Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Plante discussing Churches structure

The following has been removed from the article by 71.191.26.127:

Writing in a peer reviewed article Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychiatrist specializing in abuse counseling, and considered an expert on clerical abuse contends that it is clearly a myth that the Catholic hierarchy was clueless about the best way to manage cases of sexual abuse by priests. He writes that: "unlike most large organizations that maintain a variety of middle management positions, the organizational structure of the Catholic Church is a fairly flat structure. Therefore, prior to the Church clergy abuse crisis in 2002, each bishop decided for himself how to manage these cases and the allegations of child sexual abuse by priests. Some have handled these matters very poorly (as evidenced in Boston) while others have handled these issues very well."

Personally I think it is reasonable content that should be in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Of note there has already been some discussion on this on the IP's talk page and my talk page which is quoted below:

I can't see a clear consensus for removing this on the talk page, so as its a controversial topic it should stay for now - especially as this is a sensitive topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus to have him in the article either. Moreover, Plante is already in this article:

while experts in the field of sexual abuse counseling contend that celibacy has no effect on rates of child abuse in the Catholic Church, as it has been shown that the rates of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is not higher than in society, other public institutions and other religious denominations.

No need have him twice in the same context.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

They appear to be discussing different things each time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

From the above on this page:

The operative principle here is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary support". It's not the "direct reference" that is needed. It's that we can't base an extraordinary claim on only one source. If a claim is supportable, there will be more than one source that makes that claim. --Richard S (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

--71.191.26.127 (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is NOT the operative claim. That is your nonsense claim. Wikipedia does not require multiple peer reviewed sources. I am going to go through this wikipedia article which only have one source and proceed to remove them one by one, starting with all the edits you've made if they're supported by one source only. See how that would amount to vandalism? Now what makes you think you're justified removing information that you disagree with personally which is supported by peer reviewed articles? besides there's nothing controversial about Plante's statement: the organizational structure of the RC church is flat, and it is a fact that some bishops have handled the abuse poorly, while others well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.154.133.250 (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue here, imo, is not that the extrodinary claims do not have extrodinary evidence. (what else would you call the foremost expert on a subject but extraordinary) The issue here is that you think such a claim is itself extraordinary when in reality a lot of this is actually relatively common knowledge. An extraordinary claim would be "the moon landing was faked" or "9/11 was an inside job". That other people molest children too is hardly extraordinary.Farsight001 (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of media coverage: Overemphasis: I added more sources about sexual abuse occurring in public schools

Apparently this is what Carol Shakenshaft found after reviewing 228 cases of teacher sexual abuse. This is from the official government report on teacher sexual abuse:

"All of the accused admitted sexual abuse of a student, but none of the abusers was reported to the authorities, and only 1 percent lost their license to teach. Only 35 percent suffered negative consequences of any kind, and 39 percent chose to leave their school district, most with positive recommendations. Some were even given an early retirement package.

Moving molesting teachers from school district to school district is a common phenomenon. And in only 1 percent of the cases do superintendents notify the new school district. According to Diana Jean Schemo, the term “passing the trash” is the preferred jargon among educators.

I've cut this for the two reasons given in my edit summary:

1. this is a global issue and referring to US studies gives the section a US-centricity that we should avoid.

2. more importantly, it's WP:OR/WP:SYN because you're using data from a study of US schools and a 2002 New York Times article and making your own comparison with the sexual abuse committed by Catholic priests/response of Vatican that the sources themselves doesn't make. Haldraper (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

1. This article has many large US sections. Did you cut anything in the other sections? Anyway, media over-emphasis on this issue in the US is amplified worldwide. Each time some US paper squeaked, I read about it in the local papers. joo (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

2. The source that I quoted and you deleted, Dr Shakeshaft herself compared the sexual abuses committed by priests with those by people in the schools. Professor Charol Shakeshaft is the author of a groundbreaking report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education in 2004. How can this be WP:OR? joo (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hofstra University Prof. Charol Shakeshaft, the report's author, estimated that about 290,000 students were victimized between 1991 and 2000. "So we think the Catholic Church has a problem?" Shakeshaft told Education Week. "The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests." See http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/90405449.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:U0ckkD:aEyKUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

Haldraper, your edits (or what seems to be "deletes" only) in this article are apparently confined to the Criticisms of Media Coverage section and not anywhere else. What is your special interest in ensuring reliable sources and removal of US-centricity only in this section? joo (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I repeat, because this is a global issue: there is a section on the US scandal, this is not it. It's about Catholic criticism of media coverage, maybe you want to change it to 'Criticism of US media coverage'?

I'll add a US sub-section then, just as the other sections have a US sub-section. As stated in the article, the largest number of abuse cases is found in the US (it's a large country and has one of the highest sex offence rates in the world). joo (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, her very vague comparison (she "estimated that about 290,000 students were victimized...likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.") is again confined to the US and tells us nothing about the global situation. Haldraper (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What vague comparison? About 290,000 students were reportedly victimized in public schools between 1991 and 2000 (10 years). Around 10,667 people were reportedly abused by priests between 1950 and 2002 (50 years). This is over 100 times, just as she said. joo (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

er, that's because you've cut her 'estimated' and 'likely' and left only the still vague 'about'. Haldraper (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Commandment: Do not lie

See here

Barbosa told investigators that "he is not a pedophile," but after three former altar boys testified he had abused them, he asked for forgiveness, said Renato Paoliello, a spokesman for Malta.

Barbosa also told investigators he is not homosexual and said what was shown in the video was a one-time incident, Paoliello said.

The video — secretly filmed in January 2009 — was broadcast by the SBT network last month. It was not clear if the 19-year-old, identified as a former altar boy who had worked with Barbosa for four years, had previous sexual relations with the priest.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

We all know by now that your sole purpose here is to vilify everything Catholic, so let me just point this out to you - this article is about the sex abuse cases in general. There is no purpose, or even a reasonable way, to talk about each individual case. As such, there is no purpose in you trying to list every single news article on every single priest you can find.Farsight001 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• We all know... Who are 'we'? Just you and couple others? Catholicism is vilified by its priesthood which gets reported almost daily. Ratzinger is even in his native Germany a bad person. Read here

  A survey published last week in the German magazine Focus underscores that threat. Some 56% of 613 Germans polled by researchers at Zeppelin University in Friedrichshafen, Germany, said they had no confidence in the church; one-quarter of the survey's Catholic respondents said they were mulling leaving the church.

  --71.191.26.127 (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your article is irrelevant to what I said. And as a man who has actually done studies himself, I must say that is a piss poor study. 613 people is an extremely weak polling.Farsight001 (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I believe statistically 613 is fairly reasonable. Its not as good as 1000 but it is good enough that I believe it can even be used in psychological research. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's enough to be used in psychological research. It, however, is not one of the more respectable numbers I've seen, especially when it seems they probably just polled other students at the college, instead of getting an even spread for a more diverse polling.Farsight001 (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And also in Germany people are automatially registered as either Catholic, Evangelical or Lutheran. A large proportion of those registered A) Have little connection with the churches in the first place, and B) Don't go to Mass anyway. Xandar 22:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Shakeshaft's quote and statistics

user:Haldraper, why do you keep removing Charol Shakeshaft's quote and statistics? Why are the Shakeshaft's quotes and statistics not about overemphasis in US media coverage? joo (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hofstra University Prof. Charol Shakeshaft, the report's author, estimated that about 290,000 students were victimized between 1991 and 2000. "So we think the Catholic Church has a problem?" Shakeshaft told Education Week. "The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests." http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/90405449.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:U0ckkD:aEyKUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

About 290,000 students were reportedly victimized between 1991 and 2000. Around 10,000 people were reportedly abused by priests between 1950 and 2002.

Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft looked into the problem, and the first thing that came to her mind when Education Week reported on the study were the daily headlines about the Catholic Church. “[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?” she said. “The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/opinion/main1933687.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talk • contribs) 02:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that none of the Shakeshaft quotes - unlike the ones from Hoopes and Weigel - relate to the subject of the section: US media coverage of clerical child sex abuse, not the abuse itself but the media's coverage of it. If you've got a quote from her where she discusses how the US media has reported the issue, fine include it. If it's not, then it doesn't belong here. Haldraper (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Weigel cited Shakeshaft's statistics in his criticism of media coverage. 10,000 Catholic cases over 50 years (with 2000 stories in 61 largest papers) vs. some 290,000 over 10 years (with just four stories in 61 papers) sure puts things into perspective, doesn't it? But you simply have to remove a well-sourced statistic that points to a fantastically large number of sexual abuses in the schools (vs. in the church), don't you? One can't help but wonder why. joo (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper, you've just removed Weigel's citation that: "In the United States alone, there are reportedly some 39 million victims of childhood sexual abuse..." What are you trying to cover up? joo (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Shakeshaft quotation obviously deals with the US media's selective focus on the Vatican rather than on a much bigger problem occurring in public schools, therefore belongs in "criticism of medial coverage" section. So haldraper has no reason to remove it because it's very relevant to the topic that is being discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRickster11 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"The Shakeshaft quotation obviously deals with the US media's selective focus"? Really? Is that why the words in bold and underlined by Joo above aren't from Shakeshaft herself but a journalist. Her actual quotation is: "Think the Catholic Church has a problem? The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests." There is no direct criticism of how the media has covered the issue, unlike in Hoopes' and Weigel's quotes. Haldraper (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. There has been criticism of the media coverage in the US by several reputable newspapers, which interviewed Carol Shakeshaft, and this information belongs in the "criticism of media coverage" section. The criteria for inclusions for wikipedia is verifiability. The information we're posting is verifiable and reliable, you keep removing it. Please stop.

TheRickster11 (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)TheRickster11

Added more information to criticism of media coverage section

It seems Public schools have been hiding sexual abuse much more so than the Catholic church. For example the State of Maine has enacted laws against disclosing sexual abuse cases to the public. While in California and Hawaii many teachers are serving time behind bars yet hold on to their teaching licensese because the educational board doesn't want undue attention on sex abuse cases. The sources are provided in the main article. TheRickster11 (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)TheRickster11

• The article is not about public schools in USA or elsewhere. Please, remove the irrelevant information.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant information. This section of the article is about the criticism of the media's focus solely on Catholics while ignoring much wider problems in public schools and society in general. For example the Catholic church's policy of secrecy has been widely criticized by the media, but some states of the US, for example Maine have specific laws which mandate keeping sexual abuse cases secret. It's anyone's guess why this problem of epidemic proportions is being ignored by the media. Therefore the information is very relevant.I would ask that you please quit refraining from deleting my contributions, because I'll simply undo if you delete them again.

TheRickster11 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)TheRickster11

It does have to be verifiable but it also has to be relevant and written in summary style. Surely all the material on this can be covered in a paragraph - or two at most? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the material can be summarized. Let me try. joo (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Vatican responses

Here is a visible intention to whitewash the crime of Vatican. The whole section shall be shortened and cleaned of garbage which has no informative value at all.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So...what? You're king of the article now and it has to be your way or else? Get a clue. You started with several people on your side and all of them that I see have since switched. Why? Because almost none of your edits have merit. Repeated BLP violations actually fall into the realm of ILLEGAL, and no amount of explaining things to you gets you to listen. Therefore WP:DNFTT. I suggest that people simply revert edits made by this IP. It boggles my mind why he hasn't been blocked yet.Farsight001 (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed too, Farsight001. 71.191.26.127 (hiding behind an IP and not logging in), do you understand that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia? All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. joo (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Here, here. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for personal prejudices. Anyone who keeps abusing articles in this way should be blocked indefinitely as quickly as possible. All they achieve is wasting the time of responsible editors who actually want articles to be properly developed. Afterwriting (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree the aforementioned user should be blocked because he's not adding any reliable information to the article, and only vandalising the changes made by others at his whim and he's not following wikipedia guidelines. TheRickster11 (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)TheRickster11

COI disclosure

I have added an EL to the mainpage. Because I am the author of that EL, other editors should review/retain/remove it as appropriate.— James Cantor (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! What is an EL? 219.74.33.25 (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

An external link ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

'Global Extent' does not mean 'comparison with other walks of life'

There's too much comparison of levels of abuse in the Catholic Church with other Churches/walks of life, in the 'Global extent' section? I'm not saying it isn't important, but it should be in an appropriate section.

I've also removed one sentence, not only because it is out of place, but because it provides a false comparison. The figure of less than 2% in Jenkins' book, Pedophiles and Priests is derived by discounting abuse involving ephebophilia. This gives an unrealistically low figure, which even contradicts the vatican's own figures. Obscurasky (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

For those supporting the pope's innocence

I see that there is a number of adamant people deleting any information, in this article, pointing at Ratzinger's criminal handling of the crime committed by some priests - child predators. My idea, as a devout Christian, is: the crime is the crime, then the sin. To support the fact that I share other people's view about this type of crime, please, read:

"Sinner" church shames Pope Benedict

However, despite the emotional remarks, the Vatican hierarchy and the pontiff himself remain under fire for helping protect child-molesting priests, and creating a "wall of silence" around such issues.

Punishment for the Pope?

A letter was revealed that showed the pope refused to defrock a Catholic priest who molested children for “the good of the universal church.” Furthermore, reports have shown that while archbishop of Munich, the pope approved a pedophilic priest to undergo therapy, and, despite warnings from a therapist, the priest was later allowed to return to parish duties, whereupon he continued to molest children. Whether or not the pope knew about the priest’s re-instatement is somewhat irrelevant, as the ruling happened under his watch.

Is the Church protecting sinners or criminals?

As Cardinal Ratzinger, he was head of the Vatican body investigating these abuses by priests, he argued that it would be wrong to hand the accused priests to secular authorities. In his persuasion, and he wrote confidentially to bishops around the world in 2001, the issue should be investigated with “utmost secrecy” within the church and as much as possible, avoiding public and media attention.

In not adopting a zero-tolerance policy for abusive priests, the Catholic Church closes its eyes toward justice. However, when it is forced, like now, to open its eyes in the face of its own institutional crimes and sins, the Catholic Church still will not take full responsibility for its evasive policies and wayward clerics.

Catholic Church Imploding

Kung doesn't hesitate to indict Pope Benedict for his role in this unprecedented moral leadership crisis ~ " There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005). During the reign of Pope John Paul II, that congregation had already taken charge of all such cases under oath of strictest silence. Ratzinger himself, on May 18th, 2001, sent a solemn document to all the bishops dealing with severe crimes ( "epistula de delictis gravioribus" ), in which cases of abuse were sealed under the "secretum pontificium" , the violation of which could entail grave ecclesiastical penalties. With good reason, therefore, many people have expected a personal mea culpa on the part of the former prefect and current pope. Instead, the pope passed up the opportunity afforded by Holy Week: On Easter Sunday, he had his innocence proclaimed "urbi et orbi" by the dean of the College of Cardinals."--71.191.26.127 (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

We've read them. I think you need to read more, or perhaps brush up on wiki policies again. Like the pope's letter? He never refused to defrock the priest. In fact, he wound up defrocking that priest, and the priest was arrested and prosecuted. What he called for in the letter, which you claim as the source for the article section in question, is a further investigation before action is taken. This has actually already been explained to you. What you are doing is selectively citing sources that help you vilify the church, whilst trying to hide the other half of the story. In addition, believe it or not, because a cover up of this magnitude is so severe, we need an equally "severe" source. What you have cited thus far, does not actually qualify. What we would need would be an actual court document in which the pope was actually convicted of said cover up. Until then, it is just an allegation.Farsight001 (talk)

Agreed. Most of these stories are inaccurate, highly-opinionated journalism, the factual basis of which has been exploded across the more honest sections of the media. Cardinal Ratzinger wasn't even informed that the priest was accused of grave crimes - only that he wanted to leave the priesthood. And the letter was A) mistranslated, and B) a standard form letter. see here The same goes for the other press allegations. As for Kung. He has been an opponent of the Catholic mainstream for thirty years, and was dismissed as a catholic theologian decades ago. His view is just that, his personal view. Our anonymous contributor seems to have revealed where he is coming from, describing himself as a "devout Christian" - a self-description often used by fundamentalist groups, many of which are hostile to Catholicism. Such groups are also affected by child-abuse and cover-ups. [1]. The main point, however, is that we are not here to regurgitate or give prominence to the worst examples of lurid journalism - but to present facts in a balanced manner from reliable sources. Xandar 22:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps our anonymous "devout Christian" needs a few lessons in what is and what isn't acceptable in an encyclopedia. This editor keeps adding an alleged translation of an unreferenced quotation attributed to Ratzinger ( together with some unacceptable personal commentary about what the alleged quotation proves ) and when it's removed justs puts it straight back in while falsely claiming that it is "perfectly referenced" ( when it's not referenced at all ) and also falsely accusing me of "vandalism" when I remove it. In my dictionary this is called "lying" and isn't the sort of behaviour that one should expect from a so-called "devout Christian". Our anonymous editor should take some time out to study the relevant Wikipedia policies on unreferenced and contentious BLP matters. If you can't reference the alleged quotation then it will be removed on the basis of policies - as will any personal opinions / commentary / original research / prejudices etc. Afterwriting (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

---

I advise all three defenders of the pope's innocence avoiding strong and baseless disqualifications of the media reports and of those who accept them as truthful and impartial. As an addition to the reading proposed by 71.191.26.127, please read here

Last week, the Vatican for the first time issued guidelines telling bishops they should report cases of abusive priests to police where civil laws require it. While the Vatican has insisted that was long its policy, it was never written explicitly and victims, lawyers, government-backed inquiries and grand juries have all accused the church of mounting a cover-up to keep clerical abuse secret and away from civil jurisdiction.

