Discussion: Gay Rights II

[Marx]

You have a record of having discriminatory, bigoted views so from this point forward I am putting you on "ignore."

I should also remind folks that this is the poster who said, in our faux presidential election, I was unqualified to be president because I am gay. I don't value the opinions of posters who have nothing worthwhile to add to the conversation, who have a history of narrow-mindedness and seem to revel in the ignorance they spew on a constant basis.

I never said that.

There's proof that children are at a loss when they don't have a mother and father to raise them in any situation.

That still doesn't mean a single parent shouldn't have the right to raise their biological child.

Actually, yes you did. :nono:

The problem is you're gay.

This was posted in the J. Man Spice for President thread on 06.10.08 at 12:34 pm.

What were you saying ForestAflame?

[SuBe]

Actually, yes you did. :nono:



This was posted in the J. Man Spice for President thread on 06.10.08 at 12:34 pm.

What were you saying ForestAflame?

http://www.playwithlinn.com/Images/funny%20pics/oh%20snap.jpg

[SuBe]

Actually, yes you did. :nono:



This was posted in the J. Man Spice for President thread on 06.10.08 at 12:34 pm.

What were you saying ForestAflame?

http://www.playwithlinn.com/Images/funny%20pics/oh%20snap.jpg

[SuBe]

Actually, yes you did. :nono:



This was posted in the J. Man Spice for President thread on 06.10.08 at 12:34 pm.

What were you saying ForestAflame?

http://www.playwithlinn.com/Images/funny%20pics/oh%20snap.jpg

[BlackLantern]

and might I add.....Oh No You Didn't!!

[BlackLantern]

and might I add.....Oh No You Didn't!!

[BlackLantern]

and might I add.....Oh No You Didn't!!

[The Senator]

They already had the children. The children are THEIR offspring, not someone else's. If a woman's husband dies, and she's now alone, should the government take her child from her? Of course not. Comparing keeping your own biological offspring with adopting children to whom you are not biologically related is comparing apples to kumquats.

But here's the problem:

If people believe that a homosexual couple is not best suited to raise children because that childhood experience is missing influence from the opposite gender, then how can those same people believe that a single mother, whose husband has abandoned her and her child, is equipped to raise a child on her own?

Yes, I understand the difference between adoption and biological birth. But essentially, those here who believe gays should be given second-dibs in child adoption, use an all-encompassing argument that there needs to be a man and woman raising the child. But they conveniently toss that argument aside when an external circumstance comes up in a different scenario.

To me, that is a double standard. They believe that for X, it has to be one way; but for Y, it can be another way. That doesn't make any sense to me. Looking at adoption: If you're going to say that children need to be raised by a heterosexual couple in order to have the best childhood, and that rationale is because the child needs to be influenced equally by the male and female parents, then how can you say that outside of adoption it is a different situation?

So, I guess what I want to know is, can children lead fulfilling lives under the influence of one mother? And if they can, then doesn't that mean they can live fulfilling lives under the influence of two mothers? And if the answer to both those questions is "yes," then why does gender matter at all in the adoption process anyway?

[The Senator]

They already had the children. The children are THEIR offspring, not someone else's. If a woman's husband dies, and she's now alone, should the government take her child from her? Of course not. Comparing keeping your own biological offspring with adopting children to whom you are not biologically related is comparing apples to kumquats.

But here's the problem:

If people believe that a homosexual couple is not best suited to raise children because that childhood experience is missing influence from the opposite gender, then how can those same people believe that a single mother, whose husband has abandoned her and her child, is equipped to raise a child on her own?

Yes, I understand the difference between adoption and biological birth. But essentially, those here who believe gays should be given second-dibs in child adoption, use an all-encompassing argument that there needs to be a man and woman raising the child. But they conveniently toss that argument aside when an external circumstance comes up in a different scenario.

To me, that is a double standard. They believe that for X, it has to be one way; but for Y, it can be another way. That doesn't make any sense to me. Looking at adoption: If you're going to say that children need to be raised by a heterosexual couple in order to have the best childhood, and that rationale is because the child needs to be influenced equally by the male and female parents, then how can you say that outside of adoption it is a different situation?

So, I guess what I want to know is, can children lead fulfilling lives under the influence of one mother? And if they can, then doesn't that mean they can live fulfilling lives under the influence of two mothers? And if the answer to both those questions is "yes," then why does gender matter at all in the adoption process anyway?

[The Senator]

They already had the children. The children are THEIR offspring, not someone else's. If a woman's husband dies, and she's now alone, should the government take her child from her? Of course not. Comparing keeping your own biological offspring with adopting children to whom you are not biologically related is comparing apples to kumquats.

But here's the problem:

If people believe that a homosexual couple is not best suited to raise children because that childhood experience is missing influence from the opposite gender, then how can those same people believe that a single mother, whose husband has abandoned her and her child, is equipped to raise a child on her own?

Yes, I understand the difference between adoption and biological birth. But essentially, those here who believe gays should be given second-dibs in child adoption, use an all-encompassing argument that there needs to be a man and woman raising the child. But they conveniently toss that argument aside when an external circumstance comes up in a different scenario.

To me, that is a double standard. They believe that for X, it has to be one way; but for Y, it can be another way. That doesn't make any sense to me. Looking at adoption: If you're going to say that children need to be raised by a heterosexual couple in order to have the best childhood, and that rationale is because the child needs to be influenced equally by the male and female parents, then how can you say that outside of adoption it is a different situation?

So, I guess what I want to know is, can children lead fulfilling lives under the influence of one mother? And if they can, then doesn't that mean they can live fulfilling lives under the influence of two mothers? And if the answer to both those questions is "yes," then why does gender matter at all in the adoption process anyway?

[lazur]

I think it is pretty inconsistent for you to say that children raised by homosexual parents aren't getting the best childhood experience based on the one mother-one-father model, and that you think that homosexuals should be given second preference in the adoption process, but you are perfectly fine with allowing single mothers to take care of their children on their own without a father figure... even though there isn't any influence from the other gender...

That is not only inconsistent, but a huge double standard.

Sorry, but a parent's inalienable right to raise his or her own children FAR outweighs the wants and desires of a gay couple to adopt a stranger's child. There are, after all, laws in EVERY country which protect the rights of biological parents, single or otherwise. And there are also laws in just about every country which PREVENT gay couples from adopting.

This means that the opinion I have, whether you agree or disagree, is the majority opinion. Don't let the overabundance of people on this board who share your very liberal view damage the reality that you are representing a minority opinion here on this subject.

Not that it's a bad thing, because I can see both sides of the argument. I just don't agree with yours.

[lazur]

I think it is pretty inconsistent for you to say that children raised by homosexual parents aren't getting the best childhood experience based on the one mother-one-father model, and that you think that homosexuals should be given second preference in the adoption process, but you are perfectly fine with allowing single mothers to take care of their children on their own without a father figure... even though there isn't any influence from the other gender...

That is not only inconsistent, but a huge double standard.

Sorry, but a parent's inalienable right to raise his or her own children FAR outweighs the wants and desires of a gay couple to adopt a stranger's child. There are, after all, laws in EVERY country which protect the rights of biological parents, single or otherwise. And there are also laws in just about every country which PREVENT gay couples from adopting.

This means that the opinion I have, whether you agree or disagree, is the majority opinion. Don't let the overabundance of people on this board who share your very liberal view damage the reality that you are representing a minority opinion here on this subject.

Not that it's a bad thing, because I can see both sides of the argument. I just don't agree with yours.

[lazur]

I think it is pretty inconsistent for you to say that children raised by homosexual parents aren't getting the best childhood experience based on the one mother-one-father model, and that you think that homosexuals should be given second preference in the adoption process, but you are perfectly fine with allowing single mothers to take care of their children on their own without a father figure... even though there isn't any influence from the other gender...

That is not only inconsistent, but a huge double standard.

Sorry, but a parent's inalienable right to raise his or her own children FAR outweighs the wants and desires of a gay couple to adopt a stranger's child. There are, after all, laws in EVERY country which protect the rights of biological parents, single or otherwise. And there are also laws in just about every country which PREVENT gay couples from adopting.

This means that the opinion I have, whether you agree or disagree, is the majority opinion. Don't let the overabundance of people on this board who share your very liberal view damage the reality that you are representing a minority opinion here on this subject.

Not that it's a bad thing, because I can see both sides of the argument. I just don't agree with yours.

[ForestAflame]

Actually, yes you did. :nono:



This was posted in the J. Man Spice for President thread on 06.10.08 at 12:34 pm.

What were you saying ForestAflame?

I never said he was unqualified, as Jmanspice is implying.

I said that the blue-collar voters wouldn't vote for him based on that. I never said it had anything to do with his qualifications. :whatever:

[ForestAflame]

Actually, yes you did. :nono:



This was posted in the J. Man Spice for President thread on 06.10.08 at 12:34 pm.

What were you saying ForestAflame?

I never said he was unqualified, as Jmanspice is implying.

I said that the blue-collar voters wouldn't vote for him based on that. I never said it had anything to do with his qualifications. :whatever:

[ForestAflame]

Actually, yes you did. :nono:



This was posted in the J. Man Spice for President thread on 06.10.08 at 12:34 pm.

What were you saying ForestAflame?

I never said he was unqualified, as Jmanspice is implying.

I said that the blue-collar voters wouldn't vote for him based on that. I never said it had anything to do with his qualifications. :whatever:

[The Senator]

Perhaps I shouldn't have put ForestAflame on ignore. Marx stole what was rightfully my ownage! :cmad: :csad:

[The Senator]

Perhaps I shouldn't have put ForestAflame on ignore. Marx stole what was rightfully my ownage! :cmad: :csad:

[The Senator]

Perhaps I shouldn't have put ForestAflame on ignore. Marx stole what was rightfully my ownage! :cmad: :csad:

[SuBe]

My 2 cents, we have too many kids that need adoption, if 2 parents of the same sex can offer then a life out of a foster home, then so be it.

[SuBe]

My 2 cents, we have too many kids that need adoption, if 2 parents of the same sex can offer then a life out of a foster home, then so be it.

[SuBe]

My 2 cents, we have too many kids that need adoption, if 2 parents of the same sex can offer then a life out of a foster home, then so be it.

[ForestAflame]

Looking at adoption: If you're going to say that children need to be raised by a heterosexual couple in order to have the best childhood, and that rationale is because the child needs to be influenced equally by the male and female parents, then how can you say that outside of adoption it is a different situation?



It isn't. But we're not going to say single parents can't raise their biological children because of it.

That's idiotic.

[ForestAflame]

Looking at adoption: If you're going to say that children need to be raised by a heterosexual couple in order to have the best childhood, and that rationale is because the child needs to be influenced equally by the male and female parents, then how can you say that outside of adoption it is a different situation?



It isn't. But we're not going to say single parents can't raise their biological children because of it.

That's idiotic.

[ForestAflame]

Looking at adoption: If you're going to say that children need to be raised by a heterosexual couple in order to have the best childhood, and that rationale is because the child needs to be influenced equally by the male and female parents, then how can you say that outside of adoption it is a different situation?



It isn't. But we're not going to say single parents can't raise their biological children because of it.

That's idiotic.

[jaguarr]

Perhaps I shouldn't have put ForestAflame on ignore. Marx stole what was rightfully my ownage! :cmad: :csad:

I guess that means Marx owned you, too, while he was at it. :hehe:

jag

[jaguarr]

Perhaps I shouldn't have put ForestAflame on ignore. Marx stole what was rightfully my ownage! :cmad: :csad:

I guess that means Marx owned you, too, while he was at it. :hehe:

jag

[jaguarr]

Perhaps I shouldn't have put ForestAflame on ignore. Marx stole what was rightfully my ownage! :cmad: :csad:

I guess that means Marx owned you, too, while he was at it. :hehe:

jag

[ForestAflame]

I guess that means Marx owned you, too, while he was at it. :hehe:

jag

The "ownage" is as fictional as the idea that gay rights are equal rights. :csad:

You're not going to be able to pull the blue collar demographic.

[ForestAflame]

I guess that means Marx owned you, too, while he was at it. :hehe:

jag

The "ownage" is as fictional as the idea that gay rights are equal rights. :csad:

You're not going to be able to pull the blue collar demographic.

[ForestAflame]

I guess that means Marx owned you, too, while he was at it. :hehe:

jag

The "ownage" is as fictional as the idea that gay rights are equal rights. :csad:

You're not going to be able to pull the blue collar demographic.

[Tron5000]

But here's the problem:

If people believe that a homosexual couple is not best suited to raise children because that childhood experience is missing influence from the opposite gender, then how can those same people believe that a single mother, whose husband has abandoned her and her child, is equipped to raise a child on her own?

Yes, I understand the difference between adoption and biological birth. But essentially, those here who believe gays should be given second-dibs in child adoption, use an all-encompassing argument that there needs to be a man and woman raising the child. But they conveniently toss that argument aside when an external circumstance comes up in a different scenario.

To me, that is a double standard. They believe that for X, it has to be one way; but for Y, it can be another way. That doesn't make any sense to me. Looking at adoption: If you're going to say that children need to be raised by a heterosexual couple in order to have the best childhood, and that rationale is because the child needs to be influenced equally by the male and female parents, then how can you say that outside of adoption it is a different situation?

So, I guess what I want to know is, can children lead fulfilling lives under the influence of one mother? And if they can, then doesn't that mean they can live fulfilling lives under the influence of two mothers? And if the answer to both those questions is "yes," then why does gender matter at all in the adoption process anyway?

Just because something "can" happen doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Notice I also said a heterosexual couple should be given precedent over a single individual during the adoption process. You only discussed a homosexual couple, when I stated both.

And I believe that if a couple has a child, and then one of the parents realizes that he or she is homosexual, that individual should still be allowed to raise his or her own offspring. I know of a person in this situation, and I have absolutely no problem with it. If it is YOUR offspring, there's no problem.

[Tron5000]

But here's the problem:

If people believe that a homosexual couple is not best suited to raise children because that childhood experience is missing influence from the opposite gender, then how can those same people believe that a single mother, whose husband has abandoned her and her child, is equipped to raise a child on her own?

Yes, I understand the difference between adoption and biological birth. But essentially, those here who believe gays should be given second-dibs in child adoption, use an all-encompassing argument that there needs to be a man and woman raising the child. But they conveniently toss that argument aside when an external circumstance comes up in a different scenario.

To me, that is a double standard. They believe that for X, it has to be one way; but for Y, it can be another way. That doesn't make any sense to me. Looking at adoption: If you're going to say that children need to be raised by a heterosexual couple in order to have the best childhood, and that rationale is because the child needs to be influenced equally by the male and female parents, then how can you say that outside of adoption it is a different situation?

So, I guess what I want to know is, can children lead fulfilling lives under the influence of one mother? And if they can, then doesn't that mean they can live fulfilling lives under the influence of two mothers? And if the answer to both those questions is "yes," then why does gender matter at all in the adoption process anyway?

Just because something "can" happen doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Notice I also said a heterosexual couple should be given precedent over a single individual during the adoption process. You only discussed a homosexual couple, when I stated both.

And I believe that if a couple has a child, and then one of the parents realizes that he or she is homosexual, that individual should still be allowed to raise his or her own offspring. I know of a person in this situation, and I have absolutely no problem with it. If it is YOUR offspring, there's no problem.

[Tron5000]

But here's the problem:

If people believe that a homosexual couple is not best suited to raise children because that childhood experience is missing influence from the opposite gender, then how can those same people believe that a single mother, whose husband has abandoned her and her child, is equipped to raise a child on her own?

Yes, I understand the difference between adoption and biological birth. But essentially, those here who believe gays should be given second-dibs in child adoption, use an all-encompassing argument that there needs to be a man and woman raising the child. But they conveniently toss that argument aside when an external circumstance comes up in a different scenario.

To me, that is a double standard. They believe that for X, it has to be one way; but for Y, it can be another way. That doesn't make any sense to me. Looking at adoption: If you're going to say that children need to be raised by a heterosexual couple in order to have the best childhood, and that rationale is because the child needs to be influenced equally by the male and female parents, then how can you say that outside of adoption it is a different situation?

So, I guess what I want to know is, can children lead fulfilling lives under the influence of one mother? And if they can, then doesn't that mean they can live fulfilling lives under the influence of two mothers? And if the answer to both those questions is "yes," then why does gender matter at all in the adoption process anyway?

Just because something "can" happen doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Notice I also said a heterosexual couple should be given precedent over a single individual during the adoption process. You only discussed a homosexual couple, when I stated both.

And I believe that if a couple has a child, and then one of the parents realizes that he or she is homosexual, that individual should still be allowed to raise his or her own offspring. I know of a person in this situation, and I have absolutely no problem with it. If it is YOUR offspring, there's no problem.

[SuBe]

The "ownage" is as fictional as the idea that gay rights are equal rights. :csad:
You still never answered my question.

[SuBe]

The "ownage" is as fictional as the idea that gay rights are equal rights. :csad:
You still never answered my question.

[SuBe]

The "ownage" is as fictional as the idea that gay rights are equal rights. :csad:
You still never answered my question.

[lazur]

But here's the problem:

If people believe that a homosexual couple is not best suited to raise children because that childhood experience is missing influence from the opposite gender, then how can those same people believe that a single mother, whose husband has abandoned her and her child, is equipped to raise a child on her own?

Yes, I understand the difference between adoption and biological birth. But essentially, those here who believe gays should be given second-dibs in child adoption, use an all-encompassing argument that there needs to be a man and woman raising the child. But they conveniently toss that argument aside when an external circumstance comes up in a different scenario.

To me, that is a double standard. They believe that for X, it has to be one way; but for Y, it can be another way. That doesn't make any sense to me. Looking at adoption: If you're going to say that children need to be raised by a heterosexual couple in order to have the best childhood, and that rationale is because the child needs to be influenced equally by the male and female parents, then how can you say that outside of adoption it is a different situation?

So, I guess what I want to know is, can children lead fulfilling lives under the influence of one mother? And if they can, then doesn't that mean they can live fulfilling lives under the influence of two mothers? And if the answer to both those questions is "yes," then why does gender matter at all in the adoption process anyway?

But here's the problem I have with your argument:

The government has the responsibility for placing adoptive children into homes that are considered optimal for raising said children. But you're arguing that because single parent situations exist, that should be considered as optimal as any other parental situation, and I believe that is wrong.

Just because there are kids out there in single family homes, it doesn't mean those situations are optimal. They are NOT. I know because I am in that situation with my daughter. OF COURSE it would have been better if her mom hadn't abandoned the two of us. But it happened and we've made the best of it, and it certainly isn't up to the government to come in and steal my child away from me because it isn't optimal.

HOWEVER, if the government has to make a decision about the welfare of a child in GOVERNMENT CUSTODY, it should make the best decision possible and provide that child with the best set of circumstances possible. Which means that if a straight couple is available, that couple should receive precedence over any other custodial situation in which that is not the case.

[lazur]

But here's the problem:

If people believe that a homosexual couple is not best suited to raise children because that childhood experience is missing influence from the opposite gender, then how can those same people believe that a single mother, whose husband has abandoned her and her child, is equipped to raise a child on her own?

Yes, I understand the difference between adoption and biological birth. But essentially, those here who believe gays should be given second-dibs in child adoption, use an all-encompassing argument that there needs to be a man and woman raising the child. But they conveniently toss that argument aside when an external circumstance comes up in a different scenario.

To me, that is a double standard. They believe that for X, it has to be one way; but for Y, it can be another way. That doesn't make any sense to me. Looking at adoption: If you're going to say that children need to be raised by a heterosexual couple in order to have the best childhood, and that rationale is because the child needs to be influenced equally by the male and female parents, then how can you say that outside of adoption it is a different situation?

So, I guess what I want to know is, can children lead fulfilling lives under the influence of one mother? And if they can, then doesn't that mean they can live fulfilling lives under the influence of two mothers? And if the answer to both those questions is "yes," then why does gender matter at all in the adoption process anyway?

But here's the problem I have with your argument:

The government has the responsibility for placing adoptive children into homes that are considered optimal for raising said children. But you're arguing that because single parent situations exist, that should be considered as optimal as any other parental situation, and I believe that is wrong.

Just because there are kids out there in single family homes, it doesn't mean those situations are optimal. They are NOT. I know because I am in that situation with my daughter. OF COURSE it would have been better if her mom hadn't abandoned the two of us. But it happened and we've made the best of it, and it certainly isn't up to the government to come in and steal my child away from me because it isn't optimal.

HOWEVER, if the government has to make a decision about the welfare of a child in GOVERNMENT CUSTODY, it should make the best decision possible and provide that child with the best set of circumstances possible. Which means that if a straight couple is available, that couple should receive precedence over any other custodial situation in which that is not the case.

[lazur]

But here's the problem:

If people believe that a homosexual couple is not best suited to raise children because that childhood experience is missing influence from the opposite gender, then how can those same people believe that a single mother, whose husband has abandoned her and her child, is equipped to raise a child on her own?

Yes, I understand the difference between adoption and biological birth. But essentially, those here who believe gays should be given second-dibs in child adoption, use an all-encompassing argument that there needs to be a man and woman raising the child. But they conveniently toss that argument aside when an external circumstance comes up in a different scenario.

