Pedophiles and Homosexuality

Given some of the comments in a recent post, I’ve decided to cross post this from WhereIStand:

Our dear liberal friend, Mister E has stopped merely responding to what I say but trying to predict what I must be thinking:

I can only imagine that in his uneducated mind he’s making the connection to Foley being gay and child molestation.

Well, my mind is fine, thanks. Of course, Mister E does provide me an education in explaining that pedophilia and homosexuality have no link as he cites that greatest possible source, "a random blogger" More accurate it’s a random commenter on a random blog without any citation.

Family Research Council has research which demostrates a likely correlation:

Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.

· Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).

From this and the fact that Homosexuals make up around 3% of the population we can conclude 3% of the Population is accounting for 33% of the Pedophilia. 

Does this mean every homosexual is a pedophile? Certaintly not. What it suggests is there’s a higher incidence of it than in the straight community.

I certainly needn’t  refer to NAMBLA to find an example of support for pedophilia. In Great Britain, thanks to the efforts of homosexual activists and the Labour Party, what Mr. Foley did would be perfectly legal as the age of consent was lowered to 16.

Mr. E’s little known commenters allege there’s no such thing as straight or gay pedophilia and that’s really utter nonsense. If a male pedophile goes after girls, he’s a hetrosexual pedophile. If he goes after boys, he’s a homosexual pedophile. If he goes after both, he’s a bi-sexual pedophile. The basis for Mister E’s claim is fallacious and what else is new and their exists a greater propensity towards pedophilia among homosexuals than there is among hetrosexuals.

No one is saying all homosexuals are pedophiles, but facts though inconvenient do speak for themselves.

A comemnter responded:

adam, You’re actually, surprisingly enough, making a modicum of sense of here, but your argument sort of doubles back on itself at the end.

First of all, where did you get the 3% number? Gays make up 10% of the population, not 3%. Perhaps you were thinking of priests. 3% of priests may be gay, but general pop is more like 10%.

Secondly, you say “almost” all sex crimes are committed by males. How much is “almost”? Everytime I turn on the television another female teacher is giving private lessons to some male student.

I don’t think your numbers (while convenient) really add up, but your concession that all homosexual are not pedophiles certainly is a break in the clouds from your usual transparent agenda.

don’t think your numbers (while convenient) really add up, but your concession that all homosexual are not pedophiles certainly is a break in the clouds

Good question, the best information I found is here regarding female pedophiles and it estmates the number to be at 10%. Dr. Ron Holmes notes:

Male pedophiles molest boys almost as often as girls, but that’s not so with female sexual predators."If you have a female pedophile," Holmes said, "her victims are almost always girls. That’s just the way it is/"

Almost always is a hard figure to use, so let’s say 80-20%. We’re estimating here because we’re dealing with a dark figure. 

So, remember that 70% of Sexual assault victims are girls, 30% are boys, so let’s take away 2% of boys and 8% of girls. That leaves us:

62% girls
28% boys 

So that 28% of Boys is being molested by Homosexuals or Bi-Sexuals. 

Now, the 10% myth came from Kinsey and was abandonned and Homosexual groups have embraced a study from the 1990s showing 2.8%, 1.4% of women identified themselves as homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual. 

2.0% of men identify themselves as homosexual and 0.9% of women as Lesbian. Homosexual men make up 0.70% of the Population and Lesbians make up 0.32% of the population. Following their math, BiSexual men make up 0.28% of the Population, and Bisexual women make up 0.17% of the Population. There’s some imperfection in the math due to rounding we end up with 1.47. So, let’s go ahead and simplify it for the purpose of this excercise and round the total of Gay/BiSexual Men as a percentage of US population up to 1% and Lesbian/BiSexual Women up to 0.5%

Now having done that we have to do some clarifications because the percentage of US Population is misleading, as those who are under 18 in most cases really can’t be pedophiles, so let’s go ahead and take out of consideration the 25% of Americans under age 18.. Doing this will augment the number of homosexuals by a third. So thus of the Adult population, 1.33% of Americans are Gay/Bi-Sexual men and .67% are Lesbian/Bi-Sexual women.

So let’s get back to our numbers. Homosexuals/Bi-Sexual men as 1.33% of Adults nationwide account for 28% of the Pedophilia. 

