List if you want it.
NinoFan, homosexuals who are not pushing the homosexual agenda are welcome on FR. But your support of the homosexual agenda is not welcome at all. If you want to make false assertions such as the above, you must cite sources to support it. But, since you won’t be able to, you should shut your trap.
I have noted that your comments are generally polite and do not incite rudeness. But I am sick of your support of the homosexual agenda and its lies. It is a lie that homosexuals in general are not interested in underage males. I used to run the Homosexual Agenda pinglist and still help out. I used to have (thanks to Scripter especially) tons of links, sources and facts and figures - many from homosexual researchers and sites - that support the FACT that homosexuals are more prone to molest and seduce underage youths.
I don’t have those links and sources at my fingertips right now due to various reasons including three computer deaths. Maybe someone will show up with some facts. But I don’t need any links to know for a fact - due to studying this topic for years - that your assertion is a rotten lie and I will hit abuse on you if I see any more support of the homosexual agenda coming from you.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Excuse me, your bullying will not work on me. You do not get to say what I can or cannot discuss here on FR.
I have been more than careful to follow the rules. I have been a good member here for only a little less time than you have. I have donated significantly to this site. Being that I have posted frequently in support of conservative causes, my credentials here are not in doubt. And if they are in doubt, you are certainly not the one who gets to second guess them.
As for my “support of the homosexual agenda”, I have made clear that I do not support activist judges. Debate over gay issues should be for the voters, not for tyrants in black. The threads I comment on are those where people get out of hand the other way. It’s an extreme position to say that all homosexuals are potential pedophiles and when people say such extreme things, they should expect people to respond.
But know this, since you threatened me, if you choose to harass me, I’ll be forced to hit abuse on you as well.
Oh, and cholerajoe, thought you might be interested in getting in on this discussion, since it seems he’s pinged his FRiends, I thought I’d invite you to join in.
Actually, it has never been scientifically proven that homosexual adults are any more likely to molest children than heterosexual adults. Most pedophiles cannot be accurately described as either heterosexual or homosexual, since they are usually incapable of having a healthy sexual relationship with an adult of either sex.
Here are six scientific references I found in a brief search of the medical literature: (Oh and before you go calling me names, too, I'm a physician, and a confirmed heterosexual with a strong preference for adult women.)
Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.
This article is discussed above in the "Other Approaches" section. As the FRC concedes, it contradicts their argument. The abstract summarizes the authors' conclusion: "Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children."
The FRC cites this study to challenge the Freund et al. data (see the previous paper above). However, the methodologies were quite different. Freund and his colleagues used a sample that included sex offenders and they assessed sexual arousal with a physiological measure similar to that described below for the 1988 Marshall et al. study. Silverthorne and Quinsey used a sample of community volunteers who were asked to view pictures of human faces and use a 7-point scale to rate their sexual attractiveness. The apparent ages of the people portrayed in the pictures was originally estimated by Dr. Silverthorne to range from 15 to 50. However, a group of independent raters perceived the male faces to range in age from 18 to 58, and the female faces to range from 19 to 60.
The article doesn't report the data in great detail (e.g., average ratings are depicted only in a graphic; the actual numbers aren't reported) and the authors provide contradictory information about the rating scale (they describe it as a 7-point scale but also say it ranged from 0 to 7, which constitutes an 8-point scale). In either case, it appears that none of the pictures was rated as "very sexually attractive" (a rating of 7). Rather, the highest average ratings were approximately 5.
On average, gay men rated the 18-year old male faces the most attractive (average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings declining steadily for older faces. They rated the 58-year old male faces 2, on average. By contrast, heterosexual men rated the 25-year old female faces the most attractive (about 5), with the 18- and 28-year old female faces rated lower (between 2 and 3) and the 60-year old female faces rated the least attractive (about 1).
A serious problem with this study is that the researchers didn't control for the possibility that some of the faces pictured in the photos might simply have been more or less physically attractive than the others, independent of their age or gender. The researchers explicitly acknowledged this shortcoming, speculating that the women's faces in the 25-year old group might have been more attractive than women's faces in the other age groups. But they didn't address the possibility that the attractiveness of the male and female faces may not have been comparable.
This issue could have been addressed in various ways. For example, prior to collecting data, the researchers could have started with a large number of photographs and asked a group of independent raters to evaluate the general physical attractiveness of the face in each photo; these ratings could have been used to select photos for the experiment that were equivalent in attractiveness. Getting independent ratings of experimental stimuli in this way is a common procedure in social psychological research.
Thus, even if one accepts the questionable assumption that this study is relevant, it doesn't support the FRC's contention that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several reasons:
This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether they molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only, or both boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively, homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. This classification referred to their attractions to children. Adult sexual orientation (or even whether the men had an adult sexual orientation) wasn't assessed.
In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed. Their sexual orientation (gay, heterosexual, bisexual) wasn't assessed. The authors drew from their findings to suggest strategies for how parents and children can prevent sexual victimization. It is noteworthy that none of those strategies involved avoiding gay men.
This study, described above in the section on "Other Approaches," contradicts the FRC's argument. The FRC faults the study because the researchers didn't directly interview perpetrators but instead relied on the victims' medical charts for information about the offender's sexual orientation. However, other studies cited favorably by the FRC (and summarized in this section) similarly relied on chart data (Erickson et al., 1988) or did not directly assess the sexual orientation of perpetrators (Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al. 1995; Marshall et al., 1988). Thus, the FRC apparently considers this method a weakness only when it leads to results they dislike.
In this study, the researchers compared 21 men who had sexually molested a male under 16 years (and at least 5 years younger than themselves) to 18 unemployed men who were not known to have molested a child. Over a series of sessions, each man watched color slides of nude males and females of various ages and listened to audiotaped descriptions of both coercive and consensual sexual interactions between a man and a boy. During the sessions, each man sat in a private booth, where he was instructed to lower his trousers and underwear and attach a rubber tube to his penis. The tube detected any changes in penis circumference, with increases interpreted as indicating sexual arousal.
The FRC cites this study as showing that "a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders." This is true but hardly relevant to their claims.
The researchers categorized 7 offenders who were more aroused overall by the male nudes than the female nudes as the homosexual subgroup. They categorized 14 offenders who were more aroused overall by the female nudes as the heterosexual subgroup. The offenders were not asked their sexual orientation (gay, straight, bisexual) and the paper does not report any information about the nature of the offenders' adult sexual relationships, or even if they had any such relationships.
Also, an article from 1999 Homosexuality and child molestation: the link, the likelihood, the lasting effects
And from my profile:
Targeting Children, Part 1: How the gay movement intends to capture the next generation
Targeting Children, Part 2: How the homosexual movement uses public schools as instruments of change
Targeting Children, Part 3: Activists encouraging experimentation
Targeting Children, Part 4: Access to children: homosexuality and molestation
Nobody is saying all homosexuals are child molestors... in fact far from it — most homosexuals do not molest children. Still, the issue is the disproportionate number of child molestations by homosexuals.
He is, indeed, polite, but most agenda sycophants are to a certain point. They can become ranting, foaming at the mouth zealots if they can't obtain some concession in debate.
Best not discourse.