Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

Black Swan

Members
  • Posts

    364
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Black Swan

  1. Rick you allege that you did not intentionally mean to hurt anyone with that statement. But really, how could you not with what you wrote above? If I may, let me take the liberty to wordsmith it a bit and put my spin on it..and then let’s see how you would react if I had first posted this (note it is almost EXACTLY the same tone/wording you used above): I would not let my parents set foot in a Sunday school class with a Christian. As a daughter I have an obligation to what my elderly parents get exposed to and it is my choice. This topic is an abomination to evolution. Some of these believers are brainwashed while others are simply stupid by choice. I can only hope that they can afford a subscription to the Discovery Channel so they have access to programs on evolution and the myths of religion that can be easily grasp by those who never went on to college or who forget what they learned in 8th grade biology. The United States is a Great Nation that ensures that there is a separation of Church and State, so that religion cannot take us back to the Dark Ages when Church Doctrine ruled. A time of some of the greatest atrocities of mankind: Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Witch Trails, Slavery, all of which were sanctioned by the Church. Our Constitution was written by the Found Fathers, who clearly understood how important it was to separate the two: Church and State. Nowhere in the Constitution does it specify that Christianity is the mother religion. Instead it clearly states that there should be no preference. We believe in Darwin’s theory of Evolution, in which he states: It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change. As religion by nature is stationary, it will die. Deep..honestly, do you know who pays for scientific studies? Believe me, I know, as I work for the largest science foundation in the world. There are pretty much only two ways: Government grants and private contributions. So, as stated in my rebuttal, until 1990 there was a bias towards this type of study. Think of it, if members of this site found out that their Gov’t tax dollars were being spent on finding out which animals took a shine to the same sex, what do you think would happen? Bloody murder, comes to mind. Secondly, when it comes to private contributions, who exactly will benefit from finding this info out? Unless there is some commercial benefit, no one will pay for it. But now that you did bring up numbers, may I ask you a question? Why did your Creator make so many beetles? There are approximately 250,000 to 350,000 SPECIES of beetles. Moreso, of approximately 1 million classified insects, at least 300,000 are beetles. And yet, he only made one species of himself (actually there were two species: us and Neanderthal but according to the bible, we are it). Your God REALLY likes beetles. Why do you think that is? I mean I know...and I’m pretty sure Neo knows…but I’d like to get your answer ? PS…I’ll even let you google it. souce: http://hypertextbook...eithSingh.shtml
  2. if ONLY you'd read the source. Oh hummm.. here is what it says about that: Bagemihl writes that the presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not 'officially' observed on a large scale until the 1990s due to possible observer bias caused by social attitudes towards LGBT people making the homosexual theme taboo. Backatcha'
  3. Hmmm...well, actually quite a few according to this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior List of animals displaying homosexual behavior Bison[i' Brown Bear[ Brown Rat[ Caribou[ Cat (domestic)[ Cattle (domestic)[ Chimpanzee[ Common Dolphin[26] Common Marmoset[27] Dog[28] Elephant[29] Fox[30] Giraffe[31][3][32] Goat[16] Horse (domestic)[33] Human[34][35][36] Koala[37] Lion[34] Orca[26] Raccoon[38] [edit] Birds Barn Owl[39] Chicken[40] Common Gull[41] Emu[42] King Penguin[43] Mallard[44] Raven[45] Seagull[46] Amazon molly[48] Blackstripe topminnow[49] Bluegill Sunfish[49] Char[47] Grayling[47] European Bitterling[50] Green swordtail[50] Guiana leaffish[51] Houting Whitefish[47] Jewel Fish[52] Least Darter (Microperca punctulata)[50] Mouthbreeding Fish sp.[49] Salmon spp.[53] Southern platyfish[50] Ten-spined stickleback[50] Three-spined stickleback[50] Anole sp.