Posted on 08/05/2002 3:33:21 AM PDT by kattracks
Same thing has apparently been happening in the Church, sadly. Not everywhere, but far too often.
I did like the phrase "women and self-identifying women." Although shouldn't it have been spelled womyn?
I can’t believe that.
Tragically, the abused child is then more likely to become an abuser in adulthood . Thus, it is not surprising that we see more pedophilia among homosexual men: since they are more likely to have been victims of abuse, they are also more likely to initiate a repetition of that abuse with a same-sex child. Siegel, J., Sorenson, S., Golding, J., Burnam, J., Stein, J., The prevalence of childhood sexual assault: the Los Angeles epidemiological catchment area project. American Journal of Epidemiology 126, 6:1141.
Even if the Church and the press can't face the truth, the public knows it's a gay problem.
Is it because the NARTH article cited the study incorrectly? NO!
Is it because the Siegel, J., Sorenson, S., Golding, J., Burnam, J. and Stein, J., study is wrong in any way? NO!
Is it because the “American Journal of Epidemiology” is a biased periodical? NO!
It’s because the study finds homosexuals, like you, are more likely to be pedophiles because of the perpetuation of the abused-abuser. If you weren’t molested by an adult I’ll bet you had your first homosexual experience before age 12, did you?
Pedophiles have erotic attractions to children even when they are still children, Freund cites this fact all the time.
The APA finds it credible enough to cite for one of their articles, why is it OK for them and not NARTH? Your opinion is irrelevant.
Consequently, this study cannot be used to support your (NARTH’s) allegation.
You’ve only made false allegations that the study was flawed and not proven NARTH has cited it incorrectly, you really don’t have a leg to stand on.
You didn’t answer my question either, did you have your first homosexual experience before age 12?
Of course it can, either your allegations are applicable to both the NARTH article and the APA article or they’re not. Just because you can’t prove your point don’t shoot the messenger. You and the rest of the homosexuals, desperate to justify your behavior, are only capable of lies and deceit when you’re cornered with the truth. Now either prove NARTH has misused the this study where the APA hasn’t or stop making false allegations.
As for your other questions... I am not the topic of this thread.
Your behavior is relevant to the subject if it helps prove the point. I’ll have to presume (your) indoctrination was typical and before age 12 which is consistent with yendu bwam’s assertion you challenged, as well as the abused-abuser study cited by NARTH!
Wrong! The study supports other statements in the APA article. That’s a non sequitur.
In the example that you provided, the APA used Siegel, et al (and other studies) as reference for the following: "Most children who are sexually abused are abused by an adult who they know..." Since Siegel, et al found that: "In the most recent sexual assault, three- fourths of respondents knew their assailant...", it is entirely appropriate for the APA to cite that study (and others) to support its point.
But that’s not the point it supports in the APA article, it’s used to demonstrate the futility of trying to prevent a child from being abducted or abused by a repeat offender , a point entirely unrelated to the Siegel study. You’re trying to be much more clever than you really are.
NARTH cites Siegel an abused child is then more likely to become an abuser in adulthood and uses it to support a point unrelated to the study as well, that being since they are more likely to have been victims of abuse themselves(this was cited in the paragraph above), they are also more likely to initiate a repetition of that abuse with a same-sex child. This is entirely appropriate because if the study is true then this must also be true, just like in the APA article.
You and NARTH, on the other hand, are trying to draw inferences about sexual orientation that Siegel, et al neither studied nor concluded. That is an INappropriate use of reference.
Nope, see above.
As we can plainly see, the exercise was neither designed nor used to collect information about sexual orientation.
Nor was it designed to know anything about a child being abducted or abused by a repeat offender , and yet the APA seems to think it does.
Since I am neither "desperate" nor "trying to justify"
Umm, then explain why you are here justifying your perversion with lies and deceit?
And I have already demonstrated how you and NARTH have misused the study.
Again, using one point to make a conclusion as in “if this is true then it’s reasonable this should also be true” is exactly what the APA did in its article and exactly what NARTH did.
Huh?
Be brave and answer my questions and you won’t have to say HUH?
Since I don't know what you mean by "indoctrination," I can't possibly know what you mean by "typical."
Hehehe…you’re a real comedian.
you're trying to use an allegation to support the misuse of the study!
I was trying to show a possile case in point, if you’re too embarrassed to participate I understand.
Concur.
I have written that here on FreeRepublic for quite sometime. I'm happy that you guys see this the same way that I do, or that I see it the same way as you.
Yup, and here in NC as well. I don't care what the government says about what my wife and I do. They don't enter my home. I do care 100% what male authority figures, like men of the cloth, teachers, coaches, etc. say and do around my son. And I hold each and every one of them accountable.
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.