From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Say What! (was: Catholic church subsidizes male homosexuals
Summary: More biased opinions about nonsense.
Date: 12 Nov 92 01:13:03 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Nov11.225700.29342@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Well, actually not (the title). But from some use of "logic" by idiot
>posters on the net, it makes "sense".
>

Well then what is the point of the posting???  This so-called "logic"
by idiot posters on the net.

Anyway I will make some answers off the cuff about this analysis.


>Yesterdays SJMN - the Catholic church has paid out $400,000,000 so far
>in child molestation settlements. And is estimated to face at least
>3 or 4 times that in pending lawsuits. That is, expected to PAY 3 or
>4 times more!
>
>Now, there are 79,000,000 adults in this country (this figure from memory
>and not verified).
>
>Half of those are male. 39,000,000 or so.
>

First- make sure that what you are saying is- all cases of payment by the
Catholic Church was for molestation of boys only, no girls involved...
And if girls involved what is the ratio.

Second- does this mean the Catholic Church made payments to people only in 
the US?  They do happen to be in most of Europe, Mexico, South America, etc.

Using one of those 'scientific' sources again - SJMN.

>If we use a (IMHO) high figure of 4% of all males are homosexual, then
>we have 1,560,000 male homosexuals in this country.
>

IMHO it is much higher- if you include males who have it both ways- male and
female sex partners.  And why not?  The sexual encounter of the moment between
two people is either homosexual or heterosexual...

>Thus, on a per capita basis, the Catholic church ALONE has "paid" $256
>per male homosexual so far, and may end up paying over $1,000 per/for
>each and every homosexual "capita".
>
>Some figures show that actual homosexual percentages are less than 1%.
>
>In which case we are talking about over $4,000 per male homosexual.
>
>And that is just the Catholic church.
>
>Talk about "social cost"!!!
>(I don't believe in that type of terminology,
>but if you want to use it, let this argument sink in).
>
>What would one estimate the non-Catholic "costs" to be? Equal to
>the Catholic church? $8,000 per head?
>
>If hetereosexual white males indulged in some practice that cost the
>insurance companies thousands of dollars per head (per capita) AND
>traumatized others, I think there would be a HUGE outcry.
>

Yes it is called 'drunk driving'  look those stats up and see what I am
talking about-  it is an outrage that all of thise H?M are driving and
killing and costing the insurance companies and 'taxpayers' all of that
money for nothing more than an irresponsible activity.  This is especially
true of H?M teenagers.


>If there existed a very tiny majority of HWM (hetereosexual white males)
>that did some ROT (really outrageous thing) that cost this thousands of
>dollars per capita per HWM head, then I sure think that most HWM would
>shun them and not them march in any HWM parades ...
>
How about the 'tax-payer' that you gripe about so much... outrage??? let's
take the S&L scandal that lies somewhere around $500 Billion. Now just to 
some silly arithmetic;  if the US population is 260 Million, this comes to
$2000 per individual, but let's say that we only consider males.... your
figure at 39,000,000, that comes to $12,820 per adult male in the US.
Are ya outraged yet???
>


BTW the national debt figure per person is now  $16,700...