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.
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.
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
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
You sir, are brilliant.