--166.32.193.81 (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed it, an important word in this is "accused". For encyclopedia purposes - as well as legal purposes - an accusation of something isn't a proof of factual truth. I would have thought that this is a case of the "bleeding obvious". Afterwriting (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

False accusation again. There were in fact at least two SOPs documented since 2001 (Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela and Lord Nolan recommendations) and 2002 (The USCCB's Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People). joo (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of secrecy among bishops - POV section check

After reading the section „Criticism of secrecy among bishops“, it seems for me that it is in some parts not more than a selective quotation collection. After reading the following articles I think that the section is not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

• Here’s a crazy idea: What if the Pope is innocent?
• Role of Pope's Ex-Deputy in Priest Case Questioned

But I do not have in depth knowledge or how the Vatican responded to these very serious allegations. So please check this section for POV. Thank you!

BTW, who is responsible for this „institutional cover-up(?)“, better who is to blame (local or federal government)?:Teacher sex cases in U. S. public schools unreported, unpunished? Roman Polanski was a safe heaven (hope thats over, but I fear it is not) here in Europe. Unbelievable, but true. Well, Secular society also ignores abuse A bit off-topic, I know..--Cyrus Grisham (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Counting of-topic themes clarifies nothing. Also above 'it seems for me' does not qualify inserting tag that puts in doubt someone's work. Therefore, deleting pov tag.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Please read the first link there you'll also find something about the Kiesle and Milwaukee case. So that would not be off-topic.

2. The Newsweek quote suggest that the RCC runs private courts and that these are a replacement of the civil courts. Well this is just not true. For example the Murpy case was reported to the police and the local law enforcement dropped the charges(!) in the 70ties and when the CDF was told about the case Murphy could not be defrocked because of Statute of limitations in canon law (?). I don't know the law in the US, but in Germany the civil law has a very similar Statute of limitations in these cases. And by the way, wasn't Murphy put into jail? So where are the private courts who are „above the law“ as suggested in the quote? And BTW, in Ireland Archdiocese of Dublin did not implement its own canon law rules (!) and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State. In short in Dublin they broke canon law (ala Crimen sollicitationis) and civil law! And I guess that has also happened in the Murphy case and a lot of other cases...

3. I have no idea about the Bernard Law, but if he is found guilty then there must be an international arrest warrant (or however you call it) against him (see also the Polanski case). Or does the church has special rights in the US civil law regarding this topic (then please give me the evidence)? My personal opinion is that the problem lies in general in the civil law which is in many cases teeth-less against these charges. I can only express my outrage about these things, but it is sadly a general problem of the law or how it is applied. This is for me one of several underlying problems. Just my POV.

4. Regarding the Milwaukee lawsuit against the Vatican and Pope Benedict XVI. As far as I know everyone can file a law suite and claim everything so this is (not yet) of interest of wikipedia. It's easy to accuse someone of these things, but there is still the Legal burden of proof. So we should wait and see how this event unfolds before this is suitable for wikipedia.

These are my reasons (ok some are personal opinion or off-topic) to ask for a check for POV, because at the end of the day I'm not sure if this selection of (some) quotes is non-POV, according to the wikipedia standards. If I would have been sure, I would just have removed them. So I hope someone with more in depth knowledge about the wiki-rules checks it. Thank you. So I put the request for checking for POV back in and please leave it in. There is absolutely no need for an edit war. Maybe I couldn’t see the forest, because of all the trees..., but human error.Regards --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this section needs a POV check and - therefore - that the tag should remain until there has been adequate time for this to occur and be resolved by consensus. Afterwriting (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• To Cyrus Grisham. All above is just your story why you disagree with the authors of the referenced articles. I did not insert any of my private thoughts into the text. Support your claims with valid references then I'll take your writing as serious discussion.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It is time that the anonymous editor above is banned for repeated policy violations. It is obviously pointless in trying to engage in any rational discussion. I will appreciate an administrator taking care of this problem as soon as possible. Afterwriting (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I strenuously oppose any action against the anonymous editor. I'm composing a more complete response for later posting. --StudiousReader (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please address any possible opposing on the basis of the non-negotiable BLP policies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Afterwriting (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please also address your opposing on the basis of the Tendentious Editing policies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing Afterwriting (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to offer a compromise.

It is not difficult to receive a warning on a contentious issue. This one is among the most. Several of us have received warnings at some time in our wiki-history, formal or informal.

For a neophyte commentor, the casuistic debates over the subtleties of NPOV, V, AIV, NOR, and even BLP can seem the soul of specious even though they are certainly not.

A neophyte shouldn't be trying to edit this page. (Which page should one read to see a listing of all the interlocking policies that apply? It REALLY REALLY needs a self-test at the end...or even a "certification" testing on subtleties and contentious statements. Does that already exist? I'd like to take that test.)

So I suggest that any ban of this editor not be a permanent one. Give her/him 30 days at most. Let there be some isolated reflection with time to read through the stack of relevant wiki-policies.

Please recall your own earliest days. --StudiousReader (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If I have ever used the word "ban" then I was actually only meaning a temporary "block". It seems obvious to me that the anonymous tendentious editor isn't actually a "neophyte" - but is using an IP address instead of a regular account on purpose to evade blocks on his/her user account. Afterwriting (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If he was trying to evade a block on his account then his IP address would be continuously changing ;). When an account is blocked that IP is blocked too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for this. But if an IP address is blocked do accounts using it also get blocked? In any case, what I was really suggesting is that this anonymous editor might just change IP addresses if blocked. Afterwriting (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with StudiousReader. Block the IP for a period of time. So far, the IP address has not changed. So this looks like a permanent one. S/he could change IP address by using someone else's PC. But it won't be so convenient. joo (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Fyi, the IP address has changed twice. There are a total of three very slightly different IP's that this person is using. I must also so that I do not doubt for a second that the IP has an account that they are not using for some reason.Farsight001 (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

More misery per daily basis

Here are a few articles worth of reading:

Priest at his child abuse trial in Rome

Conti is accused of molesting seven young boys at the Nativita di Santa Maria Santissima parish in Rome. He faces charges of committing sexual violence and prostitution. Two alleged victims told police that Conti masturbated them and forced them to perform oral sex on him in his home, where he often invited them to dinner and to watch movies, according to court documents. Anti-abuse activists say Conti's superiors knew of allegations against him as early as 2006 but did not do enough to stop him.

Chile Catholic church hit by abuse claims, bomb

Four men detailed their claims — which also are the subject of police and church investigations — on a state channel Monday night. Now adults, they said the alleged abuse by Father Fernando Karadima began about 20 years ago when they were between 14 and 17 years old, in his residence at the Sacred Heart of Jesus church in an elegant neighborhood of Santiago.

Dr. James Hamilton, now a surgeon, said between sobs that the abuse began with an act of masturbation when he joined the priest's Catholic youth group and continued for years.

Catholic sex abuse scandal raising doubts for young German Catholics

Polls reflect this sentiment. A March survey showed that only 24 percent of Germans expressed trust in Pope Benedict, compared with 38 percent in January. Overall trust in the Roman Catholic Church was even lower, at 17 percent in March compared with 29 percent in January, the poll showed. And according to the Forsa Institute's April poll of more than 1,000 German Catholics, 23 percent of all church members are considering leaving.

The greatest disillusionment is felt among youths, the poll found, with more than one-third of Catholics aged 18 to 29 considering leaving the church.

Lawmakers vote to lift limits on sex abuse cases

The civil portion was opposed by the Florida Catholic Conference, which contends it would create great uncertainty for any organization. The Roman Catholic Church has faced numerous lawsuits alleging sexual abuse by priests.

