Table 443, “Homosexual Sample: Age at First Post pubertal Homosexual Contact,” and Table 444, “Homosexual Sample: Age of Partner in First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact)

Some of those stats are ridiculous. You can't say 73% of ALL homosexuals have had sex with adolescent or younger boys. Did they speak to every homosexual on the planet? Or just use a minority to project onto a majority? I know which I'd favour.

Also those stats are over 30 years old. The world has changed a lot in the last 30 years.


a lot of the books mentioned are outdated and proven as not representing a broad statistics. They can be ignored, since there is new more reliable data available and those books are not used by researches any more. it's like using a book from several hundred years ago that states the Earth is flat and claim that it's still correct :)

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am
Posts: 124
Laura/Denorth:

All studies take a sample and attempt to extrapolate data and interpret information.

Off the top of my head I posted 4 studies between 1948 -1992. There are dozens more, but what's the point? No matter how many studies I post here, folks like you just seem to reply - 'yeah, but that's out of date, that sample was too small, I just don't believe it etc.'. If you have statistical data to refute me - please do so. Otherwise be honest enough to admit your sole argument is *your opinion* are are hopelessly biased against any position different to your own.

_________________
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1486
Come on Brain of Ireland. Do you really believe 7 out of every 10 homosexuals have had sex with an adolescent or younger boys?

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am
Posts: 124
Denorth wrote:
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
Denorth wrote:
how about this for a 'natural' thing:

how can homosexuality be considered unnatural, when Christianity teaches that world was created in six days and all species were created by god. Any trip to a Natural History Museum prove them wrong.
So, if homosexuality is 'unnatural' by believes of the religion that goes against natural history, then who can establish that the religious definition of 'natural' relatively homosexuality is correct?
Church was never against slavery. it was perfectly 'natural' for them. Until civil society moved against slavery. Only after that slavery became 'unnatural' for church. Although, it might be difficult to find actual statement from different type of churches stating that slavery is 'unnatural'.
They are the biggest hypocrites, those guys promoting religion.

The first part of your post is incoherent.

As for slavery, you are clearly just throwing around silly claims which have no historical support. A Christian - William Wilberforce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce- led the British empire in abolishing slavery in 1807. One commentator on the excellent research 'Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire’s Slaves' by Adam Hochschild (2005) wrote "‘The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called “the religious right”.
Other Christian activists included Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson.

Care to revise your statement?



The first part of my post stays correct. It is a great example where church is intentionally incorect in the way they describe natural things. Thus, how can one trust church to be a competent judge on other natural/unnatural things in this life, when they reject to admit facts on natural history.
If you don't like my example, doesn't mean it's not right.

Give you another one - church as an organisation never claimed Nazism was unnatural. They played well together until their political gamble with Nazi failed.

Second part. Please, do not play old trick by replacing the thing I was talking about (church) by the other that suits you better (Christianity). Two things are similar but not the same.
I was not talking about people leading to the abolishing of the slavery being non-Christians. (At the same time I am sure that part of them weren't Christians since slavery was not happening only in UK, but in many other countries as well, and some of the activists were Muslim, Buddhists etc. but this is technicality, so I won't use it). Back to my point of view. I was talking about the church as organisation, not religion as personal believe.
And my statement stays correct - church never claimed that slavery was unnatural and you will struggle to find any official statement by church top representatives (not only Roman Catholic, try others as well) blaming slavery as unnatural and pushing people to abolishing of it. Example you gave (William Wilberforce) just a proof of this - he wasn't a church official. He was a politician, philanthropist and Christian.

This whole topic is about top brass of church as organisation making a statement against normal people around Christmas day fueling hate and separation.
It is not about personal faith and believe. Please, remember about it. I write my posts in this topis from this point of view.

You jump between Christianity, Church and Religion - then expect me to just know which you mean? Sorry but I cannot read your mind.

_________________
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am
Posts: 124
Asphalt_World wrote:
Come on Brain of Ireland. Do you really believe 7 out of every 10 homosexuals have had sex with an adolescent or younger boys?

Actually no I don't, but, this is one of dozens of studies that all point in one direction - some of course - are more credible than others.

_________________
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1486
My goodness. Just read your signature BoI. Says it all really......

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1486
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
Come on Brain of Ireland. Do you really believe 7 out of every 10 homosexuals have had sex with an adolescent or younger boys?

Actually no I don't, but, this is one of dozens of studies that all point in one direction - some of course - are more credible than others.


So why have you posted data that you yourself don't believe as a way to back up your point? lol

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 7335
Location: London
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
Laura/Denorth:

All studies take a sample and attempt to extrapolate data and interpret information.