To me, that is a double standard. They believe that for X, it has to be one way; but for Y, it can be another way. That doesn't make any sense to me. Looking at adoption: If you're going to say that children need to be raised by a heterosexual couple in order to have the best childhood, and that rationale is because the child needs to be influenced equally by the male and female parents, then how can you say that outside of adoption it is a different situation?

So, I guess what I want to know is, can children lead fulfilling lives under the influence of one mother? And if they can, then doesn't that mean they can live fulfilling lives under the influence of two mothers? And if the answer to both those questions is "yes," then why does gender matter at all in the adoption process anyway?

But here's the problem I have with your argument:

The government has the responsibility for placing adoptive children into homes that are considered optimal for raising said children. But you're arguing that because single parent situations exist, that should be considered as optimal as any other parental situation, and I believe that is wrong.

Just because there are kids out there in single family homes, it doesn't mean those situations are optimal. They are NOT. I know because I am in that situation with my daughter. OF COURSE it would have been better if her mom hadn't abandoned the two of us. But it happened and we've made the best of it, and it certainly isn't up to the government to come in and steal my child away from me because it isn't optimal.

HOWEVER, if the government has to make a decision about the welfare of a child in GOVERNMENT CUSTODY, it should make the best decision possible and provide that child with the best set of circumstances possible. Which means that if a straight couple is available, that couple should receive precedence over any other custodial situation in which that is not the case.

[ForestAflame]

You still never answered my question.

You asked one? :huh:

[ForestAflame]

You still never answered my question.

You asked one? :huh:

[ForestAflame]

You still never answered my question.

You asked one? :huh:

[jaguarr]

The "ownage" is as real as the idea that gay rights are equal rights. :csad:

Fixed that for ya. :up:

jag

[jaguarr]

The "ownage" is as real as the idea that gay rights are equal rights. :csad:

Fixed that for ya. :up:

jag

[jaguarr]

The "ownage" is as real as the idea that gay rights are equal rights. :csad:

Fixed that for ya. :up:

jag

[SuBe]

You asked one? :huh:
How does 2 Married Men effect your Relationship with a woman? I'll add a second, how does 2 Married Men adopting a child affect your relationship with your children?

[SuBe]

You asked one? :huh:
How does 2 Married Men effect your Relationship with a woman? I'll add a second, how does 2 Married Men adopting a child affect your relationship with your children?

[SuBe]

You asked one? :huh:
How does 2 Married Men effect your Relationship with a woman? I'll add a second, how does 2 Married Men adopting a child affect your relationship with your children?

[Marx]

The "ownage" is as fictional as the idea that gay rights are equal rights. :csad:

Keep it up ForestAflame, I'd say you're definately in contention for 'Most Ignorant Post Of The Day'.

I have a sneaky suspicion your stance on the issue stems from the bible. Would you like to get into the gay and religion argument while we're at it? I haven't had one of those in a while.

[Marx]

The "ownage" is as fictional as the idea that gay rights are equal rights. :csad:

Keep it up ForestAflame, I'd say you're definately in contention for 'Most Ignorant Post Of The Day'.

I have a sneaky suspicion your stance on the issue stems from the bible. Would you like to get into the gay and religion argument while we're at it? I haven't had one of those in a while.

[Marx]

The "ownage" is as fictional as the idea that gay rights are equal rights. :csad:

Keep it up ForestAflame, I'd say you're definately in contention for 'Most Ignorant Post Of The Day'.

I have a sneaky suspicion your stance on the issue stems from the bible. Would you like to get into the gay and religion argument while we're at it? I haven't had one of those in a while.

[ForestAflame]

How does 2 Married Men effect your Relationship with a woman? I'll add a second, how does 2 Married Men adopting a child affect your relationship with your children?

I don't understand what point you're trying to prove. I never said it had impact on my relationships whatsoever.

Are you saying I can't debate something unless it affects me personally? :huh:

[ForestAflame]

How does 2 Married Men effect your Relationship with a woman? I'll add a second, how does 2 Married Men adopting a child affect your relationship with your children?

I don't understand what point you're trying to prove. I never said it had impact on my relationships whatsoever.

Are you saying I can't debate something unless it affects me personally? :huh:

[ForestAflame]

How does 2 Married Men effect your Relationship with a woman? I'll add a second, how does 2 Married Men adopting a child affect your relationship with your children?

I don't understand what point you're trying to prove. I never said it had impact on my relationships whatsoever.

Are you saying I can't debate something unless it affects me personally? :huh:

[The Senator]

I think it can be safely said that ForestAflame is a flamer.

Oh, double meanings. :hehe:

[The Senator]

I think it can be safely said that ForestAflame is a flamer.

Oh, double meanings. :hehe:

[The Senator]

I think it can be safely said that ForestAflame is a flamer.

Oh, double meanings. :hehe:

[jaguarr]

Keep it up ForestAflame, I'd say you're definately in contention for 'Most Ignorant Post Of The Day'.

I have a sneaky suspicion your stance on the issue stems from the bible. Would you like to get into the gay and religion argument while we're at it? I haven't had one of those in a while.

My God, man! Are you trying to kill us all!?

jag

[jaguarr]

Keep it up ForestAflame, I'd say you're definately in contention for 'Most Ignorant Post Of The Day'.

I have a sneaky suspicion your stance on the issue stems from the bible. Would you like to get into the gay and religion argument while we're at it? I haven't had one of those in a while.

My God, man! Are you trying to kill us all!?

jag

[jaguarr]

Keep it up ForestAflame, I'd say you're definately in contention for 'Most Ignorant Post Of The Day'.

I have a sneaky suspicion your stance on the issue stems from the bible. Would you like to get into the gay and religion argument while we're at it? I haven't had one of those in a while.

My God, man! Are you trying to kill us all!?

jag

[SuBe]

I don't understand what point you're trying to prove. I never said it had impact on my relationships whatsoever.

Are you saying I can't debate something unless it affects me personally? :huh:
No, what I'm saying is, why are you intent on using the Force Powers of Government to inflict your will on others?

[SuBe]

I don't understand what point you're trying to prove. I never said it had impact on my relationships whatsoever.

Are you saying I can't debate something unless it affects me personally? :huh:
No, what I'm saying is, why are you intent on using the Force Powers of Government to inflict your will on others?

[SuBe]

I don't understand what point you're trying to prove. I never said it had impact on my relationships whatsoever.

Are you saying I can't debate something unless it affects me personally? :huh:
No, what I'm saying is, why are you intent on using the Force Powers of Government to inflict your will on others?

[Marx]

I think it can be safely said that ForestAflame is a flamer.

Oh, double meanings. :hehe:

Play nice Jman. :oldrazz:

My God, man! Are you trying to kill us all!?

jag

Hey, I have a sneaky suspicion about the root of some poster's argument. I figure...why keep tiptoeing around it? :cwink:

[Marx]

I think it can be safely said that ForestAflame is a flamer.

Oh, double meanings. :hehe:

Play nice Jman. :oldrazz:

My God, man! Are you trying to kill us all!?

jag

Hey, I have a sneaky suspicion about the root of some poster's argument. I figure...why keep tiptoeing around it? :cwink:

[Marx]

I think it can be safely said that ForestAflame is a flamer.

Oh, double meanings. :hehe:

Play nice Jman. :oldrazz:

My God, man! Are you trying to kill us all!?

jag

Hey, I have a sneaky suspicion about the root of some poster's argument. I figure...why keep tiptoeing around it? :cwink:

[ForestAflame]

No, what I'm saying is, why are you intent on using the Force Powers of Government to inflict your will on others?

I'm intent on no such thing.

I'm simply expressing my opinion. :o

[ForestAflame]

No, what I'm saying is, why are you intent on using the Force Powers of Government to inflict your will on others?

I'm intent on no such thing.

I'm simply expressing my opinion. :o

[ForestAflame]

No, what I'm saying is, why are you intent on using the Force Powers of Government to inflict your will on others?

I'm intent on no such thing.

I'm simply expressing my opinion. :o

[The Senator]

Just because something "can" happen doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Notice I also said a heterosexual couple should be given precedent over a single individual during the adoption process. You only discussed a homosexual couple, when I stated both.

And I believe that if a couple has a child, and then one of the parents realizes that he or she is homosexual, that individual should still be allowed to raise his or her own offspring. I know of a person in this situation, and I have absolutely no problem with it. If it is YOUR offspring, there's no problem.

Considering I discussed being raised by a single parent in my post, so I didn't necessarily think I needed to discuss that point further.

[The Senator]

Just because something "can" happen doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Notice I also said a heterosexual couple should be given precedent over a single individual during the adoption process. You only discussed a homosexual couple, when I stated both.

And I believe that if a couple has a child, and then one of the parents realizes that he or she is homosexual, that individual should still be allowed to raise his or her own offspring. I know of a person in this situation, and I have absolutely no problem with it. If it is YOUR offspring, there's no problem.

Considering I discussed being raised by a single parent in my post, so I didn't necessarily think I needed to discuss that point further.

[The Senator]

Just because something "can" happen doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Notice I also said a heterosexual couple should be given precedent over a single individual during the adoption process. You only discussed a homosexual couple, when I stated both.

And I believe that if a couple has a child, and then one of the parents realizes that he or she is homosexual, that individual should still be allowed to raise his or her own offspring. I know of a person in this situation, and I have absolutely no problem with it. If it is YOUR offspring, there's no problem.

Considering I discussed being raised by a single parent in my post, so I didn't necessarily think I needed to discuss that point further.

[SuBe]

I'm intent on no such thing.

I'm simply expressing my opinion. :o
So, if it doesn't affect you, then why voice your opinion to discourage abandonned or orphaned children from having a roof over their head and a loving family?

[SuBe]

I'm intent on no such thing.

I'm simply expressing my opinion. :o
So, if it doesn't affect you, then why voice your opinion to discourage abandonned or orphaned children from having a roof over their head and a loving family?

[SuBe]

I'm intent on no such thing.

I'm simply expressing my opinion. :o
So, if it doesn't affect you, then why voice your opinion to discourage abandonned or orphaned children from having a roof over their head and a loving family?

[ForestAflame]

I have a sneaky suspicion your stance on the issue stems from the bible. Would you like to get into the gay and religion argument while we're at it? I haven't had one of those in a while.


No thanks. I "know where" those arguments lead. :cwink:

[ForestAflame]

I have a sneaky suspicion your stance on the issue stems from the bible. Would you like to get into the gay and religion argument while we're at it? I haven't had one of those in a while.


No thanks. I "know where" those arguments lead. :cwink:

[ForestAflame]

I have a sneaky suspicion your stance on the issue stems from the bible. Would you like to get into the gay and religion argument while we're at it? I haven't had one of those in a while.


No thanks. I "know where" those arguments lead. :cwink:

[The Senator]

Hey, I have a sneaky suspicion about the root of some poster's argument. I figure...why keep tiptoeing around it? :cwink:

Because, if you do that, I will have to ask Wilhelm-Scream to enter the discussion on religion, and while that will be interesting, he will notice that I've been using his eye-rolling smiley face, and that could lead to an intellectual property lawsuit I'm not sure I'd win :csad:

[The Senator]

Hey, I have a sneaky suspicion about the root of some poster's argument. I figure...why keep tiptoeing around it? :cwink:

Because, if you do that, I will have to ask Wilhelm-Scream to enter the discussion on religion, and while that will be interesting, he will notice that I've been using his eye-rolling smiley face, and that could lead to an intellectual property lawsuit I'm not sure I'd win :csad:

[The Senator]

Hey, I have a sneaky suspicion about the root of some poster's argument. I figure...why keep tiptoeing around it? :cwink:

Because, if you do that, I will have to ask Wilhelm-Scream to enter the discussion on religion, and while that will be interesting, he will notice that I've been using his eye-rolling smiley face, and that could lead to an intellectual property lawsuit I'm not sure I'd win :csad:

[ForestAflame]

Because, if you do that, I will have to ask Wilhelm-Scream to enter the discussion on religion

Oh my god. :wow:

Don't let that man anywhere near this thread. :oldrazz:

[ForestAflame]

Because, if you do that, I will have to ask Wilhelm-Scream to enter the discussion on religion

Oh my god. :wow:

Don't let that man anywhere near this thread. :oldrazz:

[ForestAflame]

Because, if you do that, I will have to ask Wilhelm-Scream to enter the discussion on religion

Oh my god. :wow:

Don't let that man anywhere near this thread. :oldrazz:

[Marx]

No thanks. I "know where" those arguments lead. :cwink:

Because, if you do that, I will have to ask Wilhelm-Scream to enter the discussion on religion, and while that will be interesting, he will notice that I've been using his eye-rolling smiley face, and that could lead to an intellectual property lawsuit I'm not sure I'd win :csad:

Fine. On the account of a potential Jman intellectual property lawsuit, the 'Gay and Religion Debate' will be postponed.

For now. :meanie:

[Marx]

No thanks. I "know where" those arguments lead. :cwink:

Because, if you do that, I will have to ask Wilhelm-Scream to enter the discussion on religion, and while that will be interesting, he will notice that I've been using his eye-rolling smiley face, and that could lead to an intellectual property lawsuit I'm not sure I'd win :csad:

Fine. On the account of a potential Jman intellectual property lawsuit, the 'Gay and Religion Debate' will be postponed.

For now. :meanie:

[Marx]

No thanks. I "know where" those arguments lead. :cwink:

Because, if you do that, I will have to ask Wilhelm-Scream to enter the discussion on religion, and while that will be interesting, he will notice that I've been using his eye-rolling smiley face, and that could lead to an intellectual property lawsuit I'm not sure I'd win :csad:

Fine. On the account of a potential Jman intellectual property lawsuit, the 'Gay and Religion Debate' will be postponed.

For now. :meanie:

[jaguarr]

I'm still inviting Wilhelm to this thread. :hehe:

jag

[jaguarr]

I'm still inviting Wilhelm to this thread. :hehe:

jag

[jaguarr]

I'm still inviting Wilhelm to this thread. :hehe:

jag

[SentinelMind]

I agree with you. The best situation for raising a child (in my mind) is a father and a mother. You learn certain things from the male head of the household and you learn other things from the female leader of the household. A child who grows up without a father or mother is missing out on learning many things.

I think a heterosexual couple should be given precedent over a homosexual couple or a single individual during the adoption process.

I agree, there is a reason why the tradition of heterosexual marriage has survived centuries. Its the best household to raise and provide a stable environment for children.

[SentinelMind]

I agree with you. The best situation for raising a child (in my mind) is a father and a mother. You learn certain things from the male head of the household and you learn other things from the female leader of the household. A child who grows up without a father or mother is missing out on learning many things.

I think a heterosexual couple should be given precedent over a homosexual couple or a single individual during the adoption process.

I agree, there is a reason why the tradition of heterosexual marriage has survived centuries. Its the best household to raise and provide a stable environment for children.

[SentinelMind]

I agree with you. The best situation for raising a child (in my mind) is a father and a mother. You learn certain things from the male head of the household and you learn other things from the female leader of the household. A child who grows up without a father or mother is missing out on learning many things.

I think a heterosexual couple should be given precedent over a homosexual couple or a single individual during the adoption process.

I agree, there is a reason why the tradition of heterosexual marriage has survived centuries. Its the best household to raise and provide a stable environment for children.

[SuBe]

But, if that is not availible, does the child sit and wait in a Foster home, or do you let them be raised by loving adults who happen to be gay?

[SuBe]

But, if that is not availible, does the child sit and wait in a Foster home, or do you let them be raised by loving adults who happen to be gay?

[SuBe]

But, if that is not availible, does the child sit and wait in a Foster home, or do you let them be raised by loving adults who happen to be gay?

[SentinelMind]

Back to the "gay people can't raise a child properly because they don't offer a mixed sex marriage environment" argument, eh? Isn't that really just the nice way of saying "I'm afraid that gay people will raise a child to be gay"?, though? I'm afraid that racist people will raise racist children. Should we go our of our way to ensure they can't adopt? How about people who are Pagan? Surely they'll raise a Pagan child? We should put a stop to that while we're at it. Never mind the fact that countless gay couples have raised perfectly normal, well adjusted people who...surprise....didn't turn out to be gay. All this is about is people being afraid that "the gay will rub off on those poor kids" and not a whole lot more.

jag

I agree with the bold. The interpretation afterwards, not so much. I also distinctly stated I think married straight couples should have precedence over a single person getting adoption, in fact not sure if I support allowing one never-married person to get an adoption at all.

[SentinelMind]

Back to the "gay people can't raise a child properly because they don't offer a mixed sex marriage environment" argument, eh? Isn't that really just the nice way of saying "I'm afraid that gay people will raise a child to be gay"?, though? I'm afraid that racist people will raise racist children. Should we go our of our way to ensure they can't adopt? How about people who are Pagan? Surely they'll raise a Pagan child? We should put a stop to that while we're at it. Never mind the fact that countless gay couples have raised perfectly normal, well adjusted people who...surprise....didn't turn out to be gay. All this is about is people being afraid that "the gay will rub off on those poor kids" and not a whole lot more.

jag

I agree with the bold. The interpretation afterwards, not so much. I also distinctly stated I think married straight couples should have precedence over a single person getting adoption, in fact not sure if I support allowing one never-married person to get an adoption at all.

[SentinelMind]

Back to the "gay people can't raise a child properly because they don't offer a mixed sex marriage environment" argument, eh? Isn't that really just the nice way of saying "I'm afraid that gay people will raise a child to be gay"?, though? I'm afraid that racist people will raise racist children. Should we go our of our way to ensure they can't adopt? How about people who are Pagan? Surely they'll raise a Pagan child? We should put a stop to that while we're at it. Never mind the fact that countless gay couples have raised perfectly normal, well adjusted people who...surprise....didn't turn out to be gay. All this is about is people being afraid that "the gay will rub off on those poor kids" and not a whole lot more.

jag

I agree with the bold. The interpretation afterwards, not so much. I also distinctly stated I think married straight couples should have precedence over a single person getting adoption, in fact not sure if I support allowing one never-married person to get an adoption at all.

[Tron5000]

But, if that is not availible, does the child sit and wait in a Foster home, or do you let them be raised by loving adults who happen to be gay?

I believe that heterosexual couples should be given precedent over homosexual couples or single individuals during the adoption process. I don't feel that homosexual couples and single individuals should be banned from adopting children. But if a loving, caring, providing heterosexual couple is available, they should be at the top of the list.

[Tron5000]

But, if that is not availible, does the child sit and wait in a Foster home, or do you let them be raised by loving adults who happen to be gay?

I believe that heterosexual couples should be given precedent over homosexual couples or single individuals during the adoption process. I don't feel that homosexual couples and single individuals should be banned from adopting children. But if a loving, caring, providing heterosexual couple is available, they should be at the top of the list.

[Tron5000]

But, if that is not availible, does the child sit and wait in a Foster home, or do you let them be raised by loving adults who happen to be gay?

I believe that heterosexual couples should be given precedent over homosexual couples or single individuals during the adoption process. I don't feel that homosexual couples and single individuals should be banned from adopting children. But if a loving, caring, providing heterosexual couple is available, they should be at the top of the list.

[SuBe]

I believe that heterosexual couples should be given precedent over homosexual couples or single individuals during the adoption process. I don't feel that homosexual couples and single individuals should be banned from adopting children. But if a loving, caring, providing heterosexual couple is available, they should be at the top of the list.
I can understand your feelings on this, but if a hetrosexual couple is available, and a Homosexual Couple is available, but the Homosexual Couple has better means to care for the child (more money, stable living situation, better schools, etc), then what?

[SuBe]

I believe that heterosexual couples should be given precedent over homosexual couples or single individuals during the adoption process. I don't feel that homosexual couples and single individuals should be banned from adopting children. But if a loving, caring, providing heterosexual couple is available, they should be at the top of the list.
I can understand your feelings on this, but if a hetrosexual couple is available, and a Homosexual Couple is available, but the Homosexual Couple has better means to care for the child (more money, stable living situation, better schools, etc), then what?

[SuBe]

I believe that heterosexual couples should be given precedent over homosexual couples or single individuals during the adoption process. I don't feel that homosexual couples and single individuals should be banned from adopting children. But if a loving, caring, providing heterosexual couple is available, they should be at the top of the list.
I can understand your feelings on this, but if a hetrosexual couple is available, and a Homosexual Couple is available, but the Homosexual Couple has better means to care for the child (more money, stable living situation, better schools, etc), then what?

[Tron5000]

I can understand your feelings on this, but if a hetrosexual couple is available, and a Homosexual Couple is available, but the Homosexual Couple has better means to care for the child (more money, stable living situation, better schools, etc), then what?

These are obviously factors that need to be taken into consideration. All things being equal, I believe the precedence should be given to the heterosexual couple. If it's between a stable, loving homosexual couple or a deadbeat hetero couple, I'll go with the former over the latter.

There are always many determining factors when deciding in which home to place a child with no parents. But my belief in precedent for the hetero couple comes into play when the factors are pretty much even. If both couples are equally qualified, I'd place the child with the hetero family.

[Tron5000]

I can understand your feelings on this, but if a hetrosexual couple is available, and a Homosexual Couple is available, but the Homosexual Couple has better means to care for the child (more money, stable living situation, better schools, etc), then what?

