Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

I dunno, that may be true... but if we're talking real pedophiles (not just the weird old guys dating 14+ girls), I mean sub 13 pedophilia... I would be interested in such a stat, as I doubt there's any sort of sexual discrimination on the part of the pedophile.

I do believe that gays are significantly more likely to be pedophiles, not due to being gay/having an attraction to men, but perhaps more because someone who is a pedophile is more likely to have no real preference for males or females.

 

[townie]

1993-94 statistics show that there were 74,436 reports of child abuse and neglect during the year, and investigation of 64,787 of these, involving 54,738 children, was finalised during the year. Of those finalised, the reports were substantiated in regard to 24,845 children (45% of the number subject to investigation). "Substantiated" in this context is defined as meaning that "there is reasonable cause to believe that the child has been or is being abused", but it does not mean that there is sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution. Of the 24,845 children involved in substantiated cases, 4,932 (20%) involved sexual abuse. The children were males in 1,281 (26%) of the sexual abuse cases and females in 3,647 (74%) cases, with four cases where the gender was not reported.

Although from popular discussion one might think that most child-sex offences involve anal/vaginal penetration, this is not in fact the case. For New South Wales for 1993-94 only 20 per cent of substantiated cases were of this type, while the largest single category of activity was "sexual fondling"

Of the 2,873 substantiated cases of child sexual abuse reported during the year for which this information is available, the parent (natural, adoptive, step, de facto or foster) was believed responsible in 994 (34.6%) of the cases and a guardian in 2 cases. A sibling or other relative was believed responsible in a further 656 (22.8%) of the cases, and a friend or neighbour in 794 (27.6%) cases. In only 427 (14.9%) of the cases was the person neither a relative, guardian, friend or neighbour.

source: http://www.australianparentsformeganslaw.com/docs/paedinoz.tpl

edit: from those figures one could argue homosexuals are over represented in peadophiles, however, i would tend to argue that peadophilia is a seperate category of sexual attraction to homosexuality or heterosexuality or bi-sexuality or asexuality a "fifth" category if u will

 

[Not-That-Bright]

For a reliable statistic don't we have to look at percentages? gay vs straight?

 

[townie]

this site has an agenda, but u may be interested in looking at http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

i'm still undertaking Google searches

a few sites seem to have a similar article, from wat i can understand, it was originally written by an orthodox jew

 

[Not-That-Bright]

My argument is that it's more likely that a pedophile (dealing with an under 13 kid) isn't going to be attracted to a particular sex, so they'll probably be gay/bi.

 

[townie]

My argument is that it's more likely that a pedophile (dealing with an under 13 kid) isn't going to be attracted to a particular sex, so they'll probably be gay/bi.

i can see the bi part, but why the gay part. if they arent attracted to a particular sex?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I don't mean they're strictly gay, just that because they're bi they can often be seen as gay. I imagine pedophilia is probably somewhere closer to 50/50 (male/female) when you only take into account <13 pedophilia acts... where as it probably shifts much more towards females as you get above 13.

 

[townie]

i also think a problem in determining this is that i dont think there are any trully reliable stats on homosexuality. whilst kinsey is considered a good source. where do we say homosexuality begins and ends. what are the real statistics on men who engage in sexual relations with other men, or want to, are you ever going to get reliable statistics on that? will people admit to that, even in confidence?

I'm not saying this is true, but it could be possible, in reality, that 26% of the population does have some sort of homosexual tendancies. but i dont think you could find that out with a degree of accuracy acceptable to all parties

 

[townie]

i think a fair call to make would be that a certain percentage of the population, say X% is sexually confused, of that X% homsexuals (being defined as those who identify as wanting to have sex with males) are overrepresented relative to the instance of homosexuals in society. and i would imagine sexually confused people are over-represented in the instances of peadophilia, and therefore, by extension, homosexuals.


edit: if that makes sense?