Off the top of my head I posted 4 studies between 1948 -1992. There are dozens more, but what's the point? No matter how many studies I post here, folks like you just seem to reply - 'yeah, but that's out of date, that sample was too small, I just don't believe it etc.'. If you have statistical data to refute me - please do so. Otherwise be honest enough to admit your sole argument is *your opinion* are are hopelessly biased against any position different to your own.

The study claims 73% of ALL homosexuals have had sex with someone underage. You'd have to ask every single homosexual on the planet and I somehow doubt the study you selected did. Ergo, the study is bollocks.

If the study came from 2011 then I may be more inclined to understand the relevance of the results, since it came from the 1970's, an era where homosexuality was still hugely frowned upon and seen as one of the biggest taboos around, I don't.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 2761
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mac_d wrote:
If people want gay marriage, I'm cool with it as long as they allow Civil partnerships to straight people, or otherwise completely make all benefits, tax issues, medical, legal etc issues for both the same.

I don't see why gay marriage etc would bother anyone really. But perhaps it's because I grew up in a pretty accepting time, and if I had grown up more used to an anti-gay world, I might have been shaped into disagreement. I'd like to think I still wouldn't, but who knows.

The "Straight people are also discriminated against because they can't get a civil partnership" is a bogus argument trotted out by homophobes who have a deliberately short term memory. Civil partnerships only exist because they were created as a means for gay people to be able to do something similar to marriage without calling it marriage and bringing out the full wrath of organised religion and bigots. It was an intermediate step to test the water, and allow the general public to get used to the idea of gay couples having legally formalised relationships so when the idea of gay marriage was suggested ordinary people didn't see what the big deal was because gay people were essentially already getting married in a different name.


I feel you've painted me to be something I think is massively inaccurate. My point was simply if gay people are allowed to get married, straight people should be allowed to enter civil partnerships. If gay marriage over-rode the civil partnership so as to make it no longer exist legally, then that is fine. But I stress this, there should be parity and equality in the totality of it. If you allow gay marriage but keep the civil partnership status as an alternative status, this should be open to hetrosexual couples also.

I'm not saying straight people are discriminated against. I don't have a short memory and I entirely resent being essentially called homophobic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:35 pm
Posts: 1066
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
Denorth wrote:
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
Denorth wrote:
how about this for a 'natural' thing:

how can homosexuality be considered unnatural, when Christianity teaches that world was created in six days and all species were created by god. Any trip to a Natural History Museum prove them wrong.
So, if homosexuality is 'unnatural' by believes of the religion that goes against natural history, then who can establish that the religious definition of 'natural' relatively homosexuality is correct?
Church was never against slavery. it was perfectly 'natural' for them. Until civil society moved against slavery. Only after that slavery became 'unnatural' for church. Although, it might be difficult to find actual statement from different type of churches stating that slavery is 'unnatural'.
They are the biggest hypocrites, those guys promoting religion.

The first part of your post is incoherent.

As for slavery, you are clearly just throwing around silly claims which have no historical support. A Christian - William Wilberforce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce- led the British empire in abolishing slavery in 1807. One commentator on the excellent research 'Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire’s Slaves' by Adam Hochschild (2005) wrote "‘The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called “the religious right”.
Other Christian activists included Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson.

Care to revise your statement?



The first part of my post stays correct. It is a great example where church is intentionally incorect in the way they describe natural things. Thus, how can one trust church to be a competent judge on other natural/unnatural things in this life, when they reject to admit facts on natural history.
If you don't like my example, doesn't mean it's not right.

Give you another one - church as an organisation never claimed Nazism was unnatural. They played well together until their political gamble with Nazi failed.

Second part. Please, do not play old trick by replacing the thing I was talking about (church) by the other that suits you better (Christianity). Two things are similar but not the same.
I was not talking about people leading to the abolishing of the slavery being non-Christians. (At the same time I am sure that part of them weren't Christians since slavery was not happening only in UK, but in many other countries as well, and some of the activists were Muslim, Buddhists etc. but this is technicality, so I won't use it). Back to my point of view. I was talking about the church as organisation, not religion as personal believe.
And my statement stays correct - church never claimed that slavery was unnatural and you will struggle to find any official statement by church top representatives (not only Roman Catholic, try others as well) blaming slavery as unnatural and pushing people to abolishing of it. Example you gave (William Wilberforce) just a proof of this - he wasn't a church official. He was a politician, philanthropist and Christian.

This whole topic is about top brass of church as organisation making a statement against normal people around Christmas day fueling hate and separation.
It is not about personal faith and believe. Please, remember about it. I write my posts in this topis from this point of view.

You jump between Christianity, Church and Religion - then expect me to just know which you mean? Sorry but I cannot read your mind.



Even if it wasn't clear in the beginning, I stated it very clearly now. and obviously your last resort to go into 'can't read your mind' rather than continue discussion.

Although, I was very clear about church and slavery. Used neither religion nor Christianity there.