[54] Bearded Dragon[55] Broad-headed Skink[50] Checkered Whiptail Lizard[55] Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail Lizard[55] Common Ameiva[55] Common Garter Snake[50] Cuban Green Anole[54] Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizard[55] Desert Tortoise[56] Fence Lizard[55] Five-lined Skink[disambiguation needed][50] Gopher (Pine) Snake[49] Green Anole[54] Inagua Curlytail Lizard[55] Jamaican Giant Anole[54] Laredo Striped Whiptail Lizard[55] Largehead Anole[54] Mourning Gecko[57] Plateau Striped Whiptail Lizard[55] Red Diamond Rattlesnake[50] Red-tailed Skink[50] Side-blotched Lizard[55] Speckled Rattlesnake[50] Water Moccasin[50] Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)[50] Western Banded Gecko[57] Whiptail Lizard spp.[55] Wood Turtle[54] Appalachian Woodland Salamander[58] Black-spotted Frog[59] Mountain Dusky Salamander[58] Tengger Desert Toad[54] Alfalfa Weevil[60] Australian Parasitic Wasp sp.[60] Bean Weevil sp.[60] Bedbug and other Bug spp.[61][62] Blister Beetle spp.[63] Blowfly[63] Broadwinged Damselfly sp.[64] Cabbage (Small) White (Butterfly)[65] Checkerspot Butterfly[65] Club-tailed Dragonfly spp.[66] Cockroach spp.[67] Common Skimmer Dragonfly spp.[66] Creeping Water Bug sp.[68] Cutworm[69] Digger Bee[70] Dragonfly spp.[66] Eastern Giant Ichneumon Wasp[60] Eucalyptus Longhorned Borer[68] Field Cricket sp.[71] Flour Beetle[72] Fruit Fly spp.[73] Glasswing Butterfly[65] Grape Berry Moth[74] Grape Borer[68] Green Lacewing[75] Hen Flea[75] House Fly[76] Ichneumon wasp sp.[60] Japanese Scarab Beetle[77] Larch Bud Moth[74] Large Milkweed Bug[62] Large White[62] Long-legged Fly spp.[78] Mazarine Blue[62] Mediterranean Fruit Fly[73] Mexican White (butterfly)[62] Midge sp.[78] Migratory Locust[79] Monarch Butterfly[65] Narrow-winged Damselfly spp.[64] Parsnip Leaf Miner[78] Pomace fly[78] Queen Butterfly[65] Red Ant sp.[78] Red Flour Beetle[62] Reindeer Warble Fly (Hypoderma tarandi)[78] Rose Chafer[disambiguation needed][78] Rove Beetle spp.[62] Scarab Beetle (Melolonthine)[80] Screwworm Fly[78] Silkworm Moth[74] Southeastern Blueberry Bee[70] Southern Green Stink Bug[62] Southern Masked Chafer[78] Southern One-Year Canegrub[78] Spreadwinged Damselfly spp.[64] Spruce Budworm Moth[74] Stable Fly sp.[78] Stag Beetle spp.[62] Tsetse Fly[78] Water Boatman Bug[disambiguation needed][62] Water Strider spp.[62] Blood-Fluke[81] Box Crab[82] Harvest Spider sp.[83] Hawaiian Orb-Weaver (spider)[83] Incirrate Octopus spp.[82] Jumping Spider sp.[83] Mite sp.[78] Spiny-Headed Worm[84] Personally, I'm a little miffed that beavers weren't on it.
  4. I'm having a hard time with this post. Is it the homophobia that is making me sick or is the milestone of ignorance that makes me even more sick? Hmmmm…maybe both, but it does most assuredly make me want to vomit, that much I can tell you. Your misperception of reality borders on pure weirdness. Freud defined denial as the refusal to recognize the existence or truth of unwelcome facts, and classified it among the defense mechanisms we unconsciously employ to protect oneself from anxiety or distress. You Sir, have a major case of denial But, I guess, when it is all said and done, the one thing that I think of when I read this dribble, is, well...to be frank: Isn't there a goat somewhere that he needs to deworm?
  5. Charles Darwin had it down pat, he is often misquoted with saying that the storngest survive (survival of the fitness), instead he said: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” America is not adapting and therefore just like other Superpowers before it (Greece, Rome, Spain, Brits) , its day in the sun is fading. It's the nature of things, really. Just like humans, rather silly to think we will rein on top longer than the Dinos. To quote one of my favorite passages: “The present life of man upon earth, O King, seems to me in comparison with that time which is unknown to us like the swift flight of a sparrow through mead-hall where you sit at supper in winter, with your Ealdormen and thanes, while the fire blazes in the midst and the hall is warmed, but the wintry storms of rain or snow are raging abroad. The sparrow, flying in at one door and immediately out at another, whilst he is within, is safe from the wintry tempest, but after a short space of fair weather, he im- mediately vanishes out of your sight, passing from winter to winter again. So this life of man appears for a little while, but of what is to follow or what went before we know nothing at all.