Let’s break this down even further, assuming men make up 48.5% of the population and women make up 51.5%:

Straight men=47.17% of the adult population-62% of the Pedophiles

Homosexuals/Bi-Sexual Men=1.33% of adult population, 28% of the Pedophiles
Straight Women=50.83% of the adult population=2% of the Pedophiles
Lesbians/Bi-Sexuals=0.67% of the Population, 8% of the Pedophiles.

So if you created a statistic for this where you took a population’s percentage of pedophiles and divided it by the percentage of the population, you’d arrive at a Pedophile ratio and here’s what we come up with:

Straight Men=1.31
Homosexual/Bi-Sexual=21.05
Straight Women=0.04

Lesbian/Bi-Sexual=11.94

Of course these numbers could be fine tuned up or down a little and the great challenge we have to remember when dealing with the issue of sexual assault is much of this lies in the dark figure of crime. Still, I think from statistics out there, there’s enough evidence that homosexuals do have a greater propensity towards this for whatever than Hetrosexuals as a proportion of the population.

Again, this does not tell us that all homosexuals/Lesbians are pedophiles. 

Regarding the stories of female pedophilia in the news, I’ll agree those have been in the news, but do you know why something makes the news? Rarity. There are hundreds of cases of pedophiles who do not make it out of the local news network. A female pedophile makes nation news because it’s a rare occurance. How rare? Go to the national sex offender registry and find the number of males v. the number of female offenders in your area. In a mile radius of my house there were about 20 total and only one was a woman.

Alex Kendrick and Francis Ford Coppola

Facing the Giants is the best rated movie in Theaters according to Yahoo and one of the best all-time according to Yahoo rankings.

An Issue From Where I Stand

This is a test for some blogging enhancements at WhereIStand. There should be something here in the next couple days.

Vasquez Makes up My Mind

When Robert Vasquez announced his canidacy for US Senate the day after Helen Chenoweth died and tried to start an intra-party fight a month before the election, I said I was undecided on whether I would support him, though he had two strikes against him (and that was being generous after the late primary campaign,) then we get this from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Vasquez also took aim at Bill Sali … The commissioner [Vasquez] said that if both he and Sali end up representing Idaho at the nation’s capital, he would not work with Sali on any legislation.

“I would have no problem working with any other member of Idaho’s delegation,” Vasquez said. “I cannot in my wildest imaging contemplate any issue that Bill Sali would champion that would be beneficial to Idaho or the United States of America instead of big business corporations.”

Good bye, Robert. Thanks for playing. If you think me or conservatives who are supporting Bill Sali to back a Senate campaign who less than a month before the election attacks the Republican nominee, you have another think coming. With conservatives out of the picture, that leaves the Establishment and people who are one issue on illegal immigration. Good luck forming a coalition around that. If it’s Craig v. Vasquez in the primary, I’m voting for Craig.

Hat Tip: Idablue

Sadly Accurate Headline

If only this headline were not so accurate, “Did so! Did not! I’m telling!” Thus is the state of our political process that leaders of both parties earn the deserved mockery of one of our state’s veteran political reporters.

Let’s Talk About Playing Politics

Julie Fanselow has a post up where she pontificates on the Mark Foley matter. Bryan Fischer at Idaho Values wrote an answer to Bubblehead in the comments of an Idaho Values Alliance post:

For justice to be done, I would say that whatever was done to Rep. Studds when he had sex with an underage page would be fitting punishment for Rep. Foley. Or, whatever is done to Rep. Foley should be done, or should have been done, to Rep. Studds. Otherwise, there’s a pretty amazing double standard at work here.

Julie fires back:

Rep. Studds, eh? I’d never heard of it, so I Googled and learned about the Democrat who, in 1973, had an affair with a 17-year-old male page. Wow, he had to go back a ways to dig that up, didn’t he?

I’m not excusing Studds for what he did 33 years ago, of course. But I find it interesting that Bryan Fischer’s first thought is to find a Democrat to use in his reponse (sic), rather than say what needs to be said: Foley’s longtime pattern of preying on pages – and the GOP leadership’s silence and attempt to cover up the story – are flat out wrong. Family values, my foot.

