Re: Bonnie Bitch Disputes Gay Priest Data -- More To Follow.


Bonnie Bitch wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2005 23:44:46 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
> Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
> opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Hugh
> Betcha" <gemond@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > Oh, well, it seems Bonnie Bitch has put me on notice, stalking me
> >around the usenet
>
> 1. Don't lie.
> 2. No one is stalking you.
> 3. "the usenet"? LOL
>
Relax.

> <snip whining about how Mary-Hugh didn't use scientific data>

I thought it was important to explain my previous attempt to bring
forward some clinical evidence on the issue. It's also important to
demonstate your uh... 'methodology' before we continue.

> >Psychologists, professors and newspapers aside, the first definitive
> >report on this issue was: "A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic
> >Church in the United States" the full text of which is available here:
> > http://www.usccb.org/nrb/nrbstudy/nrbreport.pdf
>
> And this biased, partial, and agenda-ized "study" made the same
> mistake that Mary-Hugh likes to make -- equating the behavior as proof
> of the orientation of the perpetrator.
> Despite the fact that Mary-Hugh has been presented with published,
> peer-reviewed, scientific evidence stating, in no uncertain terms,
> that behavior does not necessarily indicate orientation, Mary-Hugh
> still likes to make that assumption.
> Despite the fact that Mary-Hugh has been shown repeatedly the
> published, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that these same studies
> found no homosexuals among the ranks of sexual abusers of children,
> Mary-Hugh continues to bleat the same old tune -- behavior =
> orientation.

homosexual
(noun)
a person who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex and not to
people of the opposite sex
(adjective)
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same
sex.

Now, I may be a complete moron (as per Bonnie) but it seems to me that
a man who is attracted to teenage boys, whether he may molest them or
not, fits the definition. Pedophilia may very well be the domain of
straight men, but postpubescent teenage boys are not children; sexual
attraction to them is 'ephebophilia'; and like it or not, is a
completly different 'condition' altogether.

> Oh, and Mary-Hugh -- your "cite" is not published, peer-reviewed,
> scientific data. In fact, this pronouncement ignores the findings of
> the John Jay report, which is the closest thing your cult has to
> "impartial."
>
> >Yes, I know it was commissioned by the USCCB; but it was impartial.
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> That's like saying fish are impartial to water. LOL!
>
> <snip proof that the above pronouncement was not published,
> peer-reviewed, scientific literature>

Oh Bonnie, obviously you didn't read any of it. The methodology used
was detailed within the report. Judges, lawyers, psychologists... all
were chosen to ensure the impartiality of the report... you disparage
them all. However, it doesn't matter; I get the impression that if a
million lobotomized circus chimps hammered away at a million
typewriters for a million years and produced a report that declared
that all the sex-abuse cases in the Catholic Church were perpetrated by
straight men, you would gleefully announce it to be impressive,
accurate, peer-reviewed, scientific literature.

> >The second report: "The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse
> >of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States"
> >http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/
> >was carried out by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice,
> >http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/
> >
> >Both reports are extensive, and both note that a vast majority of the
> >abuse cases involved a gay priest and a teenage boy:
> >
> >"There are no doubt many outstanding priests of a homosexual
> >orientation who live chaste, celibate lives, but any evaluation of the
> >causes and context of the current crisis must be cognizant of the fact
> >that more than 80 percent of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual
> >nature."- Bennett
>
> That says nothing about the orientation of the abuser. Thank you for
> shooting your own argument in the foot.

Did you miss the "...of a homosexual orientation..." part?

> >"Of the 10,667 reported victims, 81 percent were male, and more than
> >three-quarters of the victims were postpubescent, meaning the abuse did
> >not meet the clinical definition of pedophilia." -John Jay report.
>
> That says nothing about the orientation of the abuser. Thank you for
> shooting your own argument in the foot.
> This one's especially good, in that it doesn't even say the abuse was
> homosexual.
> Do you people ever bother reading for comprehension?

Not so. Back in the other string, you stated that the majority of
pedophiles were heterosexual men. I won't bother disputing that,
because this report proves that the vast majority of sex abuse
incidents were not cases of pedophilia. It is up to you now to prove
that gay men do not sometimes 'suffer' from ephebophilia. Do that, and
maybe I'll doubt the accuracy of these reports; otherwise you're just
blowing hot air.

H.
--
"Why can't they have gay people in the army? Personally, I think they
are just afraid of a thousand guys with M-16s going, 'Who'd you call a
***?'"
-Jon Stewart

.