 

[malkin86]

I think that most would agree, if you're gay/bi/lesbian/trans and you're working with kids, the kids don't need to know. It wouldn't really come up, anyway. More omission than hiding is in the spirit, I think.
Although the "gay=pedo" stereotype would have more serious implications if a gay couple wanted to adopt. Then the stereotype is used as a justification for not letting gay couples adopt.

edit: from those figures one could argue homosexuals are over represented in peadophiles, however, i would tend to argue that peadophilia is a seperate category of sexual attraction to homosexuality or heterosexuality or bi-sexuality or asexuality a "fifth" category if u will

And it's one that won't be accepted in society, nor should it be. Predatory ****s.

i think a fair call to make would be that a certain percentage of the population, say X% is sexually confused, of that X% homsexuals (being defined as those who identify as wanting to have sex with males) are overrepresented relative to the instance of homosexuals in society. and i would imagine sexually confused people are over-represented in the instances of peadophilia, and therefore, by extension, homosexuals.

So, from the school of cereal box psychology, people who are confused about their sexuality might want to get contact with children, because childhood didn't have these confusions, but they might actually end up having some kind of sexual connection with the children because they're all confused???

Would youse say that the "gay=pedo" stereotype has had implications for your own lives?

 

[rink]

homosexuality is unnatural, isn't that obvious?

 

[poloktim]

homosexuality is unnatural, isn't that obvious?

Welcome to the conversation, I believe that argument was dealt with a few pages ago. Instead of spouting your bullshit opinions, perhaps you should learn to read.

On the note of child abuse, I honestly thought the vast majority of abuse occured when a girl was molested by her father. I think the whole homosexuality leads to paedophilia has emerged from the issues with the clergy raping boys who helped with the church. But that was only something I thought.

 

[SashatheMan]

homosexuality is unnatural, isn't that obvious?

sticking yuor face into this thread and giving a one liner is unnatural.
please back up what u say.

 

[Xayma]

I don't mean they're strictly gay, just that because they're bi they can often be seen as gay. I imagine pedophilia is probably somewhere closer to 50/50 (male/female) when you only take into account <13 pedophilia acts... where as it probably shifts much more towards females as you get above 13.

Well the differences between sexes are alot more minimal. No breasts, no hair, muscular development is about the same. You couldn't really say they were any sexual preference, as say someone who was interested in chimpanzees liked only female chimpanzees.

 

[rific]

On the note of child abuse, I honestly thought the vast majority of abuse occured when a girl was molested by her father. I think the whole homosexuality leads to paedophilia has emerged from the issues with the clergy raping boys who helped with the church. But that was only something I thought.

Pretty close, in terms of intrafamilial abuse, "girls are over 10 times more likely to be victims", but while intrafamilial abuse is more common in terms of perpetrators, the majority of victims are from extra-familial or mixed-type abusers because while perpetrators are more than “three times more likely to abuse female than male children”, males are more likely to be victims “because the relatively few chronic offenders in the sample were more likely to target male victims.”

Same study found that more than 75% of “offenders reported an exclusively heterosexual orientation.” Homosexual orientation was claimed by 2.5% for intra-familial, 15.3% for extra-familial, and 13.3% for mixed type offenders. (94.9%, 59.3%, 53.3% for heterosexual orientation in the same categories).

(Child Sexual Abuse: Offender Characteristics and Modus Operandi - AIC trends and issues report, 2001)

Note though, that was from one study with it's own limitations, but it's still interesting reading.

 

[rink]

Welcome to the conversation, I believe that argument was dealt with a few pages ago. Instead of spouting your bullshit opinions, perhaps you should learn to read.

well that was kind of rude of you, i was only offering my opinion. I read like the first 5 pgs of the thread and couldn't be bothered reading the rest and decided to comment. Unless there was something in the last few pgs, those first few pgs didn't prove that homosexuality was not unnatural, so no, the argument wasn't ''dealt with''....well in the beginning anyway

 

[Ashtree]

What's to view? Just so long as they keep well away from me, who cares what they do behind closed doors. On the other hand I wouldn't mind a hitleresque witch hunt for them either.

On marriage, we should be like the UK where they can have 'civil unions'.

See, I hate comments like this. I honestly don't get what the big deal is with homosexuals, and why people hate them SO MUCH. It's absurd!
You love who you want to love. It's not 'disgusting' or 'unnatural'. It's exactly the same as any other heterosexual couple.