These are obviously factors that need to be taken into consideration. All things being equal, I believe the precedence should be given to the heterosexual couple. If it's between a stable, loving homosexual couple or a deadbeat hetero couple, I'll go with the former over the latter.

There are always many determining factors when deciding in which home to place a child with no parents. But my belief in precedent for the hetero couple comes into play when the factors are pretty much even. If both couples are equally qualified, I'd place the child with the hetero family.

[Tron5000]

I can understand your feelings on this, but if a hetrosexual couple is available, and a Homosexual Couple is available, but the Homosexual Couple has better means to care for the child (more money, stable living situation, better schools, etc), then what?

These are obviously factors that need to be taken into consideration. All things being equal, I believe the precedence should be given to the heterosexual couple. If it's between a stable, loving homosexual couple or a deadbeat hetero couple, I'll go with the former over the latter.

There are always many determining factors when deciding in which home to place a child with no parents. But my belief in precedent for the hetero couple comes into play when the factors are pretty much even. If both couples are equally qualified, I'd place the child with the hetero family.

[ForestAflame]

So, if it doesn't affect you, then why voice your opinion to discourage abandonned or orphaned children from having a roof over their head and a loving family?

I'm doing the opposite. I'm encouraging it. It's not like there's any shortage of straight couples out there who'd love to adopt.

[ForestAflame]

So, if it doesn't affect you, then why voice your opinion to discourage abandonned or orphaned children from having a roof over their head and a loving family?

I'm doing the opposite. I'm encouraging it. It's not like there's any shortage of straight couples out there who'd love to adopt.

[ForestAflame]

So, if it doesn't affect you, then why voice your opinion to discourage abandonned or orphaned children from having a roof over their head and a loving family?

I'm doing the opposite. I'm encouraging it. It's not like there's any shortage of straight couples out there who'd love to adopt.

[ForestAflame]

I'm afraid that racist people will raise racist children. Should we go our of our way to ensure they can't adopt?

jag

Yes.

[ForestAflame]

I'm afraid that racist people will raise racist children. Should we go our of our way to ensure they can't adopt?

jag

Yes.

[ForestAflame]

I'm afraid that racist people will raise racist children. Should we go our of our way to ensure they can't adopt?

jag

Yes.

[TheGreenMeanie]

I'm doing the opposite. I'm encouraging it. It's not like there's any shortage of straight couples out there who'd love to adopt.

I guess that would be best, because then the kids can see some of the great things all the straight people have brought to marriage and families. Such as divorce...

[TheGreenMeanie]

I'm doing the opposite. I'm encouraging it. It's not like there's any shortage of straight couples out there who'd love to adopt.

I guess that would be best, because then the kids can see some of the great things all the straight people have brought to marriage and families. Such as divorce...

[TheGreenMeanie]

I'm doing the opposite. I'm encouraging it. It's not like there's any shortage of straight couples out there who'd love to adopt.

I guess that would be best, because then the kids can see some of the great things all the straight people have brought to marriage and families. Such as divorce...

[BlackLantern]

edit double post

[BlackLantern]

edit double post

[BlackLantern]

edit double post

[BlackLantern]

I guess that would be best, because then the kids can see some of the great things all the straight people have brought to marriage and families. Such as divorce...

..domestic abuse (verbal and physical, both if you're lucky), chance of molestation, neglect...

[BlackLantern]

I guess that would be best, because then the kids can see some of the great things all the straight people have brought to marriage and families. Such as divorce...

..domestic abuse (verbal and physical, both if you're lucky), chance of molestation, neglect...

[BlackLantern]

I guess that would be best, because then the kids can see some of the great things all the straight people have brought to marriage and families. Such as divorce...

..domestic abuse (verbal and physical, both if you're lucky), chance of molestation, neglect...

[Tron5000]

I guess that would be best, because then the kids can see some of the great things all the straight people have brought to marriage and families. Such as divorce...

Oh, and homosexual couples don't split up? Come on, now.

I've also read much about the rising rates of domestic violence in homosexual households. See, a man can't hit a woman. But if it's not a woman and is a man, all bets are off.

[Tron5000]

I guess that would be best, because then the kids can see some of the great things all the straight people have brought to marriage and families. Such as divorce...

Oh, and homosexual couples don't split up? Come on, now.

I've also read much about the rising rates of domestic violence in homosexual households. See, a man can't hit a woman. But if it's not a woman and is a man, all bets are off.

[Tron5000]

I guess that would be best, because then the kids can see some of the great things all the straight people have brought to marriage and families. Such as divorce...

Oh, and homosexual couples don't split up? Come on, now.

I've also read much about the rising rates of domestic violence in homosexual households. See, a man can't hit a woman. But if it's not a woman and is a man, all bets are off.

[BlackLantern]

Oh, and homosexual couples don't split up? Come on, now.

I've also read much about the rising rates of domestic violence in homosexual households. See, a man can't hit a woman. But if it's not a woman and is a man, all bets are off.

Maybe so, but it's nowhere near the level of domestic abuse in heterosexual households...I watched my mom get smacked around for over 15 years......and that's not even considering the domestic abuse that doesn't get reported

[BlackLantern]

Oh, and homosexual couples don't split up? Come on, now.

I've also read much about the rising rates of domestic violence in homosexual households. See, a man can't hit a woman. But if it's not a woman and is a man, all bets are off.

Maybe so, but it's nowhere near the level of domestic abuse in heterosexual households...I watched my mom get smacked around for over 15 years......and that's not even considering the domestic abuse that doesn't get reported

[BlackLantern]

Oh, and homosexual couples don't split up? Come on, now.

I've also read much about the rising rates of domestic violence in homosexual households. See, a man can't hit a woman. But if it's not a woman and is a man, all bets are off.

Maybe so, but it's nowhere near the level of domestic abuse in heterosexual households...I watched my mom get smacked around for over 15 years......and that's not even considering the domestic abuse that doesn't get reported

[TheGreenMeanie]

I am not saying that, but its kind of a weak argument when you won't even let them marry. What are heterosexuals doing so great for marriage? The American family is pretty much becoming a joke, and it is not being lead by gay people.

[TheGreenMeanie]

I am not saying that, but its kind of a weak argument when you won't even let them marry. What are heterosexuals doing so great for marriage? The American family is pretty much becoming a joke, and it is not being lead by gay people.

[TheGreenMeanie]

I am not saying that, but its kind of a weak argument when you won't even let them marry. What are heterosexuals doing so great for marriage? The American family is pretty much becoming a joke, and it is not being lead by gay people.

[Tron5000]

Maybe so, but it's nowhere near the level of domestic abuse in heterosexual households...I watched my mom get smacked around for over 15 years......and that's not even considering the domestic abuse that doesn't get reported

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity|homose xual

Studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior. For example, a recent study by the Canadian government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples".[79] According the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies, "Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples."[80] In addition, the American College of Pediatricians states the following: "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years."[81]

And I'm sorry your mother had to go through that. No one should ever have to live in a situation like that.

[Tron5000]

Maybe so, but it's nowhere near the level of domestic abuse in heterosexual households...I watched my mom get smacked around for over 15 years......and that's not even considering the domestic abuse that doesn't get reported

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity|homose xual

Studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior. For example, a recent study by the Canadian government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples".[79] According the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies, "Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples."[80] In addition, the American College of Pediatricians states the following: "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years."[81]

And I'm sorry your mother had to go through that. No one should ever have to live in a situation like that.

[Tron5000]

Maybe so, but it's nowhere near the level of domestic abuse in heterosexual households...I watched my mom get smacked around for over 15 years......and that's not even considering the domestic abuse that doesn't get reported

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity|homose xual

Studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior. For example, a recent study by the Canadian government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples".[79] According the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies, "Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples."[80] In addition, the American College of Pediatricians states the following: "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years."[81]

And I'm sorry your mother had to go through that. No one should ever have to live in a situation like that.

[The Senator]

Conservapedia is hardly a reliable source...

[The Senator]

Conservapedia is hardly a reliable source...

[The Senator]

Conservapedia is hardly a reliable source...

[TheGreenMeanie]

Isn't that what McCain uses? Oh not, thats Wikipedia lol.

[TheGreenMeanie]

Isn't that what McCain uses? Oh not, thats Wikipedia lol.

[TheGreenMeanie]

Isn't that what McCain uses? Oh not, thats Wikipedia lol.

[Tron5000]

I am not saying that, but its kind of a weak argument when you won't even let them marry. What are heterosexuals doing so great for marriage? The American family is pretty much becoming a joke, and it is not being lead by gay people.

Let's check some more statistics, shall we?

http://www.narth.com/docs/domestic.html

Based on these responses, this first-of-its-kind study determined that the rate of battering victimization among gay men in the target group (men over 18 who had engaged in homosexual activity since age 14, or who identified as gay, homosexual, or bisexual) is "substantially higher than among heterosexual men" and also possibly higher than the rate for heterosexual women, according to the study.

The researchers report a high rate of battering within the context of intimate homosexual partnerships, with 39% of those studied reporting at least one type of battering by a partner over the last five years.

In contrast, only about 7.7% of heterosexual men of all ages report physical or sexual partner abuse during their entire lifetimes. (Lifetime rates of abuse are generally higher than those within a five-year period.)

Figures were also compared with studies on heterosexual women who had been victims of violence within marriage or while cohabiting with men, also within five-year periods. Victimization for homosexual men (22%) was also substantially higher than for heterosexual women (11.6%).

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity|homose xual

A 2004 article by Michael Proust regarding homosexuality and promiscuity states the following:
“ A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city's homosexual male population.

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area's homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.

As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.

The three-year study on the sexual habits of Chicago's citizens will appear in the upcoming book, "The Sexual Organization of The City" (University of Chicago Press), due out this spring.[72]
”

In September of 2006, the Agape Press reported the following regarding homosexuality and promiscuity:
“ A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300.

Unprotected homosexual sex is also a concern among health professionals. A survey in Ireland by the Gay Men's Health Project found that almost half of homosexuals said they were having unprotected sex....

The fact that many homosexuals appear to live their lives in sexual overdrive does not seem to concern leaders in the movement. In an editorial from the same issue (August 15) in which the survey results were published, The Advocate said: "[Homosexuals] have been proud leaders in the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s, and we have rejected attempts by conservatives to demonize that part of who we are."[73]

In 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported the frequency of methamphetamine use is twenty times greater among homosexuals than in the general population.[191]

In January of 2007, the journal AIDS (London, England) in an article entitled Use of illicit drugs among gay men living with HIV in Sydney stated the following: "Higher rates of illicit drug use have been reported among gay men than among similar populations of heterosexual men..."[192]

In June of 2004, the journal Nursing Clinics of North America reported the following regarding homosexuality and illegal drug use:
“ ...the increased use of recreational or party drugs such as ectasy, "poppers", and methamphetamine ("crystal meth") influence unsafe sexual behaviors in gay men. Many of these illicit drugs are used during "circuit parties," in which gay men from various geographical locales congregrate in one large metropolitan community over an extended 2- or 3-day period for the purposes of intense partying and sexual activity.[193] ”

In June of 2001, the American Journal of Public Health reported the following in respect to homosexuality and illegal drug use and homosexual circuit parties and disease:
“ ...Nearly all participants stated that strong motivations for having attended circuit parties in the previous year were “to listen to music and dance” and “to be with friends”...“To get high on drugs” was a strong motivation for most participants...

Sexual activity, including unprotected anal sex, was relatively common during circuit party weekends...

Consider the potential impact of circuit party weekends on HIV infection rates and rates of infection with other sexually transmitted diseases, based on sexual mixing opportunities and patterns both within and beyond the 3-day periods. Our data pertain to a single circuit party weekend for each participant. If we multiply the prevalence of sexual risk behavior by the median of 3 parties per year revealed in this sample, and if we consider the large number of men who attend circuit parties, as well as the growing popularity of such parties, then the likelihood of transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases among party attendees and secondary partners becomes a real public health concern.[194][195]

[Tron5000]

I am not saying that, but its kind of a weak argument when you won't even let them marry. What are heterosexuals doing so great for marriage? The American family is pretty much becoming a joke, and it is not being lead by gay people.

Let's check some more statistics, shall we?

http://www.narth.com/docs/domestic.html

Based on these responses, this first-of-its-kind study determined that the rate of battering victimization among gay men in the target group (men over 18 who had engaged in homosexual activity since age 14, or who identified as gay, homosexual, or bisexual) is "substantially higher than among heterosexual men" and also possibly higher than the rate for heterosexual women, according to the study.

The researchers report a high rate of battering within the context of intimate homosexual partnerships, with 39% of those studied reporting at least one type of battering by a partner over the last five years.

In contrast, only about 7.7% of heterosexual men of all ages report physical or sexual partner abuse during their entire lifetimes. (Lifetime rates of abuse are generally higher than those within a five-year period.)

Figures were also compared with studies on heterosexual women who had been victims of violence within marriage or while cohabiting with men, also within five-year periods. Victimization for homosexual men (22%) was also substantially higher than for heterosexual women (11.6%).

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity|homose xual

A 2004 article by Michael Proust regarding homosexuality and promiscuity states the following:
“ A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city's homosexual male population.

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area's homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.

As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.

The three-year study on the sexual habits of Chicago's citizens will appear in the upcoming book, "The Sexual Organization of The City" (University of Chicago Press), due out this spring.[72]
”

In September of 2006, the Agape Press reported the following regarding homosexuality and promiscuity:
“ A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300.

Unprotected homosexual sex is also a concern among health professionals. A survey in Ireland by the Gay Men's Health Project found that almost half of homosexuals said they were having unprotected sex....

The fact that many homosexuals appear to live their lives in sexual overdrive does not seem to concern leaders in the movement. In an editorial from the same issue (August 15) in which the survey results were published, The Advocate said: "[Homosexuals] have been proud leaders in the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s, and we have rejected attempts by conservatives to demonize that part of who we are."[73]

In 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported the frequency of methamphetamine use is twenty times greater among homosexuals than in the general population.[191]

In January of 2007, the journal AIDS (London, England) in an article entitled Use of illicit drugs among gay men living with HIV in Sydney stated the following: "Higher rates of illicit drug use have been reported among gay men than among similar populations of heterosexual men..."[192]

In June of 2004, the journal Nursing Clinics of North America reported the following regarding homosexuality and illegal drug use:
“ ...the increased use of recreational or party drugs such as ectasy, "poppers", and methamphetamine ("crystal meth") influence unsafe sexual behaviors in gay men. Many of these illicit drugs are used during "circuit parties," in which gay men from various geographical locales congregrate in one large metropolitan community over an extended 2- or 3-day period for the purposes of intense partying and sexual activity.[193] ”

In June of 2001, the American Journal of Public Health reported the following in respect to homosexuality and illegal drug use and homosexual circuit parties and disease:
“ ...Nearly all participants stated that strong motivations for having attended circuit parties in the previous year were “to listen to music and dance” and “to be with friends”...“To get high on drugs” was a strong motivation for most participants...

Sexual activity, including unprotected anal sex, was relatively common during circuit party weekends...

Consider the potential impact of circuit party weekends on HIV infection rates and rates of infection with other sexually transmitted diseases, based on sexual mixing opportunities and patterns both within and beyond the 3-day periods. Our data pertain to a single circuit party weekend for each participant. If we multiply the prevalence of sexual risk behavior by the median of 3 parties per year revealed in this sample, and if we consider the large number of men who attend circuit parties, as well as the growing popularity of such parties, then the likelihood of transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases among party attendees and secondary partners becomes a real public health concern.[194][195]

[Tron5000]

I am not saying that, but its kind of a weak argument when you won't even let them marry. What are heterosexuals doing so great for marriage? The American family is pretty much becoming a joke, and it is not being lead by gay people.

Let's check some more statistics, shall we?

http://www.narth.com/docs/domestic.html

Based on these responses, this first-of-its-kind study determined that the rate of battering victimization among gay men in the target group (men over 18 who had engaged in homosexual activity since age 14, or who identified as gay, homosexual, or bisexual) is "substantially higher than among heterosexual men" and also possibly higher than the rate for heterosexual women, according to the study.

The researchers report a high rate of battering within the context of intimate homosexual partnerships, with 39% of those studied reporting at least one type of battering by a partner over the last five years.

In contrast, only about 7.7% of heterosexual men of all ages report physical or sexual partner abuse during their entire lifetimes. (Lifetime rates of abuse are generally higher than those within a five-year period.)

Figures were also compared with studies on heterosexual women who had been victims of violence within marriage or while cohabiting with men, also within five-year periods. Victimization for homosexual men (22%) was also substantially higher than for heterosexual women (11.6%).

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity|homose xual

A 2004 article by Michael Proust regarding homosexuality and promiscuity states the following:
“ A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city's homosexual male population.

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area's homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.

As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.

The three-year study on the sexual habits of Chicago's citizens will appear in the upcoming book, "The Sexual Organization of The City" (University of Chicago Press), due out this spring.[72]
”

In September of 2006, the Agape Press reported the following regarding homosexuality and promiscuity:
“ A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300.

Unprotected homosexual sex is also a concern among health professionals. A survey in Ireland by the Gay Men's Health Project found that almost half of homosexuals said they were having unprotected sex....

The fact that many homosexuals appear to live their lives in sexual overdrive does not seem to concern leaders in the movement. In an editorial from the same issue (August 15) in which the survey results were published, The Advocate said: "[Homosexuals] have been proud leaders in the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s, and we have rejected attempts by conservatives to demonize that part of who we are."[73]

In 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported the frequency of methamphetamine use is twenty times greater among homosexuals than in the general population.[191]

In January of 2007, the journal AIDS (London, England) in an article entitled Use of illicit drugs among gay men living with HIV in Sydney stated the following: "Higher rates of illicit drug use have been reported among gay men than among similar populations of heterosexual men..."[192]

In June of 2004, the journal Nursing Clinics of North America reported the following regarding homosexuality and illegal drug use:
“ ...the increased use of recreational or party drugs such as ectasy, "poppers", and methamphetamine ("crystal meth") influence unsafe sexual behaviors in gay men. Many of these illicit drugs are used during "circuit parties," in which gay men from various geographical locales congregrate in one large metropolitan community over an extended 2- or 3-day period for the purposes of intense partying and sexual activity.[193] ”

In June of 2001, the American Journal of Public Health reported the following in respect to homosexuality and illegal drug use and homosexual circuit parties and disease:
“ ...Nearly all participants stated that strong motivations for having attended circuit parties in the previous year were “to listen to music and dance” and “to be with friends”...“To get high on drugs” was a strong motivation for most participants...

Sexual activity, including unprotected anal sex, was relatively common during circuit party weekends...

Consider the potential impact of circuit party weekends on HIV infection rates and rates of infection with other sexually transmitted diseases, based on sexual mixing opportunities and patterns both within and beyond the 3-day periods. Our data pertain to a single circuit party weekend for each participant. If we multiply the prevalence of sexual risk behavior by the median of 3 parties per year revealed in this sample, and if we consider the large number of men who attend circuit parties, as well as the growing popularity of such parties, then the likelihood of transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases among party attendees and secondary partners becomes a real public health concern.[194][195]

[Tron5000]

Conservapedia is hardly a reliable source...

The studies and links provided by Conservapedia are reliable. You know, groups like The American Journal of Public Health, Nursing Clinics of North America, The American Journal of Psychiatry, The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine...But I guess these are all just right-wing fronts, 'cause Conservapedia links to 'em.

Next time try reading the message before shooting the messenger between the eyes, K?

[Tron5000]

Conservapedia is hardly a reliable source...

The studies and links provided by Conservapedia are reliable. You know, groups like The American Journal of Public Health, Nursing Clinics of North America, The American Journal of Psychiatry, The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine...But I guess these are all just right-wing fronts, 'cause Conservapedia links to 'em.

Next time try reading the message before shooting the messenger between the eyes, K?

[Tron5000]

Conservapedia is hardly a reliable source...

The studies and links provided by Conservapedia are reliable. You know, groups like The American Journal of Public Health, Nursing Clinics of North America, The American Journal of Psychiatry, The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine...But I guess these are all just right-wing fronts, 'cause Conservapedia links to 'em.

Next time try reading the message before shooting the messenger between the eyes, K?

[danoyse]

On the adoption issue, my friend was telling me about a co-worker who was adopting a baby with his partner through a surrogate. They went to find out the sex of the baby, and learned they were having twins. They were so delighted and thrilled, and my friend was so happy for them. These kids were coming into the world so welcomed and loved that no one can tell me that they weren't a family. Today they're great parents.

To me, that's living proof that any couple that's willing and able to adopt a child should be allowed to do so.

[danoyse]

On the adoption issue, my friend was telling me about a co-worker who was adopting a baby with his partner through a surrogate. They went to find out the sex of the baby, and learned they were having twins. They were so delighted and thrilled, and my friend was so happy for them. These kids were coming into the world so welcomed and loved that no one can tell me that they weren't a family. Today they're great parents.

To me, that's living proof that any couple that's willing and able to adopt a child should be allowed to do so.

