Another missing post

[_Droopy]

Because you suck giant sweaty hairy donkey balls.

This is a new fetish that I've not yet heard of. Is it represented in the DSM-IV? You shouldn't throw stuff like this about in this forum, equality, as there are some people here who are liable to take this very seriously.

[_Droopy]

Bc. This also seems to have happened to all your posts on the threads discussing Romney's recent foreign trip and his diplomatic 'foot in mouth' incidents....

You mean such as telling the naked, unalloyed truth about the Arab Muslim world, and its present intellectual, moral, and civilizational state, rather then engaging in vapid, cowardly multiculturalist platitudes?

[_Darth J]

I gave you the facts, but you won't read them because you are a total dumbass. And a bigot. and the facts don't support your bigotry, so you try to make up your own. Because you suck giant sweaty hairy donkey balls.

Can you give an example?

Let's just have a zen moment to contemplate bcspace's response, shall we?

[_DarkHelmet]

I'm sorry that you are not educated or informed enough to engage in a thoughtful, evidence and logic based discussion on this issue.

There is a huge statistical correlation between male homosexuality and pedophilia, and a very well known one, and a fetish for very young, underage boys, known as "chicken" in Gay parlance, is a long established element within the male homosexual subculture.

Maybe you should stay away from this place for a while and do some reading.

You must be referring to the debunked claim from the Family Research Center. Why do Mormon apologists cling to these wacky right-wing theories? That is a correlation I would like to see studied. You guys love to be on the right-wing fringes of society.

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....
.
.
.
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.

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.

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

[_Droopy]

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1985-25630-001

http://books.google.com/books?id=sUkVDA ... 2C&f=false

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3 ... 0955417493

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10983250

http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/h ... use-cases/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 9pdstm.asp

http://www.wnd.com/2000/11/3081/

[_Droopy]

You must be referring to the debunked claim from the Family Research Center. Why do Mormon apologists cling to these wacky right-wing theories? That is a correlation I would like to see studied. You guys love to be on the right-wing fringes of society.

Its never been debunked by any further serious scholarship. Indeed, if it had, the debunking would have reached across a number of other empirical studies, which are quite clear about the huge disproportion. I think you're confusing the term "debunk" with the term "challenged," as in "challenged by other studies." All the professional journal sources I've linked to show strong disproportion in the prevalence of homoerotic attraction to underage boys among male homosexuals relative to heterosexual pedophilia.

I have long understood, however, that the forces of self censorship in the name of trendy politically correct shibboleths within the social sciences in this, and some other areas, are so strong that it surprises me not at all that there is tremendous resistance in the "social science" community to straightforward empirical truths (inconvenient truths?) that to not comport well with what the truth is desired to be.

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.

Actually, in point of fact, it does.

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.

You need to actually read the links I've posted, and re-think your emotion/psychology based, politically correct cheerleading for the present leftist cause of the moment. The evidence is in here, and has been for some time. Reisman's content analysis of The Queen's Vernacular is very enlightening.

[_DarkHelmet]

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1985-25630-001

http://books.google.com/books?id=sUkVDA ... 2C&f=false

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3 ... 0955417493

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10983250

http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/h ... use-cases/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 9pdstm.asp

http://www.wnd.com/2000/11/3081/

Again I ask, why the need to cling to these fringe right-wing theories? Come on, WorldNetDaily? Really? The google book you cited isn't a fringe right-wing book, but I couldn't find anything in it that supported your claim. You need to turn off Rush Limbaugh, put down your right-wing magazine, and go out and meet some gay men. You would be surprised that they actually don't run around with permanent boners trying to hump everything they see.

[_bcspace]

Can you give an example?

Let's just have a zen moment to contemplate bcspace's response, shall we?

Darth J must be suffering from some sort of up/down dyslexia as it was I who asked the question.

[_schreech]

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1985-25630-001

http://books.google.com/books?id=sUkVDA ... 2C&f=false

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3 ... 0955417493

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10983250

http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/h ... use-cases/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 9pdstm.asp

http://www.wnd.com/2000/11/3081/

Its almost as if you have a bookmark folder that you fill with links to articles from the right wing rags you read with the words "homosexual" and "pedophilia" in them. Its obvious you don't actually read the articles and that you are just waiting for the words "homosexual" and "pedophilia" to show up in a thread so you can share your uninformed bigotry with the rest of us.

OR....

You just googled - "Scholarly articles for Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse"...Yep! that's it. Good elohim, you are pathetic...

[_Droopy]

Again I ask, why the need to cling to these fringe right-wing theories? Come on, WorldNetDaily? Really?

There's nothing wrong with WND. Its a Internet newspaper that develops and reports stories just like the "mainstream" media has always done, and its been doing for that media what that media long ago abandoned: telling all sides of the story and allowing all of the facts/evidence to speak for itself in comparison and contrast with other facts/interpretations.

The other point to be made is that, unlike the leftist mainstream media, WND's bias is worn on its sleeve. We all know it has a conservative editorial and interpretational lens. The mainstream media has always, and still attempts to hide its bias (and homogenous intellectual and cultural milieu) behind a smokescreen of denial, and that's the main difference, not the bias itself.

What really needs to be said here is, "CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN...really???!!!" That's the reality, the stark reality that these traditional mainstrem news sources haven't had intellectual credibility for decades, and virtually nothing of any real import that comes from them can be trusted without extensive outside reading and fact-checking.

The google book you cited isn't a fringe right-wing book, but I couldn't find anything in it that supported your claim. You need to turn off Rush Limbaugh, put down your right-wing magazine, and go out and meet some gay men. You would be surprised that they actually don't run around with permanent boners trying to hump everything they see.

I've known and worked with numerous male homosexuals. I was friends, for a time, with a bi-sexual individual. Life brings many various and interesting things as it progresses.