User:Joo/Homosexuality debate on Catholic sex abuse cases

Homosexuality Theory
NOTE: Just a KIV copy of my debate with Dvd-junkie at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Homosexuality_Theory joo (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

@Joo What are you trying to accomplish by inserting nonsense about NAMBLA and quoting a hate group such as Family Research Institute? Why all this anti-gay propaganda?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @Dvd-junkie: (1) You need to put my name in proper wiki formatting (as I've put here) before I can see your message.  (2) The NAMBLA reference is not nonsense. It is a fact (documented on Wikipedia itself at NAMBLA and at the jstor reference I gave) and a significant fact that NAMBLA was a member group (for 10 years!) of ILGA a homosexual organization that has consultative rights to the UN and European Commission. If NAMBLA (the pedophile group) is not homosexual, what was it doing inside ILGA?  (3) How is Family Research Institute a hate group? Who defines it as a hate group? And not worthy of having its views and research being represented here? Even if it is, aren't Dawkins and Hitchens also reacting out of hate? They should be removed as well then.  (4) You have removed references to research studies made by more than the Family Research Institute. You've also removed (a) the Freund, Heasman, Racansky, and Glancy study, (b) the Erickson, Walbek, Sely study, (c) the K. Freud and R. I. Watson study, (d) the United States Army, Office of Judge Advocate study, (e) the Archives of Sexual Behavior study. Please explain your deletions. joo (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if you disagree, even if you think the other party is responding out of hate:

"Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia? All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views  that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."


 * I disagree with many things written on this article. I think that Dawkins, Hitchens and most of the media reports on the Catholic sex abuse issues are reacting out of hate. But I don't remove their quotations or references. joo (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The NAMBLA thing is incredibly controversial, so I presume there are multiple reliable sources backing it up? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see the following: joo (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC) "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA#The_International_Lesbian_and_Gay_Association_controversy"

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILGA#Controversy_and_loss_of_UN_consultative_status" "https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf"
 * btw did you have a message for me? I couldn't find it on your talk page, so I deleted the notification. joo (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "ILGA itself had hosted workshops on pedophilia and passed resolutions in 1985, 1988, and 1990 to abolish age of consent laws claiming that "same sex age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect" and supported "the right of every individual, regardless of age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality."26 Eventually, reacting to congressional legislation threatening the reduction of $119 million in financial support, the United Nations kicked out ILGA in 1995 for refusing to sever ties with a half dozen member groups that advocated or promoted pedophilia. Revealingly, even though ILGA did expel NAMBLA (many say it was for show), it could not muster enough support among its membership to expel other more powerful and discreet pro-pedophile organizations from Germany and other countries. It is extremely revealing that the majority of members of the world’s leading homosexual coalition, the ILGA, decided they would rather be excluded from UN deliberations than vote out groups that advocate sex with children.27"

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf


 * "...over the last fifteen years the homosexual community and its academic allies have published a large quantity of articles that claim sex with children is not harmful to children but, as stated in one homosexual journal, "constitute an aspect of gay and lesbian life."28 Such articles have appeared in pro-homosexual academic journals such as The Journal of Homosexuality, The Journal of Sex Research, Archives of Sexual Behavior, and The International Journal of Medicine and Law. The editorial board of the leading pedophile academic journal, Paidika, is dominated by prominent homosexual scholars such as San Francisco State University professor John DeCecco, who happens to edit the Journal of Homosexuality."

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talk • contribs) 07:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "mainstream gay publications make no effort to hide their pro-pedophilia views. For example, BLK, a leading black homosexual publication, defended pedophilia with an article entitled, "Must Men Who Love Boys Be Guilty of Sexual Misconduct?"30 San Francisco’s leading homosexual newspaper, The Sentinel, bluntly editorialized, "The love between man and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality."31 In 1995, the homosexual magazine Guide stated:

"We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual, that they deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose . . . [w]e must listen to our prophets. Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality . . . . We must do it for the children’s sake.32"

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf joo (talk) 07:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @joo:


 * The deletions happened during an editing conflict – I simply copied and pasted my edit.