Mobsters behind ... Official: Abuse victims receive threats in Brazil

BRASILIA, Brazil – A Brazilian official said Friday that three former altar boys who accused a Roman Catholic priest of sexual abuse have received threats and are under police protection.

The three were threatened after they denounced Monsignor Luiz Marques Barbosa for allegedly molesting former altar boys in northeastern Alagoas state, according to an adviser to the Senate pedophilia commission.

Science teacher shouted 'Die, die, die' as he beat pupil with dumbbell

A science teacher shouted "Die, die, die" as he struck one of his pupils around the head with a metal dumbbell, a court has heard.

Peter Harvey, 50, attacked the 14-year-old boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, after he had misbehaved during a science lesson at All Saints' Roman Catholic high school in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, last July.

Looks like the same 'christian attitude' toward the youth is present in the schools run by Roman Catholic Church. My suggestion is to open separate section covering abuses in the schools run by RCC.--71.163.232.225 (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is the article on Sex Abuse in Public Schools? We could add the 39 million Amercians, 290,000 cases (over 10 years) and the annual 6-10 percent of American children to that. joo (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Teacher Peter Harvey cleared of attempting to kill boy joo (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/8652243.stm

Harvey had returned to work after being signed off with depression and stress for several months. But the court heard he had been mocked by pupils moments before the attack.... It emerged during the four-day trial that pupils at the school were trying to wind up Harvey so his reaction could be caught on a camcorder being used secretly by a girl in the class. The footage was then to be passed around the school as a way of "humiliating" the teacher.

'Pupils abused' Mansfield school attack teacher' joo (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/8652702.stm

Peter Harvey inspired many of his pupils, one of whom described him in court as a "great teacher". But in July 2009, Harvey snapped after years of taunts and abuse both inside and outside the classroom...he earned the admiration of many of those he taught, with one pupil describing him as "very well liked and respected".

But he was signed off sick for nearly five months and given counselling sessions by a therapist who told him he was too "peaceful and passive" and needed to let his anger out. Harvey returned to work in April last year, and the class he was teaching when he struck out at the 14-year-old was supposed to be filled with some of the school's brighter pupils. But it included students who had been repeatedly reprimanded for poor behaviour. He dealt with one girl by telling her she could leave the classroom if she decided she was going to misbehave.

In the end, it was the regular misbehaviour, the abuse, the attacks which led the "peaceful and passive" teacher to court.

Preceding unsigned comment left by joo (talk)

This page is not a forum to discuss the topic of the article. (Huey45 (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

Is Justice possible after 40 years?

New York Times 27 April 2010 report by JIM DWYER now asks:

"Should it be possible to sue the city of New York for sexual abuse by public school teachers that happened decades ago? How about doctors or hospital attendants? Police officers? Welfare workers? Playground attendants?

...Until last year, proposals to change the statute of limitations would not have affected public bodies and fallen largely on the church. After much debate, the bill, sponsored by Assemblywoman Margaret Markey, a Queens Democrat, was amended to include governments and their employees.

Suddenly, lobbyists and advocates for school boards, counties and small towns spoke out.

“Statutes of limitation exist for a reason,” said Bob Lowry, the deputy director of the New York State Council of School Superintendents. “How can anyone go back 40 years and ascertain what happened? Witnesses, responsible authorities, even the perpetrator himself or herself, may have passed away.”

The State Association of Counties weighed in, saying in a memo of opposition that “a fact-finder would have to make a determination based upon significantly aged and clouded” evidence.

And the New York State School Boards Association said the costs of old misdeeds would be borne by people who had nothing to do with them, and “provide no corresponding protection” to children. The bill ultimately was not voted on last year. It is back again, and no doubt will get fresh life from the continuing stream of revelations about high church officials who covered up abuse.

To date, New York City has been publicly silent on the proposal, but sees the possibility of enormous expenses.

“The city has taken no official position on the bills, but we have real concerns about their potential impact on the taxpayers,” said Francis Barry, a spokesman for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. Assemblywoman Markey’s bill – and its companion in the Senate, sponsored by Ruth Hassell-Thompson — would provide a one-year window for filing lawsuits that go back 40 years.

Once that window had closed, the statute of limitations would run 10 years after a child turns 18. It’s five years now for private individuals, and 90 days for public institutions.

Note how NYT still doesn't give the full picture: that there have been over 290,000 cases of sexual abuse cases in public schools in the US and how the teachers have been passed around schools without being punished. Instead, the story shifts to priests again.joo (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality Theory

@Joo What are you trying to accomplish by inserting nonsense about NAMBLA and quoting a hate group such as Family Research Institute? Why all this anti-gay propaganda?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@Dvd-junkie:

(1) You need to put my name in proper wiki formatting (as I've put here) before I can see your message.

(2) The NAMBLA reference is not nonsense. It is a fact (documented on Wikipedia itself at NAMBLA and at the jstor reference I gave) and a significant fact that NAMBLA was a member group (for 10 years!) of ILGA a homosexual organization that has consultative rights to the UN and European Commission. If NAMBLA (the pedophile group) is not homosexual, what was it doing inside ILGA?

(3) How is Family Research Institute a hate group? Who defines it as a hate group? And not worthy of having its views and research being represented here? Even if it is, aren't Dawkins and Hitchens also reacting out of hate? They should be removed as well then.

(4) You have removed references to research studies made by more than the Family Research Institute. You've also removed (a) the Freund, Heasman, Racansky, and Glancy study, (b) the Erickson, Walbek, Sely study, (c) the K. Freud and R. I. Watson study, (d) the United States Army, Office of Judge Advocate study, (e) the Archives of Sexual Behavior study. Please explain your deletions. joo (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if you disagree, even if you think the other party is responding out of hate:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia? All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

I disagree with many things written on this article. I think that Dawkins, Hitchens and most of the media reports on the Catholic sex abuse issues are reacting out of hate. But I don't remove their quotations or references. joo (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The NAMBLA thing is incredibly controversial, so I presume there are multiple reliable sources backing it up? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the following: joo (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA#The_International_Lesbian_and_Gay_Association_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILGA#Controversy_and_loss_of_UN_consultative_status

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf

btw did you have a message for me? I couldn't find it on your talk page, so I deleted the notification. joo (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"ILGA itself had hosted workshops on pedophilia and passed resolutions in 1985, 1988, and 1990 to abolish age of consent laws claiming that "same sex age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect" and supported "the right of every individual, regardless of age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality."26 Eventually, reacting to congressional legislation threatening the reduction of $119 million in financial support, the United Nations kicked out ILGA in 1995 for refusing to sever ties with a half dozen member groups that advocated or promoted pedophilia. Revealingly, even though ILGA did expel NAMBLA (many say it was for show), it could not muster enough support among its membership to expel other more powerful and discreet pro-pedophile organizations from Germany and other countries. It is extremely revealing that the majority of members of the world’s leading homosexual coalition, the ILGA, decided they would rather be excluded from UN deliberations than vote out groups that advocate sex with children.27"

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf

"...over the last fifteen years the homosexual community and its academic allies have published a large quantity of articles that claim sex with children is not harmful to children but, as stated in one homosexual journal, "constitute an aspect of gay and lesbian life."28 Such articles have appeared in pro-homosexual academic journals such as The Journal of Homosexuality, The Journal of Sex Research, Archives of Sexual Behavior, and The International Journal of Medicine and Law. The editorial board of the leading pedophile academic journal, Paidika, is dominated by prominent homosexual scholars such as San Francisco State University professor John DeCecco, who happens to edit the Journal of Homosexuality."

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talk • contribs) 07:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"mainstream gay publications make no effort to hide their pro-pedophilia views. For example, BLK, a leading black homosexual publication, defended pedophilia with an article entitled, "Must Men Who Love Boys Be Guilty of Sexual Misconduct?"30 San Francisco’s leading homosexual newspaper, The Sentinel, bluntly editorialized, "The love between man and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality."31 In 1995, the homosexual magazine Guide stated:

We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual, that they deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose . . . [w]e must listen to our prophets. Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality . . . . We must do it for the children’s sake.32

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf joo (talk) 07:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@joo:

The deletions happened during an editing conflict – I simply copied and pasted my edit.

Really? Very well.joo (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

NAMBLA's self-serving comment doesn't represent gays just as the Ku Klux Klan doesn't represent whites.