First of all the Studds incident happend in 1983 not 1973. My Renew America colleague Michael Bates has an excellent run down of the disgraceful affair:

“The page was 17 years old during the time he testified that he had a sexual relationship with (the Congressman); the relationship may have begun when the page was 16. . .

“Two other former pages, both male, have stated under oath that (the Congressman) made sexual advances to them . . . while they were serving as House pages. One was 16 or 17 years old at the time of the alleged incident; the other was 17. . . .

Moreover, two former supervisors of the pages in the House admitted to investigators that, years earlier, they’d been warned about the Congressman’s conduct. One claimed he hadn’t pursued the matter because he “wasn’t sure whether or not he (the page) had mistaken a friendly gesture for an advance or not.”

According to the other supervisor, he did nothing “because I didn’t feel I had any means of doing anything more, either through the chain of command that I worked for or through any other set of circumstances, and that the best thing was that everyone be warned of it and stay clear.”

There were suspicions that the cover-up possibly went all the way to the Speaker of the House’s office. A year before action was taken, a Congresswoman had called for an independent investigator to look into allegations of drug and sex abuse by House members. The Speaker declined, saying that “If the Congress cannot conduct an honest and comprehensive probe of these charges and punish those found guilty of these illegal acts, then the Congress has no right to make the laws that govern this nation.”

The Congressman who took the young male page overseas wasn’t the reprehensible Mark Foley. It was the reprehensible Gerry Studds, a Massachusetts Democrat who was censured by the House of Representatives in 1983 for his sexual misconduct. The Speaker of the House back then was Tip O’Neill, another Massachusetts Democrat.

Democratic reaction and the subsequent decision to allow Studds to serve in Congress 13 more years would seem to indicate that many Democrats believe it is far more serious to send Instant Messages to a page than to have relations with one.

Now, I’ve called for Speaker Hastert to resign because I believe that Hastert has been incompetent or actively covering this up. But Julie’s motives here aren’t that, and the motive of Democrats aren’t about the truth, it’s not about protecting house pages and it’s not about justice.

That Julie saw this as an appropriate occassion to attack Bryan Fischer shows the problem with about Idaho Democrats. They’re all about strengthening their own position for the November elections. That’s what happened in August with the Democrats’ tax plan. Being outnumbered 4:1, they didn’t try and reach across the aisle to get their proposal passed or to find some other compromise that would avoid an increase in the sales tax, they simply used their alternate plan as a political bludgeon for Republicans, which is why many Republicans may have opposed the idea of raising the sales tax to cut property taxes but none would support the Democrat plan.

Idaho Democrats don’t care about the actual issues and solving real problems (and let’s be honest on this Foley issue, most national Democrats don’t either,) they care about destroying a few Republicans so they can win the November elections. Julie’s attempt to tar Bryan Fischer for not agreeing with her is another illustration of this. It’s all about politics, not about principle. It’s about getting rid of Republican Congressmen, not protecting pages. It’s a childish game of gotcha that voters are going to see through as the Democrats will overplay their hand on this.

This is why the Idaho Democrats lose year after year, because they never effect any legislative change. They just whine and moan and play games.

Carnival of the Vanities #211 Up

The rumors of it’s death are greatly exagerated. Enjoy the latest edition of the Internet longest running blog carnival.

The Facing the Giants Carnival

Movies that have are big Hollywood productions have huge advertising budgets. Some films rely on word of mouth or in this case, word of blog.

Thus, if you’re thinking about seeing Facing the Giants this weekend (check here for local theaters playing the movie), this Carnival is a round-up of amazing posts on a phenomenal movie that’s still in limited release. So many of these posts, like Facing the Giants are inspirational blessings. If you wish to submit to this Carnival in the future, go to http://www.blogcarnival.com”>Blog Carnival and submit your articles on Facing the Giants.

I’m not paid by Sony, Sherwood Pictures or any distributor of the film. This Carnival is a short term project that will last somewhere between 3-8 weeks depending on the level of posts continuing to stream in. So, the plan is for this to peak and then peeter out along with the movie

If you’d like to host a future Carnival, e-mail me. However, I’m prepared to host every Carnival here if needs be.