[danoyse]

On the adoption issue, my friend was telling me about a co-worker who was adopting a baby with his partner through a surrogate. They went to find out the sex of the baby, and learned they were having twins. They were so delighted and thrilled, and my friend was so happy for them. These kids were coming into the world so welcomed and loved that no one can tell me that they weren't a family. Today they're great parents.

To me, that's living proof that any couple that's willing and able to adopt a child should be allowed to do so.

[JLBats]

Man, are those kids' faces gonna be red when they realize how badly their rights were infringed upon:csad:

[JLBats]

Man, are those kids' faces gonna be red when they realize how badly their rights were infringed upon:csad:

[JLBats]

Man, are those kids' faces gonna be red when they realize how badly their rights were infringed upon:csad:

[Tron5000]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/apr/040428c.html

Same-sex Parenting

According to the recent quantitative analysis on same-sex parenting by Lerner and Nagai, 49 American studies, which advocate homosexual parenting, have fatal flaws, rendering them statistically invalid (non-representative samples, imprecise hypotheses, confused political objectives, etc.). The researchers concluded that the studies repeatedly referred to by American, European and Canadian homosexual lobbies should not be used to influence the politics of their respective governments. This conclusion was also expressed by Professor Stephen L. Nock, Professor of Sociology, University of Virginia, who, in an affidavit submitted by the federal Attorney General in the Ontario Court of Appeal same-sex marriage case, evaluated statistics on same-sex parenting and concluded that the studies were flawed in either design or execution, which rendered them totally invalid.

According to a paper published by Professor Bradley P. Hayton, there are serious concerns about the effects of a homosexual lifestyle on children.

Professor Hayton states:

Homosexuals... model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and most sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good 'marital' relationship.

The reason that same-sex parenting is detrimental to the well being of children is due to several factors:

1. Higher Incidence of Violence

There is a higher rate of violence in lesbian and homosexual relationships than in married, heterosexual relationships. A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31% reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse. This is verified in a number of other studies. According to the homosexual authors of Men Who Beat The Men Who Love Them, domestic violence affects half of all gay couples. The vast majority of violent crimes against homosexuals are committed by homosexuals, and are not considered hate crimes. According to the leading US gay magazine The Advocate, 75% of its readers admit engaging in violent sex, 20% in sadistic sex and 55% are using painful objects.

2. Higher Incidence of Mental Health Problems

There is a higher incidence of mental health problems among homosexuals and lesbians. These include problems of substance abuse, as well as a greater risk for suicide. Homophobia is often blamed for the high suicide rate of young gays but this cause is only one among many, such as prostitution, broken families, sexual assault at a young age, disappointments in love affairs, and premature homosexual labeling.

3. Reduced Life Expectancy

Male homosexuals have a significantly reduced life expectancy. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals stated as follows:

In a major Canadian center, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

4. Higher Incidence of Same-sex Orientation

Same-sex parents are inclined to influence their children's sexual orientation. A study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, stated as follows:

...there are developmentally important, statistically significant differences between children reared by homosexual parents compared to heterosexual parents. For example, children raised by homosexuals were found to have greater parental encouragement for cross-gender behaviour [and] greater amounts of cross-dressing and cross-gender play/role behaviour.

5. Greater Risk of Sexual Involvement with Parents

According to a study published in Adolescence, 29% of the adult children of homosexual parents have been specifically subjected to sexual molestation as a child by a homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents.

These findings were confirmed in a study published in the American Sociological Review.

6. Greater Risk of Social or Psychological Problems

The vast majority of the American studies widely used by homosexual activists claim that same-sex parenting is as valid as opposite-sex parenting. However, as mentioned previously, these earlier studies have been found to be seriously flawed. According to a study there were noticeable problems with children raised by same-sex parents in regard to discipline expectations, and general parent-child relationships. Other studies have also reported that boys raised by homosexual mothers may have a lower self-image, regarding masculinity.

A study of children of lesbians revealed many problems, including a "defensiveness" on the part of the children of lesbian couples she studied, a pattern of denial - especially deep in the youngest child in the lesbian couples, hostility from older boys, especially directed at the mother's lesbian lover, the children expressed concern for the welfare of siblings, the children had concerns about their own sexuality, the children had concerns about the integrity of their family, concerns about their mother's homosexual activities, there was evidence that one of the lesbian mothers expressly encouraged her daughters to make lesbian sexual choices, and that the children were forced to conceal one parent's secret sexual behaviours from the other parent.

All these problems have led to the children raised by same-sex parents becoming dysfunctional and disadvantaged.

7. Higher Incidence of Child Molestation

Proportionately, homosexual men are more inclined to child molestation than heterosexual men.

According to American studies, the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys and teenagers at rates completely disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. A study shows that the homosexual child molester accounts for approximately 7 times more victims than the heterosexual molester. When it comes to child sex abuse, men are almost always the perpetrator. Less than 3% of the population is homosexual, yet one-third of the sex abuse cases are committed again boys.

Although pedophilia is condemned by most homosexuals, it remains condoned by many leading gay and lesbian North American activists who lobby for the lowering of the age of consent for sex. Early sex is said to be healthy for boys claims the self-proclaimed homosexual association NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). Intergenerational sex (an often used euphemism for pederasty) is an undeniable fixture of gay literature, gay films, gay travel and gay prostitution. In the 70's, The Advocate repeatedly ran full page adds for a "penetrable boy doll" and in the 90's, 21% of its readers admitted having been molested before the age of 15.

[Tron5000]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/apr/040428c.html

Same-sex Parenting

According to the recent quantitative analysis on same-sex parenting by Lerner and Nagai, 49 American studies, which advocate homosexual parenting, have fatal flaws, rendering them statistically invalid (non-representative samples, imprecise hypotheses, confused political objectives, etc.). The researchers concluded that the studies repeatedly referred to by American, European and Canadian homosexual lobbies should not be used to influence the politics of their respective governments. This conclusion was also expressed by Professor Stephen L. Nock, Professor of Sociology, University of Virginia, who, in an affidavit submitted by the federal Attorney General in the Ontario Court of Appeal same-sex marriage case, evaluated statistics on same-sex parenting and concluded that the studies were flawed in either design or execution, which rendered them totally invalid.

According to a paper published by Professor Bradley P. Hayton, there are serious concerns about the effects of a homosexual lifestyle on children.

Professor Hayton states:

Homosexuals... model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and most sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good 'marital' relationship.

The reason that same-sex parenting is detrimental to the well being of children is due to several factors:

1. Higher Incidence of Violence

There is a higher rate of violence in lesbian and homosexual relationships than in married, heterosexual relationships. A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31% reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse. This is verified in a number of other studies. According to the homosexual authors of Men Who Beat The Men Who Love Them, domestic violence affects half of all gay couples. The vast majority of violent crimes against homosexuals are committed by homosexuals, and are not considered hate crimes. According to the leading US gay magazine The Advocate, 75% of its readers admit engaging in violent sex, 20% in sadistic sex and 55% are using painful objects.

2. Higher Incidence of Mental Health Problems

There is a higher incidence of mental health problems among homosexuals and lesbians. These include problems of substance abuse, as well as a greater risk for suicide. Homophobia is often blamed for the high suicide rate of young gays but this cause is only one among many, such as prostitution, broken families, sexual assault at a young age, disappointments in love affairs, and premature homosexual labeling.

3. Reduced Life Expectancy

Male homosexuals have a significantly reduced life expectancy. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals stated as follows:

In a major Canadian center, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

4. Higher Incidence of Same-sex Orientation

Same-sex parents are inclined to influence their children's sexual orientation. A study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, stated as follows:

...there are developmentally important, statistically significant differences between children reared by homosexual parents compared to heterosexual parents. For example, children raised by homosexuals were found to have greater parental encouragement for cross-gender behaviour [and] greater amounts of cross-dressing and cross-gender play/role behaviour.

5. Greater Risk of Sexual Involvement with Parents

According to a study published in Adolescence, 29% of the adult children of homosexual parents have been specifically subjected to sexual molestation as a child by a homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents.

These findings were confirmed in a study published in the American Sociological Review.

6. Greater Risk of Social or Psychological Problems

The vast majority of the American studies widely used by homosexual activists claim that same-sex parenting is as valid as opposite-sex parenting. However, as mentioned previously, these earlier studies have been found to be seriously flawed. According to a study there were noticeable problems with children raised by same-sex parents in regard to discipline expectations, and general parent-child relationships. Other studies have also reported that boys raised by homosexual mothers may have a lower self-image, regarding masculinity.

A study of children of lesbians revealed many problems, including a "defensiveness" on the part of the children of lesbian couples she studied, a pattern of denial - especially deep in the youngest child in the lesbian couples, hostility from older boys, especially directed at the mother's lesbian lover, the children expressed concern for the welfare of siblings, the children had concerns about their own sexuality, the children had concerns about the integrity of their family, concerns about their mother's homosexual activities, there was evidence that one of the lesbian mothers expressly encouraged her daughters to make lesbian sexual choices, and that the children were forced to conceal one parent's secret sexual behaviours from the other parent.

All these problems have led to the children raised by same-sex parents becoming dysfunctional and disadvantaged.

7. Higher Incidence of Child Molestation

Proportionately, homosexual men are more inclined to child molestation than heterosexual men.

According to American studies, the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys and teenagers at rates completely disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. A study shows that the homosexual child molester accounts for approximately 7 times more victims than the heterosexual molester. When it comes to child sex abuse, men are almost always the perpetrator. Less than 3% of the population is homosexual, yet one-third of the sex abuse cases are committed again boys.

Although pedophilia is condemned by most homosexuals, it remains condoned by many leading gay and lesbian North American activists who lobby for the lowering of the age of consent for sex. Early sex is said to be healthy for boys claims the self-proclaimed homosexual association NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). Intergenerational sex (an often used euphemism for pederasty) is an undeniable fixture of gay literature, gay films, gay travel and gay prostitution. In the 70's, The Advocate repeatedly ran full page adds for a "penetrable boy doll" and in the 90's, 21% of its readers admitted having been molested before the age of 15.

[Tron5000]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/apr/040428c.html

Same-sex Parenting

According to the recent quantitative analysis on same-sex parenting by Lerner and Nagai, 49 American studies, which advocate homosexual parenting, have fatal flaws, rendering them statistically invalid (non-representative samples, imprecise hypotheses, confused political objectives, etc.). The researchers concluded that the studies repeatedly referred to by American, European and Canadian homosexual lobbies should not be used to influence the politics of their respective governments. This conclusion was also expressed by Professor Stephen L. Nock, Professor of Sociology, University of Virginia, who, in an affidavit submitted by the federal Attorney General in the Ontario Court of Appeal same-sex marriage case, evaluated statistics on same-sex parenting and concluded that the studies were flawed in either design or execution, which rendered them totally invalid.

According to a paper published by Professor Bradley P. Hayton, there are serious concerns about the effects of a homosexual lifestyle on children.

Professor Hayton states:

Homosexuals... model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and most sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good 'marital' relationship.

The reason that same-sex parenting is detrimental to the well being of children is due to several factors:

1. Higher Incidence of Violence

There is a higher rate of violence in lesbian and homosexual relationships than in married, heterosexual relationships. A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31% reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse. This is verified in a number of other studies. According to the homosexual authors of Men Who Beat The Men Who Love Them, domestic violence affects half of all gay couples. The vast majority of violent crimes against homosexuals are committed by homosexuals, and are not considered hate crimes. According to the leading US gay magazine The Advocate, 75% of its readers admit engaging in violent sex, 20% in sadistic sex and 55% are using painful objects.

2. Higher Incidence of Mental Health Problems

There is a higher incidence of mental health problems among homosexuals and lesbians. These include problems of substance abuse, as well as a greater risk for suicide. Homophobia is often blamed for the high suicide rate of young gays but this cause is only one among many, such as prostitution, broken families, sexual assault at a young age, disappointments in love affairs, and premature homosexual labeling.

3. Reduced Life Expectancy

Male homosexuals have a significantly reduced life expectancy. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals stated as follows:

In a major Canadian center, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

4. Higher Incidence of Same-sex Orientation

Same-sex parents are inclined to influence their children's sexual orientation. A study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, stated as follows:

...there are developmentally important, statistically significant differences between children reared by homosexual parents compared to heterosexual parents. For example, children raised by homosexuals were found to have greater parental encouragement for cross-gender behaviour [and] greater amounts of cross-dressing and cross-gender play/role behaviour.

5. Greater Risk of Sexual Involvement with Parents

According to a study published in Adolescence, 29% of the adult children of homosexual parents have been specifically subjected to sexual molestation as a child by a homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents.

These findings were confirmed in a study published in the American Sociological Review.

6. Greater Risk of Social or Psychological Problems

The vast majority of the American studies widely used by homosexual activists claim that same-sex parenting is as valid as opposite-sex parenting. However, as mentioned previously, these earlier studies have been found to be seriously flawed. According to a study there were noticeable problems with children raised by same-sex parents in regard to discipline expectations, and general parent-child relationships. Other studies have also reported that boys raised by homosexual mothers may have a lower self-image, regarding masculinity.

A study of children of lesbians revealed many problems, including a "defensiveness" on the part of the children of lesbian couples she studied, a pattern of denial - especially deep in the youngest child in the lesbian couples, hostility from older boys, especially directed at the mother's lesbian lover, the children expressed concern for the welfare of siblings, the children had concerns about their own sexuality, the children had concerns about the integrity of their family, concerns about their mother's homosexual activities, there was evidence that one of the lesbian mothers expressly encouraged her daughters to make lesbian sexual choices, and that the children were forced to conceal one parent's secret sexual behaviours from the other parent.

All these problems have led to the children raised by same-sex parents becoming dysfunctional and disadvantaged.

7. Higher Incidence of Child Molestation

Proportionately, homosexual men are more inclined to child molestation than heterosexual men.

According to American studies, the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys and teenagers at rates completely disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. A study shows that the homosexual child molester accounts for approximately 7 times more victims than the heterosexual molester. When it comes to child sex abuse, men are almost always the perpetrator. Less than 3% of the population is homosexual, yet one-third of the sex abuse cases are committed again boys.

Although pedophilia is condemned by most homosexuals, it remains condoned by many leading gay and lesbian North American activists who lobby for the lowering of the age of consent for sex. Early sex is said to be healthy for boys claims the self-proclaimed homosexual association NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). Intergenerational sex (an often used euphemism for pederasty) is an undeniable fixture of gay literature, gay films, gay travel and gay prostitution. In the 70's, The Advocate repeatedly ran full page adds for a "penetrable boy doll" and in the 90's, 21% of its readers admitted having been molested before the age of 15.

[danoyse]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/apr/040428c.html

What pure nonsense. :whatever:

[danoyse]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/apr/040428c.html

What pure nonsense. :whatever:

[danoyse]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/apr/040428c.html

What pure nonsense. :whatever:

[Tron5000]

What pure nonsense. :whatever:

Yes, statistics are troublesome things. Fantastic rebuttal. When will your book be out?

[Tron5000]

What pure nonsense. :whatever:

Yes, statistics are troublesome things. Fantastic rebuttal. When will your book be out?

[Tron5000]

What pure nonsense. :whatever:

Yes, statistics are troublesome things. Fantastic rebuttal. When will your book be out?

[jaguarr]

You lost me completely when you whipped out all the molestation BS, Tron. When I worked for the court system I had a ton of appeals cases in my office for child molesters; almost all of the kiddie-fiddlers were supposedly straight guys who messed with some kid they were babysitting be it their own, a family member's child or a friend's child. They had no history of homosexuality and identified as straight in their sexual orientation, even though they were messing with children of the same sex. Now I KNOW those "stats" you posted are bogus. Sorry, duder.

jag

[jaguarr]

You lost me completely when you whipped out all the molestation BS, Tron. When I worked for the court system I had a ton of appeals cases in my office for child molesters; almost all of the kiddie-fiddlers were supposedly straight guys who messed with some kid they were babysitting be it their own, a family member's child or a friend's child. They had no history of homosexuality and identified as straight in their sexual orientation, even though they were messing with children of the same sex. Now I KNOW those "stats" you posted are bogus. Sorry, duder.

jag

[jaguarr]

You lost me completely when you whipped out all the molestation BS, Tron. When I worked for the court system I had a ton of appeals cases in my office for child molesters; almost all of the kiddie-fiddlers were supposedly straight guys who messed with some kid they were babysitting be it their own, a family member's child or a friend's child. They had no history of homosexuality and identified as straight in their sexual orientation, even though they were messing with children of the same sex. Now I KNOW those "stats" you posted are bogus. Sorry, duder.

jag

[Tron5000]

You lost me completely when you whipped out all the molestation BS, Tron. When I worked for the court system I had a ton of appeals cases in my office for child molesters; almost all of the kiddie-fiddlers were supposedly straight guys who messed with some kid they were babysitting be it their own, a family member's child or a friend's child. They had no history of homosexuality and identified as straight in their sexual orientation, even though they were messing with children of the same sex. Now I KNOW those "stats" you posted are bogus. Sorry, duder.

jag

You think that may be because there are a lot more heterosexual men than homosexual men? Would it not, then, stand to reason that there will be a higher humber of heterosexual molesters than homosexual molesters? But when you break it down to percentages, that may not be the case.

[Tron5000]

You lost me completely when you whipped out all the molestation BS, Tron. When I worked for the court system I had a ton of appeals cases in my office for child molesters; almost all of the kiddie-fiddlers were supposedly straight guys who messed with some kid they were babysitting be it their own, a family member's child or a friend's child. They had no history of homosexuality and identified as straight in their sexual orientation, even though they were messing with children of the same sex. Now I KNOW those "stats" you posted are bogus. Sorry, duder.

jag

You think that may be because there are a lot more heterosexual men than homosexual men? Would it not, then, stand to reason that there will be a higher humber of heterosexual molesters than homosexual molesters? But when you break it down to percentages, that may not be the case.

[Tron5000]

You lost me completely when you whipped out all the molestation BS, Tron. When I worked for the court system I had a ton of appeals cases in my office for child molesters; almost all of the kiddie-fiddlers were supposedly straight guys who messed with some kid they were babysitting be it their own, a family member's child or a friend's child. They had no history of homosexuality and identified as straight in their sexual orientation, even though they were messing with children of the same sex. Now I KNOW those "stats" you posted are bogus. Sorry, duder.

jag

You think that may be because there are a lot more heterosexual men than homosexual men? Would it not, then, stand to reason that there will be a higher humber of heterosexual molesters than homosexual molesters? But when you break it down to percentages, that may not be the case.

[jaguarr]

You think that may be because there are a lot more heterosexual men than homosexual men? Would it not, then, stand to reason that there will be a higher humber of heterosexual molesters than homosexual molesters? But when you break it down to percentages, that may not be the case.

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

Cheers,
jag

[jaguarr]

You think that may be because there are a lot more heterosexual men than homosexual men? Would it not, then, stand to reason that there will be a higher humber of heterosexual molesters than homosexual molesters? But when you break it down to percentages, that may not be the case.

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

Cheers,
jag

[jaguarr]

You think that may be because there are a lot more heterosexual men than homosexual men? Would it not, then, stand to reason that there will be a higher humber of heterosexual molesters than homosexual molesters? But when you break it down to percentages, that may not be the case.

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

Cheers,
jag

[Tron5000]

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php


Homosexuals Molest Children At A Far Higher Rate Than Heterosexuals


Homosexuals account for only 1-2% of our population based on current surveys. The National Opinion Research Center in 1992 found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as “homosexual” or “bisexual. A 1995 survey of 18-49-year-old men published by the Journal of Sex Research indicated that 2.6% of them had engaged in homosexual sex within the prior 12 months; 4% had had homosexual sex within the past five years. In other words, at least 98-99% of our population is heterosexual in orientation.

Homosexual activists routinely claim that most child molesters are “heterosexual” males, thus shifting the focus away from their own very high rates of molestation. Since 98-99% of the population is heterosexual, it is technically correct to say that most molestations are done by heterosexuals. However, statistics indicate that homosexuals pose a far more serious threat to children than do heterosexuals.

For example: In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.

Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls.”





Homosexuals claim that “heterosexuals” molest most children but statistics show that homosexuals molest at far higher rates than do heterosexuals.

* Rev. Paul Shanley, a retired Catholic priest was arrested on May 4, 2002 in San Diego on three counts of child rape. Shanley had a history of molesting boys that went back to 1967. He was at the founding meeting of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and while in San Diego operated a bed & breakfast for homosexuals in Palm Springs. Shanley has openly called for “man-boy” love.

* David Carlton Nurmi, was arrested in Florida on April 26, 2002, for possession of child pornography and for molesting a 15-year-old boy.

* Geoffrey Cornish, a well-respected Solana Beach, California therapist was sentenced to 23 years in prison in September, 2001 for sexually molesting boys who came to him for therapy. Cornish, who is HIV-positive, was also a coach for the Torrey Pines High School surf team. Cornish told police he had been molested himself by a Boy Scout leader for three years when he was living in England.

* James Edward Sanders, a homosexual child molester, was arrested in New Mexico in December, 2001 for sexually abusing a 7-year-old boy. Police also discovered child pornography in Sanders’ home.

