Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Veil of Fire · 06-10-2002, 04:04 PM

<a href="http://cultureandfamily.org/report/2002-01-30/l_smyal-subwa" target="_blank">Culture and Family</a> are pissed that someone they don't like gets free advertising on the DC metro system.

Which means the ads must be a great idea!

....I so hate these people.

trunks2k · 06-10-2002, 05:33 PM

I saw this on their website:

Quote:

The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls, according to a new report by Timothy Dailey

Hmmm... Doesn't that go against many other studies that say that homosexuals do not molest children at a disproportionate rate to heterosexual rates? Who is Timothy Dailey? I have a feeling that I should be extremely wary of this study seeing as how it comes from the CFI.

Bill Snedden · 06-10-2002, 08:03 PM

This issue has also been raised in the MF&P forum in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000205" target="_blank">this</a> thread.

There are indeed reasons to doubt the conclusions drawn by these people, not the least being that they are committed to disregarding the truth whenever it conflicts with their narrow sectarian ideology.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

MassAtheist · 06-11-2002, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by trunks2k:
Doesn't that go against many other studies that say that homosexuals do not molest children at a disproportionate rate to heterosexual rates?

Here's a good <a href="http://www.robincmiller.com/gayles4.htm" target="_blank">article </a> describing the problem. In particular:

Quote:

The source of the right's statistics linking gay men with child molestation is discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, who operates the Family Research Institute in Colorado Springs, Colorado...

But Cameron is hardly a credible source. He was dropped from the American Psychological Association back in 1983 for a violation of its Ethical Principles of Psychologists. And he's been censured by four other professional associations and a federal court.

bonduca · 06-11-2002, 06:19 AM

Further quotes (with thanks to MassAthiest):

Quote:

In 1978 psychologist Nicholas Groth screened 175 men who had been convicted in Massachusetts of sexual molestation of children and referred by a court for psychological evaluation. He found not a single gay man in this sample. Every one of the perpetrators was either an exclusive heterosexual, a bisexual with a predominantly heterosexual orientation, or a fixated pedophile with no sexual interest in adults.[4]

His conclusion? That "the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."

In the same year, researcher David Newton reviewed the scientific literature and found no reason to believe that anything other than a "random connection" existed between homosexual orientation and child molestation.[5]

Later research has confirmed these findings:

In 1988, renowned sex researcher Kurt Freund at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto studied two groups of paid volunteers and found that gay men responded no more to male child stimuli than heterosexual men responded to female child stimuli.[6] He later described as a "myth" the notion that gay men are more likely than straight men to be child molesters.[7]
In 1992, alarmed over claims made during a campaign for an anti-gay state constitutional amendment in Colorado, two physicians reviewed every case of suspected child molestation evaluated at Children's Hospital in Denver over a one-year period. Of the 269 cases determined to involve molestation by an adult, only two of the perpetrators could be identified as gay or lesbian. The researchers concluded that the risk of child sexual abuse by an identifiably gay or lesbian person was between zero and 3.1%, and that the risk of such abuse by the heterosexual partner of a relative was over 100 times greater.[8]
Child abuse, including sexual abuse, is a terrible reality in this country. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, established by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, nearly 90,000 children are sexually abused every year.[9] According to some researchers, the true number may be five times this.[10]

Approximately 80 percent of these sexually molested children are girls.

'Nuff said.

Boro Nut · 06-11-2002, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by trunks2k:
I saw this on their website:
The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls, according to a new report by Timothy Dailey

It strikes me that men who molest boys will (by- and-large) be homo-paedos, and men who molest little girls will (by-and-large) be hetero-paedos. I suspect most are pretty ambivalent bi-paedos, and they're all fucking paedos at the end of the day. By definition, if you are a kiddyfiddler you are neither 'Gay' nor 'Hetero'. Just kiddyfiddler.

