I must now take this opportunity to ask whether you actually read my comment. I see no area in my post which could be misconstrued to mean that I don’t think minorities embrace traditional family values, except for this one:
Little lesson in board lingo for you now, Crafter. If a comment is ended by a “rolling eyes” smiley, it almost definitely means that the comment preceeding it was sarcastic. This was most certainly the case in my post.
I was simply saying that the photo on the homepage does seem to be reinforcing the stigma that a happy family is a white, middle-class, heterosexual, suburban family, and nothing else. This idea was especially prevalent in the “nuclear family” days of the 50s. Now, this does not mean that I have anything against the 50s, or against white middle-class families. Quite the contrary; the 50s gave us “The Twilight Zone” and I happen to be a member of a white middle-class family. It just seems a bit too coincidental that the “happy family” picture on the home page was sprung from that stigma. Better?
Medea’s Child, it boils down like this: According to the study, which has now been debunked, homosexuals account for 1/3 of the molestations. However, homosexuals also accound for only %2-%3 of the general population, so that small amount of people is doin a heck of a lotta molesting. It’s pretty inconsequential now, though, since the study is obviously wrong.
Oh, and RickJay, you are the man. Did I say that already? Because it needs to be said again. Wow.
Returning to the three charges I made against you in the other thread:
We have direct, primary evidence that your implication is not correct. In addition, the “evidence” presented by Crafter from the FRI site has been thoroughly shot to hell.
I would appreciate seeing you retract your implication.
I have not yet seen you justify this gem at all. How can you possibly call the fight for equal rights “grandstanding?” Was the Selma-Montgomery march “leftist grandstanding?” Was Rosa Parks’s refusal to give up her bus seat to a white man “leftist grandstanding?”
Or is it different with homosexuals because they fit your own particular form of bigotry?
So you view homosexuality as a harmful deviance? I’m assuming that you also think that therapy should be administered to bring homosexuals back into the “norms” of society.
Just as an aside here - am I the only one who’s sick of people saying things like “You guys are too PC” as if this somehow justifies their own bigotry? Someone needs to start a backlash to the PC backlash.
RickJay, that post was one of the best examples of fighting ignorance I’ve ever come across on these boards. You used your initiative and got actual facts from an unbiased expert and single-handedly put an end to the pointless rounds of conjecture and opinion that this thread had turned into (at least, I hope so - some people won’t be persuaded no matter how convincing the evidence). Bravo. Batty, you’re welcome. I hate seeing people I know falsely accused, especially by someone who doesn’t know them.
How’s my anus, you ask? You tell me. You never write, you never call…
On a related note, I’m tired of seeing people confuse PC with “believing previously-widespread notions about race, ethnicity, sexual preference and some diseases to be false.” Some of us, you see, arrived at our conclusions without being told by the newsmedia and Washington what to think. We aren’t PC; we just think bullshit is bullshit.
And quite frankly, I think the notion of me (or anyone else who’s posted in here) being “too PC” based solely on this thread is preposterous if you can even get over the amusement factor.
Yes, this almost deserves a Pit thread of its own. Frankly, based on my observations, I’d say that the most politically correct thing happening these days is people saying, “I’m not PC.”
I have to retract this - I see that Dr. Marshall himself has made the statement. My humble apologies.
Still I would question Dr. Marshall’s assertion. If as he says “The men who molested post pubescent boys constituted about 20-25% of all those who molested boys”, then I would think there would have to be an enormously disproportionate percentage of abuse of girls in order to make the homo/hetero rates equal. I am pretty sure that girls are molested more, but I don’t think it is by that magnitude. This depends of course on the percentage of the population assumed to be gay, but if 3% is used, it would have to be about 7 to 1.
Anyway, my question about the age of scouts is still out there, if anyone knows.
That jumped out at me as well; it doesn’t make sense on the face of it. I have written back to Bill to ask for clarification.
I would think, however, that this could be explained as such:
Girls ARE molested more often than boys.
It is entirely possible that heterosexual molesters take more victims, and that Dr. Marshall’s figures weigh for this. Some of Crafter Man’s resources suggest higher incidence of offenses per offender in heterosexuals.
I honestly believe the percentage of the population that has participated in homosexual behaviour is a lot higher than three percent.
Anyway, we’ll see what Bill says.
jarbabyj - The cartoon was hilarious. Disclaimer: I don’t have any intent of bashing Crafter_Man over this, although I do think MC is a bit of an ass. Crafter found some primary evidence and posted it. Just because the evidence he found supported an unpopular opinion doesn’t mean he was wrong to post it and come to a conclusion that was reasonable based on the evidence he had at hand.
