MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES

First topic message reminder :

22nd May 2014

My interest was sparked by another thread - after looking in to this i found it quite astonishing.

Please discuss.

Many parents have become concerned that children may be molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even "recruited" into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle. Gay activists dismiss such concerns--in part, by strenuously insisting that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children.

However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:

Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.

Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).

The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.

Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.

Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote "intergenerational intimacy."

MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.

The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.


http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3

Like other people, gay people love kids in the normal way we do...

Many have nieces and nephews they dote on.

Eddies article is just another 'not proper homosexuals' excuse.


And You are missing the point that it's not about access, it is choice that is made by about a third of peados that they target ONLY boys.


A premeditated choice in particular gender.


Many will get themselves into a position where they then get access to their preferred choice.





Why is it when I say lesbians who target ONLY girls, still nobody has had a problem with that?



But so quick to deny that there are homosexuals who target ONLY boys?



Are you all trying to say that there are no homosexuals who are peados?

Of course there are homosexuals who are peadeophiles; but there is no evidence that it is any more the case than heterosexuals who are paedophiles.

Once again the fact most abuses are against boys will be to do with how easily children can be accessed; there is no correlation between being gay or straight or lesbian and being a paedophile.

The stuff in the OP was written by a guy named Tony Perkins who according to what I have read he is described as a right wing Republican nutjob homophobe who blames gay people for most things and the guy who Fox News roll out when they need some anti-gay material.
He's a bit like some people on here really.

Tony Perkins blames prostitute scandal on gay people

But there are an awful lot of men who target ONLY boys in a homosexual way.
And The vast majority of those will be homosexuals their general life, and the others obviously have homosexual tendencies.
To try to suggest that it is mostly heterosexual men who target only boys is like saying there are homosexuals out there who target only girls.
Completely unlikely and unbelievable!

Tommy Monk wrote:But there are an awful lot of men who target ONLY boys in a homosexual way.
And The vast majority of those will be homosexuals their general life, and the others obviously have homosexual tendencies.
To try to suggest that it is mostly heterosexual men who target only boys is like saying there are homosexuals out there who target only girls.
Completely unlikely and unbelievable!

Again you have no proof the vast majority will be homosexual.

You have been told time and again that being attracted to a MAN is incomparable to being attracted to a CHILD; so it is totally irrelevant to focus on the sexuality in adult relationships as though it makes a difference everytime. You have been told all this and every single person on this thread has argued this against you; frankly your ignorance to all those refutes, points and arguments is getting boring.

Your blatant dislike of gay people is not only seeing you distort facts but it is making you both disgusting arrogant and ignorant to the views of others.

You are no social scientist matti, so get over yourself and stop trying to propagate this disgusting fallacy in a vindictive attempt to cast gay people a certain way.

The proof is their choice of gender.


If not rooted in homosexuality, they would not target ONLY boys.



The big point you seem to be missing.


Would a homosexual target ONLY girls?

Would a lesbian target ONLY boys?

Tommy Monk wrote:The proof is their choice of gender.


If not rooted in homosexuality, they would not target ONLY boys.



The big point you seem to be missing.


Would a homosexual target ONLY girls?

Would a lesbian target ONLY boys?

The point you are missing is would anyone simply gay or straight go for children at all? No. They are paedophiles- you cannot be attracted to a boy or girl the way you would be a man or woman, so it is not connected.

You as a straight man may be able to understand paedophiles who are attracted to girls, and that may be where we are failing to see each others views here; because while you may appreciate a man being attracted to a little girl; I as a gay man can not see how one could be attracted to a little boy.

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The proof is their choice of gender.
If not rooted in homosexuality, they would not target ONLY boys.
The big point you seem to be missing.
Would a homosexual target ONLY girls?
Would a lesbian target ONLY boys?

The point you are missing is would anyone simply gay or straight go for children at all? No. They are paedophiles- you cannot be attracted to a boy or girl the way you would be a man or woman, so it is not connected.
You as a straight man may be able to understand paedophiles who are attracted to girls, and that may be where we are failing to see each others views here; because while you may appreciate a man being attracted to a little girl; I as a gay man can not see how one could be attracted to a little boy.

Obviously many are attracted to children, and The ones who target only boys, do so in a homosexual way, chosen specifically because they are male.
This is rooted in homosexuality.
It is undeniable, unless you can show me any homosexuals who target ONLY girls, or lesbians who target only boys.
If it was only about the child aspect then it wouldn't matter which gender.
And only 5-10% of peados target both.
So gender is specific interest, and deliberately selected, and men targeting boys do so in a homosexual way, rooted in homosexual desires.

