JB wrote: "Right now most of them say the important thing is consenting adults and claim it is hysterical bigotry to associate them with child molestors but it sounds too familiar why don't I trust them?"

The answer is transparent - you have a hysterical dislike for them.

I posted a response to a similar assertion from JB in another thread, which was: Australia is united in believing children cannot consent to sex - it's one of our most stable laws. And the worldwide trend tracks the other way - countries where the age of consent was once what we in the west consider too young are increasingly raising that age. In Australian, no lobby group is attempting to change the age of consent. I have never met nor heard of a gay person who is in the least bit interested in changing the age of consent.

Gay people aren't attracted to children. They're attracted to people of their own sex. Pedeophiles are attracted to children.

If you're suggesting that adults want to lower the age of consent in order to abuse children, *statistically* this call is most likely to come from heterosexual men. (Not that I believe that it will.) Children who are abused are most likely to be abused by a heterosexual relative or friend of the family. More girls than boys are abused, but even adult male sexual abusers of boys often do not identify as gay. You can google for stats, or I'll provide them.

If you have some proof for your assertion, let's have a look at it. If not, it seems to me paranoid and not really worth debating.

Also, what I would love to hear more about is this period in history when "homo activists" (one cohesive pod, apparently) "acted offended and called it hysterical bigotry" when confronted with the charge that they wanted to redefine marriage. I missed that.

Also, just out of some peverse interest, what does this <<When homo activists inisted their sexual perversion was a healthy lifestyle choice they didn’t swear blindly they are born that way>> even mean?

Botheration,

This thread still going...

”If you're suggesting that adults want to lower the age of consent in order to abuse children, *statistically* this call is most likely to come from heterosexual men. (Not that I believe that it will.) Children who are abused are most likely to be abused by a heterosexual relative or friend of the family. More girls than boys are abused, but even adult male sexual abusers of boys often do not identify as gay. You can google for stats, or I'll provide them.”

Are child molestors more overrepresented in the opposite sex attracted camp or the same sex attracted camp? You say “heterosexual”. To be honest I’ve encountered confident assertions in both directions.

Some argue that most molested children are girls and the molestors of boys tend to be married. The inherent assumption is that noone would get married to molest children.

Others argue that molested boys often get molested by men who marry late and due to the tiny proportion of same sex attracted males in the population it indicates paedophile tendencies are overrepresented in same sex attracted males. The inherent assumption is that a man having sex with a boy is what you call gay.

That has left me suspecting that both camps are making sweeping assumptions and not only hasn’t it been properly researched but I can’t imagine a connection between same sex attraction and paedophilia getting researched. I don’t believe researchers would touch it.

Can you really provide stats that genuinely address the issue? It would be nice if my above assumption is incorrect and researchers have taken the plunge. It would be nice to lay the issue to rest.

mjpb, you're right that this argument has become one of competing assertions. Well done for calling me on it.

Statistics are notoriously difficult to obtain. I have several friends who were abused as children, but not one who reported it.

From the ABS, 2006:
* Women were more likely to have been sexually abused than men. Before the age of 15, 12% ( 956,600) of women had been sexually abused compared to 4.5% (337,400) of men

For stats, see:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyTopic/0556FBD355B2719BCA2571C50074ABF2?OpenDocument
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/C41F8B2864D42333CA256F070079CBD4/$File/45230_2004.pdf

Information on perps here: http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/issues/issues5/issues5.html

This was an excellent site: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
although it's a gay site, so some may not trust it.

I'd also add, "lies, damn lies, and statistics". What do we learn about the perpetrators from these stats? I still think we should define child abusers as child abusers - not straight or gay. Say researched discovered that, hypothetically, 1% of heterosexual men abuse children and 2% of homosexual men abuse children. What would the community do with this information?

It's also important to remember that not all child molestors are pedeophiles - that is, not all of them are generally sexually attracted to children. There can be other motives for abusing children. Also, some pedeophiles are attracted to both sexes. It's the child that's the thing.

And child abuse is separate from the issue of gay partnership, now matter how hysterically some suggest otherwise.