 * Really? Very well.joo (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * NAMBLA's self-serving comment doesn't represent gays just as the Ku Klux Klan doesn't represent whites.
 * NAMBLA was a member group of ILGA for 10 years. ILGA organised pedophile seminars, called for age of consent to be lowered, etc. Ku Klux Klan wasn't a member group of a large public group with lots of power, say, the Senate and the Senate didn't organize seminars for the Ku Klux Klan. joo (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Who considers the Family Research Institute a hate group? The Southern Poverty Law Center, for example. The FRT's anti-gay stance is hardly a secret. As for their founder, considerable controversy surrounds Dr. Cameron and his research. The American Psychological Association dropped Cameron from its membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists. The Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality. Cameron's credibility was also questioned outside of academia. In his written opinion in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to "Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'" and concluded that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and that "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron".
 * The Southern Poverty Law Center has an explicit pro-gay agenda. Calling the FRT (and many other groups who oppose homosexual acts) hate groups seems to be a major part of its activities. With regards to misrepresentations by Dr Cameron, I would prefer to read the details of the problem before making such a judgment. Otherwise, it's possible that those who accuse him basically have an agenda of their own. joo (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * By quoting the geek squad the ratio is a tad bit skewed. Why don't you present representable studies?


 * Cite me some of the studies which you claim are in the majority. I only found one or two and they talk about homosexuality and pedophilia. These cases involve mostly pederasts (over 81 percent) and not pedophiles. joo (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, please explain your anti-gay propaganda! Your edits over-represent a scientific minority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvd-junkie (talk • contribs) 07:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not anti-gay. That's your perception. I have a few gay friends but I cannot ignore the problems that somehow plague the gay community. I'm Catholic but not with blinkers. I want to defend the Church, but I have no intention of distorting the truth. Give me information and references that can convince me. joo (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Debate Over Causes & Reliability of Sources

