|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same-Sex Marriages
| Showing posts 2,076-2,095 of 2,095 | Page 84 of 84 |
| Discussion |
|---|
 0  @ 13-06-2007 01:08 Dagor | 
33,246 posts
| that makes me a bit furious though .. stating such things in a video that is shown in a school. If even _you_ believe a thing like that, what about other kids who are not that open. Your school should be sued for spreading such propaganda. | 0 @ 13-06-2007 01:15 NightHobbit | 23,464 posts
| the actually facts are that a very large percentage of child abuse comes from heterosexuals though, and messed up kids come from heterosexual divorced or single heterosexual parents. It is too early to tell what the result of homosexual couples will have on children as the laws have only recently come into place. Give it maybe 10 or 15 years and then compare. | | 0 @ 13-06-2007 01:16 Dagor |
33,246 posts
| Do a bit of mathematics:
how many kids have 2 homosexual parents vs. how many kids do not have 2 homosexual parents ...
to come up with a ratio of 1:2 [kids having 2 homosexual parents]:[other kids] would imply that kids having 2 homosexual parents _and_ are abused is waaaaaaaay over 100% | | 0 @ 13-06-2007 01:21 NightHobbit | 23,464 posts
| i failed maths daniel so u lost me :/ | | 0 @ 13-06-2007 01:40 Dagor |
33,246 posts
| yeah, it is rather complicated ... i am still thinking of how to put that in understandable language ;-)
here are some facts about child abuse in general
One per cent of children experienced sexual abuse by a parent or carer and another three per cent by another relative during childhood. Eleven per cent of children experience sexual abuse by people known but unrelated to them. Five per cent of children experience sexual abuse by an adult stranger or someone they have just met.
even if you take only the 1% abused by a parent:
considering 1000 children ... that means that 10 children are abused by a parent
according to kate 1/3 or 3 children are abused by homosexual couples.
homosexual couples make up 1% of the total number of couples ... let's even assume that every 10th homosexual couple has children (which is way too high, but yeah)... that would mean that 0.1% of all children have 2 homosexual parents.
that is 1 kid in 1000
you need 3 kids out of 1000 though who have 2 homosexual parents _and_ are abused (if you follow kate's statement)
that makes that 300% of kids living with 2 homosexual parents are abused by them, which is mathematically impossible, since 100% is the maximum
And even 100% would imply that every child having 2 homosexual parents is abused, which is the most absurd thing i have ever heard.
| | 0 @ 13-06-2007 03:29 vandy | 
9,508 posts
| to be fair, I've heard that statistically, homosexual parents are *less* likely to abuse their children... | | 0 @ 13-06-2007 05:08 KateKateKate | 
5,285 posts
| Took a long time to find a site I felt confident with, but here
I'm a bit embarrassed that this research wasn't done more thoroughly before showing the video in the school, however, I'm honestly more relieved that it was a misunderstanding based on this guy's claims and assumptions.
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. As detailed elsewhere on this site, Cameron's 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.
| | 0 @ 13-06-2007 05:09 KateKateKate |
5,285 posts
| Not relieved that they made a misunderstanding, but relieved that it's not true. I found it a bit hard to swallow when I first heard it. | | 0 @ 13-06-2007 08:44 Dagor |
33,246 posts
| 
Thanks for having done the research! That's more like the Kate I know  | | 0 @ 13-06-2007 20:48 KateKateKate |
5,285 posts
| I should have looked first because it did seem a bit unbelievable, and it's a pity, because the video really was good in all other respects. | | 0 @ 13-06-2007 22:24 NightHobbit | 23,464 posts
| ah i get it now | | 0 @ 30-11-2007 20:48 Canden | 78 posts
|  The title-Marriage, was and is intended exclusively for one man and one woman. Kids deserve when possible to have both their moms and dads also for heterosexual natural procreation too. Marriage compliments the two human genders together. History, tradition, naturalism and Spirituality all confirm and inform marriage is meant for a man and a woman. READ- A Declaration On Marriage at williamgairdner.com / Once there at the right side scroll down to the Essays there then hit on the Declaration On Marriage. Even the Oxford dictionary informs Marriage is a union of a man and a woman by which they become husband and wife. Words have history and meaning.!! | | +1 @ 25-01-2008 20:22 FunkSoulBrother | 
70 posts
| I think it'd be great to have two dads. In the playground at school, imagine the scene - "My dad'll beat up your dad!" " No, my dad'll beat up your dad!"
"Listen! My dad'll shag your dad, and your dad'll like it!" | | 0 @ 26-01-2008 11:56 Ellebasi | 11 posts
| I think the fact that two men can't marry is the same as if two asian people(bad example,I know) couldn't marry. I see no difference we're all people, it shouldn't matter who you want to marry as long as you love eachother. | | -2 @ 06-02-2008 04:54 e80kse | 1,401 posts
| Am not for, totally disgusting though i am for chicks getting it on | | 0 @ 08-02-2008 08:27 AlmightyShmun | 1,189 posts
| Words have history and meaning.!! Thanks, Canden. I needed something to write about.
You're absolutely correct. Words do, indeed, have history and meaning. In fact, you've inspired me. I'm going to go ahead and crack down on the English language.
And, for example, doesn't really exist. It's a shortened, lazy version of ampersand. For shame, Canden, disgracing language's history ampersand meaning. | | 0 @ 29-02-2008 18:27 lucysmusicbox | 11 posts
| who cares? let people marry who they wish and lets move on to bigger issues! | | 0 @ 29-02-2008 18:31 royksopp3 | 
1,461 posts
| speaking as a gay guy but one who does not personally believe in marriage as a practice, anyone should be able to marry anyone of legal age. end of. | | 0 @ 29-02-2008 20:47 cody128 | 2 posts
| i don't see a problem with it, people should be able to have the freedom to marry who they want to. | | +1 @ 01-03-2008 00:35 Dredg935 | 
792 posts
| I doesn't really matter to me, a happy gay couple is better than an unhappy traditional couple. |
  |
|
|
|
TOP ARTISTS:
Coldplay, Rihanna, Jonas Brothers, Jason Mraz, Lil Wayne, Leona Lewis, Chris Brown, Avril Lavigne, Linkin Park, Miley Cyrus, Mariah Carey, Katy Perry, Paramore, Britney Spears, Taylor Swift, Pussycat Dolls, The, Jordin Sparks, Usher, Colbie Caillat, Camp Rock Cast, Akon, Nickelback, Lifehouse, Eminem, Ne-Yo, Håkan Hellström, Simple Plan, Secondhand Serenade, Kanye West, Sara Bareilles, Evanescence, Jesse McCartney, Death Cab For Cutie, Takida, Celine Dion, Natasha Bedingfield, Metro Station, Kelly Clarkson, Christina Aguilera, Fall Out Boy, One Republic, Flyleaf, Alanis Morissette, Carrie Underwood, Panic! At The Disco, Beatles, The, Alicia Keys, Boys Like Girls, Lars Winnerbäck, Avenged Sevenfold |
| Copyright © 1998-2008 LetsSingIt | add to bookmarks | disclaimer | privacy policy | advertise on this site |
|
|