This week’s posts are draftees from across the Blogosphere and even MySpace, found through the wonders of Technorati. May this carnival be a blessing to you and if haven’t seen Facing the Giants, please see if it’s in a theater near you.

Welcome to the first Carnival of Facing the Giants, a round-up of blogs talking about the independent Christian football film that is playing selected theaters across the nation.

Let’s get under way.

My entry focuses on the power of the movie’s message.

Greg Simmons was inspired by the movie to write about the philosophy of winning.

Lori at In the Batter’s Box came to realize her need to put Jesus first in her life after watching the film.

Ms. Green at Thinking Out Loud hasn’t seen the movie yet, but wants to.

It Is Taylor Wood? breaks down Facing the Giants successful first weekend.

Sarah Onderdonk is not a football fan but loves Facing the Giants

Seeing the movie was just what Melissa needed.

Henry over at Thoughts from UpState South Carolina worked on a movie and he’s played football. He weighs in on Facing the Giants professionalism and the realism of the football scenes.

Jonathan without an Accent makes a good reccomendation, Bring Tissues along with other thoughts on the film.

Not only are Christians enjoying the movie, but as Antonio reports they’re letting theater staff know.

Jen says it strengthened her faith.

Shawn writes how Facing the Giants not only changed his life, but his My Space Blog as well.

Sonya at Liquid Salt says simply she was blessed and amazed by her son’s reaction to the movie.

JD at Proverbs 19:20 gives his take

Missa is another non-football fan who loved Facing the Giants.

Freeman Hunt wasn’t expecting much, but was pleasantly surprised by Facing the Giants

Jasper examines the per-screen gross of Facing the Giants.

Daffodil writes there are some areas where showing up at the ticket window will mean not getting a ticket.

Casey is inspired to do the impossible.

Joe was expecting a completely serious movie but was surprised by Facing the Giants use of humor.

Heather was emotionally exhausted after the film.

That’s all for this week. Click here to find a theater playing the movie in your area. See you next week.

Linked to Blue Star Chronicles, Jo’s Cafe

Facing the Giants

Christian Carnival Up

The Christian Carnival is up.

Stop the ACLU Blog Burst

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Hat tip: Ban The ACLU This was found on youtube and it’s pretty short at 3 minutes. I wish I could find more footage somewhere. It is an accurate account of the ACLU’s founding. Does the ACLU’s communist founding mean anything about what the ACLU is today? Well, if you plant a lemon seed would you expect the tree to produce peaches? Compare their current goals to the 45 communist goals in the Congressional Record and decide for yourself.

One of the greatest myths about the ACLU is that they started out as a noble cause. The roots of a tree go deep. There is no question that it was founded on communist/socialist principles. There is no question to the founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin’s, ideals.

“I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

Only after the Nazi-Soviet Non-Agression Pact of 1939, which allowed Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party to take over much of Eastern Europe, did Mr. Baldwin become disenchanted with the Soviet version of Communism. Yet Baldwin held Communist/Socialist sympathies to the end of his life. Later in life, he said,…

“Anti-communism never affected our civil liberties very much. And the Communist party in the United States was certainly never strong enough to be a menace at any time in any way. The only menace was the people who believed in a Communist dictatorship, which is a denial of civil liberties. They did not belong with us in a leadership position.”Source

Baldwin rid the ACLU board of overt Communists because of his anger about the Nazi-Soviet pact, establishing a policy that read, in part: “The Board of Directors and the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union….hold it inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarian dictatorship in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle.” Source

While Mr. Baldwin made a great show of the Communist purge in 1940 he never let go of his passion for socialist ideals. Neither did the ACLU. In 1961 numerous communist connections were entered into the Congressional Record. In November of 1964 the ACLU came to the defense of Communist-front organizations. The Union argued that there was a fundamental difference between a Communist-action organization and a Communist-front group.

Throughout the 1960s many members of the ACLU took umbrage at the principles of the 1940 Resolution. According to William Donohue’s book, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union, a 1967 Resolution was viewed by many on the board that voted for it to supersede and effectively rendered the 1940 Resolution impotent. In April of 1967 the ACLU board voted to rescind the 1940 decision of ousting Elizabeth Gurley Flynn for her uncompromising support for Communism. More important than the vote to recognize Flynn was the board’s conclusion that “the expulsion of Ms. Flynn was not consonant with the basic principles on which the ACLU was founded and has acted for fifty-four years.” The board also agreed that language should be drafted to indicate its happiness with the removal of the 1940 Resolution from the ACLU constitution in 1967.”