I'm not having a go at you Gay Captain, but choose your words carefully, and THINK about what you're saying/writing, before you publicise it. Do you really want to go on said 'Hitleresque witch hunt' for homosexuals? Do you even realise the inhumanity and communist actions that Hitler was in charge of? Do you realise the MILLIONS of people the Nazi's executed, just for being who they are? Do you have any idea how uncompassionate and very discriminative your comment is, in regards to homosexuals AND people connected with the Holocaust?
And you wouldn't mind slaughtering the thousands of gays that 'inhabit' this world?
Just think, just for even a split second, what the implications of a witch hunt would have on the world.
Not to mention your comment is historically incorrect. You mention Hitler amd witch hunt, within the same sentence. Witch hunts were common in the Medieval Period, say about 11th century to 17th century, whereas Hitler did not come to power until way after the Industrial Revolution, centuries and centuries away from The Middle Ages.

In regards to the survey, I understand where the Catholic Chirch is coming from. I do not believe in a particular god myself, but Catholics believe in the matrimony of man and woman, in order to reproduce children and begin a family. That is why they also 'promote' sex after marriage. I am not atheist, as I do not believe in what atheists believe also, nor do I believe in any kind of religion (In my opinion, religion is opium for the people), but Catholics believe that, and I respect it. However, it is not exactly fair for homosexuals to not have any kind of union whatsoever in Australia, to promote their love. I believe they should have a kind of ceremony of some sort, that does not tie in with any kind of religion AT ALL. Especially for those who are Atheist or Agnostic, or who are moreso Spiritual, like myself.

I wish that the media and religion would stop brainwashing society into thinking negatively, as they do. Homosexuality ISN'T a bad thing. It's everyday people. Please, just get over it. It's prejudice and discriminative, and I'm sick of hearing such negative comments about it.

 

[gnrlies]

I think the real issue here is not so much a moral one, but more a symantical one.

I think that most forward thinking people can agree that homosexuality is something which we need to accept in society. If there are large numbers of the population who question their sexuality, there needs to be at least tolerance of this.

Acceptance is another thing. I think this is where the arguement takes a turn. Tolerance suggests that we should give homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals, particularly from a legal perspective. Civil unions should be recognised in the same light as a heterosexual relationship from a legal perspective.

But are homosexuals able to extend their union to marriage? well this is where we start crossing the "acceptance" barrier. With marriage largely being defined by religious beliefs (the basis of marriage is a union under god), this is where we need to take step back. With homosexuality being condemned in basically every major religion, how can we define something as marriage when it clearly is not.

Marriage is a union between a male and a female under god. Thats the difference between marriage and a civil union. Now if a union breaches any of these properties, then it is not a marriage. This is where it becomes an arguement of acceptance and semantics. Do we change the definition of marriage to encompass homosexuality?

I think that perhaps this is why we need to distinguish between the two. I guess the only paradox to this line of thought is the 1000's of non religious couples in "faux" unions under god. Are these marriages? well technically not. I would say these unions are on the same par as homosexuals

BTW im not religious or anti homosexuality

 

[withoutaface]

Why should marriage be endorsed by the state at all? Shouldn't we be moving to separate church and state?

 

[PaleReflection]

I'm not having a go at you Gay Captain, but choose your words carefully, and THINK about what you're saying/writing, before you publicise it. Do you really want to go on said 'Hitleresque witch hunt' for homosexuals? Do you even realise the inhumanity and communist actions that Hitler was in charge of? Do you realise the MILLIONS of people the Nazi's executed, just for being who they are? Do you have any idea how uncompassionate and very discriminative your comment is, in regards to homosexuals AND people connected with the Holocaust?
And you wouldn't mind slaughtering the thousands of gays that 'inhabit' this world?
Just think, just for even a split second, what the implications of a witch hunt would have on the world.
Not to mention your comment is historically incorrect. You mention Hitler amd witch hunt, within the same sentence. Witch hunts were common in the Medieval Period, say about 11th century to 17th century, whereas Hitler did not come to power until way after the Industrial Revolution, centuries and centuries away from The Middle Ages.

hahahahahaha.

i agree with waf, even though his avatar scares me.