* Christopher Reardon, a homosexual, former youth minister, and Boy Scout leader was sentenced to 40-50 years in prison in the Summer of 2001 for raping, molesting, and disseminating pornography to 29 boys under his care.

These are only a few of the homosexual child molestation cases to hit the news during 2001-02. Virtually every week, newspapers detail more cases involving homosexuals who have sexually assaulted children under their care.
New York Post Exposes High Rate Of Teacher/Student Molestations

In a story not widely publicized in the mainstream press, the New York Post published a story in its July 30, 2001 edition about the secret epidemic of homosexual child abuse cases that go unreported in New York City’s public schools.

The report, “Secret Shame Of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse Of Students Runs Rampant,” by Douglas Montero, is the result of an analysis of 117 cases of sexual abuse between January 1999 and June 2001. Sixty percent of those accused of sexual abuse were transferred to desk jobs inside the school district. Forty percent of those transferred suspects were repeat sex offenders.

The report noted that out of the 117 cases, 212 children were victims. In 45% of the cases, the sex offender attacked more than one student. In nearly 16% of the cases, school officials delayed or tried to cover up the sexual molestations. The average victim is a 15-year-old girl and 75% of the victims were girls. According to the report, “Nearly 20 percent of the offenders are homosexuals and in most of these cases, the attack led to a sexual relationship with the stu- dent.” The report also discovered that the Board of Education investigated another 347 substantiated sex abuse cases between January 2000 and July 20, 2001. Adding the 117 cases with the 327, it appears that at least one child is sexually abused each day by a school employee—and 20% of these molestations against children are done by homosexuals!
Homosexuals Molest Children At A Far Higher Rate Than Heterosexuals

Homosexuals account for only 1-2% of our population based on current surveys. The National Opinion Research Center in 1992 found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as “homosexual” or “bisexual. A 1995 survey of 18-49-year-old men published by the Journal of Sex Research indicated that 2.6% of them had engaged in homosexual sex within the prior 12 months; 4% had had homosexual sex within the past five years. In other words, at least 98-99% of our population is heterosexual in orientation.

Homosexual activists routinely claim that most child molesters are “heterosexual” males, thus shifting the focus away from their own very high rates of molestation. Since 98-99% of the population is heterosexual, it is technically correct to say that most molestations are done by heterosexuals. However, statistics indicate that homosexuals pose a far more serious threat to children than do heterosexuals.

For example: In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.

Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls.”

This high rate of molestations by homosexuals is consistent with other studies conducted during the past several decades. Here are just a few studies that show homosexuals molesting children at epidemic rates:

The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985)

In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., “Adolescent Sex Offenders—Vermont, 1984” Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)

In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, “Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,” Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)

Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200)

From these studies and many more, it is evident that homosexuals molest children at a far greater rate than do their heterosexual counterparts. While they comprise only 1-2% of the population, they are responsible for upwards of a third or more of all sexual molestations of children.

[Tron5000]

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php


Homosexuals Molest Children At A Far Higher Rate Than Heterosexuals


Homosexuals account for only 1-2% of our population based on current surveys. The National Opinion Research Center in 1992 found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as “homosexual” or “bisexual. A 1995 survey of 18-49-year-old men published by the Journal of Sex Research indicated that 2.6% of them had engaged in homosexual sex within the prior 12 months; 4% had had homosexual sex within the past five years. In other words, at least 98-99% of our population is heterosexual in orientation.

Homosexual activists routinely claim that most child molesters are “heterosexual” males, thus shifting the focus away from their own very high rates of molestation. Since 98-99% of the population is heterosexual, it is technically correct to say that most molestations are done by heterosexuals. However, statistics indicate that homosexuals pose a far more serious threat to children than do heterosexuals.

For example: In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.

Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls.”





Homosexuals claim that “heterosexuals” molest most children but statistics show that homosexuals molest at far higher rates than do heterosexuals.

* Rev. Paul Shanley, a retired Catholic priest was arrested on May 4, 2002 in San Diego on three counts of child rape. Shanley had a history of molesting boys that went back to 1967. He was at the founding meeting of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and while in San Diego operated a bed & breakfast for homosexuals in Palm Springs. Shanley has openly called for “man-boy” love.

* David Carlton Nurmi, was arrested in Florida on April 26, 2002, for possession of child pornography and for molesting a 15-year-old boy.

* Geoffrey Cornish, a well-respected Solana Beach, California therapist was sentenced to 23 years in prison in September, 2001 for sexually molesting boys who came to him for therapy. Cornish, who is HIV-positive, was also a coach for the Torrey Pines High School surf team. Cornish told police he had been molested himself by a Boy Scout leader for three years when he was living in England.

* James Edward Sanders, a homosexual child molester, was arrested in New Mexico in December, 2001 for sexually abusing a 7-year-old boy. Police also discovered child pornography in Sanders’ home.

* Christopher Reardon, a homosexual, former youth minister, and Boy Scout leader was sentenced to 40-50 years in prison in the Summer of 2001 for raping, molesting, and disseminating pornography to 29 boys under his care.

These are only a few of the homosexual child molestation cases to hit the news during 2001-02. Virtually every week, newspapers detail more cases involving homosexuals who have sexually assaulted children under their care.
New York Post Exposes High Rate Of Teacher/Student Molestations

In a story not widely publicized in the mainstream press, the New York Post published a story in its July 30, 2001 edition about the secret epidemic of homosexual child abuse cases that go unreported in New York City’s public schools.

The report, “Secret Shame Of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse Of Students Runs Rampant,” by Douglas Montero, is the result of an analysis of 117 cases of sexual abuse between January 1999 and June 2001. Sixty percent of those accused of sexual abuse were transferred to desk jobs inside the school district. Forty percent of those transferred suspects were repeat sex offenders.

The report noted that out of the 117 cases, 212 children were victims. In 45% of the cases, the sex offender attacked more than one student. In nearly 16% of the cases, school officials delayed or tried to cover up the sexual molestations. The average victim is a 15-year-old girl and 75% of the victims were girls. According to the report, “Nearly 20 percent of the offenders are homosexuals and in most of these cases, the attack led to a sexual relationship with the stu- dent.” The report also discovered that the Board of Education investigated another 347 substantiated sex abuse cases between January 2000 and July 20, 2001. Adding the 117 cases with the 327, it appears that at least one child is sexually abused each day by a school employee—and 20% of these molestations against children are done by homosexuals!
Homosexuals Molest Children At A Far Higher Rate Than Heterosexuals

Homosexuals account for only 1-2% of our population based on current surveys. The National Opinion Research Center in 1992 found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as “homosexual” or “bisexual. A 1995 survey of 18-49-year-old men published by the Journal of Sex Research indicated that 2.6% of them had engaged in homosexual sex within the prior 12 months; 4% had had homosexual sex within the past five years. In other words, at least 98-99% of our population is heterosexual in orientation.

Homosexual activists routinely claim that most child molesters are “heterosexual” males, thus shifting the focus away from their own very high rates of molestation. Since 98-99% of the population is heterosexual, it is technically correct to say that most molestations are done by heterosexuals. However, statistics indicate that homosexuals pose a far more serious threat to children than do heterosexuals.

For example: In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.

Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls.”

This high rate of molestations by homosexuals is consistent with other studies conducted during the past several decades. Here are just a few studies that show homosexuals molesting children at epidemic rates:

The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985)

In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., “Adolescent Sex Offenders—Vermont, 1984” Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)

In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, “Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,” Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)

Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200)

From these studies and many more, it is evident that homosexuals molest children at a far greater rate than do their heterosexual counterparts. While they comprise only 1-2% of the population, they are responsible for upwards of a third or more of all sexual molestations of children.

[Tron5000]

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php


Homosexuals Molest Children At A Far Higher Rate Than Heterosexuals


Homosexuals account for only 1-2% of our population based on current surveys. The National Opinion Research Center in 1992 found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as “homosexual” or “bisexual. A 1995 survey of 18-49-year-old men published by the Journal of Sex Research indicated that 2.6% of them had engaged in homosexual sex within the prior 12 months; 4% had had homosexual sex within the past five years. In other words, at least 98-99% of our population is heterosexual in orientation.

Homosexual activists routinely claim that most child molesters are “heterosexual” males, thus shifting the focus away from their own very high rates of molestation. Since 98-99% of the population is heterosexual, it is technically correct to say that most molestations are done by heterosexuals. However, statistics indicate that homosexuals pose a far more serious threat to children than do heterosexuals.

For example: In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.

Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls.”





Homosexuals claim that “heterosexuals” molest most children but statistics show that homosexuals molest at far higher rates than do heterosexuals.

* Rev. Paul Shanley, a retired Catholic priest was arrested on May 4, 2002 in San Diego on three counts of child rape. Shanley had a history of molesting boys that went back to 1967. He was at the founding meeting of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and while in San Diego operated a bed & breakfast for homosexuals in Palm Springs. Shanley has openly called for “man-boy” love.

* David Carlton Nurmi, was arrested in Florida on April 26, 2002, for possession of child pornography and for molesting a 15-year-old boy.

* Geoffrey Cornish, a well-respected Solana Beach, California therapist was sentenced to 23 years in prison in September, 2001 for sexually molesting boys who came to him for therapy. Cornish, who is HIV-positive, was also a coach for the Torrey Pines High School surf team. Cornish told police he had been molested himself by a Boy Scout leader for three years when he was living in England.

* James Edward Sanders, a homosexual child molester, was arrested in New Mexico in December, 2001 for sexually abusing a 7-year-old boy. Police also discovered child pornography in Sanders’ home.

* Christopher Reardon, a homosexual, former youth minister, and Boy Scout leader was sentenced to 40-50 years in prison in the Summer of 2001 for raping, molesting, and disseminating pornography to 29 boys under his care.

These are only a few of the homosexual child molestation cases to hit the news during 2001-02. Virtually every week, newspapers detail more cases involving homosexuals who have sexually assaulted children under their care.
New York Post Exposes High Rate Of Teacher/Student Molestations

In a story not widely publicized in the mainstream press, the New York Post published a story in its July 30, 2001 edition about the secret epidemic of homosexual child abuse cases that go unreported in New York City’s public schools.

The report, “Secret Shame Of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse Of Students Runs Rampant,” by Douglas Montero, is the result of an analysis of 117 cases of sexual abuse between January 1999 and June 2001. Sixty percent of those accused of sexual abuse were transferred to desk jobs inside the school district. Forty percent of those transferred suspects were repeat sex offenders.

The report noted that out of the 117 cases, 212 children were victims. In 45% of the cases, the sex offender attacked more than one student. In nearly 16% of the cases, school officials delayed or tried to cover up the sexual molestations. The average victim is a 15-year-old girl and 75% of the victims were girls. According to the report, “Nearly 20 percent of the offenders are homosexuals and in most of these cases, the attack led to a sexual relationship with the stu- dent.” The report also discovered that the Board of Education investigated another 347 substantiated sex abuse cases between January 2000 and July 20, 2001. Adding the 117 cases with the 327, it appears that at least one child is sexually abused each day by a school employee—and 20% of these molestations against children are done by homosexuals!
Homosexuals Molest Children At A Far Higher Rate Than Heterosexuals

Homosexuals account for only 1-2% of our population based on current surveys. The National Opinion Research Center in 1992 found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as “homosexual” or “bisexual. A 1995 survey of 18-49-year-old men published by the Journal of Sex Research indicated that 2.6% of them had engaged in homosexual sex within the prior 12 months; 4% had had homosexual sex within the past five years. In other words, at least 98-99% of our population is heterosexual in orientation.

Homosexual activists routinely claim that most child molesters are “heterosexual” males, thus shifting the focus away from their own very high rates of molestation. Since 98-99% of the population is heterosexual, it is technically correct to say that most molestations are done by heterosexuals. However, statistics indicate that homosexuals pose a far more serious threat to children than do heterosexuals.

For example: In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.

Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls.”

This high rate of molestations by homosexuals is consistent with other studies conducted during the past several decades. Here are just a few studies that show homosexuals molesting children at epidemic rates:

The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985)

In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., “Adolescent Sex Offenders—Vermont, 1984” Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)

In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, “Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,” Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)

Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200)

From these studies and many more, it is evident that homosexuals molest children at a far greater rate than do their heterosexual counterparts. While they comprise only 1-2% of the population, they are responsible for upwards of a third or more of all sexual molestations of children.

[jaguarr]

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php

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

Cheers,
jag

[jaguarr]

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php

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

Cheers,
jag

[jaguarr]

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php

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

Cheers,
jag

[StrainedEyes]

98% of all statistics are bogus. :o

[StrainedEyes]

98% of all statistics are bogus. :o

[StrainedEyes]

98% of all statistics are bogus. :o

[danoyse]

Yes, statistics are troublesome things. Fantastic rebuttal. When will your book be out?

When I get the 10 minutes of my life I wasted reading that article back. :cwink:

When the statistics come from a reliable source and not a random article from Canada posted on a rampant pro-life site, they'll be worth responding to.

[danoyse]

Yes, statistics are troublesome things. Fantastic rebuttal. When will your book be out?

When I get the 10 minutes of my life I wasted reading that article back. :cwink:

When the statistics come from a reliable source and not a random article from Canada posted on a rampant pro-life site, they'll be worth responding to.

[danoyse]

Yes, statistics are troublesome things. Fantastic rebuttal. When will your book be out?

When I get the 10 minutes of my life I wasted reading that article back. :cwink:

When the statistics come from a reliable source and not a random article from Canada posted on a rampant pro-life site, they'll be worth responding to.

[Tron5000]

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

Cheers,
jag

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


[T]hese studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children

Cheers,
Tron

[Tron5000]

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

Cheers,
jag

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


[T]hese studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children

Cheers,
Tron

[Tron5000]

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

Cheers,
jag

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


[T]hese studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children

Cheers,
Tron

[Tron5000]

When I get the 10 minutes of my life I wasted reading that article back. :cwink:

When the statistics come from a reliable source and not a random article from Canada posted on a rampant pro-life site, they'll be worth responding to.

Yeah, the writers of the article probably made up all those studies and figures.

It's the message that is important, not the messenger.

[Tron5000]

When I get the 10 minutes of my life I wasted reading that article back. :cwink:

When the statistics come from a reliable source and not a random article from Canada posted on a rampant pro-life site, they'll be worth responding to.

Yeah, the writers of the article probably made up all those studies and figures.

It's the message that is important, not the messenger.

[Tron5000]

When I get the 10 minutes of my life I wasted reading that article back. :cwink:

When the statistics come from a reliable source and not a random article from Canada posted on a rampant pro-life site, they'll be worth responding to.

Yeah, the writers of the article probably made up all those studies and figures.

It's the message that is important, not the messenger.

[jaguarr]

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



Cheers,
Tron

Also from that article (which you clearly did not read all of):

Conclusion The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.


There's a whole lot more there that debunks all the claims you are trying to put forth including the "statistics" and the "research", but I thought I'd just go ahead and ruin the ending for you.


Cheers,
jag

[jaguarr]

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



Cheers,
Tron

Also from that article (which you clearly did not read all of):

Conclusion The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.


There's a whole lot more there that debunks all the claims you are trying to put forth including the "statistics" and the "research", but I thought I'd just go ahead and ruin the ending for you.


Cheers,
jag

[jaguarr]

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



Cheers,
Tron

Also from that article (which you clearly did not read all of):

Conclusion The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.


There's a whole lot more there that debunks all the claims you are trying to put forth including the "statistics" and the "research", but I thought I'd just go ahead and ruin the ending for you.


Cheers,
jag

[danoyse]

You lost me completely when you whipped out all the molestation BS, Tron. When I worked for the court system I had a ton of appeals cases in my office for child molesters; almost all of the kiddie-fiddlers were supposedly straight guys who messed with some kid they were babysitting be it their own, a family member's child or a friend's child. They had no history of homosexuality and identified as straight in their sexual orientation, even though they were messing with children of the same sex. Now I KNOW those "stats" you posted are bogus. Sorry, duder.

jag

A guy I went to high school with spent a year in jail for trying to pick up a 14-year-old girl on the internet. They had 6 months worth of explicit emails between him and the 'girl' (really an agent) that they presented in court. At the time he was an elementary school teacher.

I have several gay friends, and there's not a child molester among them.

[danoyse]

You lost me completely when you whipped out all the molestation BS, Tron. When I worked for the court system I had a ton of appeals cases in my office for child molesters; almost all of the kiddie-fiddlers were supposedly straight guys who messed with some kid they were babysitting be it their own, a family member's child or a friend's child. They had no history of homosexuality and identified as straight in their sexual orientation, even though they were messing with children of the same sex. Now I KNOW those "stats" you posted are bogus. Sorry, duder.

jag

A guy I went to high school with spent a year in jail for trying to pick up a 14-year-old girl on the internet. They had 6 months worth of explicit emails between him and the 'girl' (really an agent) that they presented in court. At the time he was an elementary school teacher.

I have several gay friends, and there's not a child molester among them.

[danoyse]

You lost me completely when you whipped out all the molestation BS, Tron. When I worked for the court system I had a ton of appeals cases in my office for child molesters; almost all of the kiddie-fiddlers were supposedly straight guys who messed with some kid they were babysitting be it their own, a family member's child or a friend's child. They had no history of homosexuality and identified as straight in their sexual orientation, even though they were messing with children of the same sex. Now I KNOW those "stats" you posted are bogus. Sorry, duder.

jag

A guy I went to high school with spent a year in jail for trying to pick up a 14-year-old girl on the internet. They had 6 months worth of explicit emails between him and the 'girl' (really an agent) that they presented in court. At the time he was an elementary school teacher.

I have several gay friends, and there's not a child molester among them.

[Tron5000]

A guy I went to high school with spent a year in jail for trying to pick up a 14-year-old girl on the internet. They had 6 months worth of explicit emails between him and the 'girl' (really an agent) that they presented in court. At the time he was an elementary school teacher.

I have several gay friends, and there's not a child molester among them.

So you know a guy who molested a girl, but none of your gay friends have molested anyone? Wow, then I guess that proves everything.

[Tron5000]

A guy I went to high school with spent a year in jail for trying to pick up a 14-year-old girl on the internet. They had 6 months worth of explicit emails between him and the 'girl' (really an agent) that they presented in court. At the time he was an elementary school teacher.

I have several gay friends, and there's not a child molester among them.

So you know a guy who molested a girl, but none of your gay friends have molested anyone? Wow, then I guess that proves everything.

[Tron5000]

A guy I went to high school with spent a year in jail for trying to pick up a 14-year-old girl on the internet. They had 6 months worth of explicit emails between him and the 'girl' (really an agent) that they presented in court. At the time he was an elementary school teacher.

I have several gay friends, and there's not a child molester among them.

So you know a guy who molested a girl, but none of your gay friends have molested anyone? Wow, then I guess that proves everything.

[Tron5000]

Also from that article (which you clearly did not read all of):




There's a whole lot more there that debunks all the claims you are trying to put forth including the "statistics" and the "research", but I thought I'd just go ahead and ruin the ending for you.


Cheers,
jag

I don't see how that last bit in any way negates the studies and stats that I presented showing the exact opposite of what you posted.

[Tron5000]

Also from that article (which you clearly did not read all of):




There's a whole lot more there that debunks all the claims you are trying to put forth including the "statistics" and the "research", but I thought I'd just go ahead and ruin the ending for you.


Cheers,
jag

I don't see how that last bit in any way negates the studies and stats that I presented showing the exact opposite of what you posted.

[Tron5000]

Also from that article (which you clearly did not read all of):




There's a whole lot more there that debunks all the claims you are trying to put forth including the "statistics" and the "research", but I thought I'd just go ahead and ruin the ending for you.


Cheers,
jag

I don't see how that last bit in any way negates the studies and stats that I presented showing the exact opposite of what you posted.

[SentinelMind]

That assertion from the UC Davis site is presenting a theory and explanation to dismiss data "we can't look at them as having adult sexuality, they're fixated on children"...which is a bit of a subjective claim. Their theory may or may not have validity, but it doesn't negate the statistical data reported in Tron's websites.

[SentinelMind]

That assertion from the UC Davis site is presenting a theory and explanation to dismiss data "we can't look at them as having adult sexuality, they're fixated on children"...which is a bit of a subjective claim. Their theory may or may not have validity, but it doesn't negate the statistical data reported in Tron's websites.

[SentinelMind]

That assertion from the UC Davis site is presenting a theory and explanation to dismiss data "we can't look at them as having adult sexuality, they're fixated on children"...which is a bit of a subjective claim. Their theory may or may not have validity, but it doesn't negate the statistical data reported in Tron's websites.

[Tron5000]

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/fri_edupamphlet2.html


The Scientific Evidence

Three kinds of scientific evidence point to the proportion of homosexual molestation: 1) survey reports of molestation in the general population, 2) surveys of those caught and convicted of molestation, and 3) what homosexuals themselves have reported. These three lines of evidence suggest that the 1%-to-3% of adults who practice homosexuality (3) account for between a fifth and a third of all child molestation.
Reports of Molestation by the General Population

In 1983, a probability survey of the sexual experiences of 4,340 adults in 5 U.S. cities found that about 3% of men and 7% of women reported sexual involvement with a man before the age of 134 (i.e., 30% was homosexual).