  6. Would seem there is more to this story than I thought at first blush...it's a political move in support of two of the BSA biggest supporters. The politics behind the Boy Scouts of America's anti-*** ban Eventually, decline will weaken the hold of Mormon and Catholic sponsors and the Boy Scouts' homophobic policy will change Congratulations to the Boy Scouts of America for emphatically reaffirming their policy banning gays earlier this week – despite historical evidence that this strategy for preventing child sexual abuse will earn them the same success rate as Penn State football and the Roman Catholic Church. This is a point of fact, not mere conjecture. Because the Scouts are already, despite their very best efforts at concealment, on the record as having had similar difficulties as those other allegedly ***-free institutions with sexual abusers among the men it has entrusted with its youth. And for similar reasons. Not because the molesters were "***" – in fact, LGBT people make up a fraction of child abusers and the sexual preferences of the sick, primarily male adults who molest children skew towards age rather than gender – but because the organization's leaders refused to discipline the child abusers in its midst or to involve the police, long past the time when they knew of instances of sexual abuse. In fact, the smoking gun in the most recent of the many cases filed against the Scouts by former members for failing to protect them from predatory leaders was the Scouts' own "perversion files". These privately kept documents, over 20,000 pages of them, detail accusations and investigations of sexual abuse and other improprieties by 1,200 Boy Scout leaders across the United States from 1965 to 1985 – as well as what the organization did and did not do to protect their youth once cases of abuse were known to them. The files were never meant to see the light of day, and the Scouts fought hard, and unsuccessfully, to prevent them from being released after the trial, which resulted in an $18.5m punitive judgment against the Boy Scouts of America, the largest finding ever against the Scouts in a sex case jury trial. An impressive piece of investigative reporting by the Oregonian during the trial documents numerous incidents where Scout officials allowed known abuse to continue. They ignored reports about William E Tobiassen, a longtime Scout leader with sons of his own, for more than two years. The abuse was only exposed "when the teenagers told a counselor and then police what had happened. Even then, internal memos show, the Scouts executive overseeing Tobiassen didn't want to ban him from scouting until there were formal charges." Oregon has no law mandating Scouts to report their suspicions to authorities (in contrast to teachers, doctors and others), and national headquarters was quick to advise the Oregon Scouts of their legal right to keep that information confidential. Not coincidentally, secret files obtained by the Oregonian during its investigation show no record of Scout leaders alerting authorities to adults suspected of sexually abusing youth in at least 11 other instances. There are remarkable similarities between the Boy Scouts' and the Roman Catholic church's handling of the sexual abusers in their midst. Both institutions documented numerous instances of abuse, failed either to discipline the adults involved or alert the authorities, and then decided, as the church did in 2002, at the height of its own sexual abuse scandal, that gays were the problem. Which brings us closer to the heart of the matter. Ignore all of the Scouts' official mumbo-jumbo about the (unidentified) leaders who comprised the special committee of top Scout leaders that made this decision, especially the part about their alleged "diversity of perspectives and opinions". As the LA Times notes, what's really happening here is a business decision about the organization's sustainability, driven by the influence of two of the Scouts' most powerful benefactors: the Roman Catholic and Mormon churches. About 400,000 of the 2.7 million members left in the dwindling organization, "belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", which "encourages members to become involved in the Boy Scouts, and has its own section on the Boy Scouts of America webpage. Counter-balancing the homophobia and financial clout of the Roman Catholic and Mormon churches are the ***-friendly policies and financial clout of board members like Ernst & Young and AT&T, both of which have expressed their reservations with the Scouts' ongoing anti-*** policies. As in all politics, when the importance of continuing to receive such sponsors' money outweighs the churches' clout, the Scouts' policy will change. Good luck with that, boys. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/18/politics-behind-boy-scouts-america-anti-***-ban
  7. Hmmm...Ok. Let's see where we are. I've agreed that a private organization should be able to do what it wants. Really, check my second post. So I'm not argument that. Promise to God I've also shown scientific evidence that G are no more likely to molest children than straight people. I've also said that if G acts in non acceptable behavior, they should I've also shown that G men checking out straight guys is kind of how women feel around guys. And we put up with it every day. Welcome to our world. Boys will be Boys, whether they are G or straight. And finally, I've shown that G & L have to put up with a lot more social "grief" in a straight world than vice versa. But will all that, the only thing I keep hearing is Yea...but we have the right to have exclusive clubs. Yea...well...I got it..see my first sentence. Just because you have the right, doesn't mean that it's a good idea. To be honest, and I don't mean to be mean spirited, but I know I'm addressing an older crowd. You guys aren't up for this level of change. Ok...that's fine. But I can tell you most (not all) men and women my age would laugh at this thread..they have NO problem with G. So in another 10 years, this won't be but a small foot note in the march to equality for everyone.
