Who doesn't back gay marriage?

How do you come to the conclusion that if 27% of victims are male and 96% of offenders are male... that means that ~26% of all sexual victimization of children is a male assaulting another male. I don't care what kind of semantics you want to use. That's homosexuality.

Those most certainly were your numbers. You used the # of children victims in that study, said they were used from 12 states and said that means approximately 4x the amount of victims are in the country. Which is absurd. That's only representative of a short period of time. Not the entire population of victims in the USA.

A child molestor is simply someone who has been convicted of sexually assaulting a child. I made it clear that I was not referencing the amount of homosexuals (or heterosexuals for that matter) that were convicted of sexually assaulting children. I was attempting to find out the rate of pedophilia in both the homosexual and the heterosexual community. Therefore using the 3% figure is completely reasonable for the point I'm making.

You see part of your argument is using semantics. You say that a male who molests another male is not necessarily a homosexual.

I stated explicitly earlier in this thread, that rather than state "those who engage in homosexual behavior" everytime, for the sake of this discussion I would simply refer to them as "homosexual". The reason being that, as I stated earlier, homosexuality is a sympton of a larger mental problem. So I don't care if they have sex with children only, if they're having sex with boys and they're men, they're engaging in homosexual behavior. I don't care if they're bisexual and like to have sex with both... they're engaging in homosexual behavior. And those who engage in homosexual behavior are MUCH more likely to be pedophiles than those who are heterosexual.

Is it 100% accurate? Of course not

However, it's most certainly accurate enough to make the point I'm making.

Like I said. No matter how much you attempt to manipulate the numbers... you will NEVER get the numbers down far enough to show that those who engage in homosexual behavior are not MUCH more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.

It's about people who engage in homosexual activities.

Because where I come from a male who has sex with another male is a homosexual.

I mean objections?

Any more excuses... I mean objections?

The Child Lures Prevention program is part of a landslide of newer child abuse prevention programs being foisted on innocent children in the classroom.



The sudden onslaught of child abuse prevention programs is the bishops’ faint-hearted response to widespread sexual crimes committed by clergy against children. The new term for such programs is “safe environment.”

The “Lures” program appears basically like all the other child abuse or child safety or safe environment programs. It is designed to attract a variety of concerns for children’s safety, as its Parent Guide cover states: “How to Keep Your Child Safe From Exploitation, Abduction, Internet Crime, Drugs and School Violence.” Interestingly, this program uses as its key word, the word “lures.” The idea is that the program will teach children not to be lured into situations where abuse or kidnapping may occur, or be lured into drugs, or become a victim of violence.

Browsing uncritically at the Parent Guide, it appears to give a certain amount of actual common sense advice for parents, which is basically what parents would normally be telling their children and reinforcing each time the opportunity presented itself. The Parent Guide book warns of predatory “lures” in organized categorizes: asking assistance, lost pet, bribery, authority figures, fake job offers, faking an emergency, and the internet. No parent would be against alerting children to such dangers. However, it is evident that this is only to be part of a larger program, one that includes dangerous explicit sexual information. Furthermore, it includes so-called “self esteem” that is not only prideful, but which can give children a sense that they can somehow be in control of the situation by reasoning with an abuser, or “Just saying ‘No!’” instead of immediately fleeing perceived danger.

Child abuse prevention programs, while purporting to teach a child to be safe, may very well be “luring” them into dangerous situations and actions by destroying the protective quality of innocence and purity in children. Children are more apt to flee from any impure infringement upon their privacy when their sense of decency and modesty remain intact, especially when reinforced with Catholic teachings.

You are full of bullshit Shadow, you don't even account for factors like boys being far more risk taking in youth then girls...it may well be a matter of better opportunity for a paedophile to strike a boy rather then a girl, and god knows what other hidden variables...it would be interesting to know how many of those exclusively attacked boys...you have nothing there but a weak correlation mixed with a very deem very biased reasoning...

..hardly one would think of a child as a boy or a girl before someone sexually matures physical differences are minimal...I could go on but the point is made !

So can I go ahead and adjust the numbers and prove you wrong?

I'll use YOUR calculation and plug in the numbers and lets see what it comes out to. Now it doesn't have to be perfect (no estimate ever will be), but how would we determine a fair estimate of the amount of pedophile homosexuals?