Aslan wrote:

>I can't recall a case of when a school teacher molested a pupil of >the opposite sex. That's not to say there are no cases - I don't >doubt there are some - just that they are so rare that I can't >recall any cases.

That tears it.

Cases of opposite-sex teacher-pupil molestations and illegal affairs are frequently reported in the press, yet Aslan cannot recall a single case.

I'm sure there's not a single reasonable reader out there who would now have any doubt of the twisted depths of Aslan's seemingly all-consuming homophobia.

Furthermore, his inability to concede even the slightest empathy over the effects of homophobia on gay people suggests the man's extremist bigotry borders on the psychpathological.

Just why is he so obsessed with this subject?

Adieu.

Aslan rather then get your info form dodgy sources why don't you go to one we should all be able to agree on the actually gov stats.
here’s a link http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi193.html
have a read.

BOAZ_David everyone is should be concerned with the type of Christianity being preached for hillsong other Christians especially.

sorry I forgot to put this on http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/issues5.html#homosexual
the general site wich is very informative.
http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/research/offchar.html

Kenny
I read a review this morning which mentioned that the Hillsong pastor (Houston) has backed away to some degree from his former 'Health and Wealth' approach. I applaude this along with any move toward a more Christ-like manifestation of Christianity.
But I still worry about the 'big is beautiful' syndrome. I also remember with vivid recollection "I ...have...sinnnned" ..Jimmy Swaggart. and Jim Baker.. debacle. Its the old story, the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Or.. perhaps its just that they built their empires not on the sure word of Jesus, but on the ego of man ?
Have u found out yet why Jesus would not drive a BMW ? :) I've looked at superstring theory..

Kenny,

Thanks for those links. They actually reinforce my point.

The first link from the AIFS is a bit of a straw-man. It says:
"The stereotypic 'paedophile' can be classified as being more likely to be an extrafamilial, preferential offender who indulges in same-sex or 'homosexual' offending...the assumption that paedophiles who engage in same-sex sexual abuse are homosexuals is more a societal myth than a reality."

The authors appear to be arguing that because the typical pedophile is not a homosexual then homosexulity has nothing to do with pedophilia.

This is a straw-man. Those like myself who object to the homosexual lifestyle and social agenda have never claimed that the typical pedophile is a homosexual. What we claim is that homosexuals are over-represented in the breakdown of child molestors. ie. homosexuals who comprise less than 3% of the population account for 25-40% of child molestations. This fact is confirmed in your second link (the paper from Aust Inst of Criminology) on page 2 where it states that approx 75% of the offenders were heterosexual which means that approx 25% WERE HOMOSEXUAL!

This percentage may increase as well given that the extra-familial sample was much less than the familial sample, and extra-familial offenders were far more likely to report a homosexual/bisexual orientation.

So, again, the data shows that homosexuals are over-represented among child molestors.

AK

Aslan Anybody else of sound mind who reads these links will now see you for what you are a straight out liar.
You said the first link says ""The stereotypic 'paedophile' can be classified as being more likely to be an extrafamilial, preferential offender who indulges in same-sex or 'homosexual' offending...the assumption that paedophiles who engage in same-sex sexual abuse are homosexuals is more a societal myth than a reality."
That is wrong the document only has two references to homo's one is in a table the other is in a sentence on page 2 which reads " More than three-quarters of the offenders reported an exclusively heterosexual orientation. ExtraFamilial and mixed-type offenders were more likely to report either a homosexual or bisexual orientation" Now if you look at the table you will see that they are saying in intrafamilial the rate for homosexuals is 2.5 and for Extra-familial it is 15.3 Now my question to you is are you delbratly misrepersenting this report of are you not very good at reading/comperhension?

No if you had read the second link you would have read this and I asume ignored it but I post here for all to see.