  8. Wow..you DID come up with something creative afterall. Normally, these types of arguments conclude that I’m either: ignorant, stupid or evil. But you have come up with another trick of the hand, saying that my values aren’t sincere and therefore are meaningless (as in they don’t exist) to you. Kewl…that means I now get to dabble into the thorny area of ontology: the philosophical study of what it means for something to exist. And what excellent timing, as I was just leaning about this in my physics class. It seems it is human nature to keep going back to the same rules, standards, behavior that has worked for you in the past. So what you are saying, is that you hold such things as loyalty and patriotism in high esteem. It also appears that authority is not to be questioned in your book. Hmmm…well, I guess that does leave us on different sides of the tails of the bell shape curve. I on the other hand question everything..including myself. I specifically question authority, I live for adventure, and I’m deeply curious in almost everything. What makes things tick? If I may digress for a moment, just this morning I was reading about physics, evolutionary behaviorism and free will. There is actually a line of study that believes that there is NO free will. That is, before you make a conscious decision, your biology mechanisms have already decided for you. It really is no different than instinct. To illustrate an example: A lady wakes in the middle of the night and discovers that she is thirsty. So she wanders down to the refrig and has a look about regarding her options. She settles on either orange juice or apple juice. Unsure if they are both still consumable (as in not spoiled), she takes a whiff of each. When she takes a whiff of the apple, the aroma sets a subconscious memory in motion of a romantic picnic that she once had in an apple orchard with an old lover. This brings back happy memories that set off endorphins and various chemicals like oxytocin and vasopressin. These are feel good chemicals…and it is little doubt that she decides to pick the apple juice. All this takes place without her even consciously knowing why. Pretty amazing. So, in the end, Francie, it appears that these values of yours have served you rather well. And while my life hasn’t been as long (or shall we say as deep??) as yours, I think mine has been more than likely broader. And no, I’m not going to get into a blow by blow argument on that point. I’m simply saying we both live by our own standards. So be it. One final bit, regarding your argument regarding patriotism and how no “real” American would question their Government’s authority. What about our Founding Fathers? Such men as Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, and Madison? Did they not deviate from Mother England’s authority? Did they not question the Governments ways? Didn’t they even start a revolution against their Government? But then again, maybe they weren’t “real” American either in your book? You know...just saying.
  9. Renee..you know I luv ya...but if you think YOU as a straight person get tired of *** people shoving (pun not intended I hope) things down your throat...think what it’s like for me as a lesbian to live in a primarily straight world? Really…honestly, think about it…how often do you actually deal with any thing dealing with *** or the *** lifestyle in your average daily life? Other than this site..really, when do you ever run into it? Now, as a h o m o…guess how many times I run into ideology that doesn’t accept my “unnatural” way of life? I bet I have a just a tad bit more bumps in my road than you do Sister.
  10. joe...the first part of your post reminds me of the woody allen quote that went something like: I can't prove there isn't a God, you'll just have to take it on faith. Tiff
  11. OMG...those are so funny...and true. My father scared the bejeebies out of my dates (and yes I did date boys at one time). He had a whole routine he'd go thru...about having shovels and 40 acres out back. and that I was to only go on dates to places with lots of lights AND nuns. I'll have to send these on to him! Thanks for sharing!
  12. Sorry snookie..my bad, I can indeed see where it's implied that I was talking about a child, but I meant that if a G couple enroll their child in the SBA, that the parent(s) should be allowed to be leaders. Just because one or both isn't a blood relative is moot, that is why I brought up adoption. I know we were sooo close to coming to a compromise BUT...pandora's box just slip open a bit with the reference to private organizations. May I try a different approach? The KKK is a private organization also...so I guess Blacks and G shouldn't be allowed to join them as well, right? Oops..silly me...that is because they specifically don't like Blacks and Gays. Hmmm...when you kind of think about it...BSA must not like G either? Where does one draw the line? I've proven that gays arent a threat to little Jim Bob and Billie Joe. And that G men CAN abide by the rules and keep their paws off each other when told to. So...what exactly is there left to get one's knickers in a twist over?
  13. Barb...Thank you for your reply..which to be absolutely honest...was a good one. I can respect that. Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. To be honest, when I first read this passage, I couldn't phantom why an all power entity that could create this: would be so fixated on removing human waste in his way. But with your insight, I can see it is a way of providing homage to the Creator...which does indeed make sense. BTW I have other questions that I'd like to ask, would you be up to it? They are question about specific passages that trouble me and I would like to request someone knowledgeable in the Bible to provide some clarity, such as you have done on this one.
  14. I agree. We ARE probably more alike than either of us can imagine. Believe it or not I HATE freeloaders...but I also think it is a mature society that takes care of those less fortuante. BTW, I really don't think of myself as a "liberal", instead I like to think of myself as someone that cares about the welfare of others, especially ones that haven't been as fortuante as I have. I really believe I'm one of the luckiest people on the planet. And in turn, thank you for the reasonableness in your response as well. I rarely have problems with men, because they can see the logic behind my debates. Like you, not that they agree, but they can at least see where I come up with my beliefs. Women on the otherhand...well, some on this site would like to push me over a cliff. Catch up to you on another thread Chris till then...be good!