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:35 pm
Posts: 1066
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
Laura/Denorth:

All studies take a sample and attempt to extrapolate data and interpret information.

Off the top of my head I posted 4 studies between 1948 -1992. There are dozens more, but what's the point? No matter how many studies I post here, folks like you just seem to reply - 'yeah, but that's out of date, that sample was too small, I just don't believe it etc.'. If you have statistical data to refute me - please do so. Otherwise be honest enough to admit your sole argument is *your opinion* are are hopelessly biased against any position different to your own.



this is the main difference: scientists don't believe in data. Data is either correct or not.

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
Another view point.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Brain of Ireland, do you have lots of stats from other, none extremist organisations to back up the stats you presented to us?


I read that article, however the thrust of the argument is that opinion (not hard data) has shown a decline in the belief that gay people are more statistically likely to abuse a child. Then, it gets rather wishy-washy about terminology and lack of research. Naturally, no papers which are contrary to their position are cited.

Some other research (not affiliated with religious organizations):

1. 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with on adolescent or younger boys (The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles [Simon and Schuster, 1979], page 275)
2. Homosexual males are 3 times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia (K. Freund & R.I. Watson. “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study.” 18 34, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 34-43 (1992)
3. 25% of (white) homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years or younger (Alan P.Bell, et. al., Institute for Sex Research. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women [Simon and Schuster, 1980)
4. 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children less than 17 years old (P.H. Gebhard and A.B. Johnson. The Kinsey Data. Saunders Publishing, 1979 Table 443, “Homosexual Sample: Age at First Post pubertal Homosexual Contact,” and Table 444, “Homosexual Sample: Age of Partner in First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact)


I'm going to take that first one.

73% of Homosexuals have had sex with an adolescent or younger boys.

It's a meaningless stat. It doesn't mention what age they were. They could have been adolescents themselves. Rather than the homophobic conclusion it's dirty old men running after young boys. The other party could have been the instigator.

For comparison what is the percentage of straight guys who have had sex with Adolescent or younger girls.

If you think a lot of straight guys are losing their virginity in Adolescents the likely hood is they are having sex with adolescent girls. If you think that girls tend to go for older guys, you get a lot of 17 year old guys sleeping with 16 yo girls. Does that class as "Younger" ?

So the chances are the amount of Straight guys who have had sex with an adolescent or younger girls would be quite high too.

If the stats were similar would that make all straight guys kiddy Fiddlers?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1486
Just to update Brain of Ireland's signature,

Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather
data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from
non-living matter in school science classes? Oh hang on, we don't!

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1718
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales
Johnston wrote:
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
Another view point.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Brain of Ireland, do you have lots of stats from other, none extremist organisations to back up the stats you presented to us?


I read that article, however the thrust of the argument is that opinion (not hard data) has shown a decline in the belief that gay people are more statistically likely to abuse a child. Then, it gets rather wishy-washy about terminology and lack of research. Naturally, no papers which are contrary to their position are cited.

Some other research (not affiliated with religious organizations):

1. 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with on adolescent or younger boys (The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles [Simon and Schuster, 1979], page 275)
2. Homosexual males are 3 times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia (K. Freund & R.I. Watson. “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study.” 18 34, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 34-43 (1992)
3. 25% of (white) homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years or younger (Alan P.Bell, et. al., Institute for Sex Research. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women [Simon and Schuster, 1980)
4. 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children less than 17 years old (P.H. Gebhard and A.B. Johnson. The Kinsey Data. Saunders Publishing, 1979 Table 443, “Homosexual Sample: Age at First Post pubertal Homosexual Contact,” and Table 444, “Homosexual Sample: Age of Partner in First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact)


I'm going to take that first one.

73% of Homosexuals have had sex with an adolescent or younger boys.

It's a meaningless stat. It doesn't mention what age they were. They could have been adolescents themselves. Rather than the homophobic conclusion it's dirty old men running after young boys. The other party could have been the instigator.

For comparison what is the percentage of straight guys who have had sex with Adolescent or younger girls.

If you think a lot of straight guys are losing their virginity in Adolescents the likely hood is they are having sex with adolescent girls. If you think that girls tend to go for older guys, you get a lot of 17 year old guys sleeping with 16 yo girls. Does that class as "Younger" ?

So the chances are the amount of Straight guys who have had sex with an adolescent or younger girls would be quite high too.

If the stats were similar would that make all straight guys kiddy Fiddlers?

By BoI's logic you might as well just lock me up now.

Sorry Brain, but I'm pretty sure you've read too many assumptions into that data, and even if 73% is an accurate figure the proportion of those who did so illegally would be tiny compared to the number who were still teenagers themselves. It reads like a study with a pre-determined conclusion: vilifying homosexuality in a far less accepting time.

It is for that reason that outdated and - as we've all shown - vague data is being ignored by most people in this thread.

