"Hey, I resemble that remark."
They’re only doing it at school because they’re not allowed to be parents.
There’s a shock.....
Wow. Considering they make up around 2-4% of the population at large, these are huge numbers.
"Hey, I resemble that remark."
"Hey, I resemble that remark."
ping
First paragraph - "43 percent of teachers who made the news for having sex with their pupils over the last 27 years were homosexual."
Must be the new math.
"Gay Adoption and Parental Choice" In some states, gay couples can adopt children.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1910292/posts
Gay male teachers and young boy students. Kind of like the fox in the hiney house.
Allowing homosexuals to teach children is like having alcoholic bartenders.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
So much for the school boy fantasies.
What is missing from this study is an accurate picture of the numbers of teachers of each sex vs. the numbers of students of each sex. That would be a much harder study to do, and would not be available from public records such as this study used.
For instance, is there more male-to-male or female-to-female sex in sex-segregated schools, where the teachers are also of the same sex?
The study says that the incidence of homosexual male sex is least in Africa and Asia — is that because there is a greater taboo, because females are more devalued by society, or because there are greatly more female teachers than male teachers than in Europe and the U.S.?
It would be interesting to know.
Once again, it goes back to the obvious, but definitely un-researched, fact that homosexuals are far more likely to have both physical and psychological abnormalities unrelated, but possibly associated, with their sexuality, than heterosexuals.
In other words, their abnormalities are not *caused* by their homosexuality, but are independent of it, unless they assume or choose to intertwine the two.
Ironically, this leaves a lot of homosexuals walking around with treatable physical and mental conditions, because the assumption is that they are either part of their homosexuality, or as a consequence of their homosexuality.
The reason that it is un-researched is probably based in fear that if homosexuals are discovered to have a far higher percentage of abnormalities in their bodies and minds, that it will somehow be used as an excuse to despise them further.
But as it is, it just results in a lot of untreated suffering on their part, yet again ironically, suffering that would not be alleviated even if they accomplished their agenda.
As far as society as a whole is concerned, however, until these individuals who especially have psychological problems are treated for those problems, they are, and should be scrutinized, as much as anyone else with untreated psychological problems. It is not because they are homosexual, it is because they have some degree of untreated mental illness.
...Though there are scientific journals that publish some empirical studies and reviews about human SS [same-sex desires and/or behavior], no journal is solely dedicated to its empirical study. The Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior (EJSSB) aims to fill this void.
EJSSB was conceptualized by Dr. Paul Cameron and Dr. George Rekers in late 2006. Both felt that a pall of censorship had descended upon academia, and an unbiased peer-reviewed journal — editorially, neither dedicated to, nor in opposition to, gay rights — was needed. A clear illustration of this censorship occurred in the on-line version of Pediatrics. When Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron first submitted ‘Problems With Pawelski, et al’s Article on the Well-Being of Children of Homosexuals’ to Pediatrics (aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/118/1/349, 2006), it was published immediately and remained on the website for a couple of months. A member of the American Academy of Pediatrics submitted another critique and it too was published — briefly. Both then disappeared. After multiple attempts to get these articles reinstated — as per the claimed policy of Pediatrics — it became clear that inclusion of facts not in accord with the pro-gay rights stance of the journal... would not be permitted. This kind of censorship is diametrically opposed to what science and free inquiry are all about. Further, in this instance, professionals dealing with children were exposed to a one-sided, prohomosexual set of poor research. Not telling the ‘whole truth’ has consequences for any society.
Being empirical rather than theoretical, studies published in EJSSB will generally use descriptive rather than diagnostic or political language....
Why EJSSB is Different
Many journals — such as those of the American Psychological and Sociological Associations — take an advocacy role regarding SS, refusing to publish papers that might be construed as ‘injuring’ the progress of the ‘gay movement.’ Others, such as Pediatrics, publish reviews of parenting by those who engage in SS, but present one side of the issue while deliberately ignoring counter-research. As a purely scholarly publication devoted to scientific investigations, the Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior will not take any editorial stance or advocacy position for or against ‘gay rights,’ the age of consent, the criminalization of SS, whether those who practice SS should be induced to change, etc. because these are all matters of public policy, law, politics, moral judgment, and/or opinion. Empirical phenomena constitute the sole academic focus of this journal. A number of our editors and reviewers are anonymous because they fear for their careers. This indicates the degree to which ‘being in scientific fashion regarding gay rights’ has become a requirement for publication. Even opening the possibility that one is not in favor of ‘gay rights’ can be a career killer. EJSSB exists to permit free, unfettered inquiry. No editorial stance regarding gay rights — pro or con — is taken in the hope that, in the long run, ‘truth will out.’
so 2% of the population is responsible for 56% of molestations?
Hmmm...
oh well, not that there’s anything wrong with that, eh? /sarcasm
This really explains where “homophobes” come from. Those that are molested become either homophobic or queer.
MALES are drum roll ....
VISUAL!
They see a cute little thing and have little restraint.
You have to admit, it takes EXTREME imagination to truly believe that sadistic sex is “making love” or that two males can successfully imitate a normal heterosexual relationship as ONE male and ONE female.
A dirtly little secret that the Dems always try to sweep under the rug is that homosexuals ARE disproportionately more prone to molest children. It has always been true. Homosexuals make up approximately 2-3% of the population yet account for 27% of the molestations. That means statitically that any individual homosexual is far more prone to pedophilia than any individual heterosexual. Their lifestyle is intimately tied to man/boy relationships. Dr. Laura Schlessinger had the guts to point this out years ago and look at what the homosexual activists tried to do to her.