It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Study finds disproportionate abuse by 'gays'

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Radardog, that is certainly true for date rape. Many of those folks are sexually frustrated and are opportunistic. As far as the guys who are waiting in your bushes until 6 in the evening. Those guys are sick and into overpowering. Even fellows who have never raped before shows signs of it in the way they perform sexual relations with other consenting members. They are a little more rough...don't stop when told...even act it out with someone who is willing. A great deal of it is mental.

As for you mwm, I have seen you say the exact same thing in another thread. But, it was closed and I accidentally found this one.

Do you know how genetics work. You sounded like you did. But oddly enough, you defied logic and went off on a wrong tangent. Let's do a little Punnet Square review

A = Brown hair (dominant)
a = Blonde hair (Recessive)

A A

a Aa Aa

a Aa Aa

All of the children of that couple would have brown hair.

A a

A AA Aa

a Aa aa


Three of these kids will have brown hair. One of them will have blonde hair. BUT two will carry the blonde hair gene. Do you see it, yet?

A a

a Aa aa

a Aa aa

Now, these parents had two blonde children. And they also had two kids with brown hair AND the blonde gene. Do you get it now?

"Now, OX, but these blonde kids can still reproduce. So your argument is moot."

And nine times out of ten, you would be absolutely friggin' correct. But today is not your lucky day, because I have not finished yet.

I point your attention to other hereditery things. Not eyes. Not skin color. Not build. Not even disposition to liking carrots...Diseases, disorders, and syndromes. How do people who have a debilitating genetic disease reproduce? (Such as Canavan disease, always fatal...) Ideally, they couldn't. And no I'm not saying that in a bad light. All things being normal, they will never impregnate someone because they either can't physiologically or physically. And they would normally die without leaving offspring. How would that inheireted disease get passed on? By offspring who has the recessive gene.

Run with me here. Another idealistic world situation. Say someone with one homosexual gene sleeps with someone else with just one homosexual gene. Or for your ideals these sinners hooked up with their hot oil rub downs and what nots in their den of iniquity and produced a Godless Heathen infant. Assuming these tree-hugging, free-spirit, free-sex, liberals don't abort the little tyke his Punnet Square would leave him a 25% chance of being a dirty sinful lil' homosexual sinner. Thus destroying your argument.

What are you scared of? Are you scared that one of your offspring might have a fancy to the same sex and that it might be from your own (impure?) seed?




posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Fear is an emotion. Here is our fear:

Acts 9:31
31 Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord.
NIV


Now by your bastardization of Medelian logic, 25% of you are gay. Is thats whats wrong with liberals?
I thought it was just emotions controlling your thought processes. Then again, and I generalize, gay men are pretty emotional.

Really are you claiming that 50% of human population has a recessive gay gene?



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
For Christ's sake, could you please stop bastardizing my posts. Look, all I was doing is explaining how these genes can pass on even with gays not being able to reproduce. And it was not a bastardization of Medelian Logic. I borrowed it to prove the point of how the recessive gene survives. I also brought in the point of the Canavan Disease. Highly Fatal and a recessive gene. If you happen to have the disease, you will probably never be able to spread your seed. But the disease lives on. Much like homosexuals who have both genes as gay. They don't get to spread along their genetic information. But homosexuality is still here. But that is only arguing the point of the potential of it being a gene. And yes, it can potentially be genetic. You cannot just do away with the theory like mwm tried to do.

Oh...haha funny guys. Let's make a crack about how the liberals are a quarter gay. Besides, I'm not even a liberal. And if I am, I am a very bad at being liberal.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I think I am getting it now. you claim gay is a recessive gene?



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
It's of my opinion that homosexuality is not completely genetic. What do I have as a basis of this opinion? Identical twins are genetically identical, in around 50% of the cases, if one identical twin is homosexual, the other one isn't. How can that be in two genetically identical individuals?

Through contradiction it's easy to see that if genetics are involved, then that isn't the complete story. Moreover, we have plenty of documentation of homosexuals arising out of heterosexual environments; if the environment is the only factor, then how do these black sheep turn up?

Thereby we are presented with a few options regarding the cause of homosexuality:

1. It is a mix of genetic and environmental factors.
2. It is a phenomenon that is generated in the womb in specific cases.
3. It is a choice.
4. It is some mix of the above 4.