  15. Pumpkin...you are using that well know male "selective" hearing (ok, in this case reading) again. I DID address why G leaders shouldn't be banned, I didn't say anything about children of G parents not being able to attend BSA. P.S. Spiders are no problem...now snakes....yea, I want a big 270lb linebacker around to help me with those babies!
  16. Ok...have to break this down again. So, yes, a G couple can only have one parent that is related by blood. So does that mean that BSA should disallow any child that is adopted, or stepchild or a half sibling? Again, it makes no logical sense to disallow because one of the pair of the couple isn't related by blood. Because adopted (neither parent is related) & half sibling/stepchildren (only one of the parents is the blood relative). Sorry but that argument doesn't hold water. As far as extinct...what happens when science figures out how to replicate both X & Y chromosomes? Then it will be men who are no longer needed. Back atcha’ babe Now for my final performance I'll address your last section and the one Bat made. That is, the overt way *** men behave, how it draws attention to their sexuality and how this is deemed outside society norms. Believe it or not...you do have a point. Yes, you can now start breathing again. Lesbians by nature don't usually call attention to ourselves...at least sexually, in public. But G men...well...we know many like to flaunt it. This I CAN understand and realize that it can cause some discomfort for parent of young children. I believe there is a time and place for this behavior..and in front of young children is NOT the place. So...I think the BSA would simply have to instruct the G couple that they are not to show any overt affection to each other. And guess what, 99% of G men would honor that because they know they are under the microscope. Put it this way, if the BSA head leadership heard that some (straight) leaders were being chummy with each other, what would they do? I assume provide a warning, and perhaps provide some counseling and if the behavior wasn't corrected, ask them to leave. Guess what??? That would be perfectly acceptable to G leaders as well. Equality for all...and everyone is held to the same level of standards. See..it really isn't that hard.
  17. Chris...I made those generalities about Conservatives to make a point…that is, that you can’t paint people with a wide ideological brush. I for one find myself to be on the extreme side of fiscal conservatism. To me, it makes logical sense that you don’t spend more than you make. We balance the books in our individual lives, the Feds required that States do it, but then they in turn get to turn out a fiscal overage year after year. On the other hand, I think we spend too much on Defense and too little on Science. I could elaborate but I think the point is moot. The real point I’m trying to make is that you started out painting liberals and progressives in a negative light. I countered with how I feel about Conservatives. And guess what? We are both wrong, because people are people and don’t conform to a party platform. That’s all that I was trying to get across. It sounds to me that you have made a turn in your life for the better..I therefore sincerely hope that life treats you well. Godspeed, Tiff
  18. Put this on wide screen and be prepared for some goosebumps! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiRJiG2QHrg
  19. Ok, lets break this down. You say a *** can't biologically have a child on their own. Not true. At least one of the couple, be it a *** or lesbian, can ACTUALLY be the parent via artificial insemination and/or surrogacy. Isn't medical technology fab? Sweetie, they are being called a hate group by the mere fact that they aren't allowing membership to be all inclusive. Think of what the organization has faced in the past: bias towards people based on race, creed and religion. Those are now outlawed. Think of what it will be like in the future. When machines become sentience (self aware) and become their own race (Star Trek had some great episodes on this with Data) or if we ever do meet an alien race. This will come up again. It's an ongoing debate, but barriers continue to be knocked down. Stop looking at the outside of the person and start looking at the inside. Next, believe it or not, *** people can be just as patriotic as straights. So why wouldn't *** parents want their children to participate in such training (outdoors, leadership, etc.) that the BSA offer? Finally, you did bring up the homophobia part. But here is my take: *** guys act more like MEN than like *** people...that is...welcome to how straight women feel when they walk into the room..all the guys staring at them. Guys will be guys if they are straight or ***...just one of those hardwire things that we have to deal with. Sorry but it's true.
  20. Ok...sorry Big Guy. You know how I feel about the subject, so I will try to put my emotions aside and present a logical argument. Plus..you and I have always been friendly. Should a private organization be allowed to select who can make up their membership. Yes....BUT....I think by zeroing in on only disallowing gays, that it DOES continue to hold up to the stereotype. By the way, Gays CAN be parent. As the study shows, Gays are no more likely to cause harm than straight people. So....if you put those two facts together, may I turn the table and ask WHY are you singling out Gays? That is if a *** couple enroll their child into the BSA, would you allow them to be a leader? One more thing, if you were to say substitute Jews or Blacks....then wouldn't it be overtly obvious that it was bias...but Gays (and of course Atheist) are still considered to be outside the circle of trust when it comes to the general population. Note I got neg just for submitting a study supporting my stance.