In 1983- (4), a random survey of 3,132 adults in Los Angeles found that 3.8% of men and 6.8% of women said that they had been sexually assaulted in childhood. Since 93% of the assailants were male, and only 1% of girls had been assaulted by females, about 35% of the assaults were homosexual. (5)

The Los Angeles Times (6) surveyed 2,628 adults across the U.S. in 1985. 27% of the women and 16% of the men claimed to have been sexually molested. Since 7% of the molestations of girls and 93% of the molestations of boys were by adults of the same sex, about 4 of every 10 molestations in this survey were homosexual.

In a random survey of British 15-to-19 yr olds, 35% of the boys and 9% of the girls claimed to have been approached for sex by adult homosexuals and 2% of the boys and 1% of the girls admitted to succumbing. (7)

In science, a review of the professional literature published in a refereed scientific journal is considered to be an accurate summary of the current state of knowledge. The latest such review was published in 1985. (8) It concluded that homosexual acts were involved in 25% to 40% of the cases of child molestation recorded in the scientific and forensic literature.
Surveys of Those Convicted

Drs Freund and Heasman (9) of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two sizeable studies and calculated that 34% and 32% of the offenders against children were homosexual. In cases they had personally handled, homosexuals accounted for 36% of their 457 pedophiles.

Dr. Adrian Copeland, a psychiatrist who works with sexual offenders at the Peters Institute in Philadelphia, said (10) that, from his experience, pedophiles tend to be homosexual and "40% to 45%" of child molesters have had "significant homosexual experiences."

Dr. C. H. McGaghy (11) estimated that "homosexual offenders probably constitute about half of molesters who work with children." Other studies are similar:

– Of the approximately 100 child molesters in 1991 at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third bisexual and a third homosexual in orientation. (12)

– A state-wide survey of 161 Vermont adolescents who committed sex offenses in 1984 found that 35 (22%) were homosexual. (13)

– Of the 91 molesters of non-related children at Canada’s Kingston Sexual Behaviour Clinic from 1978-1984, 38 (42%) engaged in homosexuality. (14)

– Of 52 child molesters in Ottawa from 1983 to 1985, 31 (60%) were homosexual. (15)

– In England for 1973, 802 persons (8 females) were convicted of indecent assault on a male, and 3,006 (6 of them female) were convicted of indecent assault on a female (i.e., 21% were homosexual). 88% of male and about 70% of female victims were under age sixteen. (16)

Because of this pattern, Judge J. T. Rees concluded that "the male homosexual naturally seeks the company of the male adolescent, or of the young male adult, in preference to that of the fully-grown man. [In 1947] 986 persons were convicted of homosexual and unnatural offences. Of those, 257 were indictable offences involving 402 male victims.... The great majority of [whom]... were under the age of 16. Only 11%... were over 21."

"[T]he problem of male homosexuality is in essence the problem of the corruption of youth by itself [i.e., by other boys] and by its elders. [And thereby]... the creation... of new addicts ready to corrupt a still further generation of young men and boys in the future." (17)

What Homosexuals Admit

The 1948 Kinsey survey found that 37% of the gays and 2% of the lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under-17-yr-olds, and 28% of the gays and 1% of the lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under-16-yr-olds while they themselves were aged 18 or older. (18)

In 1970 the Kinsey Institute interviewed 565 white gays in San Francisco: 25% of them admitted to having had sex with boys aged 16 or younger while they themselves were at least 21. (19)

In The Gay Report, 23% of the gays and 6% of the lesbians admitted to sexual interaction with youth less than 16 years of age. (20)

In France, 129 convicted gays (21)(average age 34 years) said they had had sexual contact with a total of 11,007 boys (an average of 85 different boys per man). Abel et al reported similarly that men who molested girls outside their family had averaged 20 victims each; those who molested boys averaged 150 victims each. (22)
Summary

About a third of the reports of molestation by the populace have involved homosexuality. Likewise, between a fifth and a third of those who have been caught and/or convicted practiced homosexuality. Finally, a fifth to a third of surveyed gays admitted to child molestation. All-in-all, a rather consistent story.

[Tron5000]

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/fri_edupamphlet2.html


The Scientific Evidence

Three kinds of scientific evidence point to the proportion of homosexual molestation: 1) survey reports of molestation in the general population, 2) surveys of those caught and convicted of molestation, and 3) what homosexuals themselves have reported. These three lines of evidence suggest that the 1%-to-3% of adults who practice homosexuality (3) account for between a fifth and a third of all child molestation.
Reports of Molestation by the General Population

In 1983, a probability survey of the sexual experiences of 4,340 adults in 5 U.S. cities found that about 3% of men and 7% of women reported sexual involvement with a man before the age of 134 (i.e., 30% was homosexual).

In 1983- (4), a random survey of 3,132 adults in Los Angeles found that 3.8% of men and 6.8% of women said that they had been sexually assaulted in childhood. Since 93% of the assailants were male, and only 1% of girls had been assaulted by females, about 35% of the assaults were homosexual. (5)

The Los Angeles Times (6) surveyed 2,628 adults across the U.S. in 1985. 27% of the women and 16% of the men claimed to have been sexually molested. Since 7% of the molestations of girls and 93% of the molestations of boys were by adults of the same sex, about 4 of every 10 molestations in this survey were homosexual.

In a random survey of British 15-to-19 yr olds, 35% of the boys and 9% of the girls claimed to have been approached for sex by adult homosexuals and 2% of the boys and 1% of the girls admitted to succumbing. (7)

In science, a review of the professional literature published in a refereed scientific journal is considered to be an accurate summary of the current state of knowledge. The latest such review was published in 1985. (8) It concluded that homosexual acts were involved in 25% to 40% of the cases of child molestation recorded in the scientific and forensic literature.
Surveys of Those Convicted

Drs Freund and Heasman (9) of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two sizeable studies and calculated that 34% and 32% of the offenders against children were homosexual. In cases they had personally handled, homosexuals accounted for 36% of their 457 pedophiles.

Dr. Adrian Copeland, a psychiatrist who works with sexual offenders at the Peters Institute in Philadelphia, said (10) that, from his experience, pedophiles tend to be homosexual and "40% to 45%" of child molesters have had "significant homosexual experiences."

Dr. C. H. McGaghy (11) estimated that "homosexual offenders probably constitute about half of molesters who work with children." Other studies are similar:

– Of the approximately 100 child molesters in 1991 at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third bisexual and a third homosexual in orientation. (12)

– A state-wide survey of 161 Vermont adolescents who committed sex offenses in 1984 found that 35 (22%) were homosexual. (13)

– Of the 91 molesters of non-related children at Canada’s Kingston Sexual Behaviour Clinic from 1978-1984, 38 (42%) engaged in homosexuality. (14)

– Of 52 child molesters in Ottawa from 1983 to 1985, 31 (60%) were homosexual. (15)

– In England for 1973, 802 persons (8 females) were convicted of indecent assault on a male, and 3,006 (6 of them female) were convicted of indecent assault on a female (i.e., 21% were homosexual). 88% of male and about 70% of female victims were under age sixteen. (16)

Because of this pattern, Judge J. T. Rees concluded that "the male homosexual naturally seeks the company of the male adolescent, or of the young male adult, in preference to that of the fully-grown man. [In 1947] 986 persons were convicted of homosexual and unnatural offences. Of those, 257 were indictable offences involving 402 male victims.... The great majority of [whom]... were under the age of 16. Only 11%... were over 21."

"[T]he problem of male homosexuality is in essence the problem of the corruption of youth by itself [i.e., by other boys] and by its elders. [And thereby]... the creation... of new addicts ready to corrupt a still further generation of young men and boys in the future." (17)

What Homosexuals Admit

The 1948 Kinsey survey found that 37% of the gays and 2% of the lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under-17-yr-olds, and 28% of the gays and 1% of the lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under-16-yr-olds while they themselves were aged 18 or older. (18)

In 1970 the Kinsey Institute interviewed 565 white gays in San Francisco: 25% of them admitted to having had sex with boys aged 16 or younger while they themselves were at least 21. (19)

In The Gay Report, 23% of the gays and 6% of the lesbians admitted to sexual interaction with youth less than 16 years of age. (20)

In France, 129 convicted gays (21)(average age 34 years) said they had had sexual contact with a total of 11,007 boys (an average of 85 different boys per man). Abel et al reported similarly that men who molested girls outside their family had averaged 20 victims each; those who molested boys averaged 150 victims each. (22)
Summary

About a third of the reports of molestation by the populace have involved homosexuality. Likewise, between a fifth and a third of those who have been caught and/or convicted practiced homosexuality. Finally, a fifth to a third of surveyed gays admitted to child molestation. All-in-all, a rather consistent story.

[Tron5000]

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/fri_edupamphlet2.html


The Scientific Evidence

Three kinds of scientific evidence point to the proportion of homosexual molestation: 1) survey reports of molestation in the general population, 2) surveys of those caught and convicted of molestation, and 3) what homosexuals themselves have reported. These three lines of evidence suggest that the 1%-to-3% of adults who practice homosexuality (3) account for between a fifth and a third of all child molestation.
Reports of Molestation by the General Population

In 1983, a probability survey of the sexual experiences of 4,340 adults in 5 U.S. cities found that about 3% of men and 7% of women reported sexual involvement with a man before the age of 134 (i.e., 30% was homosexual).

In 1983- (4), a random survey of 3,132 adults in Los Angeles found that 3.8% of men and 6.8% of women said that they had been sexually assaulted in childhood. Since 93% of the assailants were male, and only 1% of girls had been assaulted by females, about 35% of the assaults were homosexual. (5)

The Los Angeles Times (6) surveyed 2,628 adults across the U.S. in 1985. 27% of the women and 16% of the men claimed to have been sexually molested. Since 7% of the molestations of girls and 93% of the molestations of boys were by adults of the same sex, about 4 of every 10 molestations in this survey were homosexual.

In a random survey of British 15-to-19 yr olds, 35% of the boys and 9% of the girls claimed to have been approached for sex by adult homosexuals and 2% of the boys and 1% of the girls admitted to succumbing. (7)

In science, a review of the professional literature published in a refereed scientific journal is considered to be an accurate summary of the current state of knowledge. The latest such review was published in 1985. (8) It concluded that homosexual acts were involved in 25% to 40% of the cases of child molestation recorded in the scientific and forensic literature.
Surveys of Those Convicted

Drs Freund and Heasman (9) of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two sizeable studies and calculated that 34% and 32% of the offenders against children were homosexual. In cases they had personally handled, homosexuals accounted for 36% of their 457 pedophiles.

Dr. Adrian Copeland, a psychiatrist who works with sexual offenders at the Peters Institute in Philadelphia, said (10) that, from his experience, pedophiles tend to be homosexual and "40% to 45%" of child molesters have had "significant homosexual experiences."

Dr. C. H. McGaghy (11) estimated that "homosexual offenders probably constitute about half of molesters who work with children." Other studies are similar:

– Of the approximately 100 child molesters in 1991 at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third bisexual and a third homosexual in orientation. (12)

– A state-wide survey of 161 Vermont adolescents who committed sex offenses in 1984 found that 35 (22%) were homosexual. (13)

– Of the 91 molesters of non-related children at Canada’s Kingston Sexual Behaviour Clinic from 1978-1984, 38 (42%) engaged in homosexuality. (14)

– Of 52 child molesters in Ottawa from 1983 to 1985, 31 (60%) were homosexual. (15)

– In England for 1973, 802 persons (8 females) were convicted of indecent assault on a male, and 3,006 (6 of them female) were convicted of indecent assault on a female (i.e., 21% were homosexual). 88% of male and about 70% of female victims were under age sixteen. (16)

Because of this pattern, Judge J. T. Rees concluded that "the male homosexual naturally seeks the company of the male adolescent, or of the young male adult, in preference to that of the fully-grown man. [In 1947] 986 persons were convicted of homosexual and unnatural offences. Of those, 257 were indictable offences involving 402 male victims.... The great majority of [whom]... were under the age of 16. Only 11%... were over 21."

"[T]he problem of male homosexuality is in essence the problem of the corruption of youth by itself [i.e., by other boys] and by its elders. [And thereby]... the creation... of new addicts ready to corrupt a still further generation of young men and boys in the future." (17)

What Homosexuals Admit

The 1948 Kinsey survey found that 37% of the gays and 2% of the lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under-17-yr-olds, and 28% of the gays and 1% of the lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under-16-yr-olds while they themselves were aged 18 or older. (18)

In 1970 the Kinsey Institute interviewed 565 white gays in San Francisco: 25% of them admitted to having had sex with boys aged 16 or younger while they themselves were at least 21. (19)

In The Gay Report, 23% of the gays and 6% of the lesbians admitted to sexual interaction with youth less than 16 years of age. (20)

In France, 129 convicted gays (21)(average age 34 years) said they had had sexual contact with a total of 11,007 boys (an average of 85 different boys per man). Abel et al reported similarly that men who molested girls outside their family had averaged 20 victims each; those who molested boys averaged 150 victims each. (22)
Summary

About a third of the reports of molestation by the populace have involved homosexuality. Likewise, between a fifth and a third of those who have been caught and/or convicted practiced homosexuality. Finally, a fifth to a third of surveyed gays admitted to child molestation. All-in-all, a rather consistent story.

[jaguarr]

I don't see how that last bit in any way negates the studies and stats that I presented showing the exact opposite of what you posted.

That assertion from the UC Davis site is presenting a theory and explanation to dismiss data "we can't look at them as having adult sexuality, they're fixated on children"...which is a bit of a subjective claim. Their theory may or may not have validity, but it doesn't negate the statistical data reported in Tron's websites.

Hmmm...yeah, you guys haven't read the entire article, then. It very specifically addresses how these "studies" and "statistics" are derived and debunks their validity due to severe flaws. You can post all the "data" you want, but if it's flawed and biased to begin with (which it is), then it's irrelevant and does nothing to support your claims. Sorry. Come up with some data from an impartial source that's not pushing a particular agenda (hint: it doesn't exist), and then we'll talk.

jag

[jaguarr]

I don't see how that last bit in any way negates the studies and stats that I presented showing the exact opposite of what you posted.

That assertion from the UC Davis site is presenting a theory and explanation to dismiss data "we can't look at them as having adult sexuality, they're fixated on children"...which is a bit of a subjective claim. Their theory may or may not have validity, but it doesn't negate the statistical data reported in Tron's websites.

Hmmm...yeah, you guys haven't read the entire article, then. It very specifically addresses how these "studies" and "statistics" are derived and debunks their validity due to severe flaws. You can post all the "data" you want, but if it's flawed and biased to begin with (which it is), then it's irrelevant and does nothing to support your claims. Sorry. Come up with some data from an impartial source that's not pushing a particular agenda (hint: it doesn't exist), and then we'll talk.

jag

[jaguarr]

I don't see how that last bit in any way negates the studies and stats that I presented showing the exact opposite of what you posted.

That assertion from the UC Davis site is presenting a theory and explanation to dismiss data "we can't look at them as having adult sexuality, they're fixated on children"...which is a bit of a subjective claim. Their theory may or may not have validity, but it doesn't negate the statistical data reported in Tron's websites.

Hmmm...yeah, you guys haven't read the entire article, then. It very specifically addresses how these "studies" and "statistics" are derived and debunks their validity due to severe flaws. You can post all the "data" you want, but if it's flawed and biased to begin with (which it is), then it's irrelevant and does nothing to support your claims. Sorry. Come up with some data from an impartial source that's not pushing a particular agenda (hint: it doesn't exist), and then we'll talk.

jag

[danoyse]

So you know a guy who molested a girl, but none of your gay friends have molested anyone? Wow, then I guess that proves everything.

You didn't even read that correctly. He spoke with a girl over the internet who he planned to meet for sex. There was no girl. He met the FBI agent that he'd been speaking to for the last 6 months instead.

And yes, it's amazing when reality flies in the face of the rantings of a ridiculous article.

[danoyse]

So you know a guy who molested a girl, but none of your gay friends have molested anyone? Wow, then I guess that proves everything.

You didn't even read that correctly. He spoke with a girl over the internet who he planned to meet for sex. There was no girl. He met the FBI agent that he'd been speaking to for the last 6 months instead.

And yes, it's amazing when reality flies in the face of the rantings of a ridiculous article.

[danoyse]

So you know a guy who molested a girl, but none of your gay friends have molested anyone? Wow, then I guess that proves everything.

You didn't even read that correctly. He spoke with a girl over the internet who he planned to meet for sex. There was no girl. He met the FBI agent that he'd been speaking to for the last 6 months instead.

And yes, it's amazing when reality flies in the face of the rantings of a ridiculous article.

[jaguarr]

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

What About Claims That Scientific Research Proves Gay Men Are Likely To Molest Children?

Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse.

With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue. On further examination, however, its central argument – that "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls" – doesn't hold up.

In the following section, the main sources cited by Dailey and the FRC to support their claim are reviewed. The papers are listed in the same order in which they are first cited by the FRC article.

1. Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.

This article is discussed above in the "Other Approaches" section. As the FRC concedes, it contradicts their argument. The abstract summarizes the authors' conclusion: "Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children."


2. Silverthorne & Quinsey. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 67-76.

The FRC cites this study to challenge the Freund et al. data (see the previous paper above). However, the methodologies were quite different. Freund and his colleagues used a sample that included sex offenders and they assessed sexual arousal with a physiological measure similar to that described below for the 1988 Marshall et al. study. Silverthorne and Quinsey used a sample of community volunteers who were asked to view pictures of human faces and use a 7-point scale to rate their sexual attractiveness. The apparent ages of the people portrayed in the pictures was originally estimated by Dr. Silverthorne to range from 15 to 50. However, a group of independent raters perceived the male faces to range in age from 18 to 58, and the female faces to range from 19 to 60.

The article doesn't report the data in great detail (e.g., average ratings are depicted only in a graphic; the actual numbers aren't reported) and the authors provide contradictory information about the rating scale (they describe it as a 7-point scale but also say it ranged from 0 to 7, which constitutes an 8-point scale). In either case, it appears that none of the pictures was rated as "very sexually attractive" (a rating of 7). Rather, the highest average ratings were approximately 5.

On average, gay men rated the 18-year old male faces the most attractive (average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings declining steadily for older faces. They rated the 58-year old male faces 2, on average. By contrast, heterosexual men rated the 25-year old female faces the most attractive (about 5), with the 18- and 28-year old female faces rated lower (between 2 and 3) and the 60-year old female faces rated the least attractive (about 1).

A serious problem with this study is that the researchers didn't control for the possibility that some of the faces pictured in the photos might simply have been more or less physically attractive than the others, independent of their age or gender. The researchers explicitly acknowledged this shortcoming, speculating that the women's faces in the 25-year old group might have been more attractive than women's faces in the other age groups. But they didn't address the possibility that the attractiveness of the male and female faces may not have been comparable.

This issue could have been addressed in various ways. For example, prior to collecting data, the researchers could have started with a large number of photographs and asked a group of independent raters to evaluate the general physical attractiveness of the face in each photo; these ratings could have been used to select photos for the experiment that were equivalent in attractiveness. Getting independent ratings of experimental stimuli in this way is a common procedure in social psychological research.

Thus, even if one accepts the questionable assumption that this study is relevant, it doesn't support the FRC's contention that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several reasons:
* the researchers failed to control for the varying attractiveness of the different photos;
* all of the faces portrayed in the photos were perceived to be at least 18; and
* the study merely assessed judgments of sexual attractiveness rather than the research participants' sexual arousal.


3. Blanchard et al. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478.

This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether they molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only, or both boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively, homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. This classification referred to their attractions to children. Adult sexual orientation (or even whether the men had an adult sexual orientation) wasn't assessed.


4. Elliott et al. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 579-594.

In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed. Their sexual orientation (gay, heterosexual, bisexual) wasn't assessed. The authors drew from their findings to suggest strategies for how parents and children can prevent sexual victimization. It is noteworthy that none of those strategies involved avoiding gay men.


5. Jenny et al. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41-44.

This study, described above in the section on "Other Approaches," contradicts the FRC's argument. The FRC faults the study because the researchers didn't directly interview perpetrators but instead relied on the victims' medical charts for information about the offender's sexual orientation. However, other studies cited favorably by the FRC (and summarized in this section) similarly relied on chart data (Erickson et al., 1988) or did not directly assess the sexual orientation of perpetrators (Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al. 1995; Marshall et al., 1988). Thus, the FRC apparently considers this method a weakness only when it leads to results they dislike.


6. Marshall et al. (1988). Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preference. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 383-391.

In this study, the researchers compared 21 men who had sexually molested a male under 16 years (and at least 5 years younger than themselves) to 18 unemployed men who were not known to have molested a child. Over a series of sessions, each man watched color slides of nude males and females of various ages and listened to audiotaped descriptions of both coercive and consensual sexual interactions between a man and a boy. During the sessions, each man sat in a private booth, where he was instructed to lower his trousers and underwear and attach a rubber tube to his penis. The tube detected any changes in penis circumference, with increases interpreted as indicating sexual arousal.

The FRC cites this study as showing that "a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders." This is true but hardly relevant to their claims.

