"Who woulda ever thunk it?!"
Posted on 10/12/2007 8:01:24 AM PDT by yankeesdoodle
A survey of news stories in seven English-speaking countries conducted by the Family Research Institute shows that incidents of teacher-pupil sex are most often perpetrated by male homosexual teachers. Overall, 43 percent of teachers who made the news for having sex with their pupils over the last 27 years were homosexual.
Homosexual teachers violated 1,925 (56 percent) of the 3,457 pupil-victims. Women were 11 percent of perpetrators, but a heterosexual female teacher was least apt to have sex with pupils, Christian Newswire reported Thursday.
Lexis-Nexis was searched from 1980 through 2006 uncovering 902 teachers who had sex with pupils. Teachers who engaged in homosexuality constituted 63 percent of perpetrators in Ireland, 62 percent in New Zealand, 60 percent in Canada, 54 percent in Scotland, 48 percent in Australia, 47 percent in England and 35 percent in the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at religionandspirituality.com ...
It's kind of like illegal aliens are criminals because they are ILLEGAL aliens.
We know homosexuals have some mental illness simply because they are homosexual. Homosexuality IS a mental illness.
This was posted as a rebuttle to Caerons research on www.space.com under there FreeSpace forum, you have to register to view that forum though:
“Intersting, interesting...Well now...it appears that I’ve found the hole in the statistical argument used.
Basically, I took each separate grouping and calculated the 95% confidence intervals on the sample of each group. Here are the statistics on it:
Hetero
One Sample, Mean: t
Details Data Input Results
- Confidence Interval: Two sided Confidence Level % 95.0% Sample Mean 3.86
- Numerical Variable Sample Size, n 11 Standard Error 0.567
- Source: Summary Measures Sample Mean, XBar 3.86 t +/- 2.228
Sample SD, s 1.88 df 10
95% Interval: m
- From: 2.597
- To: 5.123
Homo
One Sample, Mean: t
Details Data Input Results
- Confidence Interval: Two sided Confidence Level % 95.0% Sample Mean 5.03
- Numerical Variable Sample Size, n 11 Standard Error 0.289
- Source: Summary Measures Sample Mean, XBar 5.03 t +/- 2.228
Sample SD, s 0.96 df 10
95% Interval: m
- From: 4.385
- To: 5.675
Basically what I found is that there is a 95% probability that the true mean abuses of Straight abusers is between 2.597 and 5.123.
The 95% confidence interval of Homosexual abusers is between 4.385 and 5.675.
Now, taking the raw statistics at face value where “Homosexual” abusers abuse the same sex and “Straight” abusers abuse the opposite sex (which I don’t agree with that assumption to begin with), this means that the argument that Homosexuals abuse more than Heteros is bogus if using the data set provided.
Additionally, there is a very large standard deviation of the straight data set, which implies that there either is not enough data in the set, or that the set has problems.
I love busting arguments...LMAO...”
Can someone qualified with statistics please analyse this rebuttle and let me know if it’s correct?
Thanks,
Facts are mean-spirited
homosexuals ARE disproportionately more prone to molest children.
I think this post refers to teacher-student sex, not the population at large where most pedophiles are straight family members or are individuals close to the family of the molested children. Considering this I think the above text segment makes erroneousor assumptions and at the least, misleading.
Pedophiles are in a class by themselves. They may not admit to being either gay or straight but the study may draw a conclusion erroneously from the sex act itself and the sex of the individuals involved. Does this study group consider a married straight family man homosexual if he molests a male child even if the abuser will not admit to being homosexual?? I’d like to see more data and learn more about the study’s methodology.
What do you mean by that?
"Who woulda ever thunk it?!"
I tried to be careful to distinguish that from other pathologies, as a different debate. This is why I also noted that it is very common for homosexuals to have physical complaints and defects that are clearly removed from their sexuality—but ironically are sometimes twinned with it.
