Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Social Media Backlash Against Russia
I notice there are a lot of 'boycott the Winter Olympics' and protest posts against the Russian attitude towards the LGBT community; and quite rightly so.
Also we have seen a lot on the TV and in the press covering this topic ahead of the winter Olympics.
I wonder if this will be repeated for the World Cup in Qatar in 4 years time to protest against the Islamic communities attitudes to homosexuality - or maybe even closer to home?
Are people afraid to criticize Islamic attitudes for fear of being branded racist?
Also we have seen a lot on the TV and in the press covering this topic ahead of the winter Olympics.
I wonder if this will be repeated for the World Cup in Qatar in 4 years time to protest against the Islamic communities attitudes to homosexuality - or maybe even closer to home?
Are people afraid to criticize Islamic attitudes for fear of being branded racist?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Snafu03. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@Khandro
I am not a homosexual, but it is interesting that you assumed I was, simply because I defended them against your bigotry.
You have not made a case to rest. You offer as "evidence" the mewlings of an religious advocacy group that is clearly biased against homosexuals, when most of the available studies clearly point to the fact that girls are abused in greater numbers than boys, not that the numbers should really matter, given the grievousness of the offence - all such paedophilia and child abuse regardless of gender is horrific, but you brought the numbers game into this discussion by offering up your biased and non-evidenced claim that homosexuality is linked to paedophilia in a way that heterosexuality is not. Oh, and offering the false equivalence of child abuse of girls being teen girls willingly being groped by DJs.
You will be telling us that the earth is flat next, because the flat earth society says so.
I am not a homosexual, but it is interesting that you assumed I was, simply because I defended them against your bigotry.
You have not made a case to rest. You offer as "evidence" the mewlings of an religious advocacy group that is clearly biased against homosexuals, when most of the available studies clearly point to the fact that girls are abused in greater numbers than boys, not that the numbers should really matter, given the grievousness of the offence - all such paedophilia and child abuse regardless of gender is horrific, but you brought the numbers game into this discussion by offering up your biased and non-evidenced claim that homosexuality is linked to paedophilia in a way that heterosexuality is not. Oh, and offering the false equivalence of child abuse of girls being teen girls willingly being groped by DJs.
You will be telling us that the earth is flat next, because the flat earth society says so.
/It found that the overwhelming majority of abusers tend to abuse children in their families. It also found that over 70% identified themselves as heterosexual, and that 77% were married (or formerly married). Only 8% identified themselves as gay./
With 2% of the population self identifying as gay that makes paedophilia amongst gays 400% that amongst heterosexuals.
It's amazing what you can prove wth dodgy statistics, best not to use them ;o)
With 2% of the population self identifying as gay that makes paedophilia amongst gays 400% that amongst heterosexuals.
It's amazing what you can prove wth dodgy statistics, best not to use them ;o)
LG & Kromo. It seems amazing that in your attempts to exonerate predatory adult males from attacking young boys you feel that because an organisation has some affiliation to a religion that it is somehow lying about statistical evidence. Why should it, your atheism seems to be overspilling into the wrong topic.?
Re. bigotry: The Oxford dictionary defines it as 'Obstinate and intolerant of a creed or view'. Well you can leave out the creed in my case, but I am definitely intolerant of several groups views; Some people's view is that it is acceptable to be cruel and neglectful of animals, others view is that it is acceptable to commit sexual assaults on children.
To these views I am proud to say I am most emphatically a bigot, in fact I would consider starting a movement called 'Bigot Pride'.
Re. bigotry: The Oxford dictionary defines it as 'Obstinate and intolerant of a creed or view'. Well you can leave out the creed in my case, but I am definitely intolerant of several groups views; Some people's view is that it is acceptable to be cruel and neglectful of animals, others view is that it is acceptable to commit sexual assaults on children.
To these views I am proud to say I am most emphatically a bigot, in fact I would consider starting a movement called 'Bigot Pride'.
Zacs-master; I can' open your link (pop-up blocker wont allow) but I have read about the FRC on wikipedia, and by quoting something from them I am not subscribing to their position on everything, but I simply quote their statistics which are irrefutable on this matter; if homosexuals comprise 2 or 3 % of the general population, and virtually all sex crimes are committed by men, then the crimes by homosexual males against young boys by this group are enormously disproportionate to that of those of crimes by heterosexual males against young girls within the general population.
Perhaps you'd like to read this Khandro - just scroll down a fraction to the first Myth debunked.
http://
http://
How (in)convenient Khandro. A few snippets:
The group became a division of Focus on the Family in 1988 under Gary Bauer, a religious right leader who would use his post as a launching pad for a failed 2000 run for the presidency.
Bauer brought in several anti-gay researchers who pumped out defamatory material about the LGBT community.
Robert Knight, the FRC’s director of cultural affairs from 1992 until 2002, apparently claimed (with Robert York) the baseless assertion that “one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.”
