Report - Pedophilia more common among "gays"

Funny, even in 2002, studies and reports suggest that gays commit more acts of pedophilia, than straights....


yet on PF.com.... I thought that was debunked?


and whenever acts occur within the Church.... it's never described as GAY PEDOPHILIA, media portrays it as 'abuse within the church'

here's another interesting note. A suggestion that Preists often think they are gay (not a sin), so they enter into priesthood (because they are to be celibate) to avoid the sins of gay sex

so the thought... not a sin... the act... a sin.


but what we have is man falling short in temptation.... they commit gay pedophillia because the temptation is too great for them to avoid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholic_priests


But what that creates is more gay pedos....

 

Excellent, albeit disturbing, fact-filled OP.

Those of us who live normal sex-lives want to help those who choose the deviant sexual lifestyle.

We do not want to punish them. But, it does nobody any good to try and sugar coat the problem of HIV with homosexuals, the high occurrence of pedophilia committed by homosexuals as well as the suicide rate. It is obvious that counseling and compassion are needed, not encouragement and enabling.

 

Still trying to peddle WND's take on pedophilia?

Going to quote Stormfront next?

Are you so desperate to attack homosexuals that you would go with such blatantly anti-homosexual sources?

Let me ask you- do you care about child molestation if you cannot label it homosexual?

 

Jeff

nobody is "attacking" homosexuals by posting facts. In fact, most of us want to see homosexuals get the help that they need. Why the high suicide rate? Why the high rate of homosexual pedophilia? Why live a lifestyle that results in HIV and other infectious diseases? It's like people who cut themselves or have anorexia.

Obviously, help is needed and we must try and understand why they make the harmful choices that they do and what treatments can be provided to help.

 

Excellent post. Honest and accurate.

 

Absolutely.

None of the people attacking homosexuals are posting facts.

Instead they look for partisan websites that promote partisan 'studies'.

No different than listing Stormfront as a source for a paper 'proving that blacks are killers"

 

If you want a reputation for posting facts, why don't you link to the report rather than some biased article written (at the time) before the report was even published? Have you even read the report yourself? Was it peer reviewed or published by a reputable organisation?

 

because your definition of biased revolves around a site that supports your version of the truth....


anything that casts an unfavorable light on the gay agenda is simply dismissed as biased.

- - - Updated - - -

says the man who loves wikipedia and thinks it's a credible source... lol

 

No, my definition of biased revolves around the dictionary. Your assumption that I have a "version of the truth" is going to cause you problems here.

Nothing to do with any "gay agenda" whatever that might be, it's about what was actually written in the article.

You forgot to answer my questions by the way.

 

well, here's a .gov source for you that suggests gays are 11:1 odds more likely to commit pedophilia than heterosexuals....


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

is .gov biased? is it peer reviewed enough for you? or are you looking for a site that all find all the peers to agree with YOUR beliefs

 

Maybe it's because people don't have the time or inclination to chase you around every thread you post on essentially the same subject.

Most of the points you raise here have been covered in your other thread (not to mention a bazzilion more by other posters) about the child molesting teacher. Why go over them again and again?

 

Read on friend

As did everyone without an agenda.

Also in the study: "The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners".

Meaning that the self-identified individuals exhibiting same sex attraction (much lower than the actual percentage) representing 10% - 20% of the population [smithsonian][gallup] commit 9% of the child sex crimes would show that the number of offenses is equal to the heterosexual counterparts.

Why can't we just remove child abusers from society and stop talking about their orientation - it distracts from the entire conversation.

 

LOL....no....it amuses me that you keep making that lie, when you are quoting WND.

Wiki is not by itself credible- but it can lead any of us to verifiable sources that are credible- Wiki is only a first place to start looking- it by itself is not a verifiable source.

But its okay if you want to keep lying about me.

 

Have you even read this abstract?

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

Let us repeat that last line once again

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

and of course this claim of yours

well, here's a .gov source for you that suggests gays are 11:1 odds more likely to commit pedophilia than heterosexuals...

>>>Off Topic Removed<<<

 

No, it says the ratio of male paedophiles who target male victims and male paedophiles who target female victims is 11:1. The abstract very specifically states "This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.".

Yes, that is a much better source of information. This still isn't about my beliefs though.

 

These two guys aren't convincing anybody. The so called "facts" they post are known assumptions and most of the world is to intelligent to fall for it.

I would say don't even post on these kinds of threads they are in the wrong forum.

 

That is the best part, when their link proves them wrong.

 

I'd like the original poster to clarify why the supposed correlation between gays and pedophiles proves that homosexuality actually causes pedophilia. The answer is, it doesn't. Correlation (which has not even been proven in this case, based on the information presented) does not always equal causation.

 

Seriously- if that wasn't allowed, you wouldn't be able to make any posts.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

Gays are more prone to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.... at an 11:1 ratio.


.gov website....

 

You're still misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) those statistics. In simple terms, they say;

For every 1 male child victim, there are 2 female child victims.

For every 1 androphile (person attracted to adult males), there are 20 gynephiles (person attracted to adult females). It says general population but from context, I suspect it's general population of adult males.

For every 1 paedophile who targets males, there are 11 paedophiles who target females.

They conclude from this that a disproportionate number of paedophiles are attracted to males but they explicitly state that it doesn't follow that men attracted to adult men are more likely to abuse children.

 

Conveniently leave out the line that destroys your claims all for the anti gay agenda. Got to protect that don't you.

So you are reduced to lying to push your agenda?

 

I don't know whether you are just lying now, or just unable to understand the abstract you keep citing- but your claim is false either way

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

"the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1"

To help you understand the context here, I have put in Blue the related terms. The ratio of heterosexual pedophiles(not heterosexuals) to homosexual pedophiles(not homosexuals) is 11:1- meaning that there are 11 heterosexual pedophiles for every 1 homosexual pedophiles.

No where does this abstract say what you keep saying it says.

The last line of the abstract of course is what you continually ignore:

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

So to recap:
Your claim is false.
You don't understand the abstract you keep citing
If you make the same claim again- after I have shown how this is incorrect, I will just point out the lie.

 

No, he is purposely omitting that and reporting the data as to skew the reader. It's under handed and dishonest. But anything to protect and justify his prejudice.

He will refuse to understand because he does not like the truth or what the study really says.

But do not stop confronting his absurdity with truth.