NAMBLA was a member group of ILGA for 10 years. ILGA organised pedophile seminars, called for age of consent to be lowered, etc. Ku Klux Klan wasn't a member group of a large public group with lots of power, say, the Senate and the Senate didn't organize seminars for the Ku Klux Klan. joo (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Who considers the Family Research Institute a hate group? The Southern Poverty Law Center, for example. The FRT's anti-gay stance is hardly a secret. As for their founder, considerable controversy surrounds Dr. Cameron and his research. The American Psychological Association dropped Cameron from its membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists. The Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality. Cameron's credibility was also questioned outside of academia. In his written opinion in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to "Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'" and concluded that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and that "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron".

The Southern Poverty Law Center has an explicit pro-gay agenda. Calling the FRT (and many other groups who oppose homosexual acts) hate groups seems to be a major part of its activities. With regards to misrepresentations by Dr Cameron, I would prefer to read the details of the problem before making such a judgment. Otherwise, it's possible that those who accuse him basically have an agenda of their own. joo (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

By quoting the geek squad the ratio is a tad bit skewed. Why don't you present representable studies?

Cite me some of the studies which you claim are in the majority. I only found one or two and they talk about homosexuality and pedophilia. These cases involve mostly pederasts (over 81 percent) and not pedophiles. joo (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, please explain your anti-gay propaganda! Your edits over-represent a scientific minority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvd-junkie (talk • contribs) 07:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not anti-gay. That's your perception. I have a few gay friends but I cannot ignore the problems that somehow plague the gay community. I'm Catholic but not with blinkers. I want to defend the Church, but I have no intention of distorting the truth. Give me information and references that can convince me. joo (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Debate Over Causes & Reliability of Sources

@Joo, none of those sources look reliable to me... I was hoping for something along the lines of the New York Times or a Scientific Journal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The NAMBLA information regarding its participation in ILGA looks pretty well documented, and so probably deserves mention in any discussion of the homosexuality controversy. Links cannot be denied if they do exist. Xandar 23:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So one stupid decision by a gay organisation ==> a solid link between homosexuality and pedophillia, come on. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

ILGA isn't just any gay organisation. It has consultative status in the UN and EC. It is a significant link. As to what kind of link that is, as mentioned, it needs to be investigated. joo (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Eraserhead1, is the New York Times a reliable source? I'm afraid it has stopped being one.

Come on, the New York Times is still an example of a reliable source. It may not be as good as it was - but its still reliable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As for what "reliable sources" means, I've just taken a closer look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources and I think my references stand just fine. E.g. The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy is an independent journals under the leadership of Robert Taylor Segraves. The Archives of Sexual Behavior is the official Publication of the International Academy of Sex Research. The Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy is a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Routledge. The United States Army, Office of Judge Advocate, should be reliable... don't you diagree? joo (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If Pedophilia and homosexuality are related and reliable sources can be found they should be inserted into the primary article on the topic - Homosexuality - not this one, as otherwise you are creating a POV fork. And docs.google.com is not a scientific journal... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The section title is "Debate over causes". A debate is always about PoVs, isn't it? So long as they come from reliable sources, they should remain. But again, I'm kind of disappointed now with the people (who can't wait to delete info that contradicts their PoV) here, in this case, frequently deleting any PoV that seem to reflect unfavorably on gays, even when they come from reliable sources as defined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. joo (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried to read what's on the Google Docs? It's a Regent University Law Review paper by Steve Baldwin. btw The John Jay reports are now on Google Docs too. Are the John Jay report invalid because they are on Google Docs? Seems to me you keep trying to find excuses to remove information that you don't like. joo (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Studies for or against the Homosexuality Theory

Discussion

@joo:

Yeah, funny that I think that of your edits as anti-gay biased. Yet your "fair and balanced" edits to the "homosexuality theory" seem to exclusively blame gays. You haven't inserted a single quote to the contrary.

Am I obliged to insert a quote to the contrary when the whole section is filled with quotes that say there's no link between pedophilia and homosexuality? Adding studies that do show a link does balance up the section. With your latest deletions, the whole section is now biased towards studies that say there's no link. How are balanced are your edits indeed? joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You keep reinserting quotes from sources that are unreliable: Paul Cameron's credibility is questioned inside and outside of academia; the American Psychological Association and the Nebraska Psychological Association distance themselves for his misrepresentation of the facts regarding homosexuality-pedophelia links). The US Army, of course, doesn't have an anti-gay bias...

Based on the info that you've given, I agree that Cameron's quote can be removed. But you have removed all the studies that say there's a link. "The US Army doesn't have an anti-gay bias..." But have you again inadvertently removed it because of an edit conflict? It's quite clear where you stand, isn't it? You do not tolerate other PoVs. joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, so far I have not removed any quotes that say there's no links. An anti-gay person (motivated by hate rather than reason) would have removed these quotes, wouldn't s/he? joo (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You keep reinserting factoids that are irrelevant (unrelated) to the "homosexuality theory": No one disputes that NAMBLA was a member of ILGA, but what do ILGA or NAMBLA have to do with priests that fondle children? Were the priests members of NAMBLA? Does NAMBLA represent gays in general?

The fact that NAMBLA was a member of ILGA is significant. It shows that there is a link. If priests have to be members of NAMBLA before facts can be mentioned, then by the same logic, all the studies you've quoted are irrelevant because they did not study priests. joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that if NAMBLA being a member of the ILGA implies homosexuals are pedophiles in general you could say that given the catholic church allowed pedophiles to continue to be priests that implies that catholics in general are pedophiles.

Given the latter is also appalling, I don't really see how you can defend the former as they are basically the same. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Eraserhead1, your logic and analogy are appalling. Is there an official pedophilia member group in the Church as there's one in ILGA?

Yes, there are convicted pedophiles in the church who weren't immediately defrocked but were moved to another parish so they could continue to abuse more children. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Did the Catholic Church organise seminars to promote pedophilia as ILGA did?

Citation that the ILGA did rather than NAMBLA... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Did the Catholic Church call for the age of consent to be lowered as ILGA did?

That was because - in Britain at least - the age of consent for homosexual sex was higher than for heterosexual sex, which was discriminatory until they were both equalised. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction: "ILGA itself had hosted workshops on pedophilia and passed resolutions in *1985, 1988, and 1990* to *ABOLISH* age of consent laws claiming that "same sex age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect" and supported "the right of every individual, regardless of age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality." joo (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter LaBarbera, UN Kicks Out Gay Group – With NAMBLA’s Help, LAMBDA REP., Feb-Mar. 1995, at 13; see also Peter LaBarbera, UN Grants Voice to Gay Group with Pedophile Ties, LAMBDA REP., Sept. 1993, at 3; Peter LaBarbera, U.S. May Reverse U.N. Vote Over NAMBLA’s Ties, LAMBDA REP., Nov. 1993, at 1-10; Joyce Price, Pedophiles Resisting Expulsion from Gay Umbrella Organization, WASH. TIMES, Nov. 27, 1993 at A4; Aras Van Hertum, U.S. Gay Leaders Urging ILGA to Oust NAMBLA, WASH. BLADE, Nov. 5, 1993, at A1.

I see a link. And a link is not equal to what you claim as "homosexuals are pedophiles in general". That link need to be investigated. joo (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the link? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Had you kept looking you might have the following, for example:

Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.

"Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children."

What's the definition of children here? Are any of them aged 11-19? How many? joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Just found that the study did include pubescents. However, the Discussion section talks about an anomaly in the results: "Both gynephilic groups (homosexual pedophile offenders and volunteers) showed an erotic aversion to males of all ages, whereas androphiles showed an erotic aversion only to the youngest age group of females. The interpretation that this is a cultural phenomenon is supported by the fact that only the (gynephilic) sex offenders, who probably tried their best to have a favorable test outcome, attained a convincing degree of aversion, responding less to every age category of males than to neutrals when compared to androphiles' responses to females." joo (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Silverthorne & Quinsey. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 67-76.