  21. Deep, while you are posting this in somewhat of a non-threating way, I must say that it reeks of homophobia and feeds into the fear that somehow homosexuality leads to Child molestation. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've pasted a study on this subject, and it specifically address the BSA. I've also taken the liberity to paste the conclusion at the top, as I doubt very many on this site will have the intellectual and moral fortitude to read it all. But I hope that it may allievate some of your concerns. Tiff Conclusion The empirical research does not show that *** or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children. Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women. In a similar fashion, *** people have often been portrayed as a threat to children. Back in 1977, when Anita Bryant campaigned successfully to repeal a Dade County (FL) ordinance prohibiting anti-*** discrimination, she named her organization "Save Our Children," and warned that "a particularly deviant-minded [***] teacher could sexually molest children" (Bryant, 1977, p. 114). [bibliographic references are on a different web page] In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that *** people are child molesters. This argument was often made in debates about the Boy Scouts of America's policy to exclude *** scouts and scoutmasters. More recently, in the wake of Rep. Mark Foley's resignation from the US House of Representatives in 2006, antigay activists and their supporters seized on the scandal to revive this canard. It has also been raised in connection with scandals about the Catholic church's attempts to cover up the abuse of young males by priests. Indeed, the Vatican's early response to the 2002 revelations of widespread Church cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests was to declare that *** men should not be ordained. Public belief in the stereotype The number of Americans who believe the myth that *** people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that "Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children" or that "Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner."1 By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most *** men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters. Consistent with these findings, Gallup polls have found that an increasing number of Americans would allow *** people to be elementary school teachers. For example, the proportion was 54% in 2005, compared to 27% in 1977. Examining the Research Even though most Americans don't regard *** people as child molesters, confusion remains widespread in this area. To understand the facts, it is important to examine the results of scientific research. However, when we evaluate research on child molestation, our task is complicated by several problems. One problem is that none of the studies in this area have obtained data from a probability sample, that is, a sample that can be assumed to be representative of the population of all child molesters. Rather, most research has been conducted only with convicted perpetrators or with pedophiles who sought professional help. Consequently, they may not accurately describe child molesters who have never been caught or have not sought treatment. Terminology A second problem is that the terminology used in this area is often confusing and can even be misleading. We can begin to address that problem by defining some basic terms. Pedophilia and child molestation are used in different ways, even by professionals. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty. Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager. Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them. Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children. Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully. Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation. To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation. Typologies of Offenders The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes. Over the years, this fact has been incorporated into various systems for categorizing child molesters. For example, Finkelhor and Araji (1986) proposed that perpetrators' sexual attractions should be conceptualized as ranging along a continuum – from exclusive interest in children at one extreme, to exclusive interest in adult partners at the other end. Typologies of offenders have often included a distinction between those with an enduring primary preference for children as sexual partners and those who have established age-appropriate relationships but become sexually involved with children under unusual circumstances of extreme stress. Perpetrators in the first category – those with a more or less exclusive interest in children – have been labeled fixated. Fixation means "a temporary or permanent arrestment of psychological maturation resulting from unresolved formative issues which persist and underlie the organization of subsequent phases of development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176). Many clinicians view fixated offenders as being "stuck" at an early stage of psychological development. By contrast, other molesters are described as regressed. Regression is "a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual's development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177). Regressed offenders have developed an adult sexual orientation but under certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they return to an earlier, less mature psychological state and engage in sexual contact with children. Some typologies of child molesters divide the fixation-regression distinction into multiple categories, and some include additional categories as well (e.g., Knight, 1989). For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women. Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180). Other Approaches Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a *** or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994). In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989). Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The Mainstream View Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. For example, in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote: Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147). In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259). This well known lack of a linkage between homosexuality and child molestation accounts for why relatively little research has directly addressed the issue. Proving something we already know simply isn't a priority. Indeed, a commentary that accompanied publication of the 1994 study by Jenny et al. in Pediatrics noted that debates about *** people as molesters "have little to do with everyday child abuse" and lamented that they distract lawmakers and the public from dealing with the real problem of children's sexual mistreatment (Krugman, 1994). Other Sexual Abuse In scandals involving the Catholic church, the victims of sexual abuse were often adolescent boys rather than small children. Similarly, the 2006 congressional page scandal involved males who were at least 16 years old. These are cases in which the term pedophilia – referring as