From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:31:21 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Well, do, or do not, male homosexuals on the average, have close to TWO
>orders of magnitude more sex partners than hetersexuals?

I don't know.  If Clayton presented his most "scholarly" data, then he
doesn't really know either, though he thinks he may.  I don't really
care.  The point is that Clayton's statistics are junk.

> Do you NOT accept that many many people find this disgusting?

I don't know.  I haven't conducted a proper poll.  Neither have you.
Nor has Clayton, near as I can tell.  Asking your friends is not
statistically sound.

>    >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?

No.  I stated what I wrote.  One study quoted by Clayton seemed to
state that men-who-are-married-and-not-having-sex-with-men-but-
molesting-boys are, in fact "homosexual".  However, this is not
homosexual in the same sense that having sex with other men is
homosexual, and to lump the two together is wrong in several senses
(statistically bogus, and rather insulting to your run-of-the-mill
homosexual).

>    >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.

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

You do not disagree.  Read what I wrote.  Note the quote marks around
"homosexual", and the preceding context in which Clayton's researchers
are claiming that married men who molest are "really homosexual".
Hypothetically speaking, suppose John Smith is a married man who does
not have sex with men.  Lacking other information, you do not shun
him.  If you discover that he does molest boys, then you shun him.
You do not shun him because he is "homosexual" -- you shun him because
he is a child molestor.  If you had previously avoided men who have
sex with men, you would not have avoided John Smith.

Do the case analysis -- (ignoring women, for brevity) you've got:

a)  adult homosexuals   (who do not molest)
b)  adult heterosexuals (who do not molest)
c)  adult bisexuals     (who do not molest)
d)  adult nonsexuals    (who do not molest)

e)  adult homosexuals   who molest boys (if you find out, you shun them)
f)  adult heterosexuals who molest boys (if you find out, you shun them)
g)  adult bisexuals     who molest boys (if you find out, you shun them)
h)  adult nonsexuals    who molest boys (if you find out, you shun them)

Clayton's sources seem to be saying that people in categories
a,c,e,f,g and h are all "homosexuals".  Since f and h are only labeled
"homosexual" because they molest male children, pooling them with
other "homosexuals" will inevitably raise the rate at which
"homosexuals" molest children, even though these men(f&h) never have
sex with other men.  If you choose to shun/not hire/not rent to
homosexuals, you are missing the people in categories f and h
(assuming that they are not known to be child molestors).  We
do not know (given Clayton's numbers) anything about the relative
sizes of groups a and e, or b and f, or c and g, or d and h.

Understand that there are other reasons to argue with Clayton about
this -- I'm only looking at his statistics, which are sufficiently bad
that they do not justify any conclusions about anything.

David Chase
Sun
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8577 ba.politics:5992