Report - Pedophilia more common among "gays"

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

the study is very disturbing indeed. Deny all that you want, the facts speak for themselves and are quite disturbing and reveal the proclivity of homosexual pedophilia

denounce the study because of the web site, begin in 3,2,1.................go

 

Lets review the abstract again- the one we are speaking about

Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.


This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.

Ignore the clear words of this statement because they contradict you, being in 3,2,1....go

 

go for it

since you obviously missed the linky linky

here it is again

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

very disturbing and shows that the problem within the homosexual community needs to be addressed.

 

Sec- why are you ignoring the very article that was being discussed? The very abstract that you used to use as your signature?

Here once again:

Lets review the abstract again- the one we are speaking about

Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.


This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic[Gay} males have a greater propensity to offend against children.

Ignore the clear words of this statement because they contradict you, being in 3,2,1....go

 

I really don't need to denounce the study. UCDavis already did.

 

I had to bump this because it is the act of gay sex which is the sin. You cited priest and celibacy and that would be correct=not gay

 

Sec: you need to understand this thing. All of the reasons you give for your faux pity towards LGBT people is a result of the psychological damage and sociological impact of the abuse and oppression inflicted on us. You are only advocating for making these problems worse while pretending you're doing the opposite. Stop saying that you care, because I'm sure you don't.

 

Might I suggest then, you stop having gay sex?

 

Congratulations, you've just entered a round of Jeopardy: Why You're Wrong Edition

The question is: This logical fallacy consists of the claim that an action will necessarily lead to an inevitable march towards some unpleasant end.

 

I like dominate women, just out of curiosity, does that also fall under "perverted" behavior?

And since I like having my arse spanked by strippers, does that make me a pedophile in your book? Since I'm into femdom, and I'm bi, I guess I just need some good old Christian conversion therapy so I can learn to rule over my woman like it says in the Bible, right?

Maybe I can learn how to take away her right to make decisions for herself, and learn to smack her around a bit if she takes too long bringing me a beer from the fridge!

 

and non-alcoholics put the bottle into the hands of alcoholics

non drug abusers put the drugs into the system of drug abusers

non gamblers force gamblers to the waging tables

please, nobody but the individual chose the homosexual life and nobody but the individual chooses unprotected gay sex or to consider suicide.

It is folks like me who see the illness and want to help. Despite the heaps of insults hurled our way, like with alcoholics and other harmful habits, we are accustomed to the lashing out from those who are in deep. Our resolve is strong and our love is deep. We are here to help any homosexual who asks. Each person we can help leave the homosexual lifestyle and the dangers associated with it is one more saved person.

What kind of people would we be to turn our backs on those in need and ignore what we know to be wrong?

 

OK, so we have 11 hetero pedos for every one homo pedo. With less than a 2% homosexuality rate source, that means there are over 50 heteros per homo. Result: roughly 5 times the rate of pedophilia among gays.

 

there is no scientific evidence that homosexuals commit pedophilia at a higher rate than heterosexuals.

the FBI does not keep track of the sexual orientation of convicts.

 

This makes it sound like you think everyone is either heterosexual or homosexual and that pedophilia is somehow an independent dimension or otherwise develops after sexual orientation is set. I don't see any literature that supports that contention.

Also, it sounds like you are using "homosexual" to indicate same sex behavior rather than sexual orientation. That's likely to be a mistake, too. For example, same sex behavior in prisons doesn't faithfully indicate the sexual orientation of those involved.

So, you post lots of numbers, but it isn't at all clear that there is any point you are likely to make.

 

Of course, that doesn't mean that a man who is attracted to other men is any more likely to abuse a child than any other man.

There is a classic fallacy at play here. Ecological fallacy... look it up if you are unfamiliar.

But basically, imagine using a generic word that can describe many different subsets of people or things... like "american". What is true for this group on average is certainly not true for all of the subsets. On average, perhaps most americans like coffee, but it would be false to assume that Mormon americans like coffee to the same degree.

You have demonstrated the same fallacy here. Instead of using the label "american", you used the label "homosexual". You have provided a statistic about this group on average, and you have fallaciously applied that statistic to all subsets.

In other words, you have provided no evidence that men attracted to men (a subset of "homosexuals") are any more likely to abuse than men attracted to women. The only thing you have shown is that men who do abuse children tend to be less particular to the childs gender. Which again says absolutly nothing about "gays" (men attracted to men") being more likely to abuse.

If this isnt clear, let me give you an analogy.

Most plants are inedible by humans. Apples are plants. Therefore apples are likely inedible by humans.

See the problem there? If we knew nothing about apples, that might be reasonable to assume. Nevertheless it is obviously fallacious and false to apply a statistic true on average about all plants specifically to the subset of apples. Why then do people thing they can group men who are attracted to men together with men who abuse kids and assume they have the same risks and etiology? You can't.

 

If you had read the provided source, you would have seen that your objections are unfounded.

So here, you can clearly see that there is no hetero/homo dichotomy, with bisexuals and "others" accounted for. Likewise, same sex "behavior" is not the criteria, but rather, those who "identify as" homosexual (i.e. orientation).

 

This wordy post boils down to your "subset" argument. That argument is greatly discounted, however, when one considers that there are only TWO subsets of homosexuals: male and female. Not at all analogous to apples vs plants, where apples are a VERY small subset of plants. In fact, since men are the predominant perpetrators, eliminating lesbians from the equation results in a much smaller "subset" of homosexuals committing those acts, which in turn magnifies their per capita guilt. The entire reason that 11:1 is bad for homosexuals is the relatively small number of homosexuals, and when you take the male subset of that, those numbers get much worse. So thanks for clarifying.

