What a strange turn this election has taken. I understand the Republicans are working hard to have Foley's name removed from the ballot but he's considering a run on the Florida for Pederasty line.

schmuck-en-freu-de
n.
Pleasure derived from President Bush's misfortune.

Please visit Lomblog!

10:26pm EST

Nancy Pelosi just proposed an issue (not sure of the specific procedure, other than "under Rule 9") that the House vote on a statement (resolution?) that would assure parents that if they entrusted their child(ren) to the Page program, that nothing "like this" Rep Foley incident would ever happen again.

Republican response is to "refer" the issue to the Ethics Committee which would consider it after the elections.

The truth is probably pretty close to what we have already learned. Other members of the house knew about the creep 11 months ago. The House leadership was told, but as always, did nothing.

My guess, however, is that between now and the Sunday talk shows, the official "story" will emerge that Foley was told to quit as soon as Hastert and the leadership found out.

All we can do is set back and watch as the right wing corporate media rush in to protect their friends.

God I hope I am wrong about the media, but I don't think so.

Ron Byers

Foley should know how much trouble he is in, he wrote the Foley Provisions in H.R. 4472, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

He knows.

And if he doesn't, John Walsh can tell him.

After all, he's a constituent!:

O'REILLY: With us now is John Walsh. Well, I'm sure this is going to get very high ratings on FOX on Saturday night. It's dramatic footage. But more importantly, we have to shock the American people because the politicians are letting us down. Can you believe Kennedy and Reid are doing this?

WALSH: You know, I've been going up there for 25 years. And you and I have talked many, many times. I think a lot of people don't realize that I'm a father of a murdered child, and have been up on Capitol Hill doing this.

And this bill should have been passed two years ago. Mark Foley, my congressman...

O'REILLY: Yes.

WALSH: ...from Florida sat down with James Sensenbrenner, wrote it and we got it passed last year in the House of Representatives.

O'REILLY: Right.

Smacks of the Catholic priest pedophilia scandal, don't you think?

So Hastert, Boehner and the Repos think the Democrats are soft on terrorists, while Hastert, Boehner and the Repos are soft on those who terrorize young boys.

Freud would likely characterize that behavior as overcompensation.

What do we tell the children?

It may be irony, but also travesty. As was noted by Paul 'TPM Muckraker'Kiel yesterday, the Senate spent 3 days debating the Marriage Amendment last summer and 10 hours on the hello torture-sayonara habeas corpus bill.

JohnW1141

This Foley story has been known to Republican leasdership since last November, so what do we have; A Republican party that feels gays should not serve in the military but gay Republican pedophiles can serve in Congress.

what do we have; A Republican party that feels gays should not serve in the military but gay Republican pedophiles can serve in Congress.

You have to admit that keeps them out of the military.

Best, Terry

I guess my thoughts were following the same path. Expect a Democratic ad to talk about what they do not what they say? Not going to happen. I am not sure what Dems think will happen (the earth shake? mountains tremble? rivers flood?) if they follow the Republicans down their well-travelled, proven-effective, low road. But I do not expect ads that highlight the moral morass this collection of perverts, bribe-takers, war-profiteers, racists, sanctimonious liars have created. We can save our remarks for private discussions, just like they do in dictatorships (Idi Amin's Uganda or Baby Doc's haiti).

I thought given the Foley story, the Catholic Church was suspending negotiations to see how Republicans handle their abuse problems. Any news to this effect? Will the Catholic Church withhold Communuion from the Republican leadership who covered up Foley's dalliances or is that reserved for political enemies? You know, Kerry...

Y'know, one of the things I find really amazing is how thoroughly this little scandal has shut down any discussion of Congress's recent enactment of a 'Torture & Tyranny' Bill.

It seems that discussing the sexual predations of a blow-dried minor congressman upon unreceptive and semi-receptive underage youths, is vastly more important than discussing the fact that a majority of both Congresses has given the President the authority to forcibly inflict sexual and physical violations upon the bodies of helpless innocent people.

I don't get that. What's going on here.

Is the American attention span really only fifteen minutes long? The memory not much longer?

Or is this a situation where there are just so many outrages happening so fast, everyone is just running as desperately as they can to keep up, constantly shifting from one to the other in a sort of 'multi-tasking' or moral angers?

Is this a situation where Progressives simply decided that the torture situation had been fully and fairly discussed, that there was nothing else to say, and we should move on? A sort of unstated mass-mind consensus?

Or is this a situation where Democrats and Liberals decided that the public wasn't interested in the torture issue, and so it was time to move on to something more photogenic? Another unstated mass-mind consensus?

Or is this a situation where Democrats and Liberals felt that the 'torture' discussion was unproductive and divisive given that 1/3 of Democratic Senators and 1/5 of Democratic congressmen voted for it, and rather than resolve this embarrassment, they just changed the subject?

Is this a cynical ploy by the Republicans to divert attention quickly, so as to avoid prolongued public scrutiny of the torture bill... which might persuade the public that it *really is a torture bill.* Made their hit, time to move on. I really doubt it, but I thought it worthwhile to include the option.

Is there a better explanation? I find myself amazed at the continuing dramatic and almost completely random shifts of American attention. Is this a factor of 24 hour news coverage which constantly demands the new, new, news?

It strikes me that in the broader meta-context, something really critical is going on.

I think that if recent history is anything to go by, it'll last another day or so, and then its gone.

By next week, people won't even remember the name Foley.

Interestingly, this scandal broke on a Friday, which obviously minimizes its impact for the Republicans.

Obviously, its not good for the Republicans and they'd rather not have a scandal at all. The evidence we're seeing suggests that their reactions to the scandal are uncoordinated and unplanned, they, or some of them, were taken by surprise. But if they had any control, they would have chosen the end of the news cycle: a Friday. It would tend to impell the story to dissipate, making it stale old news by the time a new cycle starts up on Monday.

But if the Republicans aren't picking and choosing when to take the hit, then who is, and why? Was this the action of 'certain' Republicans, begging or asking the media to hold off for a few days, keeping the word from their colleagues for danger of prematurely blowing a bad situation? Or was this a deliberate choice on the part of the media to delay? Or was it simply the vagaries of fortune?

Am I paranoid? Certainly. Am I paranoid *enough*? That's the important question.

Does anyone remember the recent flap of internet-using sexual predators and right wing operatives in the Department of Homeland Security?

The obvious first thing to tell the children is to avoid Republicans and Catholic priests.  Yes, that is applying a very broad brush and slopping paint all over a lot more folks than deserve the paint, but why not?  It is a standard Republican approach in politics, so it should be good for the gander.

Not to state the obvious (that means, "to state the obvious"), but if Foley were a Democrat, this would be a feature story on CNN to the exclusion of just about everything else.  And Fox News would talk about nothing else for several days, calling in their  "experts" to rail at all Democrats in general for being child abusers. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

True enough. But politics is memory. And a nation with no past has no future.

This one is simple. The Republican leadership played politics to protect a child molester. That should be the lead talking point on every Sunday talk show, and they should be shouting it from the rooftops. It also happens to be true.

War, terrorism, and now pedophilia. (And yes, I know that the age of consent in DC is 16. It's still illegal under federal law and if Mr. Foley's cellmates won't buy that defense then the rest of the country won't either). This after the homeland security press secretary turns out to be a member of the raincoat crowd.

1A. I was rehearsing the Star-Spangled Banner.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2w9EAdLMWA&mode=related&search=

I must congratulate my fellow TPMCafers, no one seems to be saying, "oh well, they all do it, so let's move on" , like the reaction to the Congressional bribery that hit the news a few months ago.  Unfortunately, this is a likely rationalization that will allow Florida voters to vote a replacement Republican into Congress.  After all, we all know, don't we, that Republicans are all deeply religious, family values oriented folks? 

Hoppy in Sacramento

Duration of the story depends on which version is reported. Based on a bunch of the MSM articles I've read it are bad but not as awful as reading a couple of the conversations available at BrowardPalmBeach.com .  Reading the exchanges leads to a way different reaction to the story.

When all is said and done, it will probably come to light, that being a Page in Congress is easy, if you are a gay.  Just like most things in the 'gay world' that are known to gays and not necessarily to mainstream non-gay America. It was the same culture that created a haven for gay men to be priests.

It is clear that pedophilia consistently overlaps with homosexuality and that boys are basically turned out by adult homosexual males. What is troublesome is the vehement denial of pedophilia and the  homosexuality  predilection when it comes to promoting the gay agenda.

America does not care about children when it comes to homosexuality, not even in the church are children safe from homosexual pedophiles.  Adults do not wake up one morning as homosexuals. the vast majority of  homosexuals were approached as young pubescent adolescents and exposed to the deviant sex. Young males are seduced, coerced and molested into homosexuality, and that is why as adults they see nothing wrong with preying on other young males, since that was how their own initiation came about.  It is thus, the natural course for many, many, many adult homosexuals to do onto other young adolescent males what was done onto them.

It is absolutely disgusting how adults in America will not stand up for the rights of children.

Each and every homosexual, pedophile and child molester,should be expelled from Congress or the page program should be abolished. The Halls of Congress simply are not safe for minors to learn about the legislative process, until these sexual deviant miscreants are purged.

There is no excuse for any adult to not renounce these despicable predatory acts on our children...none.

If ever there was a time that Democrats could stand up and represent the morality of America and be a voice for the safety of our children ...this is it.

deleted post

No; politics is the creation, capturing and consolidation of power. Memory simply allows one to excersize that power wisely.

This event while much less serious in the damaging of our nation is the kind of slime people understand cannot be allowed to exist. People understand that one person doing someone morally questionable is going to happen, that the leadership would cover it up is a signal of a larger kind of problem. THAT, is the direct blow to the base of republican power.

First - We must hold all adults to the same standard -

What makes you think we do not?

In this respect the law does not and should not care why an adult abused a child just that they did. This should be the focus of our effort to protect children

I agree. Nevertheless, understanding that individuals who engage in deviant behaviors have a greater predilection to pedophilia is simply prudent and wise, when it comes to protecting children. Just as we do not allow children to ride their bikes everywhere any longer or play outside at night. Adults in this society must not see anything wrong with identifying dangers that obvious when it comes to protecting children. We do this when it comes to drugs and sexual predators should not be given a free pass simply because they happen to be homosexual.

As to your comments on homosexuals you are not more persuasive when you speak with such venom.

Please identify this venomous accusation you make. What is venomous about acknowledging that certain sexual behaviors have a much higher association with child molestation, abuse and predacious acts?  Do you feel it is venomous when you are warned that cholesterol and high fat foods are much more associated with heart attacks than low fat low sugar diets?  Do you consider it venomous when warned that drinking and driving are associated with higher traffic fatalities?  Do you consider it venomous when warned that being obese has a higher risk of mortality?  If you do not find those assertions about the risks of specific behaviors being deleterious to your health than you should certainly not feel that it is venomous to asset the same when it comes to the correlation between homosexuality, pedophilia and child molestation. 

Do you want to make homosexuality a crime?

No. But we do have laws against drinking and driving. We know that alcohol impairs driving ability and society needs to recognize that homosexuality and pedophilia and child predators are much more associated than it is with heterosexuality. Awareness is not a crime. But the specific behavior that should be a crime is already known.  Folks, use to not have a problem with allowing a friend to drive drunk or even riding with their drunk friends. Nowadays, they do.  Homosexuality should be treated the exact same way when it comes to protecting children. Not allowed, period.

If so how will the government find the transgressors? I don't see how you can want government intrusion into our private lives since to find the homosexuals they potentially can peer into any of our private lives.

You do not have to intrude into people's private lives to protect children from homosexuals.  Just as we do not intrude into people's private lives to protect them from other deviant behaviors, such as obesity, drugs, and alcohol.  What we do instead is inform the public of the risks, and help parents teach their kids what to look for as well as minimize the risk of exposure by limiting access.

Well, can we condemn the group for knowiong about the sins of one and ignoring it and covering it up? Keeping the one Democrat on the page committee from knowing about it? Doing nothing for over a year, despite apparently criminal behaviour. All the while for spewing values and morality that was contrary to their actions.

And for the record, how does this scandal of gay predation in the Republican party relate to other gay or sexual predator Republican scandals that always seem to evaporate.

- Jeff Gannon - Male prostitute, Internet porn-boy, Fake reporter and frequent semi-documented white house visitor.

- Homeland Security - and the battery of sexual predators who were discovered using the internet to lure teen and pre-teen girls.

- Joe Scarborough - having a sexual affair with an intern who winds up dead, a suspiciously botched autopsy is performed, and Scarborough then abruptly leaves politics.

- Strom Thurmond - getting a black daughter off his maid as a young man.

- Henry Hyde - with an adult illegitimate child.

- Newt Gingrich - semi-public blow jobs in the vicinity of children from his girlfriend, dropping divorce papers on his wife while she's suffering from cancer. Cheating on that wife. Cheating on his second wife while impeaching Clinton for a blow job.

- There's that 'call girl/call boy' operation run on behalf of Abramoff, in which guys like Duke Cunningham were involved, which supplied apartments, bedrooms and partners for Republican congressman.

- I've probably missed quite a few more.

Hell, I'm amazed that the list was so long, and its not even thorough. This was just off the top of my head as I began to think about it

The amazing thing with all of these scandals is how quickly they melt away, like dew in the morning. Straight down the memory hole after that, no one ever refers to it again.

Any Democrat foible is revisited at every opportunity. But instances of republican sexual misconduct just... vanish.

What was it you were saying about condemning the group for the sins of 'one.'

Wait, wait, wait!!! Let's condemn the whole fucking (and for once, the word is used correctly in context) group as a pack of immoral, dissolute, sexual predators and hypocrites who engage in or tolerate behaviour among themselves, some of which (rape, sexual harassment, statutory rape, predation) that they rail and spew morality and values about.

Is the American attention span really only fifteen minutes long? 

Thinking about a response to this, I was considering the....

OOOH LOOOOK!!!

Shiny things!!! Gotta go...

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Adults do not wake up one morning as homosexuals. the vast majority of  homosexuals were approached as young pubescent adolescents and exposed to the deviant sex.

Sigh.....

Dissent Protects Democracy.

 Add Dennis Hastert to those being investigated - knowing a Congressman from his party was violating the sexual predator laws, why didn't he at least demand his resignation a year ago, let alone why didn't he report him to the Capitol Police as he should have done?  So many Republicans in the Congress committing crimes - my memory lacks sufficient capacity to store that much information.  How about my next door congressman Doolittle using campaign donations as personal income?

Hoppy in Sacramento

Foley's is the district of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. A number of the rich and famous live there. I am not sure of the exact boundary but it is one of the wealthiest districts in the nation. While it is clearly a Republican district, I don't think Palm Beach/West Palm Beach/Jupiter/Jupiter Island are home to very many evangelicals. I think you will find the residents in that district are predominately economic Republicans. Many are retired. Others are refugees from the North East. A lot of the others are folks who serve the retired and New York refugees.

Ron Byers

Not to defend Foley, but I haven't yet read whether or not he just led a fantasy life or actually engaged in sex with minors. It is illegal to engage in sexual fantasy talk with minors as he did, but on a moral scale, actually raping children is closer to the absolute gutter. So, I think his resignation from Congress in disgrace, plus a fine, would be adequate punishment for him. And, of course he should have to register as a sex offender, just as older teen age boys who have sex with younger teenage girls have to. Hastert and the other Republicans who winked at Foley's behavior deserve to be removed from Congress by the voters, if not by Congress itself.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Any word yet on whether the Democratic Party leadership has decided to "keep our powder dry" on this scandal?

sPh

As I said, I had no special urge to get involved in this discussion. In my experience, it never leads anywhere. But I did have to reply to this little bon mot:

but also from my own experiences as a prosecutor in the criminal law, and as barrister and solicitor for child and family service agencies

Well, this lacks weight in terms of credibility, given that the legal system is notorious for prosecuting crimes disporportionately when it comes to race and the incidence of drug abuse, alone.

Well, its personal observations and experience from actually being on the front lines and dealing with cases in real life.

And statistically, crime and child and family services data have been reliably extrapolated to the general population. And the assessments and tests of that extrapolation seem to suggest a certain amount of validity.

If you'd like to argue that the criminal justice, law enforcement, and child and family services systems are all captured by the 'Homosexual Agenda' and witting or unwitting agents .... well all I can say is that you might as well start marching in gay pride parades right now, because obviously, the 'Homosexual Agenda encompasses a vast hidden conspiracy of such awesome scope and magnitude and of such thorough breadth and width that us poor heterosexuals have no chance at all. It's a gay world after all.

Why, they've even succeeded in infecting homosexuality into the animal world.

Did you know that ants and bees are nothing but armies of sisters, the few heterosexual males hanging around kept merely for their breeding utility.

And did you know that 17% of seagulls have been found to nest in homosexual or lesbian pair bonds. It's worse for penguins, up to 30%, but then, who can tell with penguins.

Don't even get me started on those wicked self pollinating flowers.

Anyway, much as I might enjoy having this debate with you, I don't think I'll bother. Have fun hiding under the bed. I'll be out there in the real world plowing my way through legions of willing adult women, engaging in consensual activities and keeping up the flag (so to speak) for heterosexuality.

Toodles.

Well, that's just the thing. I didn't even do any work. I mean, if I were to actually sit down and research, I suspect I might be pretty horrified.

But as it was, I figured, I should just mention the Homeland Security boys, then Jeff Gannon popped into my head (ugh!), and then another and then another.

And it occurred to me that they had a lot in common. The consistent collusion of Republicans all around them, at the centre and the edges, who had to have been in the know, but instead helped to cover it up or ignore it.

The amazing penchant for the media to drop these stories rapidly, and then to simply cease to ever refer to them. Down the memory hole.

So, frankly, I will condemn *all* the self proclaimed morals and values folks. Because these folks seem to show a consistent double standard, overtly and covertly.

Hell, look at the hatemongering spew of guys like Dobson, Swaggart, Falwell and Robinson. Not (except for Swaggart) deeply into sexual peccadillos. But they all have records of deeply morally offensive acts and words.

Remember Falwells blood libel on lesbians and feminists causing 9/11?

Remember Pat Robertson, in bed (metaphorically) with Charles Taylor and Mobutu Sese Seko, using charitable donations to fund his mining operations, calling for the deaths of Supreme Court Judges and Foreign Heads of States...

And yet Falwell and Robertson are welcomed back to the fold. Hell, they never left. Somehow, no matter their outrages, Falwell and Robinson are always welcome at the table.

This seems to be a way of life with the values and morals crowd. They roar and rowl and growl and spew.

But when push comes to shove, they seem happy to ignore the most offensive conduct. They're happy to turn a blind eye, conceal it, cover it up, ignore and forgive, and instantly forget.

And every once, once in a while, one of them gets caught red handed in something so outrageously hypocritical that it takes the breath away...

And what do they do? Nothing. The result is an embarrassed silence. The perpetrator crawls off in guilty shame. And then after a dignified period, they pretend it never happened and commence once again to rowling and growling, shouting and spewing.

Well screw that.

I'll tell you something. I've dedicated my life to living a moral life. I know a lot of people who live moral lives. But I don't yap about it. And neither do the moral people I know. We don't go around 'self proclaiming' it. We don't go on and on about how noble we are. And we don't go around shouting out judgements of others.

Well, forget it. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. I'm condemning the whole 'moral values' crowd as a nation of fools, hypocrites, accomplices and criminals. That's four categories to put them all in, and not a single one more.

The day I see Pat Robertson selling pencils on the street because his people woke up and took a good look at him, that's the day I'll change my mind.

"Of girls being molested by lesbians is, as far as I can determine, nonexistent." Sadly, it's does exist.

There aren't many reasonable explanations why Republican leaders allowed Foley to take and keep a committee assignment related to the exploitation of children, given that they were apparently aware
of his advances toward underaged male pages. A possible rationale: his committee work would provide legal access to child pornography, so that if this material were found in his office, his home, his car, it could be explained as part of his official duties. He got access to material that would otherwise be illegal, and the Republican Party got a hedge against potential scandal if it was found in his possession.

Speaking out of both sides of my mouth I want diverse views here and in the rest of my life, EXCEPT when they cut to the core of what I believe. WRB hit that core when he got on plain old homosexuality. 

So to be fair I cannot say "sadly" unless I want people to give up their beliefs because I say so. Wrong in principle and I am not about to be told what I should believe.

It strikes me that the test of opinions is a willingness to examine them and change them when facts or arguments demand.

WRB on this subject shows no such willingness. Not much of an opinion.

Grown men having sex with teenagers is fairly grotesque. It is not actually illegal, provided that the teenager is above legal age. A congressman in a position of power and influence having sex with a male or female page is utterly inappropriate, and frankly, I think at the very least it opens up to civil liability. In Canadian jurisdictions, persons in positions of power and influence having sex with people within their power may be liable to criminal charges. Not so in America, apparently.

While the first two men, a Republican and a Democrat, have an unsavoury and repulsive conduct, it is not apparently illegal. They should have been punished by the voters.

Republican Lukens deserved to go to jail.

It seems that there are a vast number of instances of Republican sexual indiscretions.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Examples_of_Republican_hypocrisy_on_moral_values

In the case of Foley, it appears that he really did commit crimes... breaches of the criminal law. So in addition to being immoral and icky, he was a criminal.

The level of immorality at work is not confined to Foley. As has been pointed out, it was not an accident that he was appointed Chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.

The reality is that people have pointed out that there were apparently rumours of his activities and interests going back at least five or six years. It is now on the record that the Republican Leadership had notice of his activities at least a year ago.

Why was he allowed to remain Chairman? This position put him in a position of access to pornographic materials, and it put him in a position to make contact with and approach the youths who were his sexual interest. The Republican Leadership did not just turn a blind eye. They effectively facilitated him, much the same way the Catholic Church would be facilitating if they put a Priest about whom they'd received notice of pedophile tendencies in charge of a day care.

I need some age help. What is the age when a child becomes an adult in terms of how criminal law is applied?

How does that relate to what I always thought that statutory rape was sexual intercourse with someone under 18? 

Amen. Wake the nation.

This is a partial answer to your question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

It's worth noting that there are wrinkles. The Age of Marriage often differs from the age of consent, in many American jurisdictions, the age of marriage is actually younger than the age of consent.

In Canada the age of consent is 14 except where the relationship is between youths less than two years apart.

The age of consent for persons who are involved with persons in positions of trust or authority is 18. That would include priests, policemen, senators, camp counsellors, etc.

The Conservative government proposes to raise the age of consent to 16, but allow sex as young as 14 with persons no more than five years older. Personally, I'd stay with the two year rule. A five year gap with a 14 year old is nothing but a predator.

The age at which a person can engage in sodomy, either anal sex or perform oral sex, is sometimes different from the age of consent. In Canada, that means that you could have regular sex at 14 but had to wait until you were 18 for a blow job.

Meanwhile, the age at which viewing pornography varied, and in Canada remains higher than the age of consent at 18. As with Denmark, it was legal to perform the acts, but not to watch them.

In Foley's case, ironically, he pioneered internet sex predator laws that criminalized the behaviour that he was undertaking... sexual talk or seeking sex on the internet from those under the age of 18. If he'd met them in a bar, he could have legally had sex with them, provided that they were over 16.

In the United States, age of consent is a state jurisdiction matter, ranging between the ages of twelve and eighteen. A number of federal sex crimes... internet porn, telecommunications sex, crossing state lines involves an age of 18.

Under sixteen, as I understand it, is both illegal and icky in Florida and Washington,D.C..

I would say this much in favor of WRB's position: the forbidden fruit is, to some, the more tempting. Given that homosexuality rightly or wrongly carries a social taboo, it might be a temptation to some precisely because it is taboo. And if a person has a predilection for engaging in such sexual taboos to begin with, then pedophilia must hold a special attraction to them. That's a hypothesis that can be actually tested by the way. I have no idea if such studies have been conducted, but if not, they should to keep things on a scientific basis.

Look at the post, there at first is a discussion of a house member committing a fellony and the posible coverup of said felloney. The the posting of an inflammatory remark about all gays needing to be removed from office which serves not to advance the topic but serves only as an attempt to derail it. Look the trolling was successful now we are talking about a different topic.

If this person wants to talk about the evil corrupting influence of gays let them start their own post on the topic rather than derailing another thread. I will even go and participate in it but not here its inappropriate.

If you wish to discuss this further then please PM me as I see no reason to further derail this thread.

There is one very small grain of truth in his rant, but it's broader than he admits. Adults, whether gay or straight, very commonly desire young people. While the desire for outright children is fairly rare, a desire for post-pubescent teenagers is not. How many straight men can honestly say they've never looked at some high school scheerleader and though "Wow, she's hot", and maybe even fanatsized about her like the character in American Beauty. And why was Brittney Spears such a hit in her Soiled Schoolgirl phase? However, heterosexuality is fenced about with all sorts of useful social insitutions (like marriage) and taboos and so the incidence of heterosexuals acting on those impulses, though certainly not unheard of, is not particularly common either. Until very recently homosexuality was beyond the pale and there wre no rules or institutions or taboos for gay people. Hence you would find gay people acting on the desire for youth more commonly. Add to this the fact that too manygay youths even today are outcast by unaccepting families and forced to rely on gay adults for survival (see: "hustlers") and you have a recipe for pederasty. The solution though is not more repression, but rather to bning the gayworld out into the open and provide it witrh the same (or similar) rules that the straight world has, celebrating "good" relationships and disapproving of "bad" ones.

But a casual aquaintance of mine engaged in sex with a 15 yr old high school student, when he was an 18 yr old high school student.  He was convicted of statutory rape and still has to register as a sex offender where ever he goes.  As a result many job opportunities others have are closed to him for the rest of his life.  (For doing what over half of high school students in that age group do.) 

Hoppy in Sacramento

Well this is a totally erroneous and false perception perpetrated by the gay agenda. There is no such thing as "sexual orientation," that is a term which refers to the unproven theory that their is some genetic basis for homosexuality. There is no genetic basis. Homosexuality is a sexual behavior. And like all behaviors there is no scientific evidence of a genetic basis. NONE. All the medical evidence to day, and the consensus in the scientific community is that homosexuality is a behavior al choice..just like obesity, theft, pedophilia, prostitution and incest.

Ummmmm, No.

Actually, there is plenty of scientific basis for behaviors which have a genetic basis. The language faculty, for one.

YOu seem to have allowed your prejudices to get ahead of your rationality. Perhaps you should do more research, and, perhaps, even speak with people of homosexual orientation about their experiences.

When did you choose to be heterosexual?

BC

If you'd like to argue that the criminal justice, law enforcement, and child and family services systems are all captured by the 'Homosexual Agenda' and witting or unwitting agents .

NO. It seems you missed my point. Your professional experience as a member of the law profession lacked credibility simply because what cases are prosecuted have nothing to do with how frequently the crime occurs within a given population and everything to do with the biased legal system.  In short,your experience as a prosecutor carried no weight.

Why, they've even succeeded in infecting homosexuality into the animal world

Statements such as this carry the same amount of credibility as your prosecutor experience. Why you believe such a specious argument is some sort of valid statement about human sexual behavior is beyond me.  It isn't.  Animals, unlike humans, lack free wills and are compelled to act on their urges and desires. Humans are not.  Unless, you are inferring that homosexuals are nothing more than animals incapable of controlling themselves.

The facts are that there is no scientifically validated evidence wbich supports your false notions.  All scientific evidence to date, which alluded to your false notions has been thoroughly debunked and invalidated and some of it by the very scientists who made the ridiculous claims initially.

Your choosing not to discuss this is an option I can respect, as you appear not to be well-informed on the topic, in terms of what the data actually shows, as opposed to what many want to emotionally believe.

I made a big deal at the beginning of my above response that any adult who abuses a kid is the point. I wanted to exclude the distinction of whether that adult is hetero- or homosexual because their behavior toward the child is the issue. No adult has a special pass, I don't care whether they are a priest, a Congressman or the person down the street.

OK. I can agree with this.

The poking into adult private lives is an issue when you or anyone else takes abuse and leaps to make all homosexuals the target. In this discussion the issue is adults who abuse children, not what they do with another adult.

I can accept that to a point. Remember that nowadays, a person does not have to be in an accident in order to be charged with drunk driving and have those actions criminalize for the mere potential of what might occur in terms of public driving safety. Individuals are convicted of impaired driving not having any traffic accident.  Why should child predators be any different? 

I do not find engaging any child in deviant sexual acts tolerable. Whether it is homo or heterosexual. However, when you do the research and learn that so many individuals were introduced to same gender sex by molestation, I feel that behooves us as a society to note the higher risk just as we do for all other situations that can be a danger to a child's safety.

Those e mails from Foley, have every bit as much 'potential' to lead to child molestation, as driving under the influence has to cause traffic fatalities. If we can pre-empt and criminalize one behavior then enticing minors into homosexual acts should be no different. Particularly given that the incidence of child molestation involving homosexual acts is much greater, just as alcohol-related traffic fatalities are much greater. i.e. 40% of fatalities are alcohol related and up to 40% of child molestation cases involve homosexual acts.

Look at how this Alexander,when he learned of the inappropriate behavior of Foley, when to the head of the GOP political operations.  Those are not the actions of an individual interested in the child's safety and protection. He was looking to politically protect the adult offender, Foley and his own party.  That is morally reprehensible.

His actions are no different than allowing a friend to drive drunk. Alexander was not looking out for the welfare and safety of the pages, he choose instead to let his transgressions go without standing up for the children at continued risk from Foley.

I find this view to be mere truthiness on your part.

WRB is so touchy on this that it's best to walk away.

I offer this observation, aligned with your POV: if homosexuality were a risk to species survival there would be no humans, or most mammals. Clearly it is self-regulating.

Really, I don't think we've got anything to discuss. Within the context of this issue: In your eyes I'm obviously a misinformed fool or willing dupe of the homosexual agenda. In my eyes you are a raving lunatic. Is this a basis for a useful discussion on the subject?

Interesting. Quite a departure from your usual willingness to discuss facts.  It is just not my eyes, but the facts, which indicate you are uninformed.  I have made no assertion that you are a fool or dupe,simply because I know otherwise, despite you stating that my assertions were 'foolish notions'.  How you jump to the conclusion that someone is a raving lunatic, is beyond me, simply because you disagree. 

 Is this an emotional issue for you, Valdron?

Not really. There are simply certain issues that seem fairly obvious but which are hardly interesting enough to debate.

For instance. Grass is generally green, something to do with photosynthesis. This is my observation, there are theories to that effect, and a certain amount of studies and literature verifying same.

Someone comes to me and insists that grass is really blue...

Hmmm... I thinks to myself. That definitely seems to be wrong. But am I really engaged enough by this subject to care? Not really.

The subject fascinates you. Good for you. It doesn't actually interest me all that much, given that the basic elements which you challenge seem pretty obvious. So, I decline to pursue. As I've noted from the start, I entered this discussion reluctantly.

In terms of the applicability or lack of applicability of the criminal law, justice, police and child protection systems, in my view, if anything, that system seems to select for the 'external predator.' The investigative focus has traditionally emphasized or been wary of sexual predators outside the family/extended family/social group.

As it turns out, studies have shown that this was a mistake. Most child sexual predation comes about inside social groupings. The people most likely to diddle a child are, in no particular order, fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, male cousins, and trusted family friends. The second most likely group are social authority figures - priests, doctors, congressmen, employers, etc. The wandering homosexual or heterosexual predator does exist, but represents a minority of offences.

In any event, its hardly worth discussing these issues in any detail since you simply dismiss them.

Nevertheless, this remains the reality that I deal with and have personal and professional knowledge of. Your reality is different.

Frankly, there are other topics that interest me more. Although this is obviously a major issue to you, I feel no pressing urge to engage. This is not to trivialize your perspective. Some of the topics that interest me are silly and obscure by any light. I don't apologize for them. I don't expect you to apologize for your interests.

Anyway, there do appear to be people who are very interested in debating you on this subject. So its not as if I'm needed.

So on this topic, I'll simply bid you good day and happy arguings.

Gore Vidal is of course well known for his scientific credentials.

BC

For instance. Grass is generally green, something to do with photosynthesis. This is my observation, there are theories to that effect, and a certain amount of studies and literature verifying same.

Someone comes to me and insists that grass is really blue...

The difference here is that your observaion is consistent with proven facts, regarding photosynthesis.. Your assertions regarding sexual orientation are not. The term itself is based on an unproven theory. Such that when someone 'comes to you' and assertss that all sexual behavior is really a matter of choice, and a sexual preference without a genetic basis, it is reasonable to examine the facts your opinion is based on.

Nevertheless. I get your overall point, ....You are entitled to hold opiinions unsubstantiated by facts.

In any event, its hardly worth discussing these issues in any detail since you simply dismiss them.

No, I disagreed and asked for a citation to support those points, as opposed to your 'personal and professional observations.

It's OK, I agree, as you noted there are plenty of other topicss to discusss.

Toodles backatcha and Happy Sunday.....the Wolverines took the Brown Jug back to Ann Arbor...yahoo!

Re: Why should child predators be any different?

They aren't. Laws against child pornography, for example, inclde pure fanatsy drawings, cartoons, virtual realities etc. in which no real children are involved. The key word here of course is "child". No one is going to beconvicted of child pornography if all they are doing is sampling pics of some 25 year old stripper. Nor is anyone going to be convicted of a DUI when all they have drunk is Pepsi.

OK, pals, if this is the news in September, we have to hold on to our boots for Karl's October surprise! It HAS to be a big one!

Jan Knaus

Summary of Republican Congressmen who have resigned in the past year:

Mark Foley: Solicited sex from a number of 16-year old boys, which was temporarily covered up by Republican leadership; resigned from Congress and sex offender charges are currently being investigated; checking in to alcohol rehab

Duke Cunningham: Accepted more than a million dollars in bribes; sentenced to 100 months in prison on bribery, corruption and conspiracy charges

Bob Ney: Accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts, trips and cash; plead guilty to charges of bribery and corruption; checked in to alcohol rehab

Tom Delay: Accepted bribes, and money laundering; forced to resign from Congress and is facing criminal charges and continued investigations

These paragons of virtue are inspiring, no?

Re: This does not sound like a solution. Heterosexuals are not being repressed and they engage teenage females.

Hmm, didn't you claim that the incidence of pedophilia is rarer among heterosexuals than among gays? I was just pointing out an answer to that conundrum. 1) we create respectable institutions to moralize homosexual behavior as we have heterosexual behavior. While hardly 100% effective marriage and the whole set of rules that go with it does tend to channel heterosexual desire into socially useful (or at least socially non-harmful) channels most of the time.
2. If we could end (or at least vastly reduce) the incidence of gay teens being cast out of their families, and also provide gay kids with a sense of self respect and belonging in the world independent of their sexual usages, we would also reduce the population of gay youths who are going to be vulnerable to pederasts.

There is no evidence that homosexual adults are more likely to sexually molest children than heterosexual adults.  In the "per capita" Cameron study frequently cited by anti-gay activists,  Cameron assumed that all male-male molestations were perpetrated by homosexuals, while he did *not* assume that all male-female molestations were perpetrated by heterosexuals.  In addition, Cameron's survey methodology was irredeemably flawed.  Cameron is an ideologue masquerading as a scientist, whose results are contradicted by the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence.

But, but, but, but Clinton.......

(Kinda puts the whole impeachment thingy into perspective, doesn't it?)

Jan Knaus

That is the number of per capita heterosexual pedophelia versus the number of per capita homosexual pedophelia. I don't know the answer to that since I've not read the studies. But I suspect that the per capita homosexual pedophelia is greater than the per capita heterosexual pedophelia. I might be worng

No. You are correct. And that was the valid assertion I made. Nascardaughter's post makes the exact same error. The incidence of child molestation cases involving homsexual acts is disproportionate to the homosexual population. Whether, someone is categorized as having a homosexual orientation is totally irrevelant, given that homosexuals are habitually in denial when it comes to personal accountability for their sexual choices and preferences.

However,  Valdron's post received high ratings because he was espousing the 'popular tpmmajority' view.

 But I was surprises that the post got such high ratings by so many prominent contributors who must have missed this obvious statistical error in Valdron's analysis.

  The ratings do not reflect the validity nor accuracy of Valdron's post. Just popularity.

I was not surprised by this response,given, that it is a consistent pattern in this forum when a dissenting opinion does not agree with the prominent contributing 'tpmmajority'.  Note also, that the dissenting opinion will receive a barrage of zeros or one ratings as well.

Leaving aside whether one's sexual orientation is relevant --and it is is if you wish to make a claim about people's sexual orientation

No, not at all. The term sexual orientation is based on the unproven theory that there is some genetic basis for sexual preferences. Since no one has scientifically proven that there is a genetic basis for sexual behavior. It remains a preference and an individual choice like all other human behaviors.

 the Cameron study *does* take orientation into account, but *only* in the case of male-female molestations, and *not* in the case of male-male molestations. In other words, all male-male molestations areconsidered "homosexual", while some male-female molestations are also considered "homosexual." This jerry-rigs the results.

Let's leave aside Cameron period. Since it is clear that only same gender sex, fits the definition of homosexual and  that male-female molestations are heterosexual. Hopeful, that basic terminology is not being contested.

Homosexual activists routinely claim that most child molesters are “heterosexual” males, thus shifting the focus away from their own very high rates of molestation. Since 98-99% of the population is heterosexual, it is technically correct to say that most molestations are done by heterosexuals. However, statistics indicate that homosexuals pose a far more serious threat to children than do heterosexuals.

For example: In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.

Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls.”

This high rate of molestations by homosexuals is consistent with other studies conducted during the past several decades. Here are just a few studies that show homosexuals molesting children at epidemic rates:

In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., “Adolescent Sex Offenders—Vermont, 1984” Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)

In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, “Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,” Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)

Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200)

From these studies and many more, it is evident that homosexuals molest children at a far greater rate than do their heterosexual counterparts

The point being that homosexuality is sexual attraction to one's own sex. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to children. Although one person can be both homosexual and a pedophile, they are not, in fact, linked.

We could quibble about whether it is child molestation or pedophilia that is linked. For the sake of argument, let's say it is child molestation that is  indeed linked to homosexuality.

Saying that something is linked or associated is not asserting a causal relationship.

I think WRB believes that all homosexuals are pedophilia risks. I think it is a strongly held belief, and that we'll all have to agree to disagree on this one.

I agree to disagree as this is a belief based on factual data. 

The data on child molestation demonstrates a clear link with homosexuality.  This is no different from asserting the clear link between heart disease and cholesterol levels.  High cholesterol levels have never been shown to cause heart attacks.  Yet there is strong clinical evidence and a clear association and/or link  demonstrating that those individuals with  high cholesterol levels have a greater incidence  of heart attacks than those individuals  with low cholesterol levels.

The term sexual orientation is based on the unproven theory that there is some genetic basis for sexual preferences. Since no one has scientifically proven that there is a genetic basis for sexual behavior. It remains a preference and an individual choice like all other human behaviors.

Nah, actually it's completely independent of whether and to what degree there is a genetic basis for sexual preferences.  Sexual orientation is one's sexual preference, period. 

Just as an aside, I've never really gotten the obsession with genetics that people seem to have when it comes to sexual orientation.  I mean, it's interesting, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I think of my very dear gay friends and how they should be treated by society.  Clearly sexual orientation isn't a choice in the same way that choosing what shirt I'm gonna wear today is a choice, as anyone who experiences a gender preference of any kind in their sexual relationships can attest, but how much that has to do with genetics doesn't really have anything to do with its "okay"-ness.  For all I know an attraction to children could be genetic -- that wouldn't make it okay, or not okay.  What makes sex between adults and children not okay is that children are not capable of consenting to sexual activity.

Okay, that was a really long aside...  So but anyway, most studies that take sexual orientation into account are looking at behavior, i.e., the gender of the people who perpetrators tend to have sex with.  The sexual history of a male who has molested a male child may have been exclusively with females, for example.  Other studies take sexual orientation into account in other ways, such as an individual's professed sexual predilection, or by looking at biological measures of arousal when individuals are shown photographs of women and men. 

It's important to note that these are all methods used to determine the prevalence of sexual orientations in the larger population.  If a person who has adult female sexual partners his whole life, with the exception of one adult male sexual partner, is considered "heterosexual" in measures of the prevalence of sexual orientations in the larger population, while a person who has adult female sexual partners his whole life with the exception of one child male sexual partner is considered "homosexual" in a study, comparing the two is invalid.

Me, I don't see a whole lot of point to such comparisons in the first place -- at least not for the purpose of determining the "okay"-ness of sexual relationships between mutually consenting adults.  People who have sex with children are, ultimately, people who have sex with children.  It's the having sex with children that's not okay, not whatever other stuff they do.

There's all kinds of statistics out there in the world that don't tell me anything about individuals and how they should be treated.  People in heterosexual relationships are more likely to kill their partners than people in homosexual relationships.  This doesn't tell me that being in a heterosexual relationship is "not okay," or that straight people are partner killers, or that straight couples should not be allowed to get married because it encourages partner killing.  

Today a listener called into CSPAN from West Palm Beach and claimed that lots of people in that area knew that Foley was taking part in wild parties with young teenagers. The listener basically said it was so well-known that he would be surprised if the White House didn't know about it. The caller called in when Melanie Sloan from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics was being interviewed. I hope that there are some journalists out there following up to see whether the caller's claims could be substantiated.

Most studies which purport to determine a genetic basis for sexual behavior use the descriptor, sexual orientation, as opposed to sexual preference when describing the perpetrator.

When I say "most studies that take sexual orientation into account are looking at behavior, i.e., the gender of the people who perpetrators tend to have sex with," I'm talking about studies of the sexual orientation of people who sexually molest children.  These studies do not look at genetic markers for sexual orientation.  They look at behavior to make a determination of sexual orientation.  You can say that behavior is genetically motivated or not genetically motivated -- either way, it's the same measure.  And studies that look at the prevalence of sexual orientation in the population of child molesters relative to the prevalence of sexual orientation in the general population overwhelmingly find that homosexuals are represented in the population of child sexual molesters at a rate that is the same or lower than heterosexuals, relative to each group's presence in the larger population.

This was the issue you raised with Cameron's study...and for the sake of argument, I agreed to not use his work as evidence of the increase child molestation rates within the homosexual population and cited several other studies instead.

Nah, it's a different issue, although I don't think I put it very clearly.  One issue (among many) with the Cameron study is that he made a determination of perpetrators' sexual orientation only for male perpetrators who molested females.  In other words, all males who molested males were automatically considered to have a homosexual orientation.  All males who molested females were not automatically considered to have a heterosexual orientation -- some were labeled as homosexual based upon their lifelong pattern of behavior.  The study was not independent of considerations of sexual orientation -- it used sexual orientation in a lopsided way to achieve the result he wanted.

The issue I was describing in the previous post is not actually related to the Cameron study.  It was this: you seem to be saying a perpetrator's sexual orientation is irrelevant, because there is no such thing as sexual orientation.  That makes its own internal sense.  But you cannot get from there to saying that homosexuals are more prevalent in the population of child molesters than in the general population... 

It's a question of comparing apples and oranges.  If you want to compare item A,  sexual orientation in the population of child molesters, with item B, sexual orientation in the larger population, then you have to look at sexual orientation in both cases -- however you want to determine that, whatever you want to call it, whether you think it has anything to do with genetics or not, it has to be consistent for both measures. 

If you want to leave sexual orientation out of it, you could compare item A, the number of people who have engaged in same sex behavior in the population of child molesters, with item B, the number of people who have engaged in same sex behavior in the larger population (much, much, much higher than the number of people who have a homosexual orientation).

But you can't have "there's no such thing as sexual orientation" as your standard for item A, and "measures of sexual orientation even though I don't think it exists" as your standard for item B.   

I live in Lauderdale (and am gay) just south of Foley's district and there's never been a hint here that Foley was gay with a taste for Young Things. He could have had his pick of "bois" if he had wanted to come on down and cruise Sunrise Blvd after dark, but of course that would have meant paying for it, and no doubt he was used to hsi exalted status as a congressman getting him what he wanted.
I did once hear a rumor that Foley was gay from a far rightwinger in Tampa, Christianist subspecies, but took it with a grain of salt considering the source.

When I say "most studies that take sexual orientation into account are looking at behavior, i.e., the gender of the people who perpetrators tend to have sex with," I'm talking about studies of the sexual orientation of people who sexually molest children.  These studies do not look at genetic markers for sexual orientation

What I am saying is that the use of the term sexual orientation ASSERTS that sexual behavior is pre-determined genetically, therefore they are assuming that the sexual behavior is genetic.

They look at behavior to make a determination of sexual orientation

False. Their behavior determines sexual preference.

You can say that behavior is genetically motivated or not genetically motivated -- either way, it's the same measure. 

This is true because there is no evidence that sexual  behavior  or any behavior for that matter, is  genetically determined.

And studies that look at the prevalence of sexual orientation in the population of child molesters relative to the prevalence of sexual orientation in the general population overwhelmingly find that homosexuals are represented in the population of child sexual molesters at a rate that is the same or lower than heterosexuals, relative to each group's presence in the larger population

Totally false. See prior studies cited.

it used sexual orientation in a lopsided way to achieve the result he wanted.

I understood the link you used the first time you cited the Cameron studied. I have not once contested that data. For the third time, Cameron's data is a mute issue and your continuing to refer to his data to re-iterate the same point in no way validates your initial assertion on child molestation, given that the overwhelming majority of data, independent of Cameron's studies demonstrates that homosexuals do molest children at a much higher rate than the population of heterosexuals as a whole..

The issue I was describing in the previous post is not actually related to the Cameron study.  It was this: you seem to be saying a perpetrator's sexual orientation is irrelevant, because there is no such thing as sexual orientation.

Let me clarify.Camerons' work was not relevant since the numerous other studies concluded the same thing...therefore your contention regarding  the methodologies used to assert.  sexual orientation in Cameron's study was irrelevant as well.  In addition, I have consistently stated that sexual orientation is a unproven theory and that the use of the term is to promote the gay activists agenda that there is some genetic basis for sexual behavior. There is no scientific evidence that supports a genetic basis for sexual behavior which has not been debunked and refuted scientifically. So, yes...there is no such thing, as 'sexual orientation'. 

But you cannot get from there to saying that homosexuals are more prevalent in the population of child molesters than in the general population... 

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the increased prevalence of homosexual acts. Nor have I asserted that it has.  You are the only one asserting that sexual orientation is relevant. I disagreed with that premise.  There are only sexual preferences.  So, I have not tried to get from anywhere based on the use of sexual oreentation.

If you want to compare item A,  sexual orientation in the population of child molesters, with item B, sexual orientation in the larger population, then you have to look at sexual orientation in both cases

Again, I have not attempted to compare sexual orientation of any group to another group. Sexual orientation is a false idea perpetuated by gay activists based on the theory that there is a genetic basis for sexual behavior. It is a false premise and there is no data to support it.

however you want to determine that, whatever you want to call it, whether you think it has anything to do with genetics or not, it has to be consistent for both measures

In what studies, other than Cameron's whose methodologies you challenged on this, are you saying the measures for sexual preferences were not consistent?

But you can't have "there's no such thing as sexual orientation" as your standard for item A, and "measures of sexual orientation even though I don't think it exists" as your standard for item B.   

Yes, you can. The standard used was sexual preferences for both. Therefore, sexual orientation is irrelevant and was left out completely. Only you continue to raise it by repeatedly returning to Cameron's work.

 I don't think anyone actually knows what causes pedophilia; surely it is multifactorial. But Pedophiles who are homosexuals do it to children who are the same sex as they are. Pedophiles who are heterosexual do it to children of the opposite sex. Homosexuality doesn't "cause" pedophilia any more than heterosexuality does.

 I wholeheartedly agree that there  is both hetero and homosexual pedophilia.. Because pedophilia is a diagnostic term which carries so many other connotations, I am going to simply call it child molestation. While may not know definitively what causes pedophilia, what we do know is that typically, the vast majority of child sexual abusers were abused sexual as children, themselves.

I know you don't agree; now I know that you also can't agree to disagree with those of us who believe what I just said, either.

Huh?  I did agree to disagree and agreed with what you just said you believed regarding pedophilia.  I simply wanted to clarify that it was not simply a" belief " (like religion)  on my part and that I was not saying that pedophilia was caused by homosexuality when asserting that the two are linked and associated.

Yes, you can. The standard used was sexual preferences for both. Therefore, sexual orientation is irrelevant and was left out completely.

Comparing "whether a child molester has ever had sex with someone of the same sex" with "whether a person has a sexual preference for the same sex", is not using sexual preference as a standard for both.

*Arg!   I keep trying to get rid of the extra spaces in this, and failing.  Mebbe if I cross my fingers before re-posting this, it'll work.  If not, my apologies...*

Camerons' work was not relevant since the numerous other studies concluded the same thing

The overwhelming majority of studies do not conclude the same thing.  For example...

Carole Jenny, et al., Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?, Pediatrics, Vol. 94, No. 1 (1994)

David Newton, Homosexual Behavior and Child Molestation: A Review of the Evidence, Adolescence, Vol. XIII, No. 49 at 40 (1978)

Freund, K., Watson, R., & Rienzo, D. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. The Journal of Sex Research, 26 (1), 107-117.

Groth, A. N., & Gary, T. S. (1982). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and pedophilia: Sexual offenses against children and adult sexual orientation.

McConaghy, N. (1998). Paedophilia: A review of the evidence. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 32(2), 252-265.

Groth, A.N., Hobson, W.F., & Gary, T.S. (1982). The child molester: Clinical observations. Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 1 (1/2), 129-144.

Again, I tend to agree with Whiterosebuddy in that the concept of "sexual orientation" has limited usefulness in this discussion. For example, suppose we restrict ourselves to these four basic categories: Adult Male (AM) Adult Female(AF), Male Child (MC) and Female Child (FC). Then strictly speaking we have the four obvious pedophile molestations (AM with MC, AM with FC, AF with MC, and AF with FC.) But consider this possiblility an AM who has frequent sexual relations with AF but also frequent sexual contact with MC. Is the AM to be considerted heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. Any particular answer seems arbitrary. So if I was to draw up a typology of child molesters, I would include both his/her adult sexual activity (if any) and their child molestations.

I know my theroy of the forbidden fruit did not go over well in this thread, but I still think that things that are taboo--especially sexual taboos--attract a certain type that is attracted to breaking taboos in general.

I'm just saying that I never heard rumors about Foley in the gay communitry of S. Florida.

society needs to recognize that homosexuality and pedophilia and child predators are much more associated than it is with heterosexuality.

I'd like to see you cite evidence of this association. The evidence you cited above does NOT say this. I'd definately say you are in disagreement with just about every professional mental health organization out there.

Ryan

Valdron may have made a statistical error but both WRB and yourself have made a major logical error. Male-male child molestation has nothing to do with someone being homosexual or heterosexual according to mental health professionals who study child molestation. Indeed, those professionals state that pedophiles, the ones who do the molesting, most often do not have any kind of attraction to adults that can be considered homosexual or heterosexual.

That being the case, the logical flaw here is that it matters what percentage of the population is homosexual or heterosexual.

Ryan

It's too easy to get wrapped up and spend all my time doing this instead of working.

I wouldn't know anything about that!

*hits alt-tab*