[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jester *
**
Really? So you don’t think some minorities embrace traditional family values?
I’m going to email the folks at FRI and ask them the following question:
“Do you welcome blacks, or folks of ethnicities other than white/Caucasian, to your organization?” I’ll let you know what they say. In the mean time, my only advice is to stop being so obsessed with ethnicity and skin color.
Geeze, this place REEKS with PC…
Crafter_Man, here’s a request for you:
Find a site that is unbiased. The APA will do just fine. No “Society for a balanced Family” or “Keeping Natural Families” or “The Family Council”. Something scientific with no agenda like “keeping gays away from our children” or somesuch.
Read the studies. LINK to them. DON’T interpret them. Let the facts stand by themselves and they will set the truth free, which you say you want but fight so hard.
Crafter_Man said:
And it must be hard to get a whiff of through all this stinking ignorance.
A comment was made about the “50’s looking ideal family” being portrayed as the norm. This is in itself rediculous considering it is actually the year 2001. Startling, no?
You decided to take that as an anti-white, anti-middle-class, anti-50’s (ferchrisakes) statement.
It was pointed out to you that “it’s just that the ‘ideal’ family picture that the FRI is developing seems to be one of an all-white, heterosexual family”. An implication that a great many people here disagree with, i.e., we are open-minded.
And now you’re back to “my only advice is to stop being so obsessed with ethnicity and skin color”.
Let’s get the shit out of ours and try to pay attention, huh?
This has no real bearing, but some will find it interesting:
Our friend, Dr. Kirk Cameron, Statistical Scientist, Family Research Institute finds fault with Kinsey’s data ( http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html page down to “Why Was Kinsey So Far Off?”) Strange that his group would cite Kinsey elsewhere to make their point, no?
::sigh:: Crafter_Man, I am a litigator. On more than one occasion in my career, I have received motion papers from the other side that include a quotation from a Supreme Court or other high court that appears to definitively state that the law is completely against my client’s position, and that the other side, as a matter of law, should prevail. The other side provides complete citations, including down to the page number of the quotation.
Ya know what I do? I look up the case itself. And repeatedly, the opposing side, in providing the quote, have: a) taken the quote out of context; b) failed to provide the next sentence from the case, which explains that, for example, the proposition the quotation stands for is no longer valid; c) (you’d be amazed how often this happens) in the quote itself, put in elipses to eliminate the word “not” from the quotation; d) etc.
So no, I will not accept an anti-gay website’s interpretation of Kinsey or any other study. I will also not accept Greenpeace’s, the ELF’s, NOW’s, or any other interpretation of a scientific study. How often has the general populace been conned by inaccurate and slanted interpretations of scientific data? Perhaps you recall the study that “proved” that women over 35 are more likely to be hit by lightning than marry?
Sua
In fact, I’ll make you a deal. You get the shit out of your ears (which is what I meant to say) and I’ll start proofreading my posts.
Non-sequitor bullshit. You’re still a bigot.
Ooooh, I get it!
Tonight the role of Christ is being played by MC, who is attempting to cast Jack Batty as the ignorant, ungodly heathen scum!
MC, instead of looking for a way out (which isn’t going to happen), how about standing up and addressing those who have questioned you? Or, like, giving Crafter_Man a break and validating some of your own claims?
Oh, and please also show how Jack Batty is prejudiced or recant THAT shit.
“Oh, and please also show how Jack Batty is prejudiced or recant THAT shit…”
Oh fer chrissake. . .
I’m not lecturing on a damn thing.
I’m saying to you that your comparison of homosexuals to drug addicts is reprehensible and displays prominantly to all those unfortunate enough to be polluted by your words that you are a big gigantic bigot.
Free of prejudices? I’m not that noble, but I can tell you that I judge people individually. I don’t make sweeping (read: bigoted) statements about groups of people.
So, yes, I say that you = bullshit.
I’m trying to not argue with you because, as I said, obviously nothing will make your change your mind. I stand by everything I’ve addressed to you in this thread - I consider you a bigot and I have nothing but contempt for you.
Good day.
Holy living shit MC, it seems to me you’re awfully PROUD of being prejudiced, begging all of us to reveal our own prejudice thoughts. The fact is your prejudice against homosexuals being around children doesn’t validate homosexuals being dangerous.
There are times in my life when I find myself reacting in a prejudiced manner, and consequently, in an educated, adult manner I say “Woah…that’s not right. I’ve got to change how I think.”
HOMOSEXUALS are not dangerous to your children. Choosing to stick with that belief in the face of actual facts is idiotic at mildest.
jarbaby
I found some related statistics on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website dealing with Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics. There are links on that page to the report in PDF, ASCII, and spreadsheet format. The report does not address the sexual orientation of the offenders, but it does provide some background to the debate.
According to the report, which is depressing to read, the people you should be shielding your children from are 1) family members, and 2) other children. For example, in 34.2% of juvenile (under 18) victims of sexual assault, the offender was a family member, and the younger the victim, the more likely that the offender was a family member. (Table 6, p. 10) 23.2% of all sexual assaults on juveniles were committed by other juveniles, and 36.3% of forced sodomy cases where committed by other juveniles. (Table 5, p. 8) By far, the most common location for sexual assaults is the victim’s home – 76.8% for male victims, 68.7% for female victims. For children 0-11, the percentages are in the 80s for both groups, and around 70% for 12-17 year-olds. (Table 4, p. 6)
Again, this study does not provide any direct statistics about correlation between sexual orientation and sexual assaults against children. However, it seems clear to me that there are higher risk levels of sexual assaults from other groups than homosexual acquaintances (which is what a scout troup leader would be classified as).
One last sobering quote from the study:
Incorrect. If YOU are saying that Jack is prejudiced, then YOU need to show how, in YOUR eyes, he is prejudiced, using YOUR definition. Don’t put YOUR shit on me.
Crafter Man wrote:
[/quote]
Waverly, one more thing: Your statements only hold true when you’re listing stats for politically incorrect conclusions. If, on the other hand, you list stats concluding (for example) that minorities are being systematically discriminated against by lending intuitions, or women make $0.75 for every $1,00 a man makes – whatever – it will go unchallenged. I guarantee we would not be having this discussion if I provided stats “proving” the ozone layer is being depleted.
[/quote]
Here are several links about global warming, with responses covering just about all reasonable (and a few unreasonable) positions on the subject. And this is only from GD, and only from the last sixty days. If your having trouble supporting your positions, don’t blame the forum.
MC wrote:
That’d be me. Duck, you bigoted motherfucker.
You’re so sexy when you get assertive. Wanna make out for a while and then join the Boy Scouts? 
Okay, I’m slightly confused. (But then, I’m also probably very stupid, so bear with the slow child)
Using the 1/3 of molestations were done by a homosexual numbers, doesn’t that mean that 2/3 were instigated by a heterosexual?
The next logical step for me is that if the Boy Scout leader molests a boy its twice as likely that he qualifies himself a heterosexual?
To me, while it may imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children ( :rolleyes: ) it also implies that any individual boy is more likely to be molested by a heterosexual. Which means we should feel safer with our kids under the care of a homosexual than a heterosexual.
And that is using the numbers given by the hyper bigoted people.com (or whatever, I’m not very good at this)
So did I miss something vital here?