_________________
Copper Masked Sunrise
http://www.justgiving.com/CIN-Mystery-P ... 00b9467dcb
https://www.facebook.com/BadExcusesBand


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Tufty wrote:
By BoI's logic you might as well just lock me up now.


Me too funnily enough. :lol: :lol:

But it's ok by the Laws in the Vatican she was legal :lol: :lol:

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1973
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
..and based on information derived from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Institute of Criminology. Plus being advocated in Gay literature such as the Journal of Homosexuality in papers such as "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" and in a 1995 edition of 'The Guide' with "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality … we must do it for the children's sake.".

Simply ignoring the data because you despise these lobbyists, their beliefs/religious affiliations and/or because its from the 1990's is just being willfully blind.

When it comes to lobbyists or those with an agenda of course the reports are not going to be trustworthy.

See all the organisations in America who claim to have indisputable proof that videogames cause people to go on mass shooting sprees - despite the fact the FBI who has researched it heavily and has found there to be no link, the fact millions of people play videogames and don't get turned into mass killers and the fact that crime rates have been shown to have dropped by demographics who play a lot of videogames. However the reports are still out there proving the link, far more numerous than these reports that you are citing.

You even say yourself that it is "...based on information derived from..." - the keyword in that sentence being derived. It's not even the raw information, it's been processed and carefully reassembled to make sure that it fits the point the creator wants it to make.




BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
As for slavery, you are clearly just throwing around silly claims which have no historical support. A Christian - William Wilberforce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce- led the British empire in abolishing slavery in 1807. One commentator on the excellent research 'Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire’s Slaves' by Adam Hochschild (2005) wrote "‘The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called “the religious right”.
Other Christian activists included Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson.

In 1807 in Britain nearly 100% of the population was Christian, so of course Christians would have led the movement to abolish slavery. But even if 75% of the population was not Christian this still would not mean anything. This was not a movement by one of the Christian churches, it was started by individuals independent of their religious authority. Now, the authorities may have jumped on the bandwagon later, but the Church of England or Catholic Church didn't recognise the evil of slavery or lead the campaign against it, they only did so once the movement had already started.



BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
Laura, this thread started to (justifiably) rail on the Catholic church for their appalling record of child abuse. No argument from me, I'm not Catholic nor a Catholic apologist - I agree, its disgraceful. Nonetheless, to simply ignore the massive over-representation (statistically) of crimes against children committed by homosexuals (these stats show a correlation, like the correlation that smoking increases risks of ill-health) is just burying one's head in the sand. Try reading 'Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences' or 'Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement'.
Other forumers take exception with the credibility of the stats, or the lobbyist behind them, but the fact remains they were formally presented (and defended) in a legal setting to the Criminal Justice Commission of Queensland - not just on a F1 off-topic forum. Gay rights organizations such as the ILGA had NAMBLA as associate members until as recently as 1994, and even if they've expelled them, they are still on record for lobbying to lower or even abolishing the age of consent with minors.

My dog in this fight is to expose the hypocrisy in using broad strokes to label organized religion as a virtual haven of child molesters - whilst willfully ignoring the very, very high statistical instances of child abuse among the homosexual community. You can't have it one way without the other.

Correlation does not mean causation. That's one of the most important things to know in any scientific study, yet the one thing most sensationalist, agenda driven news organisations deliberate fail to remember.

For example, taking smoking and cancer as an example. People who smoke have a much higher cancer rate than those who don't - now while it has now been proved by science that smoking does cause cancer, it would be possible for this same correlation to exist if cigarettes didn't cause cancer.

Suppose cigarettes didn't cause cancer, but you could only buy cigarettes in the middle of a nuclear reactor. The same correlation would still exist - people who smoke would have a higher rate of cancer, however it wouldn't be down to the smoking, it would be down to the fact they were getting a lethal dose of radiation every time they went to buy more.

20 years ago there was still a great stigma attached to being gay. In fact, it was still criminalised at the time and place of that report, given that it was presented as part of the argument against decriminalising homosexuality in Australia. As a result, surveys into sexuality are hardly going to be accurate (they still are not accurate today when a majority of people do not have a problem if someone is gay) The statistics as presented are meaningless, there is no definition as to what they actually mean, how they were sampled, researched or determined. What counts as someone being "gay" for example? Does a bisexual person count as "gay"? Or do they just have to have had gay thoughts? Because most people in their lives will have had gay thoughts of some description at some point in their life.

You can't just present a statistic like "Homosexuals commit between 33% and 50% of all recorded instances of child molestation" and leave it as that. It's meaningless.

BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
So let me understand you better...
You can freely demonize one group (lets say the Catholic Church - of which I am not a member) for their terrible child abuse conduct but turn a blind eye to another group (Homosexuals) who are also are shown to be heavily involved (statistically) in child abuse? And if that statement is kind of correct, then the only differentiation is that the Church positions itself as moral, right?