TRTL "I asked how do you know many homos don't intend to molest."

“How many men don't intend to rape?” Most
“How many soldiers don't intend to commit genocide?” Most
“How many motorists don't intend to commit vehicular manslaughter?” Most
“How many footballers don't intend to commit assault?” Don’t know but might get suspicions there if recent performance is anything to go by.

“Well, clearly, the world must be jam packed full of genocidal rapists intending to commit assault and manslaughter.” No we know otherwise so it isn't the same.

“I'm in a far better position to judge what I'm saying.” Sounds good but your words were clear.

“It's all empty opinion.” Whatever I assumed some official comments were correct and meant what they said because until recently I had no reason to take an interest in homos and it I realized soon afterwood the problem before it was the basis of anything.

"JB no one is asking you to like gays, but this level of hatred is poisonous. Get help." SM I hate ugly things happening to kids, I hate racism, I hate exploitation of women, I hate environment abuse, I hate people ramming a God delusion down my throat, I hate stupidity and I hate nasty people but none of this means I hate gays just because they are gays as I hate heteros if they fit the bill and homos seem to be the clever ones so the stupidity and God delusion don’t apply.

“you have a hysterical dislike for them.” Botheration no I’m just not gullible.

“it's one of our most stable laws.” What like illegal homosexuality was one of our most stable laws until it changed in the 80s? Didn’t psychologists speak in favour then? Think about it.

“And the worldwide trend” Holland lowered the age and Australia lowered the age for homo consent so that’s interesting trivia but just trivia because if trends didn’t change they woldn’t be trends.

“In Australian, no lobby group”

As opposed to America with the North American Man Boy Love Association.

http://www.nambla.org/select.htm

Are you getting your arguments from homos as I can’t believe a gay marriage supporting hetero would think of that trick themself? They must love you in the same way that white racist scum in South Africa loved Africans they convinced to beat up other Africans.

“ I have never met nor heard of a gay person who is in the least bit interested in changing the age of consent.”

Even if none admitted it it doesn’t mean they aren’t out there and I remember reading a gay barrister arguing somewhere to lower the homo age of consent when it was higher than hetero.

“If you have some proof for your assertion, let's have a look at it. If not, it seems to me paranoid and not really worth debating.”

What if no gays were admitting it. Homos have a sexual perversion similar to paedophiles and a history of changing their story so we can’t ask them so these things should be considered when gay adoption is being considered.

“I missed that.” I suppose you also missed the time when psychologists got in strife for saying the research proved that children aren’t harmed by molestation and we all know the orientation of psychologists like hairdressers don’t we?

“what does this even mean?” It means that they said they made a healthy lifestyle choice when it got the right results and they say they are born that way when they think that will help theml Fools believe them even when they keep changing stories.

So you continue to misrepresent me. Evidently I am in a far better position to judge them.

My words were clear eh J Bennett? Lets revisit them, then dissect the false view you're constructing for me.

Funny how my words were clear when you pin some damning false intepretation on them, yet when I repeatedly point out your ignorance in claiming that there are already civil unions in Australia and homosexuals receive more or less equal treatment aside from adoption, you don't seem so eager to repeat them.

I was going to let this thread be, but damned if I'm going to stand by and allow you to misrepresent what I'm saying.

Hokay, first you accused me of saying the sexual habits of ancient greece were 'good.'

This is an outright lie. I've told you it's a lie, and asked you to clarify, and point to where I said that.

You won't.

It's an outright lie, which really angers me, because I've not said that.

But that's your only means of debate. Misrepresenting people. Quite frankly, I find that even more disgusting than your other views.

What I did say, was: "I do get amused when I see people pointing to homosexuality as some kind of sign of a deteriorating society, when in truth it's existed among most world civilisations, it was just the puritan hangups on sex that came as baggage with church orthodoxy which repressed it in western civilisations."

The key points:
1. Societies throughout history have had homosexuality peppered through their history, thus it's not a sign of a decay in society.
2. Puritanism and church orthodoxy created a ripple effect of sexual repression in western society.

Which part of this is wrong?

Cont'd.