You're just ignoring what I and everyone else has been saying- not really much point in going over this anymore is there?

You can understand sexual attraction for kids; I cannot. End of.

I'm not ignoring what you say, I just don't believe it.



It is just about excuses and denial of The undeniable implications of The facts and figures presented.



And it is not about understanding attraction to kids, it is acknowledging it happens and admitting the figures showing that a hugely disproportionate amount of homosexuals are responsible for abuse.

Irn Bru wrote:The stuff in the OP was written by a guy named Tony Perkins who according to what I have read he is described as a right wing Republican nutjob homophobe who blames gay people for most things and the guy who Fox News roll out when they need some anti-gay material.
He's a bit like some people on here really.

Tony Perkins blames prostitute scandal on gay people

How ridiculously sad and pathetic is that eh?..to use a known RW homophobe as a source of ' credibility' ...

Just what is it with some RW with the lies, twisting, racism , homophobia, cheating, greed and all round nastiness?

Iron hoof said it so it must be true......

So if a man likes women, and enjoys sex with women, do we immediately assume then, that he must also like sex with little girls??

Going by your logic Matt, this must be the case.

Eilzel wrote:Actually unlike your assertions and nonesense it clearly breaks down your own ideas and points out the fact most abuses are against boys because men typically have more access to boys.

A gay man is no more likely to be attracted to a boy than a straight man is a girl, for the simple fact there is nothing sexually attractive about children.

Your sentence above it ridiculous, I could just as easily say, "all heterosexual men have adult female relationships, and many like young girls too". That is just as absurd and just as wrong.

I don't know if you are just being vindictive or are actually as stupid as you are coming across with your utter lack of understanding.

Nail head nail head absolutely correct. I have attempted 45 times to explain to Twonky the difference between pedophilia and sexuality. I might start explaining in French or Spanish he might undertand!    

eddie wrote:So if a man likes women, and enjoys sex with women, do we immediately assume then, that he must also like sex with little girls??

Going by your logic Matt, this must be the case.

Great point!, that's the point I was trying to get at.

No Eddie, and it doesn't follow that a homosexual will automatically like little boys either.



But when you look at the numbers of heterosexual men there are being about 22 million in UK, the assaults on girls is relatively small in comparison.


But when you compare this to the number of homosexuals in the UK being only about 1% and about 200,000, The assaults on boys is huge for such a small group. As a third of child sex abusers target only boys.



And the overwhelming majority of these will be homosexuals in general life.

What are the ages of these underage boys?
Are we talking very young children, or fifteen year olds - just below the age of consent - just out of interest?

Tommy Monk wrote:No Eddie, and it doesn't follow that a homosexual will automatically like little boys either.



But when you look at the numbers of heterosexual men there are being about 22 million in UK, the assaults on girls is relatively small in comparison.


But when you compare this to the number of homosexuals in the UK being only about 1% and about 200,000, The assaults on boys is huge for such a small group. As a third of child sex abusers target only boys.



And the overwhelming majority of these will be homosexuals in general life.

Are you having a bubble bath with sexual assaults on women?



Between 60,000 and 95,000 people are estimated to be raped each year.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html

We are talking about child sex abuse.

Includes anyone below age of 16.

 

WHO the f*** are the FRC anyway, 'Andy ???

HOW do you keep on finding such farcical and maniacal sites ?

ALL that they do on there is keep putting up wild accusations and unsubstantiated gossip, without a single piece of proper evidence nor links to any such evidence, to back up their homophobic claims..

THIS looks like the kind of site that the creepy twonk "Tommy Monk" would be right at home wallowing around in, with his fake made-up statistics up above there earlier...

Tommy Monk wrote:We are talking about child sex abuse.

Includes anyone below age of 16.

Those stats include girls under 16

Do you want the stats on that as well?

Do you wanna see how many thousands that is each year?

It is not low it is bloody high, that is the scary part

Tommy Monk wrote:Iron hoof said it so it must be true......

Oh well that'll be that then. Didn't take long.

Carry on though...

Tommy Monk wrote:We are talking about child sex abuse.

Includes anyone below age of 16.

Right Matt I'll make a point right here; I agree that anyone below sixteen is a "child" and should be left alone by adults.