As a fan of freewill and self determination, I do not buy into the notion that genetics creates you as a person, but rather your will creates who and what you are. Therefore, I think one's life choices will say a lot about their "desires" and/or subsequent lifestyles.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Good post radar...

Yes, I am stating that if there is a homosexual gene, it would be recessive. After all, if it wasn't, all homosexuals would be gone now...barring mutations. The only people who would reproduce in this scenario are those who have the two recessive, straight genes. Therefore, the gays would have died in the first generation.

Now to radar:

I tend to think more along your line of thinking. But, I had never heard of the identical twin thingy. I don't know what the cause of it is, but I cannot write it off genetic due to "well, gay people can't reproduce" logic.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Well thought out!

First, I do not believe and loving God would predispose anyone to be an abomination.

1 Tim 2:3-5
This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
NIV

Enough of my illogical faith.

I "THINK" that some men are born with higher levels of estrogen.

Those effeminate men are not likely to be welcomed by many shallow people. I definitely think few girls are sexually attracted to these "sissies" I do not call them such. Anyhow, since they are likely ostracized by their peers they are more susceptible to other gay people who befriend them. They tell them that no one likes them because they are gay. Maybe after some time of persecution, they actually come to believe that. I do know of some very effeminate men that are married with children and very heterosexual. Now for one of the ubolts in my belief. What about the macho wrestling types? I do not know. maybe they spend so much time in front of the mirror flexing that they develop an attraction for the male form? Maybe not.

On to women, I defer to anyone here. I can not understand women at all, hetero, homo or bi. They make no logical sense to me! I do love their form but their moods baffle me.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Ox,



52% of identical twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

Study: Bailey and Pillard (1991)



48% of identical twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual
16% of fraternal twins were likewise homosexual
6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual

Study: Bailey and Pillard (1993)

Ironically, one would expect adoptive brothers and sisters to be much lower than the studies suggest -- at least under 5%. It makes me wonder.

Reagan,

Wouldn't you be in moods too if you knew your sex's weakness of will threw mankind out of paradise?



[edit on 3-3-2005 by radardog]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
If a man drags a woman off the street into an alley, invades her genitallia with a knife, urinates on her with his own "sexual organ" then sets her on fire...is that proof of heterosexuality? And further proof that a heterosexual orientation leads to rape and abuse? Or just proof he's a sick SOB? I say the latter, as I believe such a thing as healthy heterosexuality exists.


Dear God man!!! What on earth do you have going on inside of that head of yours!??!
Anyway, I guess it would all depend on if he gets sexually arroused by what he does. Or in your terms, gets his "jollies" out of it. Does the study include whether or not these child molesters (Aka: Sick bastards) were getting arroused by it or not?



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Oxmank, yes you are correct in your limited analogy, however you and I both know that had you carries your experiment a few generations down the line, that recessve gene would have completely dissapeared as any time it was expressed would have meant a complete lack of procreation. Yes there are genetic diseases which reduce the chance of off spring, however they do not stop it from happening. For example someone who is born mentally retarded has a lower chance of producing offspring, but it still happens, children are born in group homes to two menatlly retarded parents all the time. Homosexuals however unless forced to breed never do.
Had you carried that experiment to 20-30 generations, that recessive gene would have dwindled and dissapeared.
Now I'm not saying thier might not be gentic factors which predispose peeople to homosexality, however just as someone with a gentic predisposition to good language skills will not always actually be good at learning languages, just because someone has a predsposition to homosexulty doesn't mean they are gay.
See the problem with genetic determinism is that it assumes humans are nothing more than machines who are incapable of making a choice.
By that logic the child of a criminal, (and I am sure you have seen the research that shows carreer criminals do have physiological differences with a gentic basis, specifically lower heart rate, and less sensitve flght or fight response) will always be a criminal. However what is interesting is that the exact same predisposition is prevelant in thrill seekers, ie skydivers, base jumpers, etc. The difference is how the individual chooses to express that predisposition. Do they get thier thrills, by breaking into someones home or jumping out of a plane?
By makng the argument that homosexuality is determined by genes, you are arguing that humans have no free wll, that we are nthing more than biological machines controlled by gentic predispositions and evolutionary adaptations.
I reject that.
I am far far more than the sum of my genes, More than the sum of my biological imperitives. Under the argument the "born Gay" crowd wants us to accept a human would be incapable of overcomming thier own basic animal fears and enter a burning building to save other humans they are not related too, someone with claustrophobia would be incapable of entering any enclosed space, yet these things happen all the time.
I have a choice do you?