And, I might also add that “illegal aliens” are not actually “illegal”, first because unlawfully crossing the border is only a prosecutable misdemeanor if you are observed doing it—it cannot be legally assumed, even though it is obvious that you had to illegally cross the border. And on top of that, unauthorized residency in the US is not a crime at all, it is a civil offense.
So the only true “illegal aliens” are individuals who have been banned from re-entry into the US. This is the one serious felony crime associated with unlawful entry or residence other than trafficking, and such banned people can receive up to a maximum 20 years in federal prison for that crime.
“most pedophiles are straight family members or are individuals close to the family of the molested children.”
What I was trying to clarify is to debunk the meme of the homosexual activists that they don’t tend towards pedophilia. But the statistics show that indeed even though homosexuals account for 2-3% of the population, they commit a much higher (disproportionate) number of molestations. So just mathematically, any homosexual that you meet or know of, has a much much higher chance of being a child molester than any single heterosexual. Because there are vastly more heterosexuals in the population, the homosexual activists try to use that number, but it doesn’t equate.
The primary fault with your "logical" statistical model/argument is that you presume sexual orientation to be a scientifically objectively proved factor. I read the study to be based upon the sexual act alone regardless of what sexual orientation the reported predators may claim to "feel" they are... In essence, male on male sex is by default a homosexual act AND implies by default an objectively proved state of homosexual orientation at a minimum while the predatory act was perpetrated...
SO -assuming ALL cases reported are normally distributed (hence proportionally equal) then one would expect to see an equal number of male on -> female, female on -> male, female on -> female, and male on -> male sexual predations. This study correctly points out the obvious, which is (when normalized based upon the accepted "sexual orientation" distribution within society), that homosexual males present the greatest predation danger to young boys... In summary it is dangerous and quite stupid to consider homosexual coaches, babysitters, boy scout leaders, etcetera to be on par with heterosexual boy scout leaders etcetera etcetera....
I don't know what you are implying by "physical," but as for psychological pathologies, they has been extensively researched and validated. Homosexuals have elevated rates of depression, character disorder, substance abuse and suicide, and these have not gone down as "gay lifestyle" acceptance has spread.
Whoever told you such variables were "definitely un-researched" was "definitely" blowing smoke up your butt.
I can’t tell what the data is a score of. The t-test is based on the assumptions of the binomial distribution and the normal curve, and assumes continuous variables. If you are dealing with a binary score (eg, “molest/didn’t molest) then you are using the wrong test. You need a nonparametric measure. Also, your sample size is really too small for a t-test. Try a chi square.
Further surprise findings:
1. The sun rose, today.
2. A bear excreted in the woods.
3. The Vatican is controlled by Catholics.
“homosexuals ARE disproportionately more prone to molest children.”
That’s why we should let them be boy scout leaders, right?
Not my model, first of all DBeers. It was a quote from Space Dot Com, where some statistical phenom (self declared) decided to attribute a 95% distribution Level to the sample, and then showed that the Intervals overlapped, which in-theory invalidates, or causes suspicion on the accuracy of the sampling. Intervals should not overlap, but one thing I did find when researching statistics is, that the distance between intervals, indicates the likelihood of “That” sample-category’s conclusions apply with a great deal of certainty to the unknown sample, from which Cameron, in this case, was essentially asserting with his conclusions that male teachers abuse more.
I’m inclined to agree with Cameron, BUT, agreeing with him is difficult as I wish others not so agenized would repeat the same research as to give some modicum of credibility to the numbers! I argued that the data is the only thing worth looking at, NOT the researcher, (Cameron in this case) but that was met with (arguably valid criticism) a great deal of skepticism from the passers-by. I countered with the fact that only those that have diametrically different theories on the nature of homosexuality, and pedophilia, and any possible link would dare conduct research in this way. This is a valid rebut in my opinion, as anyone that has a brain can see that research, ANY, research into anything remotely negative about the nature of homosexuality is simply NOT being done by the 90% of leftist academia.. It simply is not on their radar. To do so, would mean to actually acknowledge that the data does not mesh with the institutional establishments political agenda on homosexuality.