 * @Joo, none of those sources look reliable to me... I was hoping for something along the lines of the New York Times or a Scientific Journal. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The NAMBLA information regarding its participation in ILGA looks pretty well documented, and so probably deserves mention in any discussion of the homosexuality controversy. Links cannot be denied if they do exist.  Xan  dar   23:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So one stupid decision by a gay organisation ==> a solid link between homosexuality and pedophillia, come on. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ILGA isn't just any gay organisation. It has consultative status in the UN and EC. It is a significant link. As to what kind of link that is, as mentioned, it needs to be investigated. joo (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Eraserhead1, is the New York Times a reliable source? I'm afraid it has stopped being one.
 * Come on, the New York Times is still an example of a reliable source. It may not be as good as it was - but its still reliable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As for what "reliable sources" means, I've just taken a closer look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources and I think my references stand just fine. E.g. The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy is an independent journals under the leadership of Robert Taylor Segraves. The Archives of Sexual Behavior is the official Publication of the International Academy of Sex Research. The Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy is a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Routledge. The United States Army, Office of Judge Advocate, should be reliable... don't you diagree? joo (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If Pedophilia and homosexuality are related and reliable sources can be found they should be inserted into the primary article on the topic - Homosexuality - not this one, as otherwise you are creating a POV fork. And docs.google.com is not a scientific journal... -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The section title is "Debate over causes". A debate is always about PoVs, isn't it? So long as they come from reliable sources, they should remain. But again, I'm kind of disappointed now with the people (who can't wait to delete info that contradicts their PoV) here, in this case, frequently deleting any PoV that seem to reflect unfavorably on gays, even when they come from reliable sources as defined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. joo (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you tried to read what's on the Google Docs? It's a Regent University Law Review paper by Steve Baldwin. btw The John Jay reports are now on Google Docs too. Are the John Jay report invalid because they are on Google Docs? Seems to me you keep trying to find excuses to remove information that you don't like. joo (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
@joo: Yeah, funny that I think that of your edits as anti-gay biased. Yet your "fair and balanced" edits to the "homosexuality theory" seem to exclusively blame gays. You haven't inserted a single quote to the contrary.
 * Am I obliged to insert a quote to the contrary when the whole section is filled with quotes that say there's no link between pedophilia and homosexuality? Adding studies that do show a link does balance up the section. With your latest deletions, the whole section is now biased towards studies that say there's no link. How are balanced are your edits indeed? joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You keep reinserting quotes from sources that are unreliable: Paul Cameron's credibility is questioned inside and outside of academia; the American Psychological Association and the Nebraska Psychological Association distance themselves for his misrepresentation of the facts regarding homosexuality-pedophelia links). The US Army, of course, doesn't have an anti-gay bias...
 * Based on the info that you've given, I agree that Cameron's quote can be removed. But you have removed all the studies that say there's a link. "The US Army doesn't have an anti-gay bias..." But have you again inadvertently removed it because of an edit conflict? It's quite clear where you stand, isn't it? You do not tolerate other PoVs. joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, so far I have not removed any quotes that say there's no links. An anti-gay person (motivated by hate rather than reason) would have removed these quotes, wouldn't s/he? joo (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You keep reinserting factoids that are irrelevant (unrelated) to the "homosexuality theory": No one disputes that NAMBLA was a member of ILGA, but what do ILGA or NAMBLA have to do with priests that fondle children? Were the priests members of NAMBLA? Does NAMBLA represent gays in general?
 * The fact that NAMBLA was a member of ILGA is significant. It shows that there is a link. If priests have to be members of NAMBLA before facts can be mentioned, then by the same logic, all the studies you've quoted are irrelevant because they did not study priests. joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say that if NAMBLA being a member of the ILGA implies homosexuals are pedophiles in general you could say that given the catholic church allowed pedophiles to continue to be priests that implies that catholics in general are pedophiles.
 * Given the latter is also appalling, I don't really see how you can defend the former as they are basically the same. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Eraserhead1, your logic and analogy are appalling. Is there an official pedophilia member group in the Church as there's one in ILGA?
 * Yes, there are convicted pedophiles in the church who weren't immediately defrocked but were moved to another parish so they could continue to abuse more children. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did the Catholic Church organise seminars to promote pedophilia as ILGA did?
 * Citation that the ILGA did rather than NAMBLA... -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did the Catholic Church call for the age of consent to be lowered as ILGA did?
 * That was because - in Britain at least - the age of consent for homosexual sex was higher than for heterosexual sex, which was discriminatory until they were both equalised. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction: "ILGA itself had hosted workshops on pedophilia and passed resolutions in *1985, 1988, and 1990* to *ABOLISH* age of consent laws claiming that "same sex age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect" and supported "the right of every individual, regardless of age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality." joo (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter LaBarbera, UN Kicks Out Gay Group – With NAMBLA’s Help, LAMBDA REP., Feb-Mar. 1995, at 13; see also Peter LaBarbera, UN Grants Voice to Gay Group with Pedophile Ties, LAMBDA REP., Sept. 1993, at 3; Peter LaBarbera, U.S. May Reverse U.N. Vote Over NAMBLA’s Ties, LAMBDA REP., Nov. 1993, at 1-10; Joyce Price, Pedophiles Resisting Expulsion from Gay Umbrella Organization, WASH. TIMES, Nov. 27, 1993 at A4; Aras Van Hertum, U.S. Gay Leaders Urging ILGA to Oust NAMBLA, WASH. BLADE, Nov. 5, 1993, at A1.


 * I see a link. And a link is not equal to what you claim as "homosexuals are pedophiles in general". That link need to be investigated. joo (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the link? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Had you kept looking you might have the following, for example:

Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.
"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."
 * What's the definition of children here? Are any of them aged 11-19? How many? joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just found that the study did include pubescents. However, the Discussion section talks about an anomaly in the results: "Both gynephilic groups (homosexual pedophile offenders and volunteers) showed an erotic aversion to males of all ages, whereas androphiles showed an erotic aversion only to the youngest age group of females. The interpretation that this is a cultural phenomenon is supported by the fact that only the (gynephilic) sex offenders, who probably tried their best to have a favorable test outcome, attained a convincing degree of aversion, responding less to every age category of males than to neutrals when compared to androphiles' responses to females." joo (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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. 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:
 * 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.
 * This is merely a critique of the FRC study? Finding holes in other people's study does not prove that your theory is right. It's significant that "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." while heterosexual men find 25-year-old women more attractive than 18-year old females. Goes to show gay men prefer the youngest faces while heterosexual men don't. What would have happened if the researchers had added male faces who are aged 11-17? 81 percent of the boys sexually abused were aged 11-19. Anyway, this does not support your stand that there's no link. joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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.
 * ? Why is this study quoted here? What are its results relevant to your point? joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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 (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.
 * What? This is an indirect inference, certainly not part of the study's results. Are you adding this and the one above to make the list look long? joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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.
 * Not very clear here. The results of this study suggests no link? joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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 (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.
 * ? Is this to support your point that there's no link or just to criticize FRC? If the latter, it doesn't support your point that there's no link. joo (talk)