Also, the Gay Liberation Front manifesto clearly states its aim as "we are not in fact being idealistic to aim at abolishing the family" and "The end of the...the family will benefit all women, and gay people" and that Christianity is "archaic and irrational" are exactly the same flavor of forcing people to 'adhere to their morality' (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/glf-london.asp) as the organized religion is accused of, right? If you don't think anyone is being forced to adhere here, just post comments that are seen as anti-gay - the howls of homophobia and humans rights violations are deafening.

You continue to refer to homosexuals as a community. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. It would be like saying "the left handed community" or the "blue eyed community" - it does not exist and is not a thing.

Now, specific Gay Rights organisations are a legimate target, as they are an organisation that people volunteer to join an associate themselves with. That's an equivalent to the Catholic Church, however you cannot group together all people who are gay into a single group and claim they all share the same views and agendas, because they don't.

BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
I read that article, however the thrust of the argument is that opinion (not hard data) has shown a decline in the belief that gay people are more statistically likely to abuse a child. Then, it gets rather wishy-washy about terminology and lack of research. Naturally, no papers which are contrary to their position are cited.

Some other research (not affiliated with religious organizations):

1. 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with on adolescent or younger boys (The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles [Simon and Schuster, 1979], page 275)
2. Homosexual males are 3 times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia (K. Freund & R.I. Watson. “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study.” 18 34, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 34-43 (1992)
3. 25% of (white) homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years or younger (Alan P.Bell, et. al., Institute for Sex Research. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women [Simon and Schuster, 1980)
4. 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children less than 17 years old (P.H. Gebhard and A.B. Johnson. The Kinsey Data. Saunders Publishing, 1979 Table 443, “Homosexual Sample: Age at First Post pubertal Homosexual Contact,” and Table 444, “Homosexual Sample: Age of Partner in First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact)

I bet that 73% of heterosexuals have had sex with adolescents or younger people. Because most people lose their virginity before they are 18. I bet more than 25% of heterosexuals lose their virginity before the age of 16. If an 18 year old has sex with a 15 year old, he/she is a paedophile.

I am not sure how stat 1 concurs with stat 4, unless 36% of homosexuals are having sex with 17-18 year old boys.

Does Stat 2 group bisexual men in with heterosexual men or with homosexual men. Or does it work on the premise that if the sexual offence is conducted on a boy the man is counted as gay, if it's conducted on a girl they are counted as straight? Because if that's the case then they are not actually gay or straight. They are paedophiles - they are sexually interested in children.

There is a reason that most people are not sexually attracted to children; other than the fact it's a child, physically a child is not representative of what they find sexually attractive. If you are a straight male, a child girl and a child boy are equally sexually non-attractive. The same applies to gay people. If a gay paedophile sexually assaults a young boy, it's because they are a gay paedophile. The action is as sexually repulsive to a gay non-paedophile as it is to a straight person.

No non paedophile, gay, straight or bisexual has ever thought "if I was to have sex with children it would be in line with my sexual orientation" because they are NOT PAEDOPHILES and sex with either gender of children is equally as wrong.


edited a couple of typos I noticed, but then it is a very long post so there were bound to be some


Last edited by Alienturnedhuman on Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1362
Location: Wrexham, UK
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
..and based on information derived from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Institute of Criminology. Plus being advocated in Gay literature such as the Journal of Homosexuality in papers such as "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" and in a 1995 edition of 'The Guide' with "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality … we must do it for the children's sake.".

Simply ignoring the data because you despise these lobbyists, their beliefs/religious affiliations and/or because its from the 1990's is just being willfully blind.

When it comes to lobbyists or those with an agenda of course the reports are not going to be trustworthy.

See all the organisations in America who claim to have indisputable proof that videogames cause people to go on mass shooting sprees - despite the fact the FBI who has researched it heavily has found there to be no link, the fact millions of people play videogames and don't get turned into mass killers and the fact that crime rates have been shown to have dropped by demographics who play a lot of videogames. However the reports are still out there proving the link, far more numerous than these reports that you are citing.

You even say yourself that is is "...based on information derived from..." - the keyword in that sentence being derived. It's not even the raw information, it's been processed and carefully reassembled to make sure that it fits the point the creator wants it to make






BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
As for slavery, you are clearly just throwing around silly claims which have no historical support. A Christian - William Wilberforce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce- led the British empire in abolishing slavery in 1807. One commentator on the excellent research 'Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire’s Slaves' by Adam Hochschild (2005) wrote "‘The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called “the religious right”.
Other Christian activists included Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson.