 

Drop the condescension and the holier than thou attitude. Nobody's buying it.

I'm not an addict. I chose nothing. You think that my neuroses developed because I'm queer? I'm not sick with bisexuality, I'm sick with bigots. All of the psychological problems endemic to the LGBT community are a result of the constant fear you have to live in when you're in the closet. When you develop paranoia and self hatred because people tell you that you're a worthless disgusting thing, who the hell is to blame for it? Surely not the saintly individuals looking down upon the disgusting sinners. They're honorable men, aren't they? Don't you think that it's the height of decency to do to people what was done to Matt Shepard? Don't you think people like Ted Haggard are just paragons of virtue? Don't you think that a lifetime of hiding and fear and hate is a choice? But you're an honorable man.

 

the help is here for all when they are ready to ask for it. We will never turn our backs on our fellow man, especially those who need the help the most.

Some day you will come to realize that. The constants that we all see: addicts lash out at those who want to help them. Teenagers lash out at their parents who just so happen to have the child's best interest at heart. The vitriol that we see from some homosexuals is to be expected.

 

I'm fine with that part as it was done by a credible organization, involves no more than polling and gets a response that isn't that far from most such studies.

Then, comes the part where statements were made about pedophilia.

THAT part I strongly doubt. That's the part where I doubt even the use of the terminology, let alone the numbers.

Also, I doubt the value of the argument, even without regard to whether it is true. It's not like we're going to decide that we should deny equal rights to those who are same sex oriented. That would be no more acceptable than if we discriminated against men in some way, because we note that they commit violent crime more frequently.

So, I'm not convinced you're even using the terms right, let alone doing the math right. And, if you figured that out, it should make absolutely zero difference in our society regardless of what you actually discover.

 

OK, well then why did you start by questioning all those things which were clear in the source, such as "behavior" vs "orientation"?

Strange. The 1:11 statistic cited in the OP was completely accepted, until I showed how it reflects poorly on homosexuals due to their numbers being significantly less than 1:11

If the truth of the matter is unimportant, then it would seem that you have an agenda.

Aaaand here comes the straw man. Blah, blah, equal rights. "Rights" are not at issue here, because no one has a "right" to molest children. THAT is the topic, not gay marriage or whatever other red herrings you want to throw out.

So, basically, you don't care about the facts (actually the second time you said that in this post). Got it.

 

It would be discounted if there was only two subsets, but you're simply asserting this without any proof of it. You have no proof that all subsets of "homosexuality" share the same etiology and the same risks. There can be a variety of different reasons and causes for people to fall under the same label.

But there's an easy way for you to actually demonstrate it... can you show us a study that actually shows that SPECIFICALLY the subset of men attracted to adult men are at greater risk of also abusing children? You're clumping the two sets together, but you have not provided any evidence that shows that these two subsets overlap each other to a greater degree than the subset of men attracted to adult women overlaps with the set of men who abuse children.

I should also clerify that when you obtained the percent of the population that his homosexual, you probably were not using the same definition that is used to describe homosexual pedophiles. In other words, someone who is a "homosexual pedophile" (a man who abused a boy) may be reported as heterosexual based on their adult attraction to women. These categories are nebulous and unclear. Not that it is particularly important to my point.

 

Here's a math example for your. Let's take this hypothetical population... the population of men attracted to women is much larger. Both populations have the same chance to abuse (~2%)

men attracted to men
no abuse : 1,000
Abused: 20
20/1,020=~2%

men attracted to women
no abuse: 20,000
Abused: 400
400/20,400=~2%

And now let's throw a little more information into those statistics. Let's assume that 50% of those who abused, abused someone of the opposite gender of their adult attraction. This means that 20*50% = 10 of the men attracted to men abused a girl, and 400*50% = 200 of the men attracted to women abused boys. Depending on exactly how you define "heterosexual" and "homosexual", you can now move those two populations into the other bucket.

Now, the "% of homosexuals who abused" = (20+200)/(1020+200) = 18.0%
And the "% of heterosexuals who abused" = (10+400)/(20,400+10) = 2.0%

Because the population of men attracted to men is so much smaller, moving the same % of the population from one bucket to the other produces dramatically different results. Men attracted to men were no more likely to abuse than men attracted to women, but based on how populations are defined, you can claim that "homosexuals are much more likely". And through the ecological fallacy, if homosexuals are more likely to abuse... and men attracted to men are "homosexual", you can fallaciously claim that men attracted to men are more likely to abuse.

 

Well, you're right about one thing: this is about how one defines homosexuality. You define it in such a way that it cannot possibly apply to pedophiles. With statements such as "show a study that actually shows that SPECIFICALLY the subset of men attracted to adult men are at greater risk of also abusing children", you dismiss men attracted to boys as "not homosexual". However, if one simply uses the "same sex" standard (homo meaning same), then those cases do count. Even with your assumption that half of child abuse cases are of opposite sex then their "adult attraction", that only then shifts the guilt to bisexuals. Not "gay", I'm sure you'll say, but definitely under the LGBTQXYZ banner.

 

The "study" in the op was done by a blatant anti-gay think tank. You can not trust studies done by groups with a preexisting bias.

Now, if the op or anyone can find a third party source that backs the study's claims, I will accept it as fact. Until then, it's not fact.

Also, the op is obvious trying to claim that the study proves that being gay has some connection to being a pedophile, but the study he cites only says that there are more gay pedophiles than straight ones, nothing else. Under the logic the op is using, you could say that being whites makes a person more likely to be a serial killer, since the majority of them have been white.