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 gay). 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)
 * This is a critique of FRC. How does it support your point that there's no link? It's interesting btw that "child molesters who offended against girls reported more than twice as many victims as those who had offended against boys". I've read somewhere too that girls tend to report such problems more than boys. In the priestly abuse cases, the number of male victims who reported abuse is the reverse of this study: 4x that of female victims. Curious, isn't it? joo (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jay & Young. (1977). The gay report: Lesbians and gay 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.
 * NOT a scientific study and no peer review. This doesn't count. But it makes your list look long, right? joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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.
 * Again, it's interesting that "70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes". "Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (p. 83). In the priestly abuse cases, 80% of the victims abused were boys. Why huh? joo (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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. His 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.
 * This seems to be mainly a critique of Cameron's studies. What about the other studies that you have conveniently deleted because you don't like them? joo (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
The empirical research does not show that gay 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvd-junkie (talk • contribs) 25 April 2010 14:46 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a great summary of the situation :). It looks to me like the section should be removed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * user:Dvd-junkie: In conclusion, you've effectively cited only one or two studies that say there's no link, mostly critiques of the FRC/Cameron studies and a few studies that actually suggest a link. But you've deleted the other studies which have not been criticized:

Sex researchers Freund, Heasman, Racansky, and Glancy, for example, in an 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, put the number at 36%. Erickson, Walbek, Sely, in a 1988 Archives of Sexual Behavior article, placed it at 86% when the children being molested are male.[152] In a 1992 study, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson reported that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested.[153] In 1993, the United States Army, Office of Judge Advocate, issued a study that analyzed 102 court martial convictions having to do with soldiers involved in homosexual acts over a four-year period. The study found that in 47% of the cases, the homosexual men had victimized a youth.[154] In 2000, the Archives of Sexual Behavior published an article by seven sex researchers concluding that ‘‘around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles."


 * I don't see how your long list is relevant. What are the researchers' definition of children? What are the age ranges of the children (not the older men) studied? Are these pre-pubescent children as what Jenkins has pointed out "'Pedophilia' is a psychiatric term meaning sexual interest in children below the age of puberty." Do they include teenagers aged 15-19? I have more comments above. By the way, have you again 'inadvertently' removed other credible sources because of some edit conflict? Distinguished Professor Philip Jenkins's quote has disappeared. joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Look if there really is a connection between homosexuality and pedophillia, which I highly doubt, why the hell isn't this on the page on homosexuality? Just having it here just creates a POV fork. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoever might have inserted the text probably had the text removed by someone like Dvd-junkie. The section title Debate Over Causes basically means just that: PoVs. joo (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then challenge it on the talk page of Homosexuality and if necessary organise an RFC. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you asking me to enter a hornets' nest (where there will most likely be even more "pro-gay" folks making sure that the article is politically correct and palatable? Merely adding to this article alone is almost turning into a full-time job and a number of you keep removing relevant info. I've got enough of the antics here by now. joo (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, because otherwise a POV fork is being created. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the Debate Over Causes section is a PoV fork? joo (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Joo: Of course, I will challenge and remove info that is unreliable and unsubstantiated or at least label it that way. And so should you, whether you are pro or anti-gay. Wouldn't you go against it, if someone added "info" about blacks being inferior and lusting after white women or some similar nonsense? --Dvd-junkie (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Dvd-junkie: What's your basis for saying the other studies are unreliable? One study (Cameron's) discredited does not equal to all other studies also discredited. If there are indeed research studies from reliable sources saying that blacks are inferior, I won't remove them. A very simple example: So far I've not removed the nonsense uttered by Dawkins & Hitchens. joo (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Joo:
 * For starters, Fitzgibbons claims seem quite extreme. A little fact check reveals that he is connected to the ex-gay movement.