In 1807 in Britain nearly 100% of the population was Christian, so of course Christians would have led the movement to abolish slavery. But even if 75% of the population was not Christian this still would not mean anything. This was not a movement by one of the Christian churches, it was started by individuals independent of their religious authority. Now, the authorities may have jumped on the bandwagon later, but the Church of England or Catholic Church didn't recognise the evil of slavery or lead the campaign against it, they only did so once the movement had already started.



BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
Laura, this thread started to (justifiably) rail on the Catholic church for their appalling record of child abuse. No argument from me, I'm not Catholic nor a Catholic apologist - I agree, its disgraceful. Nonetheless, to simply ignore the massive over-representation (statistically) of crimes against children committed by homosexuals (these stats show a correlation, like the correlation that smoking increases risks of ill-health) is just burying one's head in the sand. Try reading 'Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences' or 'Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement'.
Other forumers take exception with the credibility of the stats, or the lobbyist behind them, but the fact remains they were formally presented (and defended) in a legal setting to the Criminal Justice Commission of Queensland - not just on a F1 off-topic forum. Gay rights organizations such as the ILGA had NAMBLA as associate members until as recently as 1994, and even if they've expelled them, they are still on record for lobbying to lower or even abolishing the age of consent with minors.

My dog in this fight is to expose the hypocrisy in using broad strokes to label organized religion as a virtual haven of child molesters - whilst willfully ignoring the very, very high statistical instances of child abuse among the homosexual community. You can't have it one way without the other.

Correlation does not mean causation. That's one of the most important things to know in any scientific study, yet the one thing most sensationalist, agenda driven news organisations deliberate fail to remember.

For example, taking smoking and cancer as an example. People who smoke have a much higher cancer rate than those who don't - now while it has now been proved by science that smoking does cause cancer, it would be possible for this same correlation to exist if cigarettes didn't cause cancer.

Suppose cigarettes didn't cause cancer, but you could only buy cigarettes in the middle of a nuclear reactor. The same correlation would still exist - people who smoke would have a higher rate of cancer, however it wouldn't be down to the smoking, it would be down to the fact they were getting a lethal dose of radiation every time they went to buy more.

20 years ago there was still a great stigma attached to being gay. In fact, it was still criminalised at the time and place of that report, given that it was presented as part of the argument against decriminalising homosexuality in Australia. As a result, surveys into sexuality are hardly going to be accurate (they still are not accurate today when a majority of people do not have a problem if someone is gay) The statistics as presented are meaningless, there is no definition as to what they actually mean, how they were sampled, researched or determined. What counts as someone being "gay" for example? Does a bisexual person count as "gay"? Or do they just have to have had gay thoughts? Because most people in their lives will have had gay thoughts of some description at some point in their life.

You can't just present a statistic like "Homosexuals commit between 33% and 50% of all recorded instances of child molestation" and leave it as that. It's meaningless.

BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
So let me understand you better...
You can freely demonize one group (lets say the Catholic Church - of which I am not a member) for their terrible child abuse conduct but turn a blind eye to another group (Homosexuals) who are also are shown to be heavily involved (statistically) in child abuse? And if that statement is kind of correct, then the only differentiation is that the Church positions itself as moral, right?

Also, the Gay Liberation Front manifesto clearly states its aim as "we are not in fact being idealistic to aim at abolishing the family" and "The end of the...the family will benefit all women, and gay people" and that Christianity is "archaic and irrational" are exactly the same flavor of forcing people to 'adhere to their morality' (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/glf-london.asp) as the organized religion is accused of, right? If you don't think anyone is being forced to adhere here, just post comments that are seen as anti-gay - the howls of homophobia and humans rights violations are deafening.

You continue to refer to homosexuals as a community. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. It would be like saying "the left handed community" or the "blue eyed community" - it does not a thing.

Now, specific Gay Rights organisations are a legimate target, as they are an organisation that people volunteer to join an associate themselves with. That's an equivalent to the Catholic Church, however you cannot group together all people who are gay into a single group and claim they all share the same views and agendas, because they don't.

BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
I read that article, however the thrust of the argument is that opinion (not hard data) has shown a decline in the belief that gay people are more statistically likely to abuse a child. Then, it gets rather wishy-washy about terminology and lack of research. Naturally, no papers which are contrary to their position are cited.

Some other research (not affiliated with religious organizations):

1. 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with on adolescent or younger boys (The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles [Simon and Schuster, 1979], page 275)
2. Homosexual males are 3 times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia (K. Freund & R.I. Watson. “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study.” 18 34, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 34-43 (1992)
3. 25% of (white) homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years or younger (Alan P.Bell, et. al., Institute for Sex Research. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women [Simon and Schuster, 1980)
4. 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children less than 17 years old (P.H. Gebhard and A.B. Johnson. The Kinsey Data. Saunders Publishing, 1979 Table 443, “Homosexual Sample: Age at First Post pubertal Homosexual Contact,” and Table 444, “Homosexual Sample: Age of Partner in First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact)

I bet that 73% of heterosexuals have had sex with adolescents or younger people. Because most people lose their virginity before they are 18. I bet more than 25% of heterosexuals lose their virginity before the age of 16. If an 18 year old has sex with a 15 year old, he/she is a paedophile.