The FRC cites this study to challenge the Freund et al. data. However, the methodologies were quite different. Freund and his colleagues used a sample that included sex offenders and they assessed sexual arousal with a physiological measure similar to that described below for the 1988 Marshall et al. study. Silverthorne and Quinsey used a sample of community volunteers who were asked to view pictures of human faces and use a 7-point scale to rate their sexual attractiveness. The apparent ages of the people portrayed in the pictures was originally estimated by Dr. Silverthorne to range from 15 to 50. However, a group of independent raters perceived the male faces to range in age from 18 to 58, and the female faces to range from 19 to 60. The article doesn't report the data in great detail (e.g., average ratings are depicted only in a graphic; the actual numbers aren't reported) and the authors provide contradictory information about the rating scale (they describe it as a 7-point scale but also say it ranged from 0 to 7, which constitutes an 8-point scale). In either case, it appears that none of the pictures was rated as "very sexually attractive" (a rating of 7). Rather, the highest average ratings were approximately 5. On average, gay men rated the 18-year old male faces the most attractive (average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings declining steadily for older faces. They rated the 58-year old male faces 2, on average. By contrast, heterosexual men rated the 25-year old female faces the most attractive (about 5), with the 18- and 28-year old female faces rated lower (between 2 and 3) and the 60-year old female faces rated the least attractive (about 1). A serious problem with this study is that the researchers didn't control for the possibility that some of the faces pictured in the photos might simply have been more or less physically attractive than the others, independent of their age or gender. The researchers explicitly acknowledged this shortcoming, speculating that the women's faces in the 25-year old group might have been more attractive than women's faces in the other age groups. But they didn't address the possibility that the attractiveness of the male and female faces may not have been comparable. This issue could have been addressed in various ways. For example, prior to collecting data, the researchers could have started with a large number of photographs and asked a group of independent raters to evaluate the general physical attractiveness of the face in each photo; these ratings could have been used to select photos for the experiment that were equivalent in attractiveness. Getting independent ratings of experimental stimuli in this way is a common procedure in social psychological research. Thus, even if one accepts the questionable assumption that this study is relevant, it doesn't support the FRC's contention that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several reasons:

• the researchers failed to control for the varying attractiveness of the different photos;
• all of the faces portrayed in the photos were perceived to be at least 18; and
• the study merely assessed judgments of sexual attractiveness rather than the research participants' sexual arousal.

This is merely a critique of the FRC study? Finding holes in other people's study does not prove that your theory is right. It's significant that "On average, gay men rated the 18-year old male faces the most attractive (average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings declining steadily for older faces." while heterosexual men find 25-year-old women more attractive than 18-year old females. Goes to show gay men prefer the youngest faces while heterosexual men don't. What would have happened if the researchers had added male faces who are aged 11-17? 81 percent of the boys sexually abused were aged 11-19. Anyway, this does not support your stand that there's no link. joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Blanchard et al. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478.

This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether they molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only, or both boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively, homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. This classification referred to their attractions to children. Adult sexual orientation (or even whether the men had an adult sexual orientation) wasn't assessed.

? Why is this study quoted here? What are its results relevant to your point? joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Elliott et al. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 579-594.

In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed. Their sexual orientation (gay, heterosexual, bisexual) wasn't assessed. The authors drew from their findings to suggest strategies for how parents and children can prevent sexual victimization. It is noteworthy that none of those strategies involved avoiding gay men.

What? This is an indirect inference, certainly not part of the study's results. Are you adding this and the one above to make the list look long? joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jenny et al. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41-44.

This study, described above in the section on "Other Approaches," contradicts the FRC's argument. The FRC faults the study because the researchers didn't directly interview perpetrators but instead relied on the victims' medical charts for information about the offender's sexual orientation. However, other studies cited favorably by the FRC (and summarized in this section) similarly relied on chart data (Erickson et al., 1988) or did not directly assess the sexual orientation of perpetrators (Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al. 1995; Marshall et al., 1988). Thus, the FRC apparently considers this method a weakness only when it leads to results they dislike.

Not very clear here. The results of this study suggests no link? joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Marshall et al. (1988). Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preference. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 383-391.

In this study, the researchers compared 21 men who had sexually molested a male under 16 years (and at least 5 years younger than themselves) to 18 unemployed men who were not known to have molested a child. Over a series of sessions, each man watched color slides of nude males and females of various ages and listened to audiotaped descriptions of both coercive and consensual sexual interactions between a man and a boy. During the sessions, each man sat in a private booth, where he was instructed to lower his trousers and underwear and attach a rubber tube to his penis. The tube detected any changes in penis circumference, with increases interpreted as indicating sexual arousal. The FRC cites this study as showing that "a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders." This is true but hardly relevant to their claims. The researchers categorized 7 offenders who were more aroused overall by the male nudes than the female nudes as the homosexual subgroup. They categorized 14 offenders who were more aroused overall by the female nudes as the heterosexual subgroup. The offenders were not asked their sexual orientation (gay, straight, bisexual) and the paper does not report any information about the nature of the offenders' adult sexual relationships, or even if they had any such relationships.

? Is this to support your point that there's no link or just to criticize FRC? If the latter, it doesn't support your point that there's no link. joo (talk)

Bickley & Beech. (2001). Classifying child abusers: Its relevance to theory and clinical practice. International Journal Of Offender Therapy And Comparative Criminology, 45, 51-69.

This is a literature review and theoretical paper that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various systems for classifying child molesters. In citing this study, the FRC says it: refers to homosexual pedophiles as a "distinct group." The victims of homosexual pedophiles "were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and that they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences.... Other studies [showed a] greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls" and that the "recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders." In reality, however, the paper was summarizing the findings of other studies, not reporting new data. In the passage excerpted by the FRC, the authors were discussing published papers that used a classification system focusing entirely on the sex of victims (not whether the perpetrator is straight or gay). Here is the complete text (the passages that FRC omitted are highlighted): "Grubin and Kennedy (1991) reported that when dividing sex offenders based simply on the sex of their victims, offenders against boys stood out as a distinct group. They noted that their victims were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences. Other studies have employed the sex-of-victim approach in the prediction of future risk, with offenders who have sexually abused boys or both boys and girls reported as having more victims and being at greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls only [bibliographic references omitted]. In the nondiagnostic remarks, DSM-IV (APA, 1994) claims that the recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders, and although not demonstrating such a marked difference, Furby,Weinrott, and Blackshaw (1989), in an extensive review of recidivism rates, found that reoffending was higher for male victim offenders. [¶] However, the sex-of-victim distinction has not been consistently found, and contrasting findings have been reported in studies that have demonstrated no differences in recidivism rates between the groups [bibliographic references omitted]. Furthermore, Abel, Becker, Murphy, and Flanagan (1981) found that those child molesters who offended against girls reported more than twice as many victims as those who had offended against boys, a finding contrary to the hypothesized outcome." (p. 56)

This is a critique of FRC. How does it support your point that there's no link? It's interesting btw that "child molesters who offended against girls reported more than twice as many victims as those who had offended against boys". I've read somewhere too that girls tend to report such problems more than boys. In the priestly abuse cases, the number of male victims who reported abuse is the reverse of this study: 4x that of female victims. Curious, isn't it? joo (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jay & Young. (1977). The gay report: Lesbians and gay men speak out about sexual experiences and lifestyles. New York: Summit.

This book, published nearly 30 years ago by a team of writer-activists, is NOT a scientific study. The authors' survey methodology is not reported in detail and, because it was a journalistic work, the survey was never subjected to scientific peer review.

NOT a scientific study and no peer review. This doesn't count. But it makes your list look long, right? joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Erickson et al. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86.

This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records of male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital between 1975 and 1984. Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes. (The paper is unclear in that it doesn't explain how perpetrators with multiple victims were counted.) The paper asserts in passing that "Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (p. 83). However, no details are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret. Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described above) indicates is relevant. In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not support their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders.

Again, it's interesting that "70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes". "Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (p. 83). In the priestly abuse cases, 80% of the victims abused were boys. Why huh? joo (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Do Any Studies Claim To Show That Homosexuals Are More Likely To Molest Children?