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
mwm, again, I would like to point back to Canavan disease. Hereditery and, from what I read, always fatal. How does that carry on. (It is a disease amongst certain Jews.)

But also, what we are all forgetting, some homosexuals will sometimes have relations with a woman. And sometimes, they do have a kid.

But the main point of my post was to tell you not to write off the "gay gene" theory only because the gays could not procreate. Which is wrong...they can, and two there are ways for such genes to carry on. (Sperm donation...I know, such a little percentage, but it could happen.)

There are, I believe, many factors in what contributes to homosexuality. I think a predispostion to this is perfectly logical. No, I am not saying that all of them will in fact be gay. (Notice above, sometimes gay people will have kids.) But there is a flaw with just writing off the theory of the gay gene. There are things out there that point to a gay gene. Like, the gay voice. Now, not all gay people have this voice, but ONLY gay people have this voice. You cannot run away from your voice.

I believe, as stated above, that there is mixture of occurances that makes someone gay. Look at radardog's post...then mine right under it agreeing with him. I think it has something to do with environment and genetics. But I believe there is no choice in this. You don't choose who you love and who you are attracted to. YOU JUST ARE!

But ultimately, what you are missing is the point of writing off the genetic theory. You cannot by the logic you have presented. Now, if you are a genetic biologists who has been studying this, then maybe I would let this be valid. After all, you would be an expert. And then I would have questions. But since you aren't, I only offer reasons that you cannot just reject the notion of a gay gene.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   



Originally posted by Herman

Originally posted by RANT
If a man drags a woman off the street into an alley, invades her genitallia with a knife, urinates on her with his own "sexual organ" then sets her on fire...is that proof of heterosexuality? And further proof that a heterosexual orientation leads to rape and abuse? Or just proof he's a sick SOB? I say the latter, as I believe such a thing as healthy heterosexuality exists.


Dear God man!!! What on earth do you have going on inside of that head of yours!??!
Anyway, I guess it would all depend on if he gets sexually arroused by what he does. Or in your terms, gets his "jollies" out of it. Does the study include whether or not these child molesters (Aka: Sick bastards) were getting arroused by it or not?


And no. There's barely even a "study" to discuss. No sexual orientation recorded whatsoever.

The only responsible conclusions would could make from the cited documents are...

Foster children in Illionois are most at risk from physical abuse by Foster Mothers.* (more on this to come)

Children in Illionois are most at risk from sexual abuse by Foster Fathers (very few of which I doubt aren't married to woman by the way)

And then though the sub-grouping for analyses becomes perhaps too small for reliable projections this Cameron guy calculated that a third of the sexual abuse cases from Illionois (which may or may not include physical abuse, probably do though) were between same sex charges and Foster Parents.

That's seriously as far as one can possibly presume to go here. Any additional implications are 100% speculation.

There could have been homosexuals molesting members of the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals could have been molesting the same sex. Or for that matter, every single foster family in Illionois could consist of heterosexual married couples and straight single women, but abusers just happen to abuse whatever they've got...same sex or not.

*And this point of the overwhelming indications of physical abuse coming from Foster Mothers, does not mean women are more violent than men, though the lack of that similarly drawn conclusion by Cameron shows a glaring inherent bias and purpose of intent here.

What it probably means is the overwheming majority of these Illionois Foster households have a Female head present, whether single or married. In fact, despite the stated policy of not recording or discriminating based on sexual orientation, I'd wager upwards of 90 to 99% (seriously) of all these cases come from married heterosexual couples just knowing how Foster households tend to work and doubting any reason to believe anomonously large homosexual populations all signed up to be Foster parents in Illinois.


Cameron's selective "analysis" and WorldNetDaily's selective "hyping" aside, there's really nothing here remotely demonstrative of "homosexuality."

