Three wise former gays

The Journal of Sex Research reports a study that included "199 offenders against female children and 96 offenders against male children. . . . This would indicate a proportional prevalence of 32 percent of homosexual offenders against children."[21]

A study of male child sex offenders in Child Abuse and Neglect found that fourteen percent targeted only males, and a further 28 percent chose males as well as females as victims, thus indicating that 42 percent of male pedophiles engaged in homosexual molestation.[22]

ARE MEN WHO MOLEST BOYS REALLY 'HOMOSEXUALS'? Gay Apologists Insist on a Simplistic Stereotype of Pedophilia

Central to the attempts to separate homosexuality from pedophilia is the claim that pedophiles cannot, by definition, be considered homosexuals. Relying upon a questionable methodology[23], the gay advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign published a "Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation and Child Abuse," that states: "A sexual abuser who molests a child of the same sex is usually not considered homosexual."[24]

The basis for this claim is the view that pedophiles who molest boys cannot be considered homosexual if that individual has at any time been married or sexually involved with women.
'Homosexual Pedophiles': A Clinical Term

The fact is, however, that the terms "homosexual" and "pedophile" are not mutually exclusive: they describe two intersecting types of sexual attraction. Webster's Dictionary defines "homosexual" as someone who is sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. "Pedophile" is defined as "an adult who is sexually attracted to young children." The former definition refers to the gender of the desired sexual object, while the latter refers to the age of the desired sexual object.

from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3#edn22.

Similarly, the Archives of Sexual Behavior also noted that homosexual pedophiles are significantly overrepresented in child sex offence cases:

The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 to 4 percent of men attracted to adults prefer men (ACSF Investigators, 1992; Billy et al.,1993; Fay et al.,1989; Johnson et al.,1992); in contrast, around 25 to 40 percent of men attracted to children prefer boys (Blanchard et al.,1999; Gebhard et al.,1965; Mohr et al.,1964). Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles."[18]

The stark imbalance between homosexual and heterosexual child molestationswas confirmed in the Archives of Sexual Behavior study itself, which divided 260 pedophile participants into three groups: "152 heterosexual pedophiles (men with offenses or self-reported attractions involving girls only), 43 bisexual pedophiles (boys and girls), and 65 homosexual pedophiles (boys only)."[19] In other words, 25 percent of the offenders were homosexual pedophiles--or 41 percent if those who molest girls as well as boys are included.

Other studies report an unusually high percentage of child molestations by homosexual pedophiles:

A study on pedophilia in the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa reported: "According to the literature, findings of a two-to-one ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles have been documented."[20]

Same publication.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so are they homos or paedos or will you join the existentialists and admit that they are in essence neither?

I'd call them pedophiles.

Originally posted by sonship

The Journal of Sex Research reports a study that included "199 offenders against female children and 96 offenders against male children. . . . This would indicate a proportional prevalence of 32 percent of homosexual offenders against children."[21]

A study of male child sex offenders in Child Abuse and Neglect found that fourteen percent targeted ...[text shortened]... age of the desired sexual object.

from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3#edn22.

By all means cite a group listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre.

It really boosts your credibility...


EDIT:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people in its battles against same-sex marriage, hate crimes laws, anti-bullying programs and the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

To make the case that the LGBT community is a threat to American society, the FRC employs a number of “policy experts” whose “research” has allowed the FRC to be extremely active politically in shaping public debate. Its research fellows and leaders often testify before Congress and appear in the mainstream media. It also works at the grassroots level, conducting outreach to pastors in an effort to “transform the culture.”

Originally posted by sonship

The Journal of Sex Research reports a study that included "199 offenders against female children and 96 offenders against male children. . . . This would indicate a proportional prevalence of 32 percent of homosexual offenders against children."[21]

A study of male child sex offenders in Child Abuse and Neglect found that fourteen percent targeted ...[text shortened]... heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles have been documented."[20]

Same publication.

Jaywill why do you continue to cite a disreputable source like the Family Research Council?

So as to keep someone from being taken in by the Family Resource Council, I am re-posting the following:

I went up against Tony Perkins, the head of the hard-line anti-gay group Family Research Council (FRC), on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews” last night....

After I noted the FRC’s long record of associating gay men with pedophilia — a spurious allegation that has been roundly rejected by relevant scientific authorities including the American Psychological Association — Perkins responded, in part, by citing what sounded like a respectable medical professional association.

“If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children,” Perkins said. “So Mark is wrong. He needs to go back and do his own research.”

Was I wrong? Perhaps the more relevant question is this: What is the American College of Pediatricians?

One thing it’s not is the similarly named 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics, the professional association of most American pediatricians and the publisher of the peer-reviewed Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

In fact, the American College of Pediatricians is a tiny group of doctors who broke away from the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2002 because the latter group supported LGBT parental rights. The American College of Pediatricians, believed to now have about 200 members, explicitly demands, as a condition of membership, that would-be joiners “hold true to the group’s core beliefs … [including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children.”

