From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 4 of 4
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:34:10 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <12607@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
[Clayton finds that the molester is seldom the biological father]
>     A theme that pervades the preceding account of factors
>     that contribute to a boy's lack of defense against molestation
>     is the one of the absent father.[Everstine & Everstine,
>     137]
> 
> I would hope that some of the concern about "family values"
> will be a little more apparent by now.  The preservation of
> families with the biological father and mother, when possible,
> is an effective strategy for reducing the risks of child
> molestation.

Talk about paranoia.  Give me a break, Clayton.  Use Occam's razor.  The
concern about "family values" has nothing to do with child molestation
and everything to do with the simple fact that "family values" excludes
homosexuals.  Why do you need to invent a conspiracy?  Sheesh....

> While "fixated pedophiles," the homosexuals who pursue primarily
> little boys, are, by most studies, a minority of OFFENDERS, they 
> cause a disproportionate percentage of VICTIMS, because they usually
> have more victims per offender:

Yup.  You've reported this before and I don't remember anyone ever
seriously disputing it.

[the actual numbers (finally) were deleted.  I want to review them
again when I'm not tired.]

If his logic and his numbers hold up, then Clayton has (finally) made
a significant contribution to his claim that the percentage of homosexuals
who molest children is higher than the percentage of heterosexuals who
molest children.

> Conclusions
> -----------
> 
> It appears that the psychiatric community, at least that part
> of it specialized in childhood sexual abuse, recognizes:
> 
> 1. that child molestation is, at least for some, a recruitment
> device into homosexuality, or may encourage a person to become 
> homosexual;

This conclusion is, in my opinion, supported by at least one of the articles
he quotes.  The caveat, though, is the use of the word "some".  Please put
a number on this, Clayton, because "some" can mean .05% or it can mean 25%
and just about everything in between.

> 2. that the child molesters who prefer little boys are homosexuals,
> even if closeted;

This is also supported, but only by one of the works he cites.  The other
two don't seem to say (or if they do, Clayton didn't tell us).

> 3. that this category of molesters are prone to take positions
> of trust and authority, and abuse young boys.

As, I believe, do most child molesters, nicht wahr?

> I think the strong parallels between homosexuality, as represented
> in the S.F. Gay Pride Parade & soc.motss, and childhood sexual
> abuse, suggests a connection that needs more serious study.

Nope, can't agree with this.  It isn't borne out by your research.  It's
still your unsupported speculation.

> I have not, now or ever, claimed that every homosexual is a
> child molester.

Actually, I believe the way you phrased it, at different times in the debate,
is as follows (to the best of my recall):

1.  "there is a link between homosexuality and child molestation"
2.  "certainly suggests that homosexuals may have been molested as children"
3.  "the overwhelming majority of homosexuals support child molestation"

While this stops short of claiming that every homosexual is a child molester,
it doesn't stop very far short of it.  All of these are direct quotes, taken
from your writings.

Interestingly enough, what your research has shown is that the overwhelming
majority of homosexuals are not child molesters.  Care to retract those three
statements of yours?

> I do suggest, however, that the disproportionate
> number of child molestation offenses committed by homosexuals, and
> the parallels to the behavior child sexual abuse victims, 

Parallels, I should point out, that are unsubstantiated by your research
and that exist solely in your mind.

> should 
> give some serious pause to blithe assumptions about homosexuality's
> healthiness.  The parallel to alcoholism seems stronger to me
> every day.

This has been debunked thoroughly (by me, among others).  This parallel,
like your child molestation parallel, exists only in your mind and is
not supported by your research.

> I do not hate alcoholics, or homosexuals, but there are
> some jobs I wouldn't want either to do, and I sure don't want to
> smile and say, "That's nice" so that people with serious problems
> to resolve can stay in their dysfunctional state.

What I find interesting, Clayton, is that you very carefully did not do
any research on homosexuality and mental health.  This subject has been
very carefully researched for about 50 years now.  Why haven't you done
any reading?  Your conclusion that homosexuality is a dysfunctional state
is not supported by your research to date.

> I have been accused of being a bigot, 
> fool, mentally ill, etc. for taking positions that I discover are
> either held by experts in the field, or that can be supported from
> the data that is available.  

Nope, you haven't been called those names solely for taking those positions--
you've been called those names for taking those positions *without any
evidence to support them*.  Now that you've done some research, we'll
have to come up with some new names. :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------