From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:19:25 GMT

In article <ld98vlINNsv9@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
    >In article <1992Oct8.155948.27041@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>In short, the emotional reaction shows that Clayton has
    >>clearly hit a nerve.
    >>
    >Clayton hit a nerve, yes. He hit my "bad statistics nerve".
    >One example is the comparison of a study of homosexual
    >behavior with "how many heterosexuals do you know that are
    >like this?" This indicates either an intent to mislead, or
    >gross ignorance of statistical methods (my acquaintances are
    >a biased sample, not a random sample). Another problem is the
    >way the label "homosexual" is applied. Someone who has sex
    >exclusively with boys is not a "homosexual" in the same sense
    >that someone who has sex with men is a "homosexual". Lumping
    >them together will artificially inflate the rate at which
    >"homosexuals" molest children.

Well, do, or do not, male homosexuals on the average, have close to TWO
orders of magnitude more sex partners than hetersexuals? Do you NOT
accept that many many people find this disgusting?

And that female homosexuals do not have this kind of difference?

    >At this point I was skimming along pretty rapidly, but I got
    >the impression that at least one study was also claiming that
    >married men who molest boys are "actually homosexual". This
    >acts both to deflate the heterosexual molestation rate and
    >increase the homosexual molestation rate, if it is included
    >in Clayton's statistics.

Are you stating that married men AREN'T ever homosexuals? I thought it
was not unusual for homosexuals who have not come out to get married to
hide or hope that they themselves will change etc.

    >Note that social and legal discrimination against those
    >"homosexuals" (not yet known to be child molestors) is not
    >applied to married men who molest, nor is it applied to
    >otherwise non-sexual men who molest. When these men are
    >discovered to be "homosexual" (whether the label is correct
    >or not), they are also discovered to be child molestors.
    >Discrimination is applied only to men who (are perceived to)
    >have sex with other men. There is no sensible way to
    >interpret Clayton's "statistics" as justifying discrimination
    >against perceived homosexuals in any form.

I disagree. If I found out someone I knew molested children,
I would strongly shun him/her.


And I don't think Clayton is justifying any discrimination at all.

Did he call for this in any way?


    >Clayton's crusade is also a little weird, in that it ignores
    >roughly 75% of the children molested -- girls. It is also
    >weird in that it apparently does not distinguish between male
    >and female homosexuals. Such a stickler for details would
    >surely note that female homosexuals rarely (to my knowledge
    >-- sorry, no references) abuse children and rarely pass
    >deadly diseases on to other members of society. Last I
    >checked, there was no prohibition against female
    >homosexuality in Leviticus, either (my favorite tax code for
    >sin -- it's certainly easy to interpret, though a wee bit
    >dated).


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)