BUT

I'd specifically like to know what percentage of these underage boys were say, 14, 15, and 16.

Reason being, at that age boys and girls can make themselves look over sixteen quite easily.

See my point?

Even 1 is too high dodge, but Out of 22 million men.compared to attacks on boys by a relatively small number of homosexuals is a much larger proportion and massively higher propensity.

Tommy Monk wrote:Even 1 is too high dodge, but Out of 22 million men.compared to attacks on boys by a relatively small number of homosexuals is a much larger proportion and massively higher propensity.

Again more absurd view points, attacks on girls are way out of proportion to attacks on boys, two third of victims are girls, which shows you the real problem of offenders are men, not what sexuality they are, this point may give you a clue, as to the real problem, which seems to elude you.
You focus on a poor point when the main point is there is a real problem with men sexually abusing children and adults. That is the point you should be focusing on because what sexuality they are is irrelevant, what is relevant is that a certain percentage of men think they can abuse people. Your argument is on preference, where even here the preference is more based on the fact it is a child to the offender than what sexuality the victim or the offender is again the point you are missing.

So what is the real main problem we know of when it comes to to the sexual abuse of people?

Men

And a small proportion of homosexual men, 1% of population, are doing a third of all child sex crimes on boys.

Tommy Monk wrote:And a small proportion of homosexual men, 1% of population, are doing a third of all child sex crimes on boys.

Oh dear, ignoring all the points yet again, that it is men that are the major problem when it comes to sexual offending, yet you want to argue on preference with sexuality. When as seen the sexual preference for pedophiles is children, even worse not understanding not all act out this vile preference, but of those who do their preference is control and abuse.

Tommy Monk wrote:And a small proportion of homosexual men, 1% of population, are doing a third of all child sex crimes on boys.

Prove it with facts from an independent academic study that has been peer reviewed by people with real knowledge of the figures.

Only 5-10% target children of both genders.


For those who target specific genders, sexual orientation is obviously an undeniable factor.

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:And a small proportion of homosexual men, 1% of population, are doing a third of all child sex crimes on boys.

Oh dear, ignoring all the points yet again, that it is men that are the major problem when it comes to sexual offending, yet you want to argue on preference with sexuality. When as seen the sexual preference for pedophiles is children, even worse not understanding not all act out this vile preference, but of those who do their preference is control and abuse.

You need to read again Matti, because you lack understanding, now counter these points.

eddie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:We are talking about child sex abuse.

Includes anyone below age of 16.

Right Matt I'll make a point  right here; I agree that anyone below sixteen is a "child" and should be left alone by adults.

BUT

I'd specifically like to know what percentage of these underage boys were say, 14, 15, and 16.

Reason being, at that age boys and girls can make themselves look over sixteen quite easily.

See my point?

Sorry Matt not sure if you saw this?

But if these men had believed these boys to be above consensual age, then they aren't paedophiles as such.

But we are talking about actual crimes tabulatdd into NSPCC figures.

Tommy Monk wrote:


But we are talking about actual crimes tabulatdd into  NSPCC figures.

Has your spell check changed to Dutch?

  

Irn, I noticed the Irn hoof comment; kind of shows why he totally ignores all the reasonable arguments given as well as eddie's link to an academic, unbiased study on the subject.

He then doesn't understand why people cannot rake him seriously when he doesn't even attempt to hide his ridiculous prejudice against gay people with twatty comments like that...

Eilzel wrote:Irn, I noticed the Irn hoof comment; kind of shows why he totally ignores all the reasonable arguments given as well as eddie's link to an academic, unbiased study on the subject.

He then doesn't understand why people cannot rake him seriously when he doesn't even attempt to hide his ridiculous prejudice against gay people with twatty comments like that...

Indeed Les and that comment alone revealed so much about the type of person we are trying to have a reasonable debate with. Childish and immature and not the first time he has used it either.

Irn Bru wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Irn, I noticed the Irn hoof comment; kind of shows why he totally ignores all the reasonable arguments given as well as eddie's link to an academic, unbiased study on the subject.

He then doesn't understand why people cannot rake him seriously when he doesn't even attempt to hide his ridiculous prejudice against gay people with twatty comments like that...

Indeed Les and that comment alone revealed so much about the type of person we are trying to have a reasonable debate with. Childish and immature and not the first time he has used it either.