I am not sure how stat 1 concurs with stat 4, unless 36% of homosexuals are having sex with 17-18 year old boys.

Does Stat 2 group bisexual men in with heterosexual men or with homosexual men. Or does it work on the premise that if the sexual offence is conducted on a boy the man is counted as gay, if it's conducted on a girl they are counted as straight? Because if that's the case then they are not actually gay or straight. They are paedophiles - they are sexually interested in children.

There is a reason that most people are not sexually attracted to children; other than the fact it's a child, physically a child is not representative of what they find sexually attractive. If you are a straight male, a child girl and a child boy are equally sexually non-attractive. The same applies to gay people. If a gay paedophile sexually assaults a young boy, it's because they are a gay paedophile. The action is as sexually repulsive to a gay non-paedophile as it is to a straight person.

No non paedophile, gay, straight or bisexual has ever thought "if I was to have sex with children it would be in line with my sexual orientation" because they are NOT PAEDOPHILES and sex with either gender of children is equally as wrong.

:thumbup: You sir, are brilliant.

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am
Posts: 124
Asphalt_World wrote:
Just to update Brain of Ireland's signature,

Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather
data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from
non-living matter in school science classes? Oh hang on, we don't!


So rather then debate/discuss the issue, you'd rather mock the debater, classy.

_________________
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am
Posts: 124
If anyone has actually read any of the literature, or bothers to cite peer-reviewed scientific papers which contradict those posted - rather than just state their opinion - feel free to do so.

_________________
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am
Posts: 124
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
..and based on information derived from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Institute of Criminology. Plus being advocated in Gay literature such as the Journal of Homosexuality in papers such as "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" and in a 1995 edition of 'The Guide' with "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality … we must do it for the children's sake.".

Simply ignoring the data because you despise these lobbyists, their beliefs/religious affiliations and/or because its from the 1990's is just being willfully blind.

When it comes to lobbyists or those with an agenda of course the reports are not going to be trustworthy.

See all the organisations in America who claim to have indisputable proof that videogames cause people to go on mass shooting sprees - despite the fact the FBI who has researched it heavily and has found there to be no link, the fact millions of people play videogames and don't get turned into mass killers and the fact that crime rates have been shown to have dropped by demographics who play a lot of videogames. However the reports are still out there proving the link, far more numerous than these reports that you are citing.

You even say yourself that it is "...based on information derived from..." - the keyword in that sentence being derived. It's not even the raw information, it's been processed and carefully reassembled to make sure that it fits the point the creator wants it to make.




BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
As for slavery, you are clearly just throwing around silly claims which have no historical support. A Christian - William Wilberforce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce- led the British empire in abolishing slavery in 1807. One commentator on the excellent research 'Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire’s Slaves' by Adam Hochschild (2005) wrote "‘The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called “the religious right”.
Other Christian activists included Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson.

In 1807 in Britain nearly 100% of the population was Christian, so of course Christians would have led the movement to abolish slavery. But even if 75% of the population was not Christian this still would not mean anything. This was not a movement by one of the Christian churches, it was started by individuals independent of their religious authority. Now, the authorities may have jumped on the bandwagon later, but the Church of England or Catholic Church didn't recognise the evil of slavery or lead the campaign against it, they only did so once the movement had already started.



BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
Laura, this thread started to (justifiably) rail on the Catholic church for their appalling record of child abuse. No argument from me, I'm not Catholic nor a Catholic apologist - I agree, its disgraceful. Nonetheless, to simply ignore the massive over-representation (statistically) of crimes against children committed by homosexuals (these stats show a correlation, like the correlation that smoking increases risks of ill-health) is just burying one's head in the sand. Try reading 'Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences' or 'Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement'.
Other forumers take exception with the credibility of the stats, or the lobbyist behind them, but the fact remains they were formally presented (and defended) in a legal setting to the Criminal Justice Commission of Queensland - not just on a F1 off-topic forum. Gay rights organizations such as the ILGA had NAMBLA as associate members until as recently as 1994, and even if they've expelled them, they are still on record for lobbying to lower or even abolishing the age of consent with minors.

My dog in this fight is to expose the hypocrisy in using broad strokes to label organized religion as a virtual haven of child molesters - whilst willfully ignoring the very, very high statistical instances of child abuse among the homosexual community. You can't have it one way without the other.

Correlation does not mean causation. That's one of the most important things to know in any scientific study, yet the one thing most sensationalist, agenda driven news organisations deliberate fail to remember.