it does to attractions to prepubescent children – can cause confusion. Rather than pedophilia, the accusations stemming from these scandals raised the question of whether *** people shouldn't be trusted in positions of authority where there is any opportunity for sexually harassing or abusing others. Here again, there is no inherent connection between an adult's sexual orientation and her or his propensity for endangering others. Scientific research provides no evidence that homosexual people are less likely than heterosexuals to exercise good judgment and appropriate discretion in their employment settings. There are no data, for example, showing that *** men and lesbians are more likely than heterosexual men and women to sexually harass their subordinates in the workplace. Data from studies using a variety of psychological measures do not indicate that *** people are more likely than heterosexuals to possess any psychological characteristics that would make them less capable of controlling their sexual urges, refraining from the abuse of power, obeying rules and laws, interacting effectively with others, or exercising good judgment in handling authority. As explained elsewhere on this site, sexual orientation is not a mental illness nor is it inherently associated with impaired psychological functioning. *** men and lesbians function effectively in a wide variety of employment settings. The research literature doesn't reveal any differences between heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals in job performance or ability to properly exercise authority in supervisory roles. As indicated by workplace policies around the United States, a large and growing number of private and public employers do not perceive a problem with hiring *** and bisexual people as employees or managers. Many corporations, educational institutions, and local governments have adopted policies that prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation. Many of those organizations provide benefits such as health insurance for employees' same-sex partners. Indeed, one widely cited reason for offering such benefits is that they enable a company to remain competitive by attracting high quality employees who happen to be ***, lesbian, or bisexual. Thus, there is no factual basis for organizations to avoid hiring homosexual or bisexual people, simply on the basis of their sexual orientation, for positions that involve responsibility for or supervision of others, whether children, adolescents, or adults. What About Claims That Scientific Research Proves *** Men Are Likely To Molest Children? Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse. With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue. On further examination, however, its central argument – that "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls" – doesn't hold up. In the following section, the main sources cited by Dailey and the FRC to support their claim are reviewed. The papers are listed in the same order in which they are first cited by the FRC article. 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." Silverthorne & Quinsey. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 67-76. 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, *** 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 *** men are more likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several reasons: the researchers failed to control for the varying attractiveness of the different photos; all of the faces portrayed in the photos were perceived to be at least 18; and the study merely assessed judgments of sexual attractiveness rather than the research participants' sexual arousal. Blanchard et al. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478. 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. Elliott et al. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 579-594. In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed. Their sexual orientation (***, 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 *** men. Jenny et al. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41-44. 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. Marshall et al. (1988). Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preference. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 383-391. 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 (***, 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. Bickley & Beech. (2001). Classifying child abusers: Its relevance to theory and clinical practice. International Journal Of Offender Therapy And Comparative Criminology, 45, 51-69. This is a literature review and theoretical paper that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various systems for classifying child molesters. In citing this study, the FRC says it: refers to homosexual pedophiles as a "distinct group." The victims of homosexual pedophiles "were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and that they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences.... Other studies [showed a] greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls" and that the "recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders." In reality, however, the paper was summarizing the findings of other studies, not reporting new data. In the passage excerpted by the FRC, the authors were discussing published papers that used a classification system focusing entirely on the sex of victims (not whether the perpetrator is straight or ***). Here is the complete text (the passages that FRC omitted are highlighted): "Grubin and Kennedy (1991) reported that when dividing sex offenders based simply on the sex of their victims, offenders against boys stood out as a distinct group. They noted that their victims were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences. Other studies have employed the sex-of-victim approach in the prediction of future risk, with offenders who have sexually abused boys or both boys and girls reported as having more victims and being at greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls only [bibliographic references omitted]. In the nondiagnostic remarks, DSM-IV (APA, 1994) claims that the recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders, and although not demonstrating such a marked difference, Furby,Weinrott, and Blackshaw (1989), in an extensive review of recidivism rates, found that reoffending was higher for male victim offenders. [¶] However, the sex-of-victim distinction has not been consistently found, and contrasting findings have been reported in studies that have demonstrated no differences in recidivism rates between the groups [bibliographic references omitted]. Furthermore, Abel, Becker, Murphy, and Flanagan (1981) found that those child molesters who offended against girls reported more than twice as many victims as those who had offended against boys, a finding contrary to the hypothesized outcome." (p. 56) Jay & Young. (1977). The *** report: Lesbians and *** men speak out about sexual experiences and lifestyles. New York: Summit. This book, published nearly 30 years ago by a team of writer-activists, is not a scientific study. The authors' survey methodology is not reported in detail and, because it was a journalistic work, the survey was never subjected to scientific peer review. Erickson et al. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86. This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records of male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital between 1975 and 1984. Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes. (The paper is unclear in that it doesn't explain how perpetrators with multiple victims were counted.) The paper asserts in passing that "Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (p. 83). However, no details are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret. Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described above) indicates is relevant. In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not support their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders. Do Any Studies Claim To Show That Homosexuals Are More Likely To Molest Children? One individual has claimed to have data that prove homosexuals to be child molesters at a higher rate than heterosexuals. That person is Paul Cameron. As detailed elsewhere on this site, Cameron's survey data are subject to so many methodological flaws as to be virtually meaningless. Even so, his assertions are sometimes quoted by antigay organizations in their attempts to link homosexuality with child sexual abuse. In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron purported to review published data to answer the question, "Do those who commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their sexual practices?" (p. 1227). He concluded that "at least one-third of the sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual" (p. 1228) and that "those who are bi- to homosexual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth" than are heterosexuals (p. 1231). Cameron's claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron's paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed. For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of "heterosexual" (i.e., female victim) to "homosexual" (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that "54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners" (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. The "54%" statistic reported by Cameron doesn't appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation. It is also noteworthy that, although Cameron assumed that the perpetrators of male-male molestations were all homosexual, he assumed that not all male-female molestations were committed by heterosexuals. He incorporated a "bisexual correction" into his data manipulations to increase further his estimate of the risk posed to children by homosexual/bisexual men. In the latter half of his paper, Cameron considered whether "homosexual teachers have more frequent sexual interaction with their pupils" (p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of sexual contact between a teacher and pupil reported in ten different sources published between 1920 and 1982, Cameron concluded that "a pupil would appear about 90 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a homosexual practitioner" (p.1232); the ratio rose to 100 times when Cameron added his bisexual correction. This ratio is meaningless because no data were obtained concerning the actual sexual orientation of the teachers involved; as before, Cameron assumed that male-male contacts were perpetrated by homosexuals. Furthermore, Cameron's rationale for selecting particular sources appears to have been completely arbitrary. He described no systematic method for reviewing the literature, and apparently never reviewed the voluminous literature on the sexual development of children and adolescents. His final choice of sources appears to have slanted his findings toward what Cameron described as "the relative absence in the scientific literature of heterosexual teacher-pupil sexual events coupled with persistent, albeit infrequent, homosexual teacher-pupil sexual interactions" (p. 1232). A subsequent paper by Cameron and others (Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, & Cameron, 1986) described data collected in a door-to-door survey in seven U.S. cities and towns, and generally repeated the conclusions reached in Cameron (1985). Even Cameron himself admitted that his conclusions in this study are "based upon small numbers of data points" (Cameron, 2005, p. 230). As before, male-male sexual assaults were referred to as "homosexual" molestations (e.g., Abstract, p.327) and the perpetrators' sexual orientation apparently was not assessed. This study also suffers from fatal methodological problems, which are detailed elsewhere on this site. In yet another article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron claimed to have reviewed data about foster parents in Illinois and found that 34% were perpetrated by a foster parent against a child of the same sex, that is, female-female or male-male (Cameron, 2005). Not only did Cameron again make the fallacious claim that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals, he also made the same claim about female-female molestations. Once again, he had no data about the actual sexual orientations of the molesters. Cameron continues to produce reports that essentially repeat the same inaccurate claims. Perhaps one of the best indicators of his diminishing credibility in this area is that his work was not cited in the 2004 FRC report discussed in detail above. Conclusion The empirical research does not show that *** or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children. http://voices.yahoo.com/are-homosexuals-more-likely-sex-offenders-6032012.html
  22. For someone that prides herself on her knowledge of human nature...you sure don't seem to show a lot of creativeness...this once again is a classic textbook response. It's called No True Scotsman fallacy. Let’s say you believe that no Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge. I protest that my Uncle Angus McGregor of Glasgow puts sugar in his porridge.” ‘Aye” you reply, but no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge” So much for my counterevidence-and so much the better for your belief. This is an evergreen rhetorical trick especially in religion and politics. As everyone knows, no true follower of the Qur’an supports suicide bombings, no true Christian supports legalized abortion, no real American question her government et cetera. Yawn.....same ole same ole argument.
  23. Just curious, can someone pls tell me in plain everyday english what this is talking about: Deuteronomy 23:13-14 King James Version (KJV) 13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: 14 For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee. It seems almost as if God is requiring his early followers to attach a paddle to their weapons so they could cover up the human poop lying around their camp, in case God happen to walk through the camp wearing sandalss. Am I missing something? I'm not being funny, I want to know what this really means?
  24. Babe...not to be cheeky, but Imagine was done by the Great John Lennon. One of the greatest songs ever. But I like the way you think!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.