Somewhow I have this notion that the ratio is something like 2 to 1
I believe this is true. In fact my understanding is that the 10% Kinsey figure was derived from this - 10% of males have participated in homosexual activity. But the percentage of homosexuals at any given time is more like 3%. It would appear that you are suggesting that when Dr. Marshall says that post-pubescent gays are mostly gay he means people who have engaged in homosexual activity at some point in their lives.
Anyway let us know what he says. (Thanks for the source).
As for boy scout age groups, it would appear to be 11-17. I would think that kind of splits it down the middle. Maybe more clarification from Dr. Marshall on this would be worthwhile as well.
The age range for Boy Scouts is from 11 to 17, and in rare cases as young as 10 (if the boy earned their Arrow of Light in Cub Scouts he can join early).
Since the Kinsey report is from 1948 (to list just one problem), do we have more . . . accurate and modern data available? I’ve heard numbers from 1% (from rather . . . anti-gay sources) to as high as 15% (from the opposite end).
Do BSA conduct criminal background checks on their scoutmasters? That might make things slightly easier for the BSA in terms of law suits, if nothing else.
Well, my Boy Scouts of America adult application form (I need to renew my registration) does ask if I’ve been convicted of a criminal offense, if I’ve ever been charged with with child neglect or abuse, if I’ve ever had my driver’s license suspended or revoked, if I use illegal drugs, or if there’s anything else that would call into question my ability to be entrusted with kids. They also want three references. From the looks of it, it is the troop’s committee that approves or disproves applications for unit scouters (i.e. scoutmasters and assistant scoutmasters).
Incidentally, the form does not ask anything about my religion (or lack thereof) or sexual preference. This seems to indicate the the BSA does not consider homosexuals a high risk for child molestation, and woul simply like to pretend that the issue doesn’t exist.
It occurs to me, waterj2, that though you would certainly not do this, there is the opportunity to lie on that application sheet. If the BSA aren’t going to be checking the information . . . that does lend itself to lack of . . . do you see what I’m saying here? My grandfather could have said “No, I have never molested a child” and he would have been lying through his shirt, tongue, pen, teeth, and everything else between here and Coventry. But how would they have known? He certainly had the references.
Well, of course, one could lie. Wouldn’t that be perjury or something, though? And the committee could check out a person’s criminal record if they weren’t sure, I’d imagine. However, I do not know of even a cursory background check being standard. I really don’t know, though, and would imagine that there would be a difference between those of us who have been involved with the troop since the age of 11, and strangers wanting to be involved.
RickJay: Thanks for the Dr. Marshall email. (And thank you Dr. Marshall for the clarification.) “Virtually all men who molest pubescent boys are gay.” So based on Dr. Marshall’s research, the age of the victim appears to be a determining factor in the sexual orientation of the perpetrator. Interesting. This fact certain jives with my personal experience (see previous email). Of course, we certainly can’t base any conclusions on 1 person (no matter how much we “wish” the outcome was), so I would be very interested to see details of the others studies.
The response over the past day has been quite humorous. It seems everyone wants to ring my (and MC’s) neck. Yes, quite humorous. I’m certainly not apologizing for posting the exerts from the FRI site; in fact, I’d do it again. (I’m glad I now know that virtually all men who molest pubescent boys are gay.) Of course, I made it very clear that we should look into these further (which you did on one study), but the doesn’t matter to the salivating fanatics.
I would also like to reiterate that, despite the controversy, I would never allow my minor son to be alone with a known male homosexual, nor would I allow one of my minor daughters to be alone with an adult male stranger, regardless of age. I understand that’s an incredibly politically-incorrect thing to say, but IDGAF – they’re my kids, what I say goes, and I refuse to put them in situations of what I consider to be “unreasonable risks.” Again, if you want your (pubescent) son to spend a week in the woods with an adult gay male, go for it. Do it. Knock yourself out. But I choose not to. (Thank God this is a free country.)
Yeah, you’d be much safer allowing them to be alone with somebody who’s virtuous and ethical, like a priest.
I hope they never have a gay (or male) teacher that makes them stay after school. 'Cause I think we know what that would lead to. Or a gay (or male) doctor, because sexuality overcomes professional obligation eight days a week.
My god, you’re an idiot.
Fine. Keep your kids “protected” from the evil homosexuals. Keep them away from communists, socialist, baptists, left-handers, Oklahomans, blondes, Africans, bike-riders and jugglers for all I care.
You don’t look very noble for holding that opinion.
I’m going to float this one last time -
Homosexuals are attracted to members of their own sex.
They are not child molesters.
People who molest children are child molesters regardless of their sexual orientation
You’re prejudices paint you in a negative light. If you are comfortable with that, that’s you’re problem and my aggravation.
