Homosexuality is a dangerous sexual deviance and should be illegal

For simplicity I’ll define an androphile as someone with a predominant attraction to physically adult males and gynophile as someone with a predominant attraction to physically adult females. A. There is no absolutely connection between the homosexual orientation and pedophilia and there are already laws in place against sexual abuse of children. The American Psychological Association, American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and Child Welfare League of America have agreed unequivocally that there is no connection between homosexuality and child molestation [4.7]. “According to the American Psychological Association, children are not more likely to be molested by LGBT parents or their LGBT friends or acquaintances. Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men [4.11][1.3].” To quote the one of his studies in 1982 research article, “It is meaningless to speak of fixated (the majority of pedophiles) molesters in these terms – as heterosexual or homosexuals - they are attracted to children, not to men or women [4.7].” “There were no examples of regression (molesters who have been male androphiles in the past) to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male [4.6].” He continues, “Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation.” Pro’s source interpretation is poor (particularly in round 3) and makes the exact same errors as an FRC article on the topic. Since academic research often not readily available online and time is limited it’s common to rely on contemporary articles that reference sourcing from relevant research as I have done. All of Con’s sourcing and information in round 3, right down to page references and rebuttals, are listed in this article from the Christian fundamentalist organization the FRC [4.3]. In spite of Pro’s protests that he has read the research papers directly, he sites the exact same information included in the article misrepresenting the findings of the referenced scientific papers as a whole. This is particularly confusing as a page that Pro references in round 3 sited in source 2) contains particularly damming information refuting the resolution (see below). https://www.frc.org... the Family Research Council has a mission statement that endorses faith based on a Christian world view, “Family Research Council's mission is to advance faith, family and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian worldview [3.3].” The President, Tony Perkins (see FRC Staff) is an ordained minister and supported the Uganda bill that advocated the death penalty for homosexual activity [3.4]. He also supports a biblical Christianity avidly [3.6] so, again, scriptures that condemn homosexuality as a sin make the organization biased and incapable of accurately interpreting scientific research on this topic. The organization founder, James Dobson, is a renowned fundamentalist and sites the bible as an authority and absolute proof that homosexuality is immoral [3.2]. The organization is not only unqualified to interpret scientific journals while advocating faith based beliefs, it is biased toward a Christian world view. The FRC is a biased source to interpret scientific papers with respect to male to male pedophilia or homosexuality. Pro’s round 2 sourcing is and supporting facts are not relevant to the resolution. Stephen Baldwin only does he not hold any scientific degrees or credentials that would qualify him to interpret the scientific articles or journals as he attempts to in his article, he also has a faith based believe that the word of God is accurate making him innately biased. Moreover, Pro has only provided baseless assertions from the article without providing any data or studies to back them up. If Pro can provide any information from the article that supports his case, I’ll elaborate 1), 2), 3), 4) I’ve conceded gays get more action on average and so the STD rate is likely higher. That’s not illegal or relevant. 5) One book referenced without a link does not prove that prominent homosexual leaders support pedophilia and how does this support the resolution? The research concludes that these ideas are ignored. Round 3: Pro makes the same errors that the very biased FRC article makes when referencing the exact same sourcing and page numbers. 1) The page number and information are cherry picked by the FRC article. This was a study of child sex offenders and simply concludes that pedophiles are more likely to be attracted to female children [4.8]. 2) The quote and page number are in the FRC article. Contrary to what Pro has suggested, this study concludes that there is no difference between how male androphiles/gynofiles react sexually to children from their gender preference [4.9]. It includes a referenced study of 17 child sex offender studies that concluded that adult males who are erotically attracted to adult women are twenty times more likely to molest children than men who are predominantly, erotically attracted to adult men. This is from the same page that Pro sited as a source that female children are assaulted twice as often. 3) Pro’s rebuttal and and page numbers are given (see source [23]) in the FRC article. He can provide no link to prove that these objections to the study are true or relevant. My source was submitted for peer reviewed by the scientific community and approved for publishing. 4) The reference is sourced in the FRC article but the page number is not referenced although is is available online [4.10]. Pro fails to mention it that male offenders of boys were in fact more attracted to male children in particular and did not differ significantly from the control group in their attraction to females of all ages (see the final section of the article). This is consistent with findings Pro’s source 2) above that concludes that heterosexuals are 20 times more likely to abuse children. 5) This is sited in the same biased article and the page reference is given. The article reference is not available online and it directly contradicts the findings that relied on measured sexual attraction to adult men/women to determine sexual orientation (Pro’s source 2) my source [1.3]: see the section referencing Freund et al., 1989 and the Groth 1978 study we both site). The article has been criticized in it’s report that 86% of child sex criminals are gay or bisexual since it gave no details or data to explain the method to obtain this information. The personal report of criminals with regard to their crimes is notoriously unreliable [1.3]. (Groth 1978; O"Brien,1980): sited in FRC article along with the quote Pro provided. The Groth study indicates that in the study of male pedophiles, “None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation [4.7][1.3] .” F. Pro has not connected the legality issues with his claims. Pro has provided no reason why homosexuality should be illegal. He has conceded that lesbian women have a virtually null risk of child molestation. He has conceded that the best possible scenario is that half of male pedophiles will be drawn to male children. If there were a connection between adult male androphiles and pedophilia (there isn’t) there already laws against pedophilia and they will be prosecuted under those laws. Sex with multiple partners is not illegal (even with an increased risk of STDs) and that is a separate issue for Gay and Straight Americans alike. If all Pro’s claims are true (they are not). Millions of North Americans would receive legal penalties without committing anything considered a crime for heterosexuals. His assertion is in conflict with the fairly recent court decision to legalize same-sex marriage. Why should Homosexuality be illegal? Pro has no answer. - Pro’s arguments in no way lead to the conclusion that Homosexuality should be illegal and not only fails to attempt this but he cannot explain why the majority of homosexuals that do not fit his profile should be criminalized as well. He has Provided no proof for his most contentious claim that Males attracted to physically adult males are more likely to be pedophiles. In fact, his sourced articles refute this claims. All his other objections are not illegal with respect to homosexuals and Pro has not provided a reason for this double standard. [4.1] http://lib.dr.iastate.edu... [4.2] http://www.dobsonlibrary.com... [4.3] https://www.frc.org... [4.4] http://www.rightwingwatch.org... [4.5] http://www.joemygod.com... [4.6] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [4.7] http://www.wearemichigan.com... [4.8] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [4.9] https://www.jstor.org... [4.10] http://www.academia.edu... [4.11] https://www.splcenter.org...