If that's not enough to disprove the FRcs integrity:
"Part of the FRC’s recent strategy is to pound home the false claim that gays and lesbians are more likely to sexually abuse children. This is false. The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.”"
Another high profile member Sprigg apparently responded to a question about uniting gay partners during immigration by saying, “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than import them.” He later apologized, but in February 2009, he told Chris Matthews, “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior.” “So we should outlaw gay behavior?” Matthews asked. “Yes,” Sprigg replied.
So, you can affiliate yourself with them if you like, but I don't think it strengthens your argument much.
The group became a division of Focus on the Family in 1988 under Gary Bauer, a religious right leader who would use his post as a launching pad for a failed 2000 run for the presidency.
Bauer brought in several anti-gay researchers who pumped out defamatory material about the LGBT community.
Robert Knight, the FRC’s director of cultural affairs from 1992 until 2002, apparently claimed (with Robert York) the baseless assertion that “one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.”
If that's not enough to disprove the FRcs integrity:
"Part of the FRC’s recent strategy is to pound home the false claim that gays and lesbians are more likely to sexually abuse children. This is false. The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.”"
Another high profile member Sprigg apparently responded to a question about uniting gay partners during immigration by saying, “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than import them.” He later apologized, but in February 2009, he told Chris Matthews, “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior.” “So we should outlaw gay behavior?” Matthews asked. “Yes,” Sprigg replied.
So, you can affiliate yourself with them if you like, but I don't think it strengthens your argument much.
@Khandro You really are becoming tediously mendacious in addition to being a bubble of vacuity.
You made this ridiculous accusation in your last post;
"LG & Kromo. It seems amazing that in your attempts to exonerate predatory adult males from attacking young boys you feel that because an organisation has some affiliation to a religion that it is somehow lying about statistical evidence. Why should it, your atheism seems to be overspilling into the wrong topic.?"
Point out please where I or Kromo have attempted to exonerate predatory adult males from attacking young boys? Further misrepresentation from you in a desperate attempt to defend your apparent bigotry. It was you who intimated that male homosexuality was linked to paedophilia; that Gay men were more likely to become paedophiles than their heterosexual counterparts, without any evidence to support this except your own prejudice. It was you that offered up a false equivalence ; The torment of the abuse of young boys, as evidenced by grown men still crying when recollecting those events, compared to the relatively minor affront to females ,because they were willing teenagers allowing themselves to be groped by DJs. This is an unpardonable dismissal of the very real hurt and damage caused to girls.
When pressed for evidence to support your facile prejudice about male homosexuals being more likely to be paedophiles, you link to a paper produced by a religious advocacy group, one with an anti-homosexual agenda, and ignore the other studies from far more independent and far more expert sources that say no such link exists.
You dismiss the damage to girls, you falsely taint male homosexuals with paedophilia all in support of your own anti-gay agenda and its pretty disgusting to have to wade through.
You made this ridiculous accusation in your last post;
"LG & Kromo. It seems amazing that in your attempts to exonerate predatory adult males from attacking young boys you feel that because an organisation has some affiliation to a religion that it is somehow lying about statistical evidence. Why should it, your atheism seems to be overspilling into the wrong topic.?"
Point out please where I or Kromo have attempted to exonerate predatory adult males from attacking young boys? Further misrepresentation from you in a desperate attempt to defend your apparent bigotry. It was you who intimated that male homosexuality was linked to paedophilia; that Gay men were more likely to become paedophiles than their heterosexual counterparts, without any evidence to support this except your own prejudice. It was you that offered up a false equivalence ; The torment of the abuse of young boys, as evidenced by grown men still crying when recollecting those events, compared to the relatively minor affront to females ,because they were willing teenagers allowing themselves to be groped by DJs. This is an unpardonable dismissal of the very real hurt and damage caused to girls.
When pressed for evidence to support your facile prejudice about male homosexuals being more likely to be paedophiles, you link to a paper produced by a religious advocacy group, one with an anti-homosexual agenda, and ignore the other studies from far more independent and far more expert sources that say no such link exists.
You dismiss the damage to girls, you falsely taint male homosexuals with paedophilia all in support of your own anti-gay agenda and its pretty disgusting to have to wade through.
LG; If you do not know that many homosexuals gravitate to wards young boys then not only are you not living in this world, you have little understanding of the history of it. By claiming this is not a fact and that PROPORTIONATELY there are similar amount of assaults against young girls by heterosexual males is an attempt to excuse this.
The fact alone that hundreds of homosexual priests have recently been excommunicate for assaults on boys must account for a vast number of individual assaults (this was a in-house Vatican decision, and as many lament, civil proceedings were not brought) All this from a tiny cohort of priests within the small, 3% cohort of the homosexual population. To extrapolate this into the general population would require millions, if not billions of assaults by heterosexual men on young girls, where is the evidence for this?
REf. that I "ignore the other studies from far more independent and far more expert sources". The American Psychological Association does not as a body make such pronouncements as stated by Zacs, it points to papers delivered by its members. No doubt someone may have made such a claim somewhere, but if it exists at all, is not the voice of the entire body, and is misleading to present it as if it is.