One individual has claimed to have data that prove homosexuals to be child molesters at a higher rate than heterosexuals. That person is Paul Cameron. His survey data are subject to so many methodological flaws as to be virtually meaningless. Even so, his assertions are sometimes quoted by antigay organizations in their attempts to link homosexuality with child sexual abuse. In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron purported to review published data to answer the question, "Do those who commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their sexual practices?" (p. 1227). He concluded that "at least one-third of the sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual" (p. 1228) and that "those who are bi- to homosexual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth" than are heterosexuals (p. 1231). Cameron's claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron's paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed. For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of "heterosexual" (i.e., female victim) to "homosexual" (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that "54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners" (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. The "54%" statistic reported by Cameron doesn't appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation. It is also noteworthy that, although Cameron assumed that the perpetrators of male-male molestations were all homosexual, he assumed that not all male-female molestations were committed by heterosexuals. He incorporated a "bisexual correction" into his data manipulations to increase further his estimate of the risk posed to children by homosexual/bisexual men. In the latter half of his paper, Cameron considered whether "homosexual teachers have more frequent sexual interaction with their pupils" (p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of sexual contact between a teacher and pupil reported in ten different sources published between 1920 and 1982, Cameron concluded that "a pupil would appear about 90 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a homosexual practitioner" (p.1232); the ratio rose to 100 times when Cameron added his bisexual correction. This ratio is meaningless because no data were obtained concerning the actual sexual orientation of the teachers involved; as before, Cameron assumed that male-male contacts were perpetrated by homosexuals. Furthermore, Cameron's rationale for selecting particular sources appears to have been completely arbitrary. He described no systematic method for reviewing the literature, and apparently never reviewed the voluminous literature on the sexual development of children and adolescents. His final choice of sources appears to have slanted his findings toward what Cameron described as "the relative absence in the scientific literature of heterosexual teacher-pupil sexual events coupled with persistent, albeit infrequent, homosexual teacher-pupil sexual interactions" (p. 1232). A subsequent paper by Cameron and others (Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, & Cameron, 1986) described data collected in a door-to-door survey in seven U.S. cities and towns, and generally repeated the conclusions reached in Cameron (1985). Even Cameron himself admitted that his conclusions in this study are "based upon small numbers of data points" (Cameron, 2005, p. 230). As before, male-male sexual assaults were referred to as "homosexual" molestations (e.g., Abstract, p.327) and the perpetrators' sexual orientation apparently was not assessed. This study also suffers from fatal methodological problems, which are detailed elsewhere on this site. In yet another article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron claimed to have reviewed data about foster parents in Illinois and found that 34% were perpetrated by a foster parent against a child of the same sex, that is, female-female or male-male (Cameron, 2005). Not only did Cameron again make the fallacious claim that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals, he also made the same claim about female-female molestations. Once again, he had no data about the actual sexual orientations of the molesters. Cameron continues to produce reports that essentially repeat the same inaccurate claims. Perhaps one of the best indicators of his diminishing credibility in this area is that his work was not cited in the 2004 FRC report discussed in detail above.

This seems to be mainly a critique of Cameron's studies. What about the other studies that you have conveniently deleted because you don't like them? joo (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvd-junkie (talk • contribs) 25 April 2010 14:46 (UTC)

That sounds like a great summary of the situation :). It looks to me like the section should be removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

user:Dvd-junkie: In conclusion, you've effectively cited only one or two studies that say there's no link, mostly critiques of the FRC/Cameron studies and a few studies that actually suggest a link. But you've deleted the other studies which have not been criticized:

Sex researchers Freund, Heasman, Racansky, and Glancy, for example, in an 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, put the number at 36%. Erickson, Walbek, Sely, in a 1988 Archives of Sexual Behavior article, placed it at 86% when the children being molested are male.[152]

In a 1992 study, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson reported that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested.[153] In 1993, the United States Army, Office of Judge Advocate, issued a study that analyzed 102 court martial convictions having to do with soldiers involved in homosexual acts over a four-year period. The study found that in 47% of the cases, the homosexual men had victimized a youth.[154]

In 2000, the Archives of Sexual Behavior published an article by seven sex researchers concluding that ‘‘around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles."

I don't see how your long list is relevant. What are the researchers' definition of children? What are the age ranges of the children (not the older men) studied? Are these pre-pubescent children as what Jenkins has pointed out "'Pedophilia' is a psychiatric term meaning sexual interest in children below the age of puberty." Do they include teenagers aged 15-19? I have more comments above. By the way, have you again 'inadvertently' removed other credible sources because of some edit conflict? Distinguished Professor Philip Jenkins's quote has disappeared. joo (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Look if there really is a connection between homosexuality and pedophillia, which I highly doubt, why the hell isn't this on the page on homosexuality? Just having it here just creates a POV fork. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoever might have inserted the text probably had the text removed by someone like Dvd-junkie. The section title Debate Over Causes basically means just that: PoVs. joo (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Then challenge it on the talk page of Homosexuality and if necessary organise an RFC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking me to enter a hornets' nest (where there will most likely be even more "pro-gay" folks making sure that the article is politically correct and palatable? Merely adding to this article alone is almost turning into a full-time job and a number of you keep removing relevant info. I've got enough of the antics here by now. joo (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because otherwise a POV fork is being created. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying the Debate Over Causes section is a PoV fork? joo (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

@Joo: Of course, I will challenge and remove info that is unreliable and unsubstantiated or at least label it that way. And so should you, whether you are pro or anti-gay. Wouldn't you go against it, if someone added "info" about blacks being inferior and lusting after white women or some similar nonsense? --Dvd-junkie (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

@Dvd-junkie: What's your basis for saying the other studies are unreliable? One study (Cameron's) discredited does not equal to all other studies also discredited. If there are indeed research studies from reliable sources saying that blacks are inferior, I won't remove them. A very simple example: So far I've not removed the nonsense uttered by Dawkins & Hitchens. joo (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

@Joo:

• For starters, Fitzgibbons claims seem quite extreme. A little fact check reveals that he is connected to the ex-gay movement.

• Kurt Freund was taken out of context. Actually, he is convinced that gay men respond no more to male child stimuli than heterosexual men respond to female child stimili [Kurt Freund, Robin Watson, and Douglas Rienzo, "Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference," The Journal of Sex Research, 26(1), Feb. 1989, pp. 107-117]. He described as a "myth" the notion that gay men are more likely than straight men to be child molesters [Kurt Freund and Robin Watson, "The Proportion of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 18(1), Spring, 1992, pp. 34-43, at p. 41].

• Outside of anti-gay websites I found no reference to that 1993 US Army study. But they use the exact same wording as your edit. The Gay Report that you give as its source relied on questionable methodology. It was modeled after many other informal sex surveys which were popular in the 1970s and 1980s. Magazines like Cosmopolitan, Redbook, and Playboy often conducted reader surveys. Roughly half of the responses came from a gay softcore porn magazine questionnaire. Would you consider those who respond to a sex survey in an issue of Hustler magazine indicative of the American heterosexual population?

• Blanchard et al described convicted sex offenders‘ attractions to children, not adult sexual orientation. It wasn’t even assessed whether the men had an adult sexual orientation. A person's sexual attraction to adults, whether homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, is wholly distinct from an attraction to children. A person can be attracted only to adults, only to children, or occasionally to both, but these attractions are independent facets of a person's psychology. While pedophilia is sometimes denominated as "heterosexual" or "homosexual," this usage is simply descriptive, that is, it is intended only to characterize the relationship between the offender's and the victim's genders, and not to define the offender's sexual orientation, if any, toward adults.

The myth that homosexuals are child molesters parallels in many ways the blood libel against European Jews, who during the twelfth through nineteenth centuries were accused of kidnapping Christian children and slowly bleeding them to death in ritual sacrifices.

Instead of indescriminately quoting anti-gay websites you might want to check the facts and maybe discuss them before you insert highly inflammatory material.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

user:Dvd-junkie:

• Do you understand the logical fallacy of Ad Hominem? You cannot disqualify Fitzgibbon just because he doesn't have the same stand as you or for whatever facts about his background. You should critique his study and not his person or his ideology. If Ad Hominem is valid, all studies would be invalid for we could say that all the researchers each has his/her own agenda.

• As for Freund, did you read the anomaly that I (or rather he) pointed out in the study that you quoted above? That the gays in the study seemed to have controlled their sexual impulses to the extent of aversion to all age groups!

• The United States Army, Office of Judge Advocate, issued a study that analyzed *102 court martial convictions* having to do with soldiers involved in homosexual acts over a four-year period. The study found that in 47% of the cases, homosexual men victimized a youth. The reference is Major Mickle, Dept. of the Army, Homosexual Litigation Update (Feb. 1997), available at http://dont.stanford.edu/commentary/army.htm (last visited Apr. 2, 2002). I don't know how The Gay Report came into the picture. Must be a mistake. Incidentally, do you realise that you yourself quoted The Gay Report in your long list to show that there's no link? So when you quote it, it's suitable for use. But when it's quoted against your stand, you actually poke holes in it. What a joke!

• Homosexuality as an identity is a construct. The act of sexual abuse by most of the priests is "homosexual in nature", so said Margaret Smith whose quote remained in the Homosexuality Theory section. It's possible that a number of the people who committed the act are bisexual, but a heterosexual by definition won't perform a homosexual act. The outstanding feature of the abuse cases is that the acts were mostly homosexual in nature.

