Posted on 03/15/2003 1:37:36 PM PST by Willie Green
I also go back to the point that, whatever it means to the perpetrator, same-sex molesting is homosexual to the victim. Since victims often become perpetrators, that factor should at least complicate the conclusion. But nowhere in the analysis I read is that weighed.
Deciding why a perp perpetrates is not an exact science and the answers are likely varied. But to base broad conclusions on the feelings or "self-identity" of the perpetrator -- whose status as a child molester makes his mental disorder irrefutable -- while ignoring observable facts, such as the same-sex nature of the act, or the same-sex conflicts it might ignite in the victim, removes the science from the study and just makes it an opinion.
And none of this acknowledges the fact that humans are biologically and anatomically formed for heterosexual sex only. Homosexuality is a abberation of that. Minus that premise, no analysis will be based on truth.
I'm signing off for the day, Josh. I'll check your reply tomorrow.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is totally out of synch with nature and biology. It is entirely driven by desire and behavior. It is not an exact and equal science -- and, in fact, an increase in its existence would spell the end of civilization. Biology has always discriminated against things that hinder species survival. Unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality has nothing to do with life processes. It marries desire with anatomical contradiction -- something that increases the spread of disease -- and displays contradictions in behavior all over the place. For example: Gay men more often than not act like women while relating to each other as members of the opposite sex. Lesbians, more often than not, act and make themselves lool like men while trying to sell to the world that they are actually attracted to women. If you are attracted to women then why do you pick only women who look like men? That's weird.
I could go on but I have to sign off so I'll spare you.
You can claim it's bigotry equal to racism if you like, but they do not compare at all. Mankind has always judged between behaviors. And when behavior is clearly contrary to nature, it's more natural to discrimate against it than to not.
If your goal is to protect a child from molesting, is it better to know how the perpetrator behaves sexually before he's caught or after?
If man has a wife and children, does this mean that he will not molest a child of the same-sex? Does it do any good to call him "homosexual" after he's molested the child?
Here's another take: PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE: In a more recent study,2 researchers reviewed the medical charts of 352 children evaluated for sexual abuse in a Denver children's hospital. In 74 cases, the abuser was another child or adolescent, none of whom were identified as lesbian or gay. In 9 cases, the abuser could not be identified (e.g., each parent accused the other). In 269 cases, the child (219 girls & 50 boys) was abused by an adult. Both girls and boys were most likely to be abused by their fathers, stepfathers, or other men married to female relatives. Only 2 of these 269 abusers (less than 1%) were identified as gay or lesbian. The researchers concluded that "most child abuse appears to be committed by situational child abusers who present themselves as heterosexuals."
Let me repeat: most child abuse appears to be committed by situational child abusers who present themselves as heterosexuals.
We can call them "homosexual" until the end of time, but until they were caught they presented themselves as "heterosexual". Calling them "homosexual" now doesn't do a damn thing to prevent the abuse they committed while everyone thought they were "heterosexual" -- these people were not part of the 2% who identifies themselves as "homosexual".
I don't think this is contested. But most dosn't mean much if they are also >90% of the population.
This is the real point of contention I suppose
It means that preventing child-abuse requires educating children on how pedophiles operate.
This is the real point of contention I suppose
Yep. The anti-homosexual side would have us believe that noone engages in homosexual behavior except those willing to say "I am gay" on a survey -- that's where that 2% figure comes from. It just isn't so.
So don't try to weed out for high risk people (assuming ytou have a good model.)
I think you're undercutting you're own arguement. People here are telling you this already.
Define "high risk". If one boy is molested by an admitted homosexual, do we forbid admitted homosexuals from contact with children, wipe our hands, and consider it a job well-done? What about the 50 or 60, or even just 20 or 5, that are molested by perceived "heterosexuals"?
We'll never know how people behave in private. We can't ask -- they'll lie or, at the very least, keep it private, particularly if it's contrary to the image they're trying to maintain. Until their private behavior becomes public, in which case it's too late, we'll never know just what risk exists in any given situation.
I couldn't find a profile anywhere on the net that would allow a predictive risk-assesment of any type or sort of potential molester. There are profiles of their actions leading up to the molestation, but no profile of the molester -- they're gay, straight, celibate, old, young, middle-aged, rich, poor, and middle-class.
I think you're undercutting you're own arguement. People here are telling you this already.
Uh huh. That's why the 2% figure is still used for comparison vs. behavior.
Same-sex sex is homosexual, same-sex molesting is homosexual, same-sex rape is homosexual. It is what it is. The classification game gay activists play is dishonest. Not only that, it ALWAYS starts with the premise that heterosexual desire and homosexual desire are equal and normal. They can only get away with that in the subjective area of behavioral science. In every other science, human homosexuality is abnormal.
Is it a "tangent" to expect a study to begin with observable facts and truthful premises? Is it a "tangent" to expect that behavioral studies consider other sciences in forming their hypothesis? Is it really a "tangent" to demand that issues regarding human sexuality acknowledge a persons anatomy and biology and give that physical fact higher consideration that the individuals emotions and desires?
Without honest foundations, behavioral studies and analyses are just junk science.
There is no "we" here. Parents should get to choose for their own children. The law, as well as nature, makes them responsible for their children. They alone should get to say who has contact with their kids.
What was he when he got married and knocked-up his wife?
If the same man were to become a child-molester, what would you have called him before?
If a boy enjoys it, what does that make him?
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.