Today’s ACLU still espouses the ideals of socialism under the guise of liberalism. They still defend Communist propaganda. One of the goals of the Communist agenda is to abolish all loyalty oaths. It is interesting that the ACLU celebrate the fact that they will not sign oaths promising not to support terrorism.

Whether today’s ACLU is a communist/socialist organization or not their goals most definitely align with the ideologies of socialism. Regardless of what one label today’s ACLU there are many dangerous positions in practice that have never changed with them. Their unflinching support of abortion, euthanasia, their strange position on the Second Amendment and their open border policy are just a few examples. They consistently work to thwart the government’s efforts to protect its citizens, undermine America’s sovereignty, and defend America’s enemies. They have defended traitors funding Hamas, the PLO, and confessed Al-Qaeda operatives. All of these seem to support their founder’s goal of abolishing of the State itself.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Thoughts on Vasquez for Senate

Robert Vasquez declared his candidacy for US Senate on Tuesday against Senator Larry Craig (R-Id.) in 2008.

The announcement showed bad form for a couple of reasons, coming barely a day after the death of former Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth-Hage (R-Id.) the announcement showed a lack of sensitivity and propriety, but what else is new?

Vasquez, by announcing his challenge to Senator Craig in the middle of an election created premature friction in the party. As a party we’ve got 18 1/2 months out of every 24 to fight amongst ourselves. That 5 1/2 month period before an election is the Fall campaign and it’s when we put aside our differences and fight for our candidates.

I’ll be honest that I’m quite hesitant to support Vasquez. His paranoid performance in the PBS debate was a huge turn off. He attacked Club for Growth as an open borders group and everything was a grand conspiracy relating to immigration.

On the other hand, I’m not happy with Craig’s record on immigration, but even before I moved to Idaho I was impressed with the Senator’s articulate nature as well as his general conservatism. Will I back Vasquez or another challenger? It really depends. I’m open to considering someone else, but Vasquez has got two strikes against him at this point.

The Round Up of the Graceless

Idaho bloggers showed respect for Helen Chenoweth, but some people didn’t have the class, most notably hate mongers at Democratic Undeground most of which made declarations to the effect that she deserved to die and that the world was better off without her. (Hat Tip: Bubbleheads.)

Then over at New West a classless guest author (Greg Taylor) acknowledges Chenoweth’s kindness but then goes on a tirade:

But to her adherents and apologists whose reaction to her death has been to ignore her real legacy, I wish not pax, but pox.

To be fair, she was a nice person. I spoke to her only once and even though I was a bit snotty, her reply was the definition of elegance and good manners. But so what? Frank Church was an educated and elegant gentleman, and he’s been torn to shreds.

Her loveliness is all anyone wants to mention when they talk about her now, but there’s more…

Fortunately for the citizens of Idaho, her lasting effects on this state were minimal and most of the hare-brained schemes she did manage to effect have been countered by leveler heads (though most of them are still a half bubble off.) She did such a great job fixing Idaho that she decided to move to Nevada instead.

Wow, the body was barely cold. For what it’s worth, I think you’re still a bit snotty, Mr. Taylor. The legacy of Helen Chenoweth-Hage is this: she tried. She stood up for people who really don’t get much support in Washington: timber companies, and those who felt the stung of big government.

And Mr. Taylor should know that she moved to Nevada because she married a rancher from that state, not because she somehow ruined Idaho for all time.

Patricia Sullivan of the Washington Post chose to be only slightly less classless than the DU by firing off a string of political attacks for the official obituary.

Yes, a lot of people didn’t agree with Chenoweth’s politics but she was a mentor and beloved friend to many people in Idaho, someone who kept a promise to run again when others broke it for expediency. Yes, there’ll be no Helen Chenoweth-Hage federal building. She won’t get a string of Interstate Highways named after her, like so many accomplished politicians have done, but she stood for what she believed which is more than I can say for most of the Washington class. Hat Tip: Wizbang!