He might deny it, and I'm sure he will, but there is something rather creepy about a man who is obsessed with paedophilia and the sexuality of people who do it.

As I've said before. Didge keeps bringing it up as a way to undermine other arguments when losing debate.


I have made my view clear and backed it up with statistical evidence.



If you keep arguing the toss with stupid excuses and denials then I will keep hammering my point home.



I don't have a spell check, just predictive text from phone and sometimes throws up the odd typo.



And the iron hoof is just a play on words and A bit of banter.

Just like some of you calling me twatti or twonky.



And Sassy, You tried that trick already before and it didn't work then so you'll have to come up with something else.

For the record I am neither going on about spelling, calling you names nor calling you a paedo Matt.

Don't lump me in with any of that.

I'm just trying to debate your points.

The point is Matti I know when I am losing a debate and even admit at times I do, I do use methods to undermine a posters point as it is easy to do, but most of the time I argue my points, what you are thus saying is you are losing the debate then if you use me as your excuse to why you are failing at a debate.

No it is not banter about Irn and even more so David and Eilzel, I did something very childish once to call Irn a Jock, on my part it was pathetic, and to be honest you start the offenses towards both Eilzel and David, claiming they are not normal and use insulting innuendo's onto them. Are they right to reply in kind? No, but I do not blame them when a fellow human being looks down at them and classes them as abnormal and argues so adamantly they are, no doubt you would too also faced with such ignorant hate and prejudice directed at you.

I know Eddie, wasn't directed at you.

Tommy Monk wrote:As I've said before. Didge keeps bringing it up as a way to undermine other arguments when losing debate.


I have made my view clear and backed it up with statistical evidence.



If you keep arguing the toss with stupid excuses and denials then I will keep hammering my point home.



I don't have a spell check, just predictive text from phone and sometimes throws up the odd typo.



And the iron hoof is just a play on words and A bit of banter.

Just like some of you calling me twatti or twonky.



And Sassy, You tried that trick already before and it didn't work then so you'll have to come up with something else.

Oh I'm sure you will deny it Matti, you are bound to after all, you might not even admit it to yourself, but you have a very obsessive unhealthy interest in the subject to go on about it day after day, and it's very, very creepy. I'll leave you to it, because I'm not obsessed about it.

Tommy, you are a prize prat

firstly your argument is circular and based on unproven and distorted figures

lets look at your argument

You SAY that homosexuals are responsible for the assaults on boys (which is unproven)
you THEN seek to "prove" this by saying that men who prey on boys "must" be homosexual ergo homosexuals prey on boys

circular argument and thus invalid because the precept (that homosexuals prey on boys) is predicated to (anyone who preys on boys MUST be homosexual)

what you are in fact saying is the logical equivalent of "all gold glitters therefore all that glitters is gold" which is demonstrably and obviously false.

the final paragraph of the O/P demonstrates this


Quote "The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics

Always a dangerous and misleading thing to do...especially where the stats individually actually dont say what you intend them to. When you "connect statistics" you can prove the moon is actually rugby ball shaped  

related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals.

and Here is where the statistics which prove nothing in themselves get twisted by an idiot into false proof and lies. You see....in order to make a "connection" between 2 and 3 you HAVE to assume that ONLY a homosexual person would target boys....which, it has been proven, is simply NOT the case.

Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation."

Quite obviously the above conclusion is fatally flawed because of the false assumption linking 2and 3 above together

Unquote

you argument therefor Tommy is based on falsehood, bad assumptions and is refuted by plenty of evidence...It is simply NOT sustainable....

OMG...I agreed with didge   

I am putting my opinion at the end of The day, if you don't want to know, don't ask, or put me on ignore.
My opinion is what I think, not directed at anyone to be deliberately insulting.
I don't mind being called twati or twonky, or tommy monkey as fleakeeper called me the other day that I thought was most amusing.
And I'm sure iron is a big boy and can take it, as it was only a silly bit of banter..... again no malice intended.

Tommy Monk wrote:I am putting my opinion at the end of The day, if you don't want to know, don't ask, or put me on ignore.
My opinion is what I think, not directed at anyone to be deliberately insulting.
I don't mind being called twati or twonky, or tommy monkey as fleakeeper called me the other day that I thought was most amusing.
And I'm sure iron is a big boy and can take it, as it was only a silly bit of banter..... again no malice intended.