For example, taking smoking and cancer as an example. People who smoke have a much higher cancer rate than those who don't - now while it has now been proved by science that smoking does cause cancer, it would be possible for this same correlation to exist if cigarettes didn't cause cancer.

Suppose cigarettes didn't cause cancer, but you could only buy cigarettes in the middle of a nuclear reactor. The same correlation would still exist - people who smoke would have a higher rate of cancer, however it wouldn't be down to the smoking, it would be down to the fact they were getting a lethal dose of radiation every time they went to buy more.

20 years ago there was still a great stigma attached to being gay. In fact, it was still criminalised at the time and place of that report, given that it was presented as part of the argument against decriminalising homosexuality in Australia. As a result, surveys into sexuality are hardly going to be accurate (they still are not accurate today when a majority of people do not have a problem if someone is gay) The statistics as presented are meaningless, there is no definition as to what they actually mean, how they were sampled, researched or determined. What counts as someone being "gay" for example? Does a bisexual person count as "gay"? Or do they just have to have had gay thoughts? Because most people in their lives will have had gay thoughts of some description at some point in their life.

You can't just present a statistic like "Homosexuals commit between 33% and 50% of all recorded instances of child molestation" and leave it as that. It's meaningless.

BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
So let me understand you better...
You can freely demonize one group (lets say the Catholic Church - of which I am not a member) for their terrible child abuse conduct but turn a blind eye to another group (Homosexuals) who are also are shown to be heavily involved (statistically) in child abuse? And if that statement is kind of correct, then the only differentiation is that the Church positions itself as moral, right?

Also, the Gay Liberation Front manifesto clearly states its aim as "we are not in fact being idealistic to aim at abolishing the family" and "The end of the...the family will benefit all women, and gay people" and that Christianity is "archaic and irrational" are exactly the same flavor of forcing people to 'adhere to their morality' (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/glf-london.asp) as the organized religion is accused of, right? If you don't think anyone is being forced to adhere here, just post comments that are seen as anti-gay - the howls of homophobia and humans rights violations are deafening.

You continue to refer to homosexuals as a community. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. It would be like saying "the left handed community" or the "blue eyed community" - it does not exist and is not a thing.

Now, specific Gay Rights organisations are a legimate target, as they are an organisation that people volunteer to join an associate themselves with. That's an equivalent to the Catholic Church, however you cannot group together all people who are gay into a single group and claim they all share the same views and agendas, because they don't.

BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
I read that article, however the thrust of the argument is that opinion (not hard data) has shown a decline in the belief that gay people are more statistically likely to abuse a child. Then, it gets rather wishy-washy about terminology and lack of research. Naturally, no papers which are contrary to their position are cited.

Some other research (not affiliated with religious organizations):

1. 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with on adolescent or younger boys (The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles [Simon and Schuster, 1979], page 275)
2. Homosexual males are 3 times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia (K. Freund & R.I. Watson. “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study.” 18 34, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 34-43 (1992)
3. 25% of (white) homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years or younger (Alan P.Bell, et. al., Institute for Sex Research. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women [Simon and Schuster, 1980)
4. 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children less than 17 years old (P.H. Gebhard and A.B. Johnson. The Kinsey Data. Saunders Publishing, 1979 Table 443, “Homosexual Sample: Age at First Post pubertal Homosexual Contact,” and Table 444, “Homosexual Sample: Age of Partner in First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact)

I bet that 73% of heterosexuals have had sex with adolescents or younger people. Because most people lose their virginity before they are 18. I bet more than 25% of heterosexuals lose their virginity before the age of 16. If an 18 year old has sex with a 15 year old, he/she is a paedophile.

I am not sure how stat 1 concurs with stat 4, unless 36% of homosexuals are having sex with 17-18 year old boys.

Does Stat 2 group bisexual men in with heterosexual men or with homosexual men. Or does it work on the premise that if the sexual offence is conducted on a boy the man is counted as gay, if it's conducted on a girl they are counted as straight? Because if that's the case then they are not actually gay or straight. They are paedophiles - they are sexually interested in children.

There is a reason that most people are not sexually attracted to children; other than the fact it's a child, physically a child is not representative of what they find sexually attractive. If you are a straight male, a child girl and a child boy are equally sexually non-attractive. The same applies to gay people. If a gay paedophile sexually assaults a young boy, it's because they are a gay paedophile. The action is as sexually repulsive to a gay non-paedophile as it is to a straight person.

No non paedophile, gay, straight or bisexual has ever thought "if I was to have sex with children it would be in line with my sexual orientation" because they are NOT PAEDOPHILES and sex with either gender of children is equally as wrong.


edited a couple of typos I noticed, but then it is a very long post so there were bound to be some

Yeah but I noticed a few typos and 'facts' I disagree with - so I'm going to state that your whole post is meaningless, out of context and not supported by anything but your opinion. Sound familiar? ;-)

_________________
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mod Grey and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group