But what it does say about abusive men in general, I think we already knew. Males in general tend to be more sexually aggressive anyway not to mention violent, and the disturbed are most likely to link a form of sexual "dominance" in their violence. They invade, they humilate, they attempt to make everything they touch "the subordinate female" ... speaking specifically about those of improperly developed psyche.

And no, not healthy, well adjusted, adult homosexuals.
I'm talking about the maladjusted, insecure, little boy behavior that never leaves the violent homophobic adult male psyche of some. From calling everyone they see "fags" or giving wedgies in the playground in order to feel like big dominate heterosexuals
to what they do later in life like abusing little boys in their charge "for being sissies" or for that matter voting Republican.


It's all related.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANTor for that matter voting Republican.
It's all related.


Well I cant say you don't have a sense of humor for sure,


Ok then , lets suppose that there is a 'gay' gene, and note I say suppose.

How does that explain bi-sexuals? Do they only get half the gene? So Bi-sexuals are half gene mutants?



No it is a choice that they make, the bi-sexuals prove the point, they just love sex and no matter who or sometimes what its with. It is call deviant behavior....just as heterosexual pedophiles are deviant.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   
blah blah blah...we haven't even gone deeper into genetics. Do you still want go with this?

You and I both know, or at least should know, that there are other parts to genetics. It is not always "AA procreates with aa". But, you see, I had no idea you wanted another lesson. What would you like to know more about...incomplete dominance? A Red Snap Dragon's genes look like RR. The White Snap Dragon's looks a little like this: rr. What color of flowers do you think an Rr Snap Dragon is? Can you say pink? Would this pinky throw a wrench in your previous logic? It should.

There may be more than two alleles for any one trait. DID YOU FORGET ABOUT HAIR COLOR? What about blood type? There is more than two different blood types and hair colors. By your reasoning, there should be no chance for a red head in a blonde and brown hair world. You all are BASTARDIZING science way too much.

I know that prejudices will make logic go away, but for Christ's sake, give it a rest. You should know by now that you are wrong to immediatley dismiss the gay gene theory. So I beg you to let it die before I show you how wrong you truly are, okay?



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   

posted by RANTAnd no, not healthy, well adjusted, adult homosexuals.
I'm talking about the maladjusted, insecure, little boy behavior that never leaves the violent homophobic adult male psyche of some. From calling everyone they see "fags" or giving wedgies in the playground in order to feel like big dominate heterosexuals
to what they do later in life like abusing little boys in their charge "for being sissies" or for that matter voting Republican.


It's all related.


Ah-ha ah-ha......*Cough cough* *Crickets Chirp*.....anyone? Hello? Is this thing on?
.

So basically, the survey said that most of the child abuse is coming from homosexuals? Let me see:

About one-third were same-sex while estimates are that no more than 3 percent of people in the general population say they engage in homosexual acts.
.

So, if 1/3 are coming from homosexuals, then 2/3rds are coming from heterosexuals?? With only 3% of the population being homosexual, I can begin to see his point; however, aren't more than 3% of the people who adopt children homosexual, since it's really the only way they can have children?

As for the homosexuality being genetic thing: It really doesn't matter to me. I am a christian, so I do believe that homosexual acts are sin. Not any worse a sin than other things, but still a sin. It doesn't make a difference whether it's genetic or not, but that study they did on flies...aren't flies A-sexual anyway?

(Sorry for any gramatical or spelling errors. I'm tired and I have a muffled headache)

[edit on 5-3-2005 by Herman]



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Quite a lot of discussion here, and I'd like to add my opinion.
(brimstone735)
Dr. Cameron was not fired from the U of Nebraska, he resigned. He has had a couple of news outlets print retractions of that falsehood. He was not kicked out of anything for breaches of research conduct. If you have hard evidence of your statement, please provide it. (opinions of newmagazines are not evidence ) He has not called for the extermination of homosexuals. You are correct in that C. Everett Koop has made that claim, but there is no proof that his claim is true.


As far as we know, and the Human Genome Project has provided volumes of information, there is no "gay" gene. When one person interacts with another, it is a matter of choice and not genetics. Genes may cause disposition, but not action.
Homosexuals do reproduce sexually : a large percentage of homosexuals were molested as children. Not all become homosexual, but it is a factor.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
1. If Mods do not delete this sort of crap on sight ( unless posted in Chit Chat)
- sure, the decostruction of simpleton points is fun, much like throwing peanuts at monkeys, but really, it's just cruel after awhile, since the mokey always thinks it's gonna get a nut!