 * Kurt Freund was taken out of context. Actually, he is convinced that gay men respond no more to male child stimuli than heterosexual men respond to female child stimili [Kurt Freund, Robin Watson, and Douglas Rienzo, "Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference," The Journal of Sex Research, 26(1), Feb. 1989, pp. 107-117]. He described as a "myth" the notion that gay men are more likely than straight men to be child molesters [Kurt Freund and Robin Watson, "The Proportion of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 18(1), Spring, 1992, pp. 34-43, at p. 41].


 * Outside of anti-gay websites I found no reference to that 1993 US Army study. But they use the exact same wording as your edit. The Gay Report that you give as its source relied on questionable methodology. It was modeled after many other informal sex surveys which were popular in the 1970s and 1980s. Magazines like Cosmopolitan, Redbook, and Playboy often conducted reader surveys. Roughly half of the responses came from a gay softcore porn magazine questionnaire. Would you consider those who respond to a sex survey in an issue of Hustler magazine indicative of the American heterosexual population?


 * Blanchard et al described convicted sex offenders‘ attractions to children, not adult sexual orientation. It wasn’t even assessed whether the men had an adult sexual orientation. A person's sexual attraction to adults, whether homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, is wholly distinct from an attraction to children. A person can be attracted only to adults, only to children, or occasionally to both, but these attractions are independent facets of a person's psychology. While pedophilia is sometimes denominated as "heterosexual" or "homosexual," this usage is simply descriptive, that is, it is intended only to characterize the relationship between the offender's and the victim's genders, and not to define the offender's sexual orientation, if any, toward adults.


 * The myth that homosexuals are child molesters parallels in many ways the blood libel against European Jews, who during the twelfth through nineteenth centuries were accused of kidnapping Christian children and slowly bleeding them to death in ritual sacrifices.


 * Instead of indescriminately quoting anti-gay websites you might want to check the facts and maybe discuss them before you insert highly inflammatory material.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * user:Dvd-junkie:
 * Do you understand the logical fallacy of Ad Hominem? You cannot disqualify Fitzgibbon just because he doesn't have the same stand as you or for whatever facts about his background. You should critique his study and not his person or his ideology. If Ad Hominem is valid, all studies would be invalid for we could say that all the researchers each has his/her own agenda.


 * As for Freund, did you read the anomaly that I (or rather he) pointed out in the study that you quoted above? That the gays in the study seemed to have controlled their sexual impulses to the extent of aversion to all age groups!


 * The United States Army, Office of Judge Advocate, issued a study that analyzed *102 court martial convictions* having to do with soldiers involved in homosexual acts over a four-year period. The study found that in 47% of the cases, homosexual men victimized a youth. The reference is Major Mickle, Dept. of the Army, Homosexual Litigation Update (Feb. 1997), available at http://dont.stanford.edu/commentary/army.htm (last visited Apr. 2, 2002). I don't know how The Gay Report came into the picture. Must be a mistake. Incidentally, do you realise that you yourself quoted The Gay Report in your long list to show that there's no link? So when you quote it, it's suitable for use. But when it's quoted against your stand, you actually poke holes in it. What a joke!


 * Homosexuality as an identity is a construct. The act of sexual abuse by most of the priests is "homosexual in nature", so said Margaret Smith whose quote remained in the Homosexuality Theory section. It's possible that a number of the people who committed the act are bisexual, but a heterosexual by definition won't perform a homosexual act. The outstanding feature of the abuse cases is that the acts were mostly homosexual in nature.


 * The parallel that you gave is invalid. In the Catholic sex abuse cases, there are sufficient evidence to show most of the abuse cases among priests were similar to those of pederasts, "homosexual in nature". Were there even correlational evidence in the 19th that Jews were kidnapping Christian children and bleeding them to death?