The group Perkins cited as authoritative has come under repeated attack by real scientific authorities. After it published Facts About Youth last spring, both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association described the booklet as non-factual. Several individual researchers — including Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health — said the handbook misrepresented their findings. “It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality,” Collins wrote. “The information they present is misleading and incorrect.”

In other words, the American College of Pediatricians, despite its erudite name, is akin to the fake environmental front groups some energy corporations have set up to make dubious claims about the non-existence of global warming....

The American Psychological Association, for example, says in a policy statement that “homosexual men are not more likely to abuse children than heterosexual men are.”

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/11/30/tony-perkins-defends-family-research-council-sort-of/

Originally posted by googlefudge
By all means cite a group listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre.

It really boosts your credibility...


EDIT:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but ...[text shortened]... assroots level, conducting outreach to pastors in an effort to “transform the culture.”

Once it has "Family" in the name, you know it's an organization chock-full of right-wing religious fundamentalist nutjobs. What it really means is "only our narrow view of 'Family' is acceptable."

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'd call them pedophiles.

and yet they have also committed a homosexual act!

Originally posted by googlefudge
By all means cite a group listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre.

It really boosts your credibility...


EDIT:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but ...[text shortened]... assroots level, conducting outreach to pastors in an effort to “transform the culture.”

mere opinion masquerading as fact!

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Once it has "Family" in the name, you know it's an organization chock-full of right-wing religious fundamentalist nutjobs. What it really means is "only our narrow view of 'Family' is acceptable."

whether they are right wing, fundamentalist or nut jobs has got nothing to do with the validity of the data they produce nor should it make us biased towards evaluating the legitimacy of that data.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jaywill why do you continue to cite a disreputable source like the Family Research Council?

So as to keep someone from being taken in by the Family Resource Council, I am re-posting the following:

[b]I went up against Tony Perkins, the head of the hard-line anti-gay group Family Research Council (FRC), on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthe ...[text shortened]... www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/11/30/tony-perkins-defends-family-research-council-sort-of/

[/b]

have you tried boohoo.com for those in need of a revitalizing hairdo!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and yet they have also committed a homosexual act!

do you also define having sex with a prepubescent girl as heterosexual?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whether they are right wing, fundamentalist or nut jobs has got nothing to do with the validity of the data they produce nor should it make us biased towards evaluating the legitimacy of that data.

not true. im sure anybody on here that has to cite references will tell you (this includes theists as well) that a website and material quoted needs to be critically analysed. the provenance, objectivity and method should be taken into account. therefore anything taken from a site that is historically biased should be dismissed. the poster has a choice to try and find a more legitimate source.
an example in everyday life would be red top news papers. its well known they play loose and fast with facts. we cannot pick and choose what we think is true because of the papers history of lies.

the actual papers quoted in the article may be genuine and accurate. but as they have been quote mined to make a specific point by the biased website the context in which the quotes were originally intended has been lost. its the equivalent of cutting sentences out of several books putting them together to tell a different story.

In fact, the American College of Pediatricians is a tiny group of doctors who broke away from the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2002 because the latter group supported LGBT parental rights. The American College of Pediatricians, believed to now have about 200 members,

I saw your objection the first time. I take it with a very big cautionary consideration. I expected that the very first thing a homosexual apologist would do is to attack the credibility of researchers with unfavorable findings to their cause. That is to be expected.

The above supporters of Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transexual [LGBT] agenda would argue that only they can be objective. And that is what your objection seeks to prove to me. A priori, you want me to adopt the attitude that to support LGBT agenda alone is of course "objective" and "credible".

Why should I believe that 200 members who did not agree with a larger group's support of LGBT agendas cannot be credible ? I don't dismiss them merely because of a maverick attitude to a larger body of opinion.

Originally posted by sonship

In fact, the American College of Pediatricians is a tiny group of doctors who broke away from the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2002 because the latter group supported LGBT parental rights. The American College of Pediatricians, believed to now have about 200 members,

I saw your objection the first time. I take it with a very big c ...[text shortened]... edible ? I don't dismiss them merely because of a maverick attitude to a larger body of opinion.

No you should dismiss them because they are known to be liars.

And you should also be aware of your audience.

You are posting these things not to convince yourself, or others who already
agree with you. you are posting these things to convince US.

And we will dismiss these groups as lying hate groups, because that's what
they are well documented as being.

Citing them only hurts your position with us, and if you genuinely wish to
convince us of your position doing so is counter productive.


Also, you have it backwards. I/we are LGBTQ rights supporters BECAUSE we
accept the evidence and reasons that support that position.

You are citing people predisposed, due to religious conviction, to be prejudiced
against the LGBTQ community.

There is bias, and it is all on your side.

Originally posted by sonship

In fact, the American College of Pediatricians is a tiny group of doctors who broke away from the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2002 because the latter group supported LGBT parental rights. The American College of Pediatricians, believed to now have about 200 members,

I saw your objection the first time. I take it with a very big c ...[text shortened]... edible ? I don't dismiss them merely because of a maverick attitude to a larger body of opinion.

lets say for the purposes of debate and that nobody has time to read all the papers quoted in your post, that the data is correct.

do you think that the few percent increase in risk is enough to make this a valid reason to stop homosexuals adopting?