The researchers categorized 7 offenders who were more aroused overall by the male nudes than the female nudes as the homosexual subgroup. They categorized 14 offenders who were more aroused overall by the female nudes as the heterosexual subgroup. The offenders were not asked their sexual orientation (gay, straight, bisexual) and the paper does not report any information about the nature of the offenders' adult sexual relationships, or even if they had any such relationships.


7. Bickley & Beech. (2001). Classifying child abusers: Its relevance to theory and clinical practice. International Journal Of Offender Therapy And Comparative Criminology, 45, 51-69.

This is a literature review and theoretical paper that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various systems for classifying child molesters. In citing this study, the FRC says it:

refers to homosexual pedophiles as a "distinct group." The victims of homosexual pedophiles "were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and that they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences.... Other studies [showed a] greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls" and that the "recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders."

In reality, however, the paper was summarizing the findings of other studies, not reporting new data. In the passage excerpted by the FRC, the authors were discussing published papers that used a classification system focusing entirely on the sex of victims (not whether the perpetrator is straight or gay). Here is the complete text (the passages that FRC omitted are highlighted):

"Grubin and Kennedy (1991) reported that when dividing sex offenders based simply on the sex of their victims, offenders against boys stood out as a distinct group. They noted that their victims were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences. Other studies have employed the sex-of-victim approach in the prediction of future risk, with offenders who have sexually abused boys or both boys and girls reported as having more victims and being at greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls only [bibliographic references omitted]. In the nondiagnostic remarks, DSM-IV (APA, 1994) claims that the recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders, and although not demonstrating such a marked difference, Furby,Weinrott, and Blackshaw (1989), in an extensive review of recidivism rates, found that reoffending was higher for male victim offenders. [¶] However, the sex-of-victim distinction has not been consistently found, and contrasting findings have been reported in studies that have demonstrated no differences in recidivism rates between the groups [bibliographic references omitted]. Furthermore, Abel, Becker, Murphy, and Flanagan (1981) found that those child molesters who offended against girls reported more than twice as many victims as those who had offended against boys, a finding contrary to the hypothesized outcome." (p. 56)


8. Jay & Young. (1977). The gay report: Lesbians and gay men speak out about sexual experiences and lifestyles. New York: Summit.

This book, published nearly 30 years ago by a team of writer-activists, is not a scientific study. The authors' survey methodology is not reported in detail and, because it was a journalistic work, the survey was never subjected to scientific peer review.


9. Erickson et al. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86.

This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records of male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital between 1975 and 1984. Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes. (The paper is unclear in that it doesn't explain how perpetrators with multiple victims were counted.) The paper asserts in passing that "Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (p. 83). However, no details are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret. Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described above) indicates is relevant.



In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not support their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders.

jag

[jaguarr]

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

What About Claims That Scientific Research Proves Gay Men Are Likely To Molest Children?

Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse.

With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue. On further examination, however, its central argument – that "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls" – doesn't hold up.

In the following section, the main sources cited by Dailey and the FRC to support their claim are reviewed. The papers are listed in the same order in which they are first cited by the FRC article.

1. Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.

This article is discussed above in the "Other Approaches" section. As the FRC concedes, it contradicts their argument. The abstract summarizes the authors' conclusion: "Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children."


2. Silverthorne & Quinsey. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 67-76.

The FRC cites this study to challenge the Freund et al. data (see the previous paper above). However, the methodologies were quite different. Freund and his colleagues used a sample that included sex offenders and they assessed sexual arousal with a physiological measure similar to that described below for the 1988 Marshall et al. study. Silverthorne and Quinsey used a sample of community volunteers who were asked to view pictures of human faces and use a 7-point scale to rate their sexual attractiveness. The apparent ages of the people portrayed in the pictures was originally estimated by Dr. Silverthorne to range from 15 to 50. However, a group of independent raters perceived the male faces to range in age from 18 to 58, and the female faces to range from 19 to 60.

The article doesn't report the data in great detail (e.g., average ratings are depicted only in a graphic; the actual numbers aren't reported) and the authors provide contradictory information about the rating scale (they describe it as a 7-point scale but also say it ranged from 0 to 7, which constitutes an 8-point scale). In either case, it appears that none of the pictures was rated as "very sexually attractive" (a rating of 7). Rather, the highest average ratings were approximately 5.

On average, gay men rated the 18-year old male faces the most attractive (average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings declining steadily for older faces. They rated the 58-year old male faces 2, on average. By contrast, heterosexual men rated the 25-year old female faces the most attractive (about 5), with the 18- and 28-year old female faces rated lower (between 2 and 3) and the 60-year old female faces rated the least attractive (about 1).

A serious problem with this study is that the researchers didn't control for the possibility that some of the faces pictured in the photos might simply have been more or less physically attractive than the others, independent of their age or gender. The researchers explicitly acknowledged this shortcoming, speculating that the women's faces in the 25-year old group might have been more attractive than women's faces in the other age groups. But they didn't address the possibility that the attractiveness of the male and female faces may not have been comparable.

This issue could have been addressed in various ways. For example, prior to collecting data, the researchers could have started with a large number of photographs and asked a group of independent raters to evaluate the general physical attractiveness of the face in each photo; these ratings could have been used to select photos for the experiment that were equivalent in attractiveness. Getting independent ratings of experimental stimuli in this way is a common procedure in social psychological research.

Thus, even if one accepts the questionable assumption that this study is relevant, it doesn't support the FRC's contention that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several reasons:
* the researchers failed to control for the varying attractiveness of the different photos;
* all of the faces portrayed in the photos were perceived to be at least 18; and
* the study merely assessed judgments of sexual attractiveness rather than the research participants' sexual arousal.


3. Blanchard et al. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478.

This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether they molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only, or both boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively, homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. This classification referred to their attractions to children. Adult sexual orientation (or even whether the men had an adult sexual orientation) wasn't assessed.


4. Elliott et al. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 579-594.

In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed. Their sexual orientation (gay, heterosexual, bisexual) wasn't assessed. The authors drew from their findings to suggest strategies for how parents and children can prevent sexual victimization. It is noteworthy that none of those strategies involved avoiding gay men.


5. Jenny et al. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41-44.

This study, described above in the section on "Other Approaches," contradicts the FRC's argument. The FRC faults the study because the researchers didn't directly interview perpetrators but instead relied on the victims' medical charts for information about the offender's sexual orientation. However, other studies cited favorably by the FRC (and summarized in this section) similarly relied on chart data (Erickson et al., 1988) or did not directly assess the sexual orientation of perpetrators (Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al. 1995; Marshall et al., 1988). Thus, the FRC apparently considers this method a weakness only when it leads to results they dislike.


6. Marshall et al. (1988). Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preference. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 383-391.

In this study, the researchers compared 21 men who had sexually molested a male under 16 years (and at least 5 years younger than themselves) to 18 unemployed men who were not known to have molested a child. Over a series of sessions, each man watched color slides of nude males and females of various ages and listened to audiotaped descriptions of both coercive and consensual sexual interactions between a man and a boy. During the sessions, each man sat in a private booth, where he was instructed to lower his trousers and underwear and attach a rubber tube to his penis. The tube detected any changes in penis circumference, with increases interpreted as indicating sexual arousal.

The FRC cites this study as showing that "a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders." This is true but hardly relevant to their claims.

The researchers categorized 7 offenders who were more aroused overall by the male nudes than the female nudes as the homosexual subgroup. They categorized 14 offenders who were more aroused overall by the female nudes as the heterosexual subgroup. The offenders were not asked their sexual orientation (gay, straight, bisexual) and the paper does not report any information about the nature of the offenders' adult sexual relationships, or even if they had any such relationships.


7. Bickley & Beech. (2001). Classifying child abusers: Its relevance to theory and clinical practice. International Journal Of Offender Therapy And Comparative Criminology, 45, 51-69.

This is a literature review and theoretical paper that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various systems for classifying child molesters. In citing this study, the FRC says it:

refers to homosexual pedophiles as a "distinct group." The victims of homosexual pedophiles "were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and that they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences.... Other studies [showed a] greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls" and that the "recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders."

In reality, however, the paper was summarizing the findings of other studies, not reporting new data. In the passage excerpted by the FRC, the authors were discussing published papers that used a classification system focusing entirely on the sex of victims (not whether the perpetrator is straight or gay). Here is the complete text (the passages that FRC omitted are highlighted):

"Grubin and Kennedy (1991) reported that when dividing sex offenders based simply on the sex of their victims, offenders against boys stood out as a distinct group. They noted that their victims were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences. Other studies have employed the sex-of-victim approach in the prediction of future risk, with offenders who have sexually abused boys or both boys and girls reported as having more victims and being at greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls only [bibliographic references omitted]. In the nondiagnostic remarks, DSM-IV (APA, 1994) claims that the recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders, and although not demonstrating such a marked difference, Furby,Weinrott, and Blackshaw (1989), in an extensive review of recidivism rates, found that reoffending was higher for male victim offenders. [¶] However, the sex-of-victim distinction has not been consistently found, and contrasting findings have been reported in studies that have demonstrated no differences in recidivism rates between the groups [bibliographic references omitted]. Furthermore, Abel, Becker, Murphy, and Flanagan (1981) found that those child molesters who offended against girls reported more than twice as many victims as those who had offended against boys, a finding contrary to the hypothesized outcome." (p. 56)


8. Jay & Young. (1977). The gay report: Lesbians and gay men speak out about sexual experiences and lifestyles. New York: Summit.

This book, published nearly 30 years ago by a team of writer-activists, is not a scientific study. The authors' survey methodology is not reported in detail and, because it was a journalistic work, the survey was never subjected to scientific peer review.


9. Erickson et al. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86.

This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records of male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital between 1975 and 1984. Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes. (The paper is unclear in that it doesn't explain how perpetrators with multiple victims were counted.) The paper asserts in passing that "Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (p. 83). However, no details are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret. Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described above) indicates is relevant.



In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not support their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders.

jag

[jaguarr]

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

What About Claims That Scientific Research Proves Gay Men Are Likely To Molest Children?

Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse.

With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue. On further examination, however, its central argument – that "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls" – doesn't hold up.

In the following section, the main sources cited by Dailey and the FRC to support their claim are reviewed. The papers are listed in the same order in which they are first cited by the FRC article.

1. Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.

This article is discussed above in the "Other Approaches" section. As the FRC concedes, it contradicts their argument. The abstract summarizes the authors' conclusion: "Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children."


2. Silverthorne & Quinsey. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 67-76.

The FRC cites this study to challenge the Freund et al. data (see the previous paper above). However, the methodologies were quite different. Freund and his colleagues used a sample that included sex offenders and they assessed sexual arousal with a physiological measure similar to that described below for the 1988 Marshall et al. study. Silverthorne and Quinsey used a sample of community volunteers who were asked to view pictures of human faces and use a 7-point scale to rate their sexual attractiveness. The apparent ages of the people portrayed in the pictures was originally estimated by Dr. Silverthorne to range from 15 to 50. However, a group of independent raters perceived the male faces to range in age from 18 to 58, and the female faces to range from 19 to 60.

The article doesn't report the data in great detail (e.g., average ratings are depicted only in a graphic; the actual numbers aren't reported) and the authors provide contradictory information about the rating scale (they describe it as a 7-point scale but also say it ranged from 0 to 7, which constitutes an 8-point scale). In either case, it appears that none of the pictures was rated as "very sexually attractive" (a rating of 7). Rather, the highest average ratings were approximately 5.

On average, gay men rated the 18-year old male faces the most attractive (average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings declining steadily for older faces. They rated the 58-year old male faces 2, on average. By contrast, heterosexual men rated the 25-year old female faces the most attractive (about 5), with the 18- and 28-year old female faces rated lower (between 2 and 3) and the 60-year old female faces rated the least attractive (about 1).

A serious problem with this study is that the researchers didn't control for the possibility that some of the faces pictured in the photos might simply have been more or less physically attractive than the others, independent of their age or gender. The researchers explicitly acknowledged this shortcoming, speculating that the women's faces in the 25-year old group might have been more attractive than women's faces in the other age groups. But they didn't address the possibility that the attractiveness of the male and female faces may not have been comparable.

This issue could have been addressed in various ways. For example, prior to collecting data, the researchers could have started with a large number of photographs and asked a group of independent raters to evaluate the general physical attractiveness of the face in each photo; these ratings could have been used to select photos for the experiment that were equivalent in attractiveness. Getting independent ratings of experimental stimuli in this way is a common procedure in social psychological research.

Thus, even if one accepts the questionable assumption that this study is relevant, it doesn't support the FRC's contention that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several reasons:
* the researchers failed to control for the varying attractiveness of the different photos;
* all of the faces portrayed in the photos were perceived to be at least 18; and
* the study merely assessed judgments of sexual attractiveness rather than the research participants' sexual arousal.


3. Blanchard et al. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478.

This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether they molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only, or both boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively, homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. This classification referred to their attractions to children. Adult sexual orientation (or even whether the men had an adult sexual orientation) wasn't assessed.


4. Elliott et al. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 579-594.

In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed. Their sexual orientation (gay, heterosexual, bisexual) wasn't assessed. The authors drew from their findings to suggest strategies for how parents and children can prevent sexual victimization. It is noteworthy that none of those strategies involved avoiding gay men.


5. Jenny et al. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41-44.

This study, described above in the section on "Other Approaches," contradicts the FRC's argument. The FRC faults the study because the researchers didn't directly interview perpetrators but instead relied on the victims' medical charts for information about the offender's sexual orientation. However, other studies cited favorably by the FRC (and summarized in this section) similarly relied on chart data (Erickson et al., 1988) or did not directly assess the sexual orientation of perpetrators (Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al. 1995; Marshall et al., 1988). Thus, the FRC apparently considers this method a weakness only when it leads to results they dislike.


6. Marshall et al. (1988). Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preference. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 383-391.

In this study, the researchers compared 21 men who had sexually molested a male under 16 years (and at least 5 years younger than themselves) to 18 unemployed men who were not known to have molested a child. Over a series of sessions, each man watched color slides of nude males and females of various ages and listened to audiotaped descriptions of both coercive and consensual sexual interactions between a man and a boy. During the sessions, each man sat in a private booth, where he was instructed to lower his trousers and underwear and attach a rubber tube to his penis. The tube detected any changes in penis circumference, with increases interpreted as indicating sexual arousal.

The FRC cites this study as showing that "a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders." This is true but hardly relevant to their claims.

The researchers categorized 7 offenders who were more aroused overall by the male nudes than the female nudes as the homosexual subgroup. They categorized 14 offenders who were more aroused overall by the female nudes as the heterosexual subgroup. The offenders were not asked their sexual orientation (gay, straight, bisexual) and the paper does not report any information about the nature of the offenders' adult sexual relationships, or even if they had any such relationships.


7. Bickley & Beech. (2001). Classifying child abusers: Its relevance to theory and clinical practice. International Journal Of Offender Therapy And Comparative Criminology, 45, 51-69.

This is a literature review and theoretical paper that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various systems for classifying child molesters. In citing this study, the FRC says it:

refers to homosexual pedophiles as a "distinct group." The victims of homosexual pedophiles "were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and that they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences.... Other studies [showed a] greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls" and that the "recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders."

In reality, however, the paper was summarizing the findings of other studies, not reporting new data. In the passage excerpted by the FRC, the authors were discussing published papers that used a classification system focusing entirely on the sex of victims (not whether the perpetrator is straight or gay). Here is the complete text (the passages that FRC omitted are highlighted):

"Grubin and Kennedy (1991) reported that when dividing sex offenders based simply on the sex of their victims, offenders against boys stood out as a distinct group. They noted that their victims were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences. Other studies have employed the sex-of-victim approach in the prediction of future risk, with offenders who have sexually abused boys or both boys and girls reported as having more victims and being at greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls only [bibliographic references omitted]. In the nondiagnostic remarks, DSM-IV (APA, 1994) claims that the recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders, and although not demonstrating such a marked difference, Furby,Weinrott, and Blackshaw (1989), in an extensive review of recidivism rates, found that reoffending was higher for male victim offenders. [¶] However, the sex-of-victim distinction has not been consistently found, and contrasting findings have been reported in studies that have demonstrated no differences in recidivism rates between the groups [bibliographic references omitted]. Furthermore, Abel, Becker, Murphy, and Flanagan (1981) found that those child molesters who offended against girls reported more than twice as many victims as those who had offended against boys, a finding contrary to the hypothesized outcome." (p. 56)


8. Jay & Young. (1977). The gay report: Lesbians and gay men speak out about sexual experiences and lifestyles. New York: Summit.

This book, published nearly 30 years ago by a team of writer-activists, is not a scientific study. The authors' survey methodology is not reported in detail and, because it was a journalistic work, the survey was never subjected to scientific peer review.


9. Erickson et al. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86.

This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records of male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital between 1975 and 1984. Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes. (The paper is unclear in that it doesn't explain how perpetrators with multiple victims were counted.) The paper asserts in passing that "Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (p. 83). However, no details are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret. Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described above) indicates is relevant.



In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not support their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders.

jag

[jaguarr]

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

Do Any Studies Claim To Show That Homosexuals Are More Likely To Molest Children?

One individual has claimed to have data that prove homosexuals to be child molesters at a higher rate than heterosexuals. That person is Paul Cameron. As detailed elsewhere on this site, Cameron's survey data are subject to so many methodological flaws as to be virtually meaningless. Even so, his assertions are sometimes quoted by antigay organizations in their attempts to link homosexuality with child sexual abuse.

In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron purported to review published data to answer the question, "Do those who commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their sexual practices?" (p. 1227). He concluded that "at least one-third of the sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual" (p. 1228) and that "those who are bi- to homosexual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth" than are heterosexuals (p. 1231).

Cameron's claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron's paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed.

For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of "heterosexual" (i.e., female victim) to "homosexual" (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that "54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners" (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. The "54%" statistic reported by Cameron doesn't appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation.

It is also noteworthy that, although Cameron assumed that the perpetrators of male-male molestations were all homosexual, he assumed that not all male-female molestations were committed by heterosexuals. He incorporated a "bisexual correction" into his data manipulations to increase further his estimate of the risk posed to children by homosexual/bisexual men.

In the latter half of his paper, Cameron considered whether "homosexual teachers have more frequent sexual interaction with their pupils" (p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of sexual contact between a teacher and pupil reported in ten different sources published between 1920 and 1982, Cameron concluded that "a pupil would appear about 90 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a homosexual practitioner" (p.1232); the ratio rose to 100 times when Cameron added his bisexual correction.

This ratio is meaningless because no data were obtained concerning the actual sexual orientation of the teachers involved; as before, Cameron assumed that male-male contacts were perpetrated by homosexuals. Furthermore, Cameron's rationale for selecting particular sources appears to have been completely arbitrary. He described no systematic method for reviewing the literature, and apparently never reviewed the voluminous literature on the sexual development of children and adolescents. His final choice of sources appears to have slanted his findings toward what Cameron described as "the relative absence in the scientific literature of heterosexual teacher-pupil sexual events coupled with persistent, albeit infrequent, homosexual teacher-pupil sexual interactions" (p. 1232).

A subsequent paper by Cameron and others (Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, & Cameron, 1986) described data collected in a door-to-door survey in seven U.S. cities and towns, and generally repeated the conclusions reached in Cameron (1985). Even Cameron himself admitted that his conclusions in this study are "based upon small numbers of data points" (Cameron, 2005, p. 230). As before, male-male sexual assaults were referred to as "homosexual" molestations (e.g., Abstract, p.327) and the perpetrators' sexual orientation apparently was not assessed. This study also suffers from fatal methodological problems, which are detailed elsewhere on this site.

In yet another article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron claimed to have reviewed data about foster parents in Illinois and found that 34% were perpetrated by a foster parent against a child of the same sex, that is, female-female or male-male (Cameron, 2005). Not only did Cameron again make the fallacious claim that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals, he also made the same claim about female-female molestations. Once again, he had no data about the actual sexual orientations of the molesters.

Cameron continues to produce reports that essentially repeat the same inaccurate claims. Perhaps one of the best indicators of his diminishing credibility in this area is that his work was not cited in the 2004 FRC report discussed in detail above.

jag

[jaguarr]

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

Do Any Studies Claim To Show That Homosexuals Are More Likely To Molest Children?

One individual has claimed to have data that prove homosexuals to be child molesters at a higher rate than heterosexuals. That person is Paul Cameron. As detailed elsewhere on this site, Cameron's survey data are subject to so many methodological flaws as to be virtually meaningless. Even so, his assertions are sometimes quoted by antigay organizations in their attempts to link homosexuality with child sexual abuse.

In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron purported to review published data to answer the question, "Do those who commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their sexual practices?" (p. 1227). He concluded that "at least one-third of the sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual" (p. 1228) and that "those who are bi- to homosexual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth" than are heterosexuals (p. 1231).

Cameron's claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron's paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed.

For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of "heterosexual" (i.e., female victim) to "homosexual" (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that "54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners" (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. The "54%" statistic reported by Cameron doesn't appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation.