Boro Nut

Bill Snedden · 06-11-2002, 08:58 AM

It's interesting that these people mine what they like from Freund, but disregard his ultimate conclusions in favor of their own that simply don't follow from the research they cite.

They don't cite anything by Cameron, but then again it doesn't matter. Reading through the paper is enough to lead anyone to question the credentials of whoever wrote it.

It's attributed to Timothy Daily, who supposedly has some sort of PHD. I would really hate to be associated with whatever school granted that PHD. It's quite obvious that either they don't teach critical thinking skills or that "Dr." Daily was able to conceal his lack of them quite ably. He cites numerous studies and provides a lot of detail, but none of it supports his conclusion. The whole thing is nothing more than a huge non sequitur. It's quite obvious that the conclusion was where he started and that he scraped the bottom of whatever barrels he could find to find quotes and studies that he could cite out of context to support his prejudice.

This becomes even more obvious when you step back and look at the data they cite in contrast to their own conclusion. Even given that every study is accurate and that their interpretations of the conclusions of those studies are accurate as well, it would still be true that the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual males and thus children have far more to fear from them than homosexuals.

In addition, it is also quite clear that the vast majority of pedophiles, both homosexual and heterosexual, are male. In order to remain consistent with their own reasoning, the FRC must therefore conclude that it is "maleness" and not sexual identity that is the cause of pedophilia. Of course they won't, and this fact alone is enough to expose them for the lying hypocrites that they are.

It's patently obvious that they care nothing about protecting children from pedophiles, merely advancing their own narrow sectarian viewpoints and political causes.
Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]

David Bowden · 06-11-2002, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden:
The whole thing is nothing more than a huge non sequitur. It's quite obvious that the conclusion was where he started and that he scraped the bottom of whatever barrels he could find to find quotes and studies that he could cite out of context to support his prejudice.

Grrr! This caught me in an already bad mood.

Here's how I see things:

--This matter of homosexuals being the most likely pedophiles: championed by intellectual-sounding men twisting the existing scholarship to support their pre-existing, dogmatic position.

--The matter of creationism or its "god-of-the-gaps" cousin, Intelligent Design: championed by intellectual-sounding men twisting the existing scholarship to support their pre-existing, dogmatic position.

--The matter of popular Christian apologetics a la Strobel, McDowell, and Zacharias: championed by intellectual-sounding men twisting the existing scholarship to support their pre-existing, dogmatic position.

--The matter of dismantling the United State's church-state wall: championed by intellectual-sounding men twisting the existing scholarship to support their pre-existing, dogmatic position.

--Etc., etc., issue after issue, world without end.

So, where is Christian honesty? Where are the Christian leaders who not only "disapprove" of this abuse of the truth, but also do something about it?

I ask again, where are the honest and knowledgeable Christians, and why do they allow their compatriots to get away with any of this BS peddling, unchallenged? If such Christians exist, why are they silent on these issues? Are they too cowardly to protest as agents of truth - or do they believe their "Godly" ends justify the dishonest means?

Are there any Christians on these boards who actively engage these duplicitous practicers of chicanery?

Abraham Lincoln: "To sin by silence, where they should protest, makes cowards of men."

Fucking right, Abe.

If their Spirit of Truth existed, surely he would show himself through his own people. It would appear that he's the father of lies and liars instead.

-a very disgruntled Wanderer

Kassiana · 06-12-2002, 04:06 AM

Wanderer;

The only person of any prominence in the conservative Christian community I've seen who debunks some of this "homos are evil" crap is Tony Campolo, who holds liberal political/social views and is greatly distressed by the need of his fellow conservatives to bash them. Try his "Was Jesus a Republican or a Democrat?" for some refreshing ideas from a conservative Christian. He's the only one I can stand reading even now that I've deconverted from fundiegelicalism.

David Bowden · 06-12-2002, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kassiana:
The only person of any prominence in the conservative Christian community I've seen who debunks some of this "homos are evil" crap is Tony Campolo, who holds liberal political/social views and is greatly distressed by the need of his fellow conservatives to bash them.