2. If used TP Sources get play - if they're "special" enough to not know the partisan crap sites they quote, and they're "special" enough to take "pride" over the "academic work" that "vindicates them" from the great "liberal POV"......then just please see #1 from a mercy killing perspective.

3. If some teflon isn't sprayed - as with all turds, they stick together! Gotta get the "non-stick" delete going before they start a "pile"!

As Always,
Praise Jayzus ( my personal Lord & Savior) & God Bless Amurica!



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
1. If Mods do not delete this sort of crap on sight ( unless posted in Chit Chat)
- sure, the decostruction of simpleton points is fun, much like throwing peanuts at monkeys, but really, it's just cruel after awhile, since the mokey always thinks it's gonna get a nut!

2. If used TP Sources get play - if they're "special" enough to not know the partisan crap sites they quote, and they're "special" enough to take "pride" over the "academic work" that "vindicates them" from the great "liberal POV"......then just please see #1 from a mercy killing perspective.

3. If some teflon isn't sprayed - as with all turds, they stick together! Gotta get the "non-stick" delete going before they start a "pile"!


But what are ya gonna do? :shk:

I tried to let it stay dead a month ago when after 20 some various posts attempting to clarify said "study" and the difference in same sex abuse and evidence of "homosexuality" we still get...


Originally posted by Herman
So basically, the survey said that most of the child abuse is coming from homosexuals?


No God damnit, for the last time, it didn't. But I felt more like ignoring this a month ago before "BigotBoy" (literally) joined just to bump this piece of crap to the top of sewer.

Jesus Tap Dancing Dumb as Rocks Christ. :shk:



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
My mistake. I thought there was a desire for fact to be discussed in these forums.
The analysis of the study did not claim that homos were responsible for most of the abuse. The conclusion was that they were disproportionately represented. And it is only one of many studies to come to the same conclusion. I know, I know.. any study that comes to that conclusion must be wrong.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigotboy
My mistake. I thought there was a desire for fact to be discussed in these forums.


Your mistakes are plenty bigotboy, most notably your choice in member name. But thinking this is a forum dedicated to facts isn't one one them. Though calling this a "study" as "analyzed" after the fact by an infamous preacher with an overt political agenda, then promoted by WorldNutDaily, then linked here by "ReagenWasOurGreatest" is one of your mistakes.


The analysis of the study did not claim that homos were responsible for most of the abuse. The conclusion was that they were disproportionately represented.


Here's the "study" again...

Knowing full well that "...according to a DCFS spokeswoman, the agency does not track the sexual orientation of prospective foster or adoptive parents... Cameron took another source where "...The Leader acquired information from DCFS through the Freedom of Information Act indicating most sexual abuse of children was by foster fathers, but that foster mothers were responsible for over three-fourths of physical abuse..." and decided (like you) there was disproportionate abuse by "Gays."

34% of 966 sexual abuse cases in one state being between same sex foster parents and charges doesn't mean anything. You don't know they were "Gay" or representative of any populations anymore than you do the Abu Gharib soldiers that shove broom handles up detainees rectums are gay or representative of all US soldiers.

Without prejudice, there's a 50/50 chance an abusive foster parent will "sexually" abuse same sex. There's only two genders. And abusers abuse what's convienent. If anything, only 34% being same sex says a charge is safer with the same sex foster parent than a "heterosexual" abuser, though the sexuality of the abuser is hardly known or even an issue to anyone but bigots.

The gender of the abusers might seem relevant though (if you'd like to talk about disproportionate representation). Males are more likely to sexually abuse while females were responsible for three forths of ALL physical abuse?

Why not make that the headline? It's "disproportionately representive" of the female population isn't it? And just as meaningless a finding as the secondary "conclusions" of your "study."


And it is only one of many studies to come to the same conclusion. I know, I know.. any study that comes to that conclusion must be wrong.


So where's your studies bigotboy? Where are they? Are they all just as bogus, bad political hatchet work as Kookey Camerons here?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join