“'Homosexual' Offenders
The stereotypic 'paedophile' can be classified as being more likely to be an extrafamilial, preferential offender who indulges in same-sex or 'homosexual' offending (Willis 1993). The basic societal assumption is that paedophiles who sexually abuse same-sex children are members of the homosexual community (King 1994). That is, there is no qualitative difference between a homosexual man who engages in sexual behaviour with another adult male, and a male who engages in sexual behaviour with a boy. As recently as 1995 this perception has resulted in moves by the Victorian Government to enact a special clause in the new Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 1995 allowing employers to discriminate against homosexuals (gay men and lesbians) who apply for jobs which involve the supervision, care or instruction of children (Stewart 1995). Yet the supposed link between homosexuality and paedophilia, and the assumption that paedophiles have come from the gay community is not backed up by evidence.
An offender's sexual orientation, whether he perceives himself to be homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual, is not mentioned as a risk factor, indicator, or characteristic in typologies of child sex offenders (Finkelhor, Williams, Burns and Kalinowski 1988; Wurtele and Miller-Perrin 1993). Offender typologies account for same-sex sexual abuse purely on the biological sex of the victim and offender, regardless of self-reported sexual orientation.
Willis noted that the attempt to classify offenders as 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' involved 'crude categories [that were] very unreliable given the extensive overlap of the [offender's] behaviour' (1993:20). Willis also reported that 'substantial numbers of non-familial child molesters do not display or report deviant sexual preferences' (1993:22). That is, many offenders offend against both male and female children, defying strict classification on the basis of sexual orientation. In addition, Willis indicated that many offenders do not have any outward signs of so- called 'deviant' sexual behaviour, such as homosexuality.
Summit (1990) stated that male child molesters tend to cultivate adult female partners regardless of whether they engage in same-sex or opposite-sex offending behaviour. Despite a lack of references to support this claim, it is one of the few statements specifically referring to 'homosexual' offending and the link to heterosexual (adult-adult) sexual behaviour.
In a national study of child sexual assault in day care centres in the United States, Finkelhor, Williams, Burns and Kalinowski (1988) found that males were disproportionately represented as sexual abusers despite accounting for only 5 per cent of staff. Yet Finkelhor's group found no offender characteristics which would distinguish the abusers from other staff or people generally. It was specifically reported that stereotypic paedophile characteristics were notably absent. Finkelhor and colleagues made recommendations for the screening of all applicants for day care positions, but did not specify an individual's sexual orientation as a risk factor. A more recent review of studies of sexual abuse in day care also made no reference to offender's sexual orientation as a risk factor (Kelley 1994).
In a discussion paper focused on men's role in primary education, King (1994) found that there was no evidence of a relationship between homosexual male teachers and paedophile activity. Newton (1978) found that homosexual teachers were no more likely to engage in same-sex sexual abuse than were heterosexual teachers. In a study of child sexual abuse by clergy, Camargo and Loftus (1992) found that there was a clear distinction in terms of masculinity and femininity factors between clergy who were active homosexuals (adult-adult), and those engaged in same- sex paedophile activity.
In their classic study aimed at determining sexual behaviour and orientation in the community, Kinsey and colleagues (1948, as cited in DiLapi 1989), found that crimes such as child sexual assault had been historically incorrectly attributed to homosexuals and that, if anything, heterosexual males were more likely to be involved in sexual abuse. Despite methodological flaws, and what has been charitably described as a 'minimisation' of the negative effects that sexual abuse has on child victims (Finkelhor 1979), this study was one of the few to attempt to define the prevalence of homosexuals as offenders in cases of child sexual abuse (Freund and Watson 1992).
Finally, studies of offender arousal patterns have indicated that paedophiles and homosexuals have different patterns of response (Freund and Watson 1992), with paedophiles not surprisingly being more aroused by images of children. Overall, what little evidence there is, although flawed, appears to indicate that sexual orientation does not play a part in child sexual assault typologies, and that the assumption that paedophiles who engage in same-sex sexual abuse are homosexuals is more a societal myth than a reality. “
."

In short Aslan you are a liar and a fool, keep getting brainwashed by the F'n'L.