Further, it has become completely clear to me that whenever homosexuality has been linked to a higher incidence an d suggested prevalence to pedophilia, we see two arguments in opposition from the left. The first argument is that of pedophilia, not being about sex? This is the most illogical and empirically invalid argument I have ever seen, and serves as proof of the establishments unwillingness to accept observation and common sense. They say things like, pedophilia is about power and control, and in no way adheres to any sexual motivation of the adult individual? This is blatantly poor deductive reasoning, IMO. Sex, relationships, perhaps everything we do as humans is about some degree and level of power and control. All things being equal, the varying and seemingly arbitrary ways in which the establishment chooses to place measurable levels of power and control as applied simply to the modifier of the victims age, is a non sequitur. Biology doesn’t work that way, and even if we assume that it did, then we’d, or I should say the gay agenda would completely invalidate the entire premise of sexual orientation theory to begin with. If something so mundane and inconsequential as someone’s arbitrary age is a modifier for sexual attraction or action, then being born gay, or a pedophile or even a heterosexual (As pit against the backdrop of sexual orientation theory of which I am not a supporting member as I believe that everyone is a biological and for the most part physiological heterosexual) seems completely illogical, and entirely contrived - meaning essentially that the gay agenda can’t have it both ways.
Secondly, the other argument coming out of the nay sayer’s, is that men who have sex with male children are not gay, and can have adult heterosexual relationships; and that the sex with the same sex child is indicative of the “power” aspect (see above) and that the simple act of sex does not a homosexual make? I find this argument completely ridiculous! Notwithstanding, extreme exceptions, like jail and the like, if the act of sex with an individual does not define ones sexual identity, then what is it? What is it psychologically, biologically, and sociologically? I’d also mention that although this is true that “some” adult men who’ve had sex with children are in adult heterosexual relationships, it IS the left dong and arguing the way the left always does – they are essentially highlighting the extreme exception to the general rule, and applying it universally across the entire human platform. Sloppy, and also invalid to any self-respecting scientist! The exception to the rule, if in the extreme, and especially so, should always be tossed out of the equation when trying to formulate a hypothesis that can lead to valid conclusions; even if the conclusions are corollary only.
Thirdly, the left tries to appeal to the “so what” factor, they say things like – “Even if it were true, clearly not all homosexual men abuse boys, what shall we do with them” This is a valid statement, what should we do if it turns out that male homosexuals have a disproportionate incidence, or likelihood to commit child abuse? The answer is awareness, it allows us, or those dealing in the business of children and child safety, to become more heightened to the potential danger of a male homosexual around those children. Schools, clearly, school employees who rarely go through the same level of scrutiny on back-ground checks, Boy Scouts, and essentially anywhere there are children, YOUR children, this kind of precursory information can be helpful, and may force our Government to remove ones sexual orientation from that of protected class to that of suspect class. Not guilty to be sure, but suspect indeed!
The foundation of discrimination law in the United States is based on one main central test. Reasonableness! It’s ok to discriminate (legally) if the source of discrimination is reasonable, meaning under the same conditions is it reasonable that others in the same position would react, or act the same way? Is it reasonable that if someone could prove that homosexual men are 450 times more likely to abuse your child under the same circumstances, is it reasonable for you as the parent to question the intimate nature and access rights any ONE individual might have to your child? I think so, and I think many other would as well. Is it reasonable to ask the sexual orientation of a prospective employee that would have unsecured access to children? I think so, if the data is correct, and up until this point I see no reason to assume the numbers are wrong. We can argue definitions all day long – we can argue semantics till we are blue in the face, but the fundamental, and basic and common sense application of sex and sexual orientation is not, and should NOT be cluttered by anyone in the social sciences trying to muddy the waters of sane and clear-headed thinking. For the sake of the children we NEED to get this one correct. It should not involve political agenda’s or ideologies, Period!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.