Good call, Kassiana; I'd forgotten about Campolo. He works in the Northeast US, doesn't he?

I've seen him speak - at a Southern Baptist youth convention in 1991-2. He was so good that the youth gave him several standing ovations. And because of the content of his message that was critical of the backwardness of the Southern Baptist church, the Southern Baptist leaders banned him from ever returning to speak to their youth.

Another nonconformist is Episcopalian Bishop Spong, and there is a gay Episcopalian priest named Peter J. Gomes who has written at least one book addressing some of these issues.

But all are political/social liberals, made pariahs by the same theologically conservative elements I ranted about earlier. As a former evangelical pastor it just sickens me the more I reflect on the intellectual dishonestly and political polarization that characterizes much of that heritage, within which most of my family and acquaintances still dwell happily and defiantly.

Sometimes, I almost want to go back in and try to fix things, you know? That's folly coming from an atheist, though.

Thanks for reminding me of Campolo, Kass. I can go through today one degree less pissed off at the state of things now.

-a much more moderately bothered Wanderer

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]

06-10-2002, 04:04 PM	#1
Veil of Fire Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 451	Anything that pisses these people off HAS to be a good idea!! <a href="http://cultureandfamily.org/report/2002-01-30/l_smyal-subwa" target="_blank">Culture and Family</a> are pissed that someone they don't like gets free advertising on the DC metro system. Which means the ads must be a great idea! ....I so hate these people.

06-11-2002, 08:58 AM	#7
Bill Snedden Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,597	It's interesting that these people mine what they like from Freund, but disregard his ultimate conclusions in favor of their own that simply don't follow from the research they cite. They don't cite anything by Cameron, but then again it doesn't matter. Reading through the paper is enough to lead anyone to question the credentials of whoever wrote it. It's attributed to Timothy Daily, who supposedly has some sort of PHD. I would really hate to be associated with whatever school granted that PHD. It's quite obvious that either they don't teach critical thinking skills or that "Dr." Daily was able to conceal his lack of them quite ably. He cites numerous studies and provides a lot of detail, but none of it supports his conclusion. The whole thing is nothing more than a huge non sequitur. It's quite obvious that the conclusion was where he started and that he scraped the bottom of whatever barrels he could find to find quotes and studies that he could cite out of context to support his prejudice. This becomes even more obvious when you step back and look at the data they cite in contrast to their own conclusion. Even given that every study is accurate and that their interpretations of the conclusions of those studies are accurate as well, it would still be true that the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual males and thus children have far more to fear from them than homosexuals. In addition, it is also quite clear that the vast majority of pedophiles, both homosexual and heterosexual, are male. In order to remain consistent with their own reasoning, the FRC must therefore conclude that it is "maleness" and not sexual identity that is the cause of pedophilia. Of course they won't, and this fact alone is enough to expose them for the lying hypocrites that they are. It's patently obvious that they care nothing about protecting children from pedophiles, merely advancing their own narrow sectarian viewpoints and political causes. Regards, Bill Snedden [ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-10-2002, 08:03 PM	#3
Bill Snedden Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,597	This issue has also been raised in the MF&P forum in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000205" target="_blank">this</a> thread. There are indeed reasons to doubt the conclusions drawn by these people, not the least being that they are committed to disregarding the truth whenever it conflicts with their narrow sectarian ideology. Regards, Bill Snedden

06-12-2002, 04:06 AM	#9
Kassiana Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,046	Wanderer; The only person of any prominence in the conservative Christian community I've seen who debunks some of this "homos are evil" crap is Tony Campolo, who holds liberal political/social views and is greatly distressed by the need of his fellow conservatives to bash them. Try his "Was Jesus a Republican or a Democrat?" for some refreshing ideas from a conservative Christian. He's the only one I can stand reading even now that I've deconverted from fundiegelicalism.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.