The parallel that you gave is invalid. In the Catholic sex abuse cases, there are sufficient evidence to show most of the abuse cases among priests were similar to those of pederasts, "homosexual in nature". Were there even correlational evidence in the 19th that Jews were kidnapping Christian children and bleeding them to death?

Instead of indiscriminately deleting references (just because you think they are anti-gay), couldn't you first discuss your reasons? joo (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

@joo:

• So, you don’t consider it noteworthy that Fitzgibbons who made rather extreme claims that go against scientific consensus is connected to NARTH, an organisation that describes homosexuality as a disorder and propagates conversion therapy? Doesn't that make you the least bit wary? The American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions espoused by NARTH are not supported by science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish. And, here we are...

Yes, here we are. The people who take opposite stands from you are as extreme as you are. THe APA, etc thinks that the positions by NARTH are not supported by science? Two past presidents of American Psychology Association, four past APA board directors, and two gold medalist recipients published a book to say that the current APA is merely politically correct and not being scientific especially when the studies are gay-related. Recognized experts often have different interpretations. Wikipedia recognized that all significant views must be represented. But you simply cannot tolerate alternative viewpoints or interpretations of gay-resulted research results, can you? joo (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Does the „anomaly“ that you pointed out change that Freund’s conclusion is quite different from yours?

? I did read the Freund's conclusion in that study. It's very open-ended and asked for further research to confirm various possibilities. joo (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• I mentioned the Gay Report (on April 25) in response to you listing it (on April 23) as the source for that military report to point out that it’s not a reliable source. Strangely, that army study isn‘t mentioned anywhere, except on anti-gay websites that use the exact same wording as your edit. Actually, the link[2] that you gave as the source this time doesn’t mention it either. Seems all this time you have been blindly quoting Steve Baldwin[3] – executive director of the extreme right CNP. Check the facts first!

I don't think Baldwin was making up things. That was an online website reference. The contents there can be changed far more easily than those in a published book. joo (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• „Homosexuality as an identity is a construct.“ Is that your expert opinion?

That's part and parcel of postmodern (current) philosophy, isn't it? And that's also what one of my gay friends said, "I think sexuality is a fluid thing. As long as one is sexually attracted to a particular gender, a person is, by that, defining his sexual orientation... Sexuality is not what we are - it is just something we experience." joo (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• „A heterosexual by definition won't perform a homosexual act“? Actually, some heterosexual men do have sex with other men if women are unavailable (not uncommon in prison populations, for example); this is called situational sexual behavior. On the other hand, true pedophiles usually aren‘t attracted to adults, so neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality applies.

When a heterosexual have sex with other men, he's not a heterosexual by definition. He's bisexual. There are pedophiles who are attracted to girls only and there are those who are drawn to boys only. Then again we are not talking about pedophiles (abuse of preteens) but pederasts (homosexual abuse of teens). joo (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• While pedophilia is sometimes denominated as „heterosexual“ or „homosexual“ this usage is simply intended only to characterize the relationship between the offender's and the victim's genders, and not to define the offender's sexual orientation, if any, toward adults. Rarely does a pedophile experience sexual desire for adults of either gender. They usually don't identify as homosexual – the majority identify as heterosexual, even those who abuse children of the same gender. They are sexually aroused by youth, not by gender. In contrast, child molesters often exert power and control over children in an effort to dominate them. They do experience sexual desire for adults, but molest children episodically, for reasons apart from sexual desire, much as rapists enjoy power, violence and controlling their humiliated victims. Some research shows that for pedophiles, the gender of the child is immaterial. Accessibility is more the factor in who a pedophile abuses.[4]

As mentioned above, it doesn't matter whether the person identifies himself/herself as homosexual. The ACT is homosexual and the act is a major part (81 percent) of the problem among Catholic sex abuse cases. The Catholic Church, by the way, explicitly disapproves of the homosexual act and not the person (whom you might refer to as the gays, lesbians, etc.). joo (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep fighting as hell to prove that gays are child molesters, relying on Steve Baldwin's ramblings instead of checking your sources?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep fighting as hell to prove that gays are NOT child molesters? Steve Baldwin is not my only reference and I'm not trying to prove that gays are child molesters. The references and the facts of the Catholic abuse cases suggest that a higher percentage of gays (not all gays) are child molesters (or to put it more precisely: It does seem that a higher percentage of the people who perform the homosexual act also molest children/minors). It's a link that needs to be investigated. joo (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems that experts who are not related to anti-gay causes disagree. They claim that though gays are not above child molestation they are not more likely than heterosexuals to do so, either. You have produced a lot of sources that are either unreliable (Baldwin, Cameron, for example), were taken out of context or misrepresented (most of them, actually), or dont seem to exist at all (that military study, also cited by Baldwin). Why don't you find a reputable source that isn't twisted beyond recognition (by Baldwin or whoever else) that supports your claim that gays are more likely to molest children?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider this a challenge for you and for me. You kept claiming that most experts are on your side. But your list is a very weak (as critiqued by me above and without any replies from you). It's very easy to poke holes into almost any research study... as you and I have done on this page. For the time being, proving either views (held by scientists in the field) this is not my priority. I've much more urgent tasks to attend to. I would like to revisit this at a much later date. joo (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, experts, not me, are "claiming" that most experts don't find homosexuals more likely to molest children. Just read up the citations.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-gay? Pro-gay?

Dvd-junkie: What is pro-gay or anti-gay? What you consider as pro-gay might be considered as anti-gay by others (including gay people themselves). What you consider as anti-gay might be considered as pro-gay by others (including gay people themselves). For example, you seem to think that anything that reflects badly on gays are anti-gay stuff and anything that reflects well on gays are pro-gay stuff. That's just "image" actually. For any one of us (whether gay or not), if we want to improve ourselves, we must be ready to acknowledge both the good and bad in us - so that we can build on our strengths and improve in areas of weaknesses. To deny a real problem that gays do face is counter-productive - it's anti-gay in my opinion. joo (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, I acknowledge that sex abuses did happen among priests and bishops - a small percentage of them from what I can see so far. I suppose if it seemed that sex abuse do happen on a much larger scale than I believe, I could have a hard time accepting that. I might protest that there're over-emphasis. Still, I don't (and won't) delete citations that make such claims if they seem to come from what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources. I would present counter-evidence/arguments if they exist. To keep citing "anti-gay", "extreme", etc. as a reason for deleting well-sourced materials is truly a logical fallacy and being extremely intolerant of alternative viewpoints. As pointed out earlier, I didn't even bother to delete the nonsense uttered by Dawkins. Someone else deleted it and that was only when it became clear to most of us that Dawkins was merely pulling a publicity stunt. He couldn't/wouldn't even discuss the definition of crime against humanity, how he sue anyone for that? joo (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case, are all articles on Wikipedia supposed to be pro-gay? Is Wikipedia a politically correct encyclopedia that's sensitive to gays (or rather those who choose to self-identify as gays) but not to other groups (such as Catholics or those who have the inclination but do not claim sexual orientation as their identity)? Or is Wikipedia supposed to stick to its non-negotiable nPoV policy and present all significant views regardless of whether the views expressed seemed to be anti- or pro- certain groups of people?

If pro gay means that it should accept homosexuality as a viable sexual choice that we should treat equally with heterosexuality then yes, just as we should treat non-whites or women as equals. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-gay is, for example, twisting the facts and demonizing gays (for whatever reason). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.70.184 (talk • contribs) 1 May 2010 18:10 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is not about the truth but about relevant perspectives as evidenced by reliable sources. An opinion should be presented as an opinion, not as a fact. A lay person’s claims about a study should be be attributed to that person (if at all), not the study, especially if its findings are something else entirely.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess at some time some people must have considered blacks and women who fought against prejudice and for equality ungrateful and presumptuous and "extremely intolerant of alternative viewpoints", too... But, if someone tried to nail me to the cross, what would you have me do – hand him the nails? Though I find this debate somewhat trying, I didn't remove material out of spite (or because I didn't like it) but because – as I said before – it was either badly sourced, not sourced at all, misrepresented its sources or was off-topic.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, homosexuality as a choice is another myth. Who would choose to be different knowing at least some people would hate him for that? I didn't choose to be gay just as I didn't choose to have red hair. Sure, I could dye my hair but that wouldn't be me. But, I'm afraid this is off topic.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair being a woman or being black aren't technically "choices" either :p. That said fewer and fewer people seem to dislike gays - at least where I live. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, quite right, and yes, thankfully!--Dvd-junkie (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)