From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:55:27 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

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

If you read the rest of the postings, you would see that there is
agreement from at least two of the sources that indeed, someone who
has sex with boys IS a homosexual.  By the way, none of the books
indicated that there were men who had sex exclusively with boys --
just that this was a preference.

> will artificially inflate the rate at which "homosexuals" molest
> children.
> 
> 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.

Because men having sex with other males IS homosexual, as two of
the three books on the subject agreed.  At best (for the homosexual
side), such men are bisexual.

> 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.

They are?  A bisexual who gets discovered may be discovered in a
public restroom with an adult.

> 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.

Except that you are assuming that every homosexual child molester
is ashamed of his sexual orientation.  Roy Radow at NAMBLA sure isn't.

> 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

Not ignored.  But then again, no one is trying to get pedophiles
(regardless of preference) protected by laws, except for the homosexual
fascist lobby.

> apparently does not distinguish between male and female homosexuals.

Because the laws in question don't make that distinction.

> Such a stickler for details would surely note that female homosexuals
> rarely (to my knowledge -- sorry, no references) abuse children and

True.

> rarely pass deadly diseases on to other members of society.  Last I

As I posted from the CDC AIDS Daily Summary recently, this is not so
clear.

> 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).

This has nothing to do with the Bible.

> I took special effort to make this not a flame.  Presumably, Clayton

It's not.

> can now straighten out the different definitions of "homosexual" and
> explain how his sampling technique ("how many people do you know ...")
> is unbiased.
> 
> David Chase
> Sun

Mr. Kane has posted some numbers that, even leaving out monogamous
heterosexuals, and making obviously absurd assumptions about non-
monogamous heterosexuals remaining so, and at the same sexual
promiscuity level throughout their lifetimes, still show homosexual
men as at least twice as promiscuous as the non-monogamous homosexuals.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.