Posted on 08/05/2002 3:33:21 AM PDT by kattracks
ALL OF THIS sensational reporting about homosexual activity in the Catholic Church is doing Catholics a favor. Obviously the closets needed to be cleaned out, and the publicity is getting it started.
But aren’t the newspapers dancing around the central problem — not daring to mention it? Are they afraid to mention it?
Years ago in medical school, I learned that many homosexual men try to recruit young teenage boys — 11-, 12-, 13-year-olds, boys who have not yet clearly established their sexual identity as men.
The thinking then was that some young teenagers can be guided in either directions — into heterosexual relationships, or homosexual. I realize the current politically correct concept is “it’s in the genes, we were born that way, it can’t be treated or prevented,” etc., but all professionals don’t accept this “P.C.” reasoning.
Have you noticed that the majority of the predatory homosexual clergy claim to have been “abused” themselves when they were teenagers? Doesn’t this mean they were recruited by an older homosexual, and co-opted into a homosexual lifestyle?
Isn’t it time the Church, and the press, faced the fact and told the truth straight out? Some homosexual men do try to enlist young teenagers in homosexual activity — and they do it time and time again, often for 20 or 30 years or more, ruining dozens of potentially normal lives in the process.
The public knows it, parents know it. That’s why parents try to keep their young teen boys away from homosexual neighbors, homosexual scoutmasters, etc.
We can’t solve the problem unless we look for it honestly. The press focused a spotlight on this mess — now the press could do us another great service by calling a spade a spade.
When Msgr. Eugene Clark in New York did exactly that last month he received a nationwide blasting by homosexual pressure groups. Marianne Duddy, executive director of the homosexual activist group Dignity/USA, blew her top, labeling his analysis as “incredibly horrifying and irresponsible.” Does this barrage from such groups scare off honest analysis and criticism?
Some of the abused kids go on to life as a homosexual. Many of the others are psychologically crippled — still breaking into tears 20 years later when asked about the event.
The American Catholic Church has a lot of clean-up work to do, and the American public needs to look past the gay/lesbian news releases and pay attention to what’s really happening to so many of our kids.
I hope our press will keep pushing on both issues.
— John S. Argue is a medical doctor and a resident of Gilmanton Iron Works.
Useless and pointless and as usual…irrelevant. Can you be any less of a bore? Please try!
That may have been the longest string of words that you used... without using the word "homosexual."
In other words I’m correct.
Siegel, et al is NOT, in ANY manner, presented as a validation of your arguments. ... Although a CSA victim may be "more likely to become an abuser in adulthood," the huge majority do not.
I disagree, the sad truth is the majority of homosexuals don’t commit CSA but they (you) are many times more likely than those who don’t commit perversion. The glass is half-empty in your example.
In fact, a CSA victim is much more likely to be an adult VICTIM than an abuser.
That may be true but it doesn’t preclude the fact that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles.
We do NOT "see more pedophilia among homosexual men." In fact, study after study consistently refutes that defamation... but you already knew that.
Still waiting for the proof there Father madg, but then again there’s always Freund Watson 1992, Thomas Schmidt and Kurt Freund, et al., "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 10 (1984): 197. "The proportional prevalence of offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent." See also, Kurt Freund, et al., "Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference," "Approximately one-third of these individuals had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls. This finding is consistent with the proportions reported in two earlier studies," p. 107.
But you already knew those studies didn’t you?
Gay men MAY be "more likely to have been victims of abuse," but that's only because you guys keep trying to beat us up... and call us names... and belittle us... and kill us... and steal our rights away... and so on.
Don’t include me in those allegations, I’d be more than happy to pray for you and to help you find reparation any time. Till then you’ll understand if I don’t respect your behavioral choices.
(Gee, your "victims of abuse" rhetoric really worked in MY favor... thanks.)
Delutions from pretending an anus is a vagina, do you dream of reproducing too?
Why don't you just admit it already? No matter how often you are proven wrong... no matter how often your inconsistencies are demonstrated... no matter how you dodge and spray... ... even if God Himself came down and called you an ass... ... you would STILL be saying...
I’m not exactly sure where you’ve proven anything beyond your poor comprehension of the evidence at hand but I’m sure God himself would be proud if I helped you find your way out of perversion.
Tell us YES or NO... ... do your parents KNOW that you are retarded? I USED TO attend grammar school... fortunately, I grew out of it.
Funny comeback but it’s no excuse for deceit and mistruth, you should be ashamed of yourself.
You're not even making sense anymore. You DO understand the concept of references... right? How... if you tell your friends about an EXCELLENT restaurant, and that they should go there... and they do... and it really, REALLY sucks... how your credibility is mortally wounded... you know that... right? Wellll... Science is kinda like that... but much MUCH more serious.