 * Instead of indiscriminately deleting references (just because you think they are anti-gay), couldn't you first discuss your reasons? joo (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @joo:
 * So, you don’t consider it noteworthy that Fitzgibbons who made rather extreme claims that go against scientific consensus is connected to NARTH, an organisation that describes homosexuality as a disorder and propagates conversion therapy? Doesn't that make you the least bit wary? The American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions espoused by NARTH are not supported by science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish. And, here we are...
 * Yes, here we are. The people who take opposite stands from you are as extreme as you are. THe APA, etc thinks that the positions by NARTH are not supported by science? Two past presidents of American Psychology Association, four past APA board directors, and two gold medalist recipients published a book to say that the current APA is merely politically correct and not being scientific especially when the studies are gay-related. Recognized experts often have different interpretations. Wikipedia recognized that all significant views must be represented. But you simply cannot tolerate alternative viewpoints or interpretations of gay-resulted research results, can you? joo (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Does the „anomaly“ that you pointed out change that Freund’s conclusion is quite different from yours?
 * ? I did read the Freund's conclusion in that study. It's very open-ended and asked for further research to confirm various possibilities. joo (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I mentioned the Gay Report (on April 25) in response to you listing it (on April 23) as the source for that military report to point out that it’s not a reliable source. Strangely, that army study isn‘t mentioned anywhere, except on anti-gay websites that use the exact same wording as your edit. Actually, the link that you gave as the source this time doesn’t mention it either. Seems all this time you have been blindly quoting Steve Baldwin – executive director of the extreme right CNP. Check the facts first!
 * I don't think Baldwin was making up things. That was an online website reference. The contents there can be changed far more easily than those in a published book. joo (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * „Homosexuality as an identity is a construct.“ Is that your expert opinion?
 * That's part and parcel of postmodern (current) philosophy, isn't it? And that's also what one of my gay friends said, "I think sexuality is a fluid thing. As long as one is sexually attracted to a particular gender, a person is, by that, defining his sexual orientation... Sexuality is not what we are - it is just something we experience." joo (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * „A heterosexual by definition won't perform a homosexual act“? Actually, some heterosexual men do have sex with other men if women are unavailable (not uncommon in prison populations, for example); this is called situational sexual behavior. On the other hand, true pedophiles usually aren‘t attracted to adults, so neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality applies.
 * When a heterosexual have sex with other men, he's not a heterosexual by definition. He's bisexual. There are pedophiles who are attracted to girls only and there are those who are drawn to boys only. Then again we are not talking about pedophiles (abuse of preteens) but pederasts (homosexual abuse of teens). joo (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * While pedophilia is sometimes denominated as „heterosexual“ or „homosexual“ this usage is simply intended only to characterize the relationship between the offender's and the victim's genders, and not to define the offender's sexual orientation, if any, toward adults. Rarely does a pedophile experience sexual desire for adults of either gender. They usually don't identify as homosexual – the majority identify as heterosexual, even those who abuse children of the same gender. They are sexually aroused by youth, not by gender. In contrast, child molesters often exert power and control over children in an effort to dominate them. They do experience sexual desire for adults, but molest children episodically, for reasons apart from sexual desire, much as rapists enjoy power, violence and controlling their humiliated victims. Some research shows that for pedophiles, the gender of the child is immaterial. Accessibility is more the factor in who a pedophile abuses.
 * As mentioned above, it doesn't matter whether the person identifies himself/herself as homosexual. The ACT is homosexual and the act is a major part (81 percent) of the problem among Catholic sex abuse cases. The Catholic Church, by the way, explicitly disapproves of the homosexual act and not the person (whom you might refer to as the gays, lesbians, etc.). joo (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep fighting as hell to prove that gays are child molesters, relying on Steve Baldwin's ramblings instead of checking your sources?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep fighting as hell to prove that gays are NOT child molesters? Steve Baldwin is not my only reference and I'm not trying to prove that gays are child molesters. The references and the facts of the Catholic abuse cases suggest that a higher percentage of gays (not all gays) are child molesters (or to put it more precisely: It does seem that a higher percentage of the people who perform the homosexual act also molest children/minors). It's a link that needs to be investigated. joo (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems that experts who are not related to anti-gay causes disagree. They claim that though gays are not above child molestation they are not more likely than heterosexuals to do so, either. You have produced a lot of sources that are either unreliable (Baldwin, Cameron, for example), were taken out of context or misrepresented (most of them, actually), or dont seem to exist at all (that military study, also cited by Baldwin). Why don't you find a reputable source that isn't twisted beyond recognition (by Baldwin or whoever else) that supports your claim that gays are more likely to molest children?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Consider this a challenge for you and for me. You kept claiming that most experts are on your side. But your list is a very weak (as critiqued by me above and without any replies from you). It's very easy to poke holes into almost any research study... as you and I have done on this page. For the time being, proving either views (held by scientists in the field) this is not my priority. I've much more urgent tasks to attend to. I would like to revisit this at a much later date. joo (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, experts, not me, are "claiming" that most experts don't find homosexuals more likely to molest children. Just read up the citations.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-gay? Pro-gay?
Dvd-junkie: What is pro-gay or anti-gay? What you consider as pro-gay might be considered as anti-gay by others (including gay people themselves). What you consider as anti-gay might be considered as pro-gay by others (including gay people themselves). For example, you seem to think that anything that reflects badly on gays are anti-gay stuff and anything that reflects well on gays are pro-gay stuff. That's just "image" actually. For any one of us (whether gay or not), if we want to improve ourselves, we must be ready to acknowledge both the good and bad in us - so that we can build on our strengths and improve in areas of weaknesses. To deny a real problem that gays do face is counter-productive - it's anti-gay in my opinion. joo (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, I acknowledge that sex abuses did happen among priests and bishops - a small percentage of them from what I can see so far. I suppose if it seemed that sex abuse do happen on a much larger scale than I believe, I could have a hard time accepting that. I might protest that there're over-emphasis. Still, I don't (and won't) delete citations that make such claims if they seem to come from what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources. I would present counter-evidence/arguments if they exist. To keep citing "anti-gay", "extreme", etc. as a reason for deleting well-sourced materials is truly a logical fallacy and being extremely intolerant of alternative viewpoints. As pointed out earlier, I didn't even bother to delete the nonsense uttered by Dawkins. Someone else deleted it and that was only when it became clear to most of us that Dawkins was merely pulling a publicity stunt. He couldn't/wouldn't even discuss the definition of crime against humanity, how he sue anyone for that? joo (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case, are all articles on Wikipedia supposed to be pro-gay? Is Wikipedia a politically correct encyclopedia that's sensitive to gays (or rather those who choose to self-identify as gays) but not to other groups (such as Catholics or those who have the inclination but do not claim sexual orientation as their identity)? Or is Wikipedia supposed to stick to its non-negotiable nPoV policy and present all significant views regardless of whether the views expressed seemed to be anti- or pro- certain groups of people?