It is also noteworthy that, although Cameron assumed that the perpetrators of male-male molestations were all homosexual, he assumed that not all male-female molestations were committed by heterosexuals. He incorporated a "bisexual correction" into his data manipulations to increase further his estimate of the risk posed to children by homosexual/bisexual men.

In the latter half of his paper, Cameron considered whether "homosexual teachers have more frequent sexual interaction with their pupils" (p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of sexual contact between a teacher and pupil reported in ten different sources published between 1920 and 1982, Cameron concluded that "a pupil would appear about 90 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a homosexual practitioner" (p.1232); the ratio rose to 100 times when Cameron added his bisexual correction.

This ratio is meaningless because no data were obtained concerning the actual sexual orientation of the teachers involved; as before, Cameron assumed that male-male contacts were perpetrated by homosexuals. Furthermore, Cameron's rationale for selecting particular sources appears to have been completely arbitrary. He described no systematic method for reviewing the literature, and apparently never reviewed the voluminous literature on the sexual development of children and adolescents. His final choice of sources appears to have slanted his findings toward what Cameron described as "the relative absence in the scientific literature of heterosexual teacher-pupil sexual events coupled with persistent, albeit infrequent, homosexual teacher-pupil sexual interactions" (p. 1232).

A subsequent paper by Cameron and others (Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, & Cameron, 1986) described data collected in a door-to-door survey in seven U.S. cities and towns, and generally repeated the conclusions reached in Cameron (1985). Even Cameron himself admitted that his conclusions in this study are "based upon small numbers of data points" (Cameron, 2005, p. 230). As before, male-male sexual assaults were referred to as "homosexual" molestations (e.g., Abstract, p.327) and the perpetrators' sexual orientation apparently was not assessed. This study also suffers from fatal methodological problems, which are detailed elsewhere on this site.

In yet another article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron claimed to have reviewed data about foster parents in Illinois and found that 34% were perpetrated by a foster parent against a child of the same sex, that is, female-female or male-male (Cameron, 2005). Not only did Cameron again make the fallacious claim that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals, he also made the same claim about female-female molestations. Once again, he had no data about the actual sexual orientations of the molesters.

Cameron continues to produce reports that essentially repeat the same inaccurate claims. Perhaps one of the best indicators of his diminishing credibility in this area is that his work was not cited in the 2004 FRC report discussed in detail above.

jag

[jaguarr]

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

Do Any Studies Claim To Show That Homosexuals Are More Likely To Molest Children?

One individual has claimed to have data that prove homosexuals to be child molesters at a higher rate than heterosexuals. That person is Paul Cameron. As detailed elsewhere on this site, Cameron's survey data are subject to so many methodological flaws as to be virtually meaningless. Even so, his assertions are sometimes quoted by antigay organizations in their attempts to link homosexuality with child sexual abuse.

In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron purported to review published data to answer the question, "Do those who commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their sexual practices?" (p. 1227). He concluded that "at least one-third of the sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual" (p. 1228) and that "those who are bi- to homosexual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth" than are heterosexuals (p. 1231).

Cameron's claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron's paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed.

For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of "heterosexual" (i.e., female victim) to "homosexual" (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that "54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners" (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. The "54%" statistic reported by Cameron doesn't appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation.

It is also noteworthy that, although Cameron assumed that the perpetrators of male-male molestations were all homosexual, he assumed that not all male-female molestations were committed by heterosexuals. He incorporated a "bisexual correction" into his data manipulations to increase further his estimate of the risk posed to children by homosexual/bisexual men.

In the latter half of his paper, Cameron considered whether "homosexual teachers have more frequent sexual interaction with their pupils" (p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of sexual contact between a teacher and pupil reported in ten different sources published between 1920 and 1982, Cameron concluded that "a pupil would appear about 90 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a homosexual practitioner" (p.1232); the ratio rose to 100 times when Cameron added his bisexual correction.

This ratio is meaningless because no data were obtained concerning the actual sexual orientation of the teachers involved; as before, Cameron assumed that male-male contacts were perpetrated by homosexuals. Furthermore, Cameron's rationale for selecting particular sources appears to have been completely arbitrary. He described no systematic method for reviewing the literature, and apparently never reviewed the voluminous literature on the sexual development of children and adolescents. His final choice of sources appears to have slanted his findings toward what Cameron described as "the relative absence in the scientific literature of heterosexual teacher-pupil sexual events coupled with persistent, albeit infrequent, homosexual teacher-pupil sexual interactions" (p. 1232).

A subsequent paper by Cameron and others (Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, & Cameron, 1986) described data collected in a door-to-door survey in seven U.S. cities and towns, and generally repeated the conclusions reached in Cameron (1985). Even Cameron himself admitted that his conclusions in this study are "based upon small numbers of data points" (Cameron, 2005, p. 230). As before, male-male sexual assaults were referred to as "homosexual" molestations (e.g., Abstract, p.327) and the perpetrators' sexual orientation apparently was not assessed. This study also suffers from fatal methodological problems, which are detailed elsewhere on this site.

In yet another article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron claimed to have reviewed data about foster parents in Illinois and found that 34% were perpetrated by a foster parent against a child of the same sex, that is, female-female or male-male (Cameron, 2005). Not only did Cameron again make the fallacious claim that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals, he also made the same claim about female-female molestations. Once again, he had no data about the actual sexual orientations of the molesters.

Cameron continues to produce reports that essentially repeat the same inaccurate claims. Perhaps one of the best indicators of his diminishing credibility in this area is that his work was not cited in the 2004 FRC report discussed in detail above.

jag

[jaguarr]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/tr7388256l7437xh/

A. Nicholas Groth1 and H. Jean Birnbaum1
(1) Forensic Mental Health Program, Harrington Memorial Hospital, 01550 Southbridge, Massachusetts, USA

Abstract A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.

Key words pedophile - homosexual - rape - sexual assault

jag

[jaguarr]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/tr7388256l7437xh/

A. Nicholas Groth1 and H. Jean Birnbaum1
(1) Forensic Mental Health Program, Harrington Memorial Hospital, 01550 Southbridge, Massachusetts, USA

Abstract A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.

Key words pedophile - homosexual - rape - sexual assault

jag

[jaguarr]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/tr7388256l7437xh/

A. Nicholas Groth1 and H. Jean Birnbaum1
(1) Forensic Mental Health Program, Harrington Memorial Hospital, 01550 Southbridge, Massachusetts, USA

Abstract A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.

Key words pedophile - homosexual - rape - sexual assault

jag

[The Senator]

The studies and links provided by Conservapedia are reliable. You know, groups like The American Journal of Public Health, Nursing Clinics of North America, The American Journal of Psychiatry, The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine...But I guess these are all just right-wing fronts, 'cause Conservapedia links to 'em.

Next time try reading the message before shooting the messenger between the eyes, K?

If you are going to provide sources, I suggest you post the articles from the actual sources instead of through conservapedia. That website, like Wikipedia, is known to exaggerate claims it makes. There are links at the end of every statement it makes-- how hard would it be to click on those and provide the actual research findings? That's what I do with Wikipedia, unless I'm looking for a definition or vague information. Specifics, from specific sources, should be reported from the source rather than a proxy website that anyone can edit.

[The Senator]

The studies and links provided by Conservapedia are reliable. You know, groups like The American Journal of Public Health, Nursing Clinics of North America, The American Journal of Psychiatry, The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine...But I guess these are all just right-wing fronts, 'cause Conservapedia links to 'em.

Next time try reading the message before shooting the messenger between the eyes, K?

If you are going to provide sources, I suggest you post the articles from the actual sources instead of through conservapedia. That website, like Wikipedia, is known to exaggerate claims it makes. There are links at the end of every statement it makes-- how hard would it be to click on those and provide the actual research findings? That's what I do with Wikipedia, unless I'm looking for a definition or vague information. Specifics, from specific sources, should be reported from the source rather than a proxy website that anyone can edit.

[The Senator]

The studies and links provided by Conservapedia are reliable. You know, groups like The American Journal of Public Health, Nursing Clinics of North America, The American Journal of Psychiatry, The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine...But I guess these are all just right-wing fronts, 'cause Conservapedia links to 'em.

Next time try reading the message before shooting the messenger between the eyes, K?

If you are going to provide sources, I suggest you post the articles from the actual sources instead of through conservapedia. That website, like Wikipedia, is known to exaggerate claims it makes. There are links at the end of every statement it makes-- how hard would it be to click on those and provide the actual research findings? That's what I do with Wikipedia, unless I'm looking for a definition or vague information. Specifics, from specific sources, should be reported from the source rather than a proxy website that anyone can edit.

[The Senator]

Statistics can often be manipulated, and when you are reporting statistics from a conservative think tank, they will be manipulated in a manner which will support the causes they are for. Just like if you took stats from a Democratic think tank, they would be manipulated in a manner to reflect liberal causes. None of these statistics mean a goddamn thing to me.

There are sick, disgusting people in the world, and if you base your opinion on all people from one demographic based on a statistic, you prove just how much of a moron you are, and how you cannot be taken seriously. Especially something as disturbing as child molestation or domestic abuse.

That would be like if I said all people from the South are a bunch of racist, gun-toting psycho-Christians because stats show more people from the South are racist, own guns, and belong to evangelical religions.

[The Senator]

Statistics can often be manipulated, and when you are reporting statistics from a conservative think tank, they will be manipulated in a manner which will support the causes they are for. Just like if you took stats from a Democratic think tank, they would be manipulated in a manner to reflect liberal causes. None of these statistics mean a goddamn thing to me.

There are sick, disgusting people in the world, and if you base your opinion on all people from one demographic based on a statistic, you prove just how much of a moron you are, and how you cannot be taken seriously. Especially something as disturbing as child molestation or domestic abuse.

That would be like if I said all people from the South are a bunch of racist, gun-toting psycho-Christians because stats show more people from the South are racist, own guns, and belong to evangelical religions.

[The Senator]

Statistics can often be manipulated, and when you are reporting statistics from a conservative think tank, they will be manipulated in a manner which will support the causes they are for. Just like if you took stats from a Democratic think tank, they would be manipulated in a manner to reflect liberal causes. None of these statistics mean a goddamn thing to me.

There are sick, disgusting people in the world, and if you base your opinion on all people from one demographic based on a statistic, you prove just how much of a moron you are, and how you cannot be taken seriously. Especially something as disturbing as child molestation or domestic abuse.

That would be like if I said all people from the South are a bunch of racist, gun-toting psycho-Christians because stats show more people from the South are racist, own guns, and belong to evangelical religions.

[The Chairman]

Well, this thread has certainly grown since it first began!

Anyway, my basic view is people are people, and that everyone, regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation, should be guaranteed the same rights. To keep gay marriage illegal violates the very ideals this nation was founded on, mostly due to self righteous fanaticism, close minded prejudice, or simple fear of change from the thing you were brought up to recognize as normal.

I think gay rights (meaning equal marriage, adoption and social security benefits) should be totally legalized and allowed.

[The Chairman]

Well, this thread has certainly grown since it first began!

Anyway, my basic view is people are people, and that everyone, regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation, should be guaranteed the same rights. To keep gay marriage illegal violates the very ideals this nation was founded on, mostly due to self righteous fanaticism, close minded prejudice, or simple fear of change from the thing you were brought up to recognize as normal.

I think gay rights (meaning equal marriage, adoption and social security benefits) should be totally legalized and allowed.

[The Chairman]

Well, this thread has certainly grown since it first began!

Anyway, my basic view is people are people, and that everyone, regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation, should be guaranteed the same rights. To keep gay marriage illegal violates the very ideals this nation was founded on, mostly due to self righteous fanaticism, close minded prejudice, or simple fear of change from the thing you were brought up to recognize as normal.

I think gay rights (meaning equal marriage, adoption and social security benefits) should be totally legalized and allowed.

[MaskedManJRK]

Y'know, I'm surprised Lazur and other people against gays having the right to adopt didn't address JLBat's post about other influences for children.

The problem with children being raised by a gay couple not having the "other gender influence" is that children aren't raised in a vaccum (I would make a Utah joke here, but I'm trying to be above that). Besides the parents themselves, kids are influenced by their parent's family and friends, their teachers, even characters from forms of entertainment. So, it's not IMPOSSIBLE to get both sides from a single-sex couple, just slightly different.

Also, here's my basic problem with not allowing gays rights: It's ultimately against the Constitution.

Now, you might be asking, "How? Homosexuality is never mentioned in the Constitution!" Well, there's one amendment, not often talked about, but, IMHO, very important. It is the Ninth Amendment, and it goes like this:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Now, what this could be summed up to mean is that just because a right is not mentioned inside of the Constitution, it does not mean that the right does not exist and should be ignored or denied. While it is against them that they didn't think about this about the whole slavery thing, but the words are in there nonetheless.

In essence, same-sex couples being able to get married or adopt or basically live the same way as straight couples do is protected by the Constitution because it says that the government cannot deny rights because it isn't in the Constitution.

This why that, IMHO, that people who do not believe that the GLBT community shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else is ultimately Un-American.

[MaskedManJRK]

Y'know, I'm surprised Lazur and other people against gays having the right to adopt didn't address JLBat's post about other influences for children.

The problem with children being raised by a gay couple not having the "other gender influence" is that children aren't raised in a vaccum (I would make a Utah joke here, but I'm trying to be above that). Besides the parents themselves, kids are influenced by their parent's family and friends, their teachers, even characters from forms of entertainment. So, it's not IMPOSSIBLE to get both sides from a single-sex couple, just slightly different.

Also, here's my basic problem with not allowing gays rights: It's ultimately against the Constitution.

Now, you might be asking, "How? Homosexuality is never mentioned in the Constitution!" Well, there's one amendment, not often talked about, but, IMHO, very important. It is the Ninth Amendment, and it goes like this:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Now, what this could be summed up to mean is that just because a right is not mentioned inside of the Constitution, it does not mean that the right does not exist and should be ignored or denied. While it is against them that they didn't think about this about the whole slavery thing, but the words are in there nonetheless.

In essence, same-sex couples being able to get married or adopt or basically live the same way as straight couples do is protected by the Constitution because it says that the government cannot deny rights because it isn't in the Constitution.

This why that, IMHO, that people who do not believe that the GLBT community shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else is ultimately Un-American.

[MaskedManJRK]

Y'know, I'm surprised Lazur and other people against gays having the right to adopt didn't address JLBat's post about other influences for children.

The problem with children being raised by a gay couple not having the "other gender influence" is that children aren't raised in a vaccum (I would make a Utah joke here, but I'm trying to be above that). Besides the parents themselves, kids are influenced by their parent's family and friends, their teachers, even characters from forms of entertainment. So, it's not IMPOSSIBLE to get both sides from a single-sex couple, just slightly different.

Also, here's my basic problem with not allowing gays rights: It's ultimately against the Constitution.

Now, you might be asking, "How? Homosexuality is never mentioned in the Constitution!" Well, there's one amendment, not often talked about, but, IMHO, very important. It is the Ninth Amendment, and it goes like this:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Now, what this could be summed up to mean is that just because a right is not mentioned inside of the Constitution, it does not mean that the right does not exist and should be ignored or denied. While it is against them that they didn't think about this about the whole slavery thing, but the words are in there nonetheless.

In essence, same-sex couples being able to get married or adopt or basically live the same way as straight couples do is protected by the Constitution because it says that the government cannot deny rights because it isn't in the Constitution.

This why that, IMHO, that people who do not believe that the GLBT community shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else is ultimately Un-American.

[JLBats]

Y'know, I'm surprised Lazur and other people against gays having the right to adopt didn't address JLBat's post about other influences for children.

Thank you.

Vindicated. Tonight I sleep the sleep of the just. Wooo.

[JLBats]

Y'know, I'm surprised Lazur and other people against gays having the right to adopt didn't address JLBat's post about other influences for children.

Thank you.

Vindicated. Tonight I sleep the sleep of the just. Wooo.

[JLBats]

Y'know, I'm surprised Lazur and other people against gays having the right to adopt didn't address JLBat's post about other influences for children.

Thank you.

Vindicated. Tonight I sleep the sleep of the just. Wooo.

[ForestAflame]

In essence, same-sex couples being able to get married or adopt or basically live the same way as straight couples do is protected by the Constitution because it says that the government cannot deny rights because it isn't in the Constitution.

This why that, IMHO, that people who do not believe that the GLBT community shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else is ultimately Un-American.


I don't think it's a "right" to get married to someone of the same sex. It's more like a crime.

Do I believe the GLBT should have the same rights as everyone else?
Sure. Do I believe they should twist the law and the Constitution based on their sexual preferences? No. I find such distortion Un-American.

[ForestAflame]

In essence, same-sex couples being able to get married or adopt or basically live the same way as straight couples do is protected by the Constitution because it says that the government cannot deny rights because it isn't in the Constitution.

This why that, IMHO, that people who do not believe that the GLBT community shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else is ultimately Un-American.


I don't think it's a "right" to get married to someone of the same sex. It's more like a crime.

Do I believe the GLBT should have the same rights as everyone else?
Sure. Do I believe they should twist the law and the Constitution based on their sexual preferences? No. I find such distortion Un-American.

[ForestAflame]

In essence, same-sex couples being able to get married or adopt or basically live the same way as straight couples do is protected by the Constitution because it says that the government cannot deny rights because it isn't in the Constitution.

This why that, IMHO, that people who do not believe that the GLBT community shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else is ultimately Un-American.


I don't think it's a "right" to get married to someone of the same sex. It's more like a crime.

Do I believe the GLBT should have the same rights as everyone else?
Sure. Do I believe they should twist the law and the Constitution based on their sexual preferences? No. I find such distortion Un-American.

[The Senator]

I take ForestAflame just said something awful, correct?

[The Senator]

I take ForestAflame just said something awful, correct?

[The Senator]

I take ForestAflame just said something awful, correct?

[Marx]

I don't think it's a "right" to get married to someone of the same sex. It's more like a crime.

Do I believe the GLBT should have the same rights as everyone else?
Sure. Do I believe they should twist the law and the Constitution based on their sexual preferences? No. I find such distortion Un-American.

So which is it ForestAflame? You cannot have it both ways. You claim to 'support' gay rights but one of the main rights being fought for...you see as criminal?


I take ForestAflame just said something awful, correct?

Yes, and it's highly teeing me off.

[Marx]

I don't think it's a "right" to get married to someone of the same sex. It's more like a crime.

Do I believe the GLBT should have the same rights as everyone else?
Sure. Do I believe they should twist the law and the Constitution based on their sexual preferences? No. I find such distortion Un-American.

So which is it ForestAflame? You cannot have it both ways. You claim to 'support' gay rights but one of the main rights being fought for...you see as criminal?


I take ForestAflame just said something awful, correct?

Yes, and it's highly teeing me off.

[Marx]

I don't think it's a "right" to get married to someone of the same sex. It's more like a crime.

Do I believe the GLBT should have the same rights as everyone else?
Sure. Do I believe they should twist the law and the Constitution based on their sexual preferences? No. I find such distortion Un-American.

So which is it ForestAflame? You cannot have it both ways. You claim to 'support' gay rights but one of the main rights being fought for...you see as criminal?


I take ForestAflame just said something awful, correct?

Yes, and it's highly teeing me off.

[lazur]

Originally Posted by TheGreenMeanie View Post
I guess that would be best, because then the kids can see some of the great things all the straight people have brought to marriage and families. Such as divorce...

..domestic abuse (verbal and physical, both if you're lucky), chance of molestation, neglect...

Got news for you. The 'nuclear' family consisting of a mother, father and their children is the foundation of all humankind. Whether or not YOU consider it to be a poor example of 'family' is completely irrelevant. You cannot wipe out thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years of evolutionary and/or creative design just because it may be 'politically correct' to do so at this insignificant fraction of time during the existence of humanity.

Gay marriage - fine. Gay adoption when a 'nuclear' family is available - no.

[lazur]

Originally Posted by TheGreenMeanie View Post
I guess that would be best, because then the kids can see some of the great things all the straight people have brought to marriage and families. Such as divorce...

..domestic abuse (verbal and physical, both if you're lucky), chance of molestation, neglect...

Got news for you. The 'nuclear' family consisting of a mother, father and their children is the foundation of all humankind. Whether or not YOU consider it to be a poor example of 'family' is completely irrelevant. You cannot wipe out thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years of evolutionary and/or creative design just because it may be 'politically correct' to do so at this insignificant fraction of time during the existence of humanity.

Gay marriage - fine. Gay adoption when a 'nuclear' family is available - no.

[lazur]

Originally Posted by TheGreenMeanie View Post
I guess that would be best, because then the kids can see some of the great things all the straight people have brought to marriage and families. Such as divorce...

..domestic abuse (verbal and physical, both if you're lucky), chance of molestation, neglect...

Got news for you. The 'nuclear' family consisting of a mother, father and their children is the foundation of all humankind. Whether or not YOU consider it to be a poor example of 'family' is completely irrelevant. You cannot wipe out thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years of evolutionary and/or creative design just because it may be 'politically correct' to do so at this insignificant fraction of time during the existence of humanity.

Gay marriage - fine. Gay adoption when a 'nuclear' family is available - no.