Listen, you stand behind the self-serving disproportionately homosexual APA’s for your facts and I’ll keep finding the truth.
Oh... NOW I get it! You were just presenting a hypothesis... you weren't actually trying to PROVE anything! It all makes sense now... why didn't you say so in the first place?
I thought you could lend your personal experience, anecdotal as it may be to the topic. It’s painfully obvious that you can’t do this, I’ll assume your life experiences are too close to the truth and consequences.
Perversion leads to unhappiness.
As you are well aware.
Steely
Please cite the studies.
Also, in the same brief, it cites research from known APA homosexual psychologist Gregory M. Herek and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, do you think they might be a little BIASED?
And of course there’s the Jenny study that presumes you’re not HOMOSEXUAL if you have same-sex attraction only for children ,not to mention her study only encompasses one hospital, in one town in Colorado. Do you think there’s a problem with this?
But let’s look closely at the Freund research. How does this
"This, of course, should not be understood as saying that androphiles [gay men] may have a greater propensity to offend against children than do gynephiles [heterosexual men], a myth refuted in an earlier study."
jive with this?
"As reported in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18, no 1 (1992) in an article entitled 'The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles among Sex Offenders against Children' by Freund and Watson, pedophilia, or child sexual molestation, is more than three times more common among homosexuals than heterosexual….[H]eterosexuals commit more child molestation than homosexuals, but considering the fact that heterosexual males outnumber homosexuals by a factor of roughly 36 to 1, as established by the authoritative 1993 Battelle Institute study, the relative incidence of pedophilia among homosexuals becomes far greater than for heterosexuals.”
Can you please explain exactly why the APA comment say’s this is mischaracterized? Can you please cite for me the study that “refutes” the common sense interpretation of Freund Watson 92” that makes it a Myth?
How do you defend an organization, The APA, that deletes a pathology from the DSM simply for political reasons?
Not really, Freund must support the research that is clearly found in his own studies. Plain and simple comprehension of the work can be easily interpreted. Further, the abused abuser theory is supported in much research post Freund, Siegel comes to mind.
So you are simply wrong, my friend, and continued mischaracterization of bona fide research serves nobody. And continued discussion only provides you with more opportunities for obfuscation.
There’s nothing confusing about bona fide research that clearly spells out, with common sense cognition, that there’s a link between the two behaviors. As far as being your friend, anecdotally, all my experiences with homosexuals have been negative. However, I’m always willing to try and help you cure your pathology, maybe then we could be friends.
Sadly, many people cite the same studies he did, if you do a search you’ll find many, many more.
The JIVE is between the APA’s study that “refutes” the plain and simple language from Freund Watson 1992 and makes it a “myth”. By the way Freund was dead when the brief was written. If you’re on the ball maybe you can find the study for me, till then we’ll have to assume the self-serving disproportionately homosexual APA’s amicus brief that cited debunked homosexual research, homosexuals psychologists and homosexual activist groups just might be a little BIASED, what do you think?
You are simply spreading APA distortions you can’t account for or prove, if you were truly interested in the truth you’d find out for your self.
Freund is bona fide research silly, what are you talking about? I can understand why you need to end this discussion, the truth is there and you don’t want to see it, much like the filth and degradation you inflict upon yourself. You need to find the truth, I’ll pray for you to see it.
Of the 50 abused boys, only one instance of abuse had been attributed to a gay man.
22% of the abusers were of the same sex as the child, how exactly do they only account for only 2% being homosexual in the study? Hmmm?
Not to mention the reported child abusers weren’t interviewed, instead, the researchers used the subjective opinions of those who came to the hospital with the victim. Do you think this sound research?
From the Groth and Birnham study
47 percent were exclusively interested in children, 40 percent were regressed heterosexuals, and 13 percent were regressed bisexuals. None had an exclusively homosexual orientation
First of all, only approximately 7% of pedophiles are exclusively attracted to children, this study is suspect right off the bat. The pathology is same-sex attraction, if one is a “regressed” heterosexual or so-called bisexual they still have the paraphilic disorder. Not only were there homosexuals in the study, they comprised at least 53% of the abusers.
Freund Watson 92” concluded one third of male vitims were molested by same-sex abusers. That’s a fact, get over it! Same-sex attraction is the pathology and no amount of political correctness from the APA will change that.
I, on the other hand, quoted the good doctor himself.
You quoted the APA quoting Freund from an entirely different study, "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse"— simply repeating their distortions doesn’t make it true.
See why I shouldn’t waste my time?
Because you know if this APA lie is found out, you and your perversion are in serious trouble.
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.