You have an opinion to say as you please, just as everyone has the right to ridicule as to what they see as nothing short og ignorant. You are happy to discriminate and claim people are abnormal, this is fine with you, but seem to have some issue if people thus class you as you do others.

You might want to think about that before you discriminate in the first place, because you certainly do mind making a point about it. A person does not defend their actions, needing to mention they are abused, because to do so offers an excuse

Tommy Monk wrote:I am putting my opinion at the end of The day, if you don't want to know, don't ask, or put me on ignore.
My opinion is what I think, not directed at anyone to be deliberately insulting.
I don't mind being called twati or twonky, or tommy monkey as fleakeeper called me the other day that I thought was most amusing.
And I'm sure iron is a big boy and can take it, as it was only a silly bit of banter..... again no malice intended.

Ok I accept that.
I do though, think you don't always word things correctly and I'm sure you can see how abhorrently offensive David and Les will find some of your remarks.

I'm off to bed now but as Arnie says...I'll be back.

Night guys.

If not homosexual in desire, then would not target ONLY boys.
We are talking about sexual activity and choice of gender of sexual preference.
Unless you can show us homosexuals who target ONLY girls then you have to accept that sexuality must play a part if choosing a specific gender of child and not any child or both genders.

victorisnotamused wrote:Tommy, you are a prize prat

firstly your argument is circular and based on unproven and distorted figures

lets look at your argument

You SAY that homosexuals are responsible for the assaults on boys (which is unproven)
you THEN seek to "prove" this by saying that men who prey on boys "must" be homosexual ergo homosexuals prey on boys

circular argument and thus invalid because the precept (that homosexuals prey on boys) is predicated to (anyone who preys on boys MUST be homosexual)

what you are in fact saying is the logical equivalent of "all gold glitters therefore all that glitters is gold" which is demonstrably and obviously false.

the final paragraph of the O/P demonstrates this


Quote "The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics

Always a dangerous and misleading thing to do...especially where the stats individually actually dont say what you intend them to. When you "connect statistics" you can prove the moon is actually rugby ball shaped  

related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals.

and Here is where the statistics which prove nothing in themselves get twisted by an idiot into false proof and lies. You see....in order to make a "connection" between 2 and 3 you HAVE to assume that ONLY a homosexual person would target boys....which, it has been proven, is simply NOT the case.

Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation."

Quite obviously the above conclusion is fatally flawed because of the false assumption linking 2and 3 above together

Unquote

you argument therefor Tommy is based on falsehood, bad assumptions and is refuted by plenty of evidence...It is simply NOT sustainable....

OMG...I agreed with didge   

You have put the point across about the failings of the argument better than I did, but I doubt your words will register Victor, when we both know what a poor argument is when they are based on falsehoods and assumptions. We actually agree more Victor on things and we both know that, sometimes the main purpose of our bouts is about us both being silly, rivalry, mutual respect and frustration.  ::D:: 

There you go Matti, two posters that never see much eye to eye both stating your argument is wrong, now can we both be wrong on the basic view points of what is credible and valid in presenting arguments?

Tommy Monk wrote:If not homosexual in desire, then would not target ONLY boys.
We are talking about sexual activity and choice of gender of sexual preference.
Unless you can show us homosexuals who target ONLY girls then you have to accept that sexuality must play a part if choosing a specific gender of child and not any child or both genders.

No I dont, YOU may see the world in such simple terms, which in itself speaks of your lack of ability to actually think and speaks volumes of your lack on knowlege on matters such as this.

the psychology of paedophillia is much deeper than simply matters of "gender preference" It is indeed considered by some, that paedophiles do not see children as having a particular specific gender, OR if they do...they see thier chosen "preference" as a "different gender" to their own, they fail to recognise the inherent gender of their "target"

victorisnotamused wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:If not homosexual in desire, then would not target ONLY boys.
We are talking about sexual activity and choice of gender of sexual preference.
Unless you can show us homosexuals who target ONLY girls then you have to accept that sexuality must play a part if choosing a specific gender of child and not any child or both genders.

No I dont, YOU may see the world in such simple terms, which in itself speaks of your lack of ability to actually think and speaks volumes of your lack on knowlege on matters such as this.

the psychology of paedophillia is much deeper than simply matters of "gender preference" It is indeed considered by some, that paedophiles do not see children as having a particular specific gender, OR if they do...they see thier chosen "preference" as a "different gender" to their own, they fail to recognise the inherent gender of their "target"

Which is why true paedophiles target pre-prubescent children.