The fact alone that hundreds of homosexual priests have recently been excommunicate for assaults on boys must account for a vast number of individual assaults (this was a in-house Vatican decision, and as many lament, civil proceedings were not brought) All this from a tiny cohort of priests within the small, 3% cohort of the homosexual population. To extrapolate this into the general population would require millions, if not billions of assaults by heterosexual men on young girls, where is the evidence for this?
REf. that I "ignore the other studies from far more independent and far more expert sources". The American Psychological Association does not as a body make such pronouncements as stated by Zacs, it points to papers delivered by its members. No doubt someone may have made such a claim somewhere, but if it exists at all, is not the voice of the entire body, and is misleading to present it as if it is.
Khandro, you are making the mistake of assuming that because a man sexually abuses a young male child, that man is a homosexual. Not so. If you had read my link you would have realised this but I have C&P'd the relevant section here.
>>
MYTH # 1
Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.
THE ARGUMENT
Depicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality — and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron's work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. Others have cited a group called the American College of Pediatricians to claim, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council did in November 2010, that "the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children."
THE FACTS
According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.
Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.
The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.
>>
MYTH # 1
Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.
THE ARGUMENT
Depicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality — and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron's work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. Others have cited a group called the American College of Pediatricians to claim, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council did in November 2010, that "the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children."
THE FACTS
According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.
Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.
The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.
laydybirder; Thank you for your c&p. but I'm afraid it is a load of inaccurate piffle, 'The APA' made no such assertion, and you appear by this entry to try to confuse the issue. I do not speak of 'child molestation' in general, but specifically of predatory male homosexuals attacking and abusing young boys. Whether or not this comes from within the 'network of family and friends' is immaterial to the abused, would you not say? Look at my previous post and tell me what is wrong with my figures, ie. where are the billions of attacks by heterosexual men against young girls?
Khandro
It took me about five seconds to see the flaw in your maths.
Reread what you've written.
Actually, don't bother - I will spell it out.
There are heterosexual men.
There are homosexual men.
And then there are men who have sex with children.
Now...do you see how that messes up your maths?
Go on...think about it.
You can see it now, can't you?
Bingo!
It took me about five seconds to see the flaw in your maths.
Reread what you've written.
Actually, don't bother - I will spell it out.
There are heterosexual men.
There are homosexual men.
And then there are men who have sex with children.
Now...do you see how that messes up your maths?
Go on...think about it.
You can see it now, can't you?
Bingo!
I have only briefly glanced at this thread but does anyone else find the term "a homosexual" rather odd and outdated? The last time I heard that term, it was uttered by Quentin Crisp (the self-styled Stately Homo). Gay guys might describe themselves as homosexual (although I don`t kinow any that use that term) but "a homosexual" seems to imply that the person is "something" rather than someone.
" It seems amazing that in your attempts to exonerate predatory adult males from attacking young boys you feel that because an organisation has some affiliation to a religion that it is somehow lying about statistical evidence. "
I don't seek to exonerate anyone who rapes children. The organisation you linked to openly identifies itself as an anti-LGBT group which sees homosexuality as a threat. How can you be so incapable of interrogating your sources?
"If you do not know that many homosexuals gravitate to wards young boys then not only are you not living in this world, you have little understanding of the history of it. "
Well, actually I'm willing to bet I have considerably more contact with the LGBT scene than you do. And yeah, there are some gay men who like younger men. There are also plenty that don't. As for history - I don't see that homosexual men have ever been disproportionately represented among those who prey on the young.
Of course, if you'd care to actually show me some evidence than just make bald assertions, I'll change my mind.
I don't seek to exonerate anyone who rapes children. The organisation you linked to openly identifies itself as an anti-LGBT group which sees homosexuality as a threat. How can you be so incapable of interrogating your sources?
"If you do not know that many homosexuals gravitate to wards young boys then not only are you not living in this world, you have little understanding of the history of it. "
Well, actually I'm willing to bet I have considerably more contact with the LGBT scene than you do. And yeah, there are some gay men who like younger men. There are also plenty that don't. As for history - I don't see that homosexual men have ever been disproportionately represented among those who prey on the young.
Of course, if you'd care to actually show me some evidence than just make bald assertions, I'll change my mind.
sp, you left a bit out..
There are bisexual men
There are bisexual paedophiles
There are heterosexual paedophiles
There are homosexual paedophiles
There is apparently no exclusivity and nobody really knows how many of each there are because the information is difficult to obtain since the clergy are probably not representative of the rest of the population.
There are bisexual men
There are bisexual paedophiles
There are heterosexual paedophiles
There are homosexual paedophiles
There is apparently no exclusivity and nobody really knows how many of each there are because the information is difficult to obtain since the clergy are probably not representative of the rest of the population.
Latest Posts
Property Owned As Tenants In Common
Law5 mins ago
News9 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.