 * If pro gay means that it should accept homosexuality as a viable sexual choice that we should treat equally with heterosexuality then yes, just as we should treat non-whites or women as equals. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Anti-gay is, for example, twisting the facts and demonizing gays (for whatever reason). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.70.184 (talk • contribs) 1 May 2010 18:10 (UTC)
 * I know Wikipedia is not about the truth but about relevant perspectives as evidenced by reliable sources. An opinion should be presented as an opinion, not as a fact. A lay person’s claims about a study should be be attributed to that person (if at all), not the study, especially if its findings are something else entirely.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess at some time some people must have considered blacks and women who fought against prejudice and for equality ungrateful and presumptuous and "extremely intolerant of alternative viewpoints", too... But, if someone tried to nail me to the cross, what would you have me do – hand him the nails? Though I find this debate somewhat trying, I didn't remove material out of spite (or because I didn't like it) but because – as I said before – it was either badly sourced, not sourced at all, misrepresented its sources or was off-topic.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, homosexuality as a choice is another myth. Who would choose to be different knowing at least some people would hate him for that? I didn't choose to be gay just as I didn't choose to have red hair. Sure, I could dye my hair but that wouldn't be me. But, I'm afraid this is off topic.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair being a woman or being black aren't technically "choices" either :p. That said fewer and fewer people seem to dislike gays - at least where I live. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite right, and yes, thankfully!--Dvd-junkie (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)