Gentle readers,
This will be my last examination of Mr. Clowes’ anti-gay claims. It is my last - not because Clowes makes no further anti-gay claims in his article - but because I am bored of wading through this stuff. So far the article has not yielded a single shred of credible evidence against gay men. Nevertheless, let’s press on. Clowes writes:
“A study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that "... the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men ... the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality."
This was taken from a February 1989 study published in the Journal of Sex Research entitled: “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Erotic Age Preference” by Kurt Freund et al.
While the quote is taken from a legitimate peer reviewed journal, the quote is entirely out of context. We have seen this tactic employed by Mr. Clowes before, and there is little reason to believe the rest of his quotes are not equally flawed. In fact, the study itself states the following on its first page: “Homosexual males who preferred physically mature male partners, responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children.” Got that? Ordinary gay men were no more attracted to children than ordinary straight men. So why is Clowes trying to create the opposite impression in our minds? We cannot attribute Clowes’ tendency to misrepresent study findings as some basic defect in his reading comprehension abilities. After all, the man holds a PhD from a reputable school. Certainly one of the most economical explanations is that this is a deliberate tactic on Mr. Clowes' part. So who is Mr. Clowes? According to Human Life International’s website, he is a Director of that organization in charge of Training and Development Worldwide: http://www.hli.org/index.php/about/hli-experts/238?task=view And who is Human Life International? According to Wikipedia, “Human Life International is an American-based Roman Catholic activist pro-life organization.” Here is a senior officer of a Catholic organization and he is engaging in anti-gay propaganda. This is a clear cut case of propaganda, obviously designed to disparage an entire group of people in a way that is fundamentally wrong. One might even say that the “sin of calumny” is being committed by Mr. Clowes in the name of the pro-life movement and in the name of the RCC. This suggests a few questions for us to consider: Has the RCC publicly denounced this specific propaganda, or similar propaganda?
Has any Bishop of the Church EVER taken it upon himself to warn faithful Catholics about such “calumny”? If not, why not? The RCC is normally quick to denounce Catholic individuals and organizations which stray from the path of Catholic teaching (especially when it comes to Catholic politicians who dissent on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage). But where is the Church’s zeal when it comes to setting the record straight on anti-gay propaganda? Cheers…Martin
While the quote is taken from a legitimate peer reviewed journal, the quote is entirely out of context. We have seen this tactic employed by Mr. Clowes before, and there is little reason to believe the rest of his quotes are not equally flawed. In fact, the study itself states the following on its first page: “Homosexual males who preferred physically mature male partners, responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children.” Got that? Ordinary gay men were no more attracted to children than ordinary straight men. So why is Clowes trying to create the opposite impression in our minds? We cannot attribute Clowes’ tendency to misrepresent study findings as some basic defect in his reading comprehension abilities. After all, the man holds a PhD from a reputable school. Certainly one of the most economical explanations is that this is a deliberate tactic on Mr. Clowes' part. So who is Mr. Clowes? According to Human Life International’s website, he is a Director of that organization in charge of Training and Development Worldwide: http://www.hli.org/index.php/about/hli-experts/238?task=view And who is Human Life International? According to Wikipedia, “Human Life International is an American-based Roman Catholic activist pro-life organization.” Here is a senior officer of a Catholic organization and he is engaging in anti-gay propaganda. This is a clear cut case of propaganda, obviously designed to disparage an entire group of people in a way that is fundamentally wrong. One might even say that the “sin of calumny” is being committed by Mