🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <35255D95.7F027CA8@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>,
commodore-lars@geocities.com wrote:

> Norman Gall wrote:
> > commodore-lars@geocities.com wrote:
> 
> > > Do I need to?  Studies show that without BOTH a mother and father
> > > figure, that child rearing suffers as a result.
> > 
> > "Studies"! Cite them.  I can trot out 10 that show that homosexual couples
> > rear just as well-adjusted and actually *more* successful children than
> > heterosexual couples.
> 
> Then you'd better tell the homosexual lobbies.  They tried desperately
> to find some, and were forced to publicly conclude none exist.

Who says so?  EGALE?

> Meanwhile, 300+ studies show the flaws of parenting not reared under a
> mother and father.

No.  They show the problems faced by single parents - problems with
children in single parent homes are usually the result of poverty.

> > > Tell that to the Scouts or Boys & Girls Club.  Or WORSE, tell it to the
> > > parents of the poor kids who are molested because of this ruling.
> > 
> > Yawn. More unsubstantiated claims.
> 
> Hardly.  Scouts Canada and other youth groups are already concerned
> about the difficulty in weeding out homosexual predators thanks to "gay
> rights".

'Concerned with' and 'legitimately concerned with' are two different things.

> > > That's what was used to dispel the critics of the legalization of
> > > sodomy.  No, it wasn't going to lead to gay rights, it was just getting
> > > the state out of the nation's bedrooms.
> > 
> > More idiocy.
> 
> Can't refute it, huh?

I don't have to.  The burden is on you to show that the legalising sodomy
has anything at all to do with 'gay rights'. You may as well calim that
legalisation of sodomy led to the Charter of Rights and the Gulf War. 
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc is a fallacy, chump.

> > They can assert all they want, but you know as well as I do (and this is
> > what makes your argument so damn offensive) is that sex with children is
> > objectionable on the grounds that children cannot enter into consensual
> > sex acts.
> 
> Tell that to homosexual lobby groups, who don't have any trouble
> participating in events with the Man-Boy love association.

Yawn.

> If you're really in the mood to be sickened, you can go to
> http://www.paranoia.com/~theslurp/home.html

Yawn.

> > You can fire someone on the grounds that they watch TV? I think you'd
> > better study a little labour law before you keep shooting off your mouth.
> 
> You most certainly can.  Don't like somebody's attitude, or dress, or
> anything, and you can not hire them AND fire them.

No you can't.  But then maybe you can in AB. Wrongful firing and inability
to show why a lesser qualified person was hired are actionable.

> > > I see.  First you want to see the torturous reasoning.  Then you refer
> > > to drivel the fact that 3% of the population makes up 35% of our
> > > pedophiles.
> 
> > I challenge your statistics.... as you knew I would.  It is more like 10%
> > and 10%. But it was a nice try.
> 
> Yes, and it is correct...you aren't.

Yawn.

> The 10% myth is just that, a myth.  Even the author of the study himself
> (Kinsey) admits it was flawed, using only the prison population rather
> than the general population.  

I don't use Kinsey's numbers.

> Additionally, his figure wasn't even 10%. 
> The "Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy" and "Psychological Reports"

Drivel.  If I gave a shit I'd show you three other studies from Psych
Reports and JSMT on my selves in my office that show between 8 and 14%.

> both reported that gays make up 1-3% of the male population (and has
> been confirmed by numerous studies over the past few years, for example
> the Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers in Seattle which found 2.3%
> of American men report having sex with another man, while 1.1% consider
> themselves exclusively homosexual.

Trash. The Battelle studies are ideologically driven, funded, and
published. Nevertheless, you still think homosexuality is mere behaviour. 
It is no more mere behaviour than is heterosexuality.

> ANYBODY claiming the 10% figure, as you just did, is either dishonest or
> naive.

Yawn.

> Also JMST reported that that 35% of all male pedophiles are homosexual

Read the study again, bonehead - if you've ever read it at all; I suspect
your reading off a crib sheet.

> and in 1992 reported that heterosexual pedophiles commit an average of
> 20 acts while homosexual pedophiles commit an average of 150.  So much
> for 10-10.  The 3-35 figure holds true.  Gay men are about 12 times more
> likely to be pedophiles than heterosexual men.

That doesn't follow.  So much for your BSc in statistics or logic.  You've
got the inference backwards, ace.

> (That was certainly easy enough to disprove)

Easy for an imbecile.

> > Well that lesson is only apparent if you fail to learn from history and
> > invent your own facts.
> 
> Like the 10% myth, huh?

If you had a mind, you'd still waste it.

Norm Gall

-- 
Windows 95 (win-DOH-z), n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical
shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally
coded for a 4 bit microprocessor which was written by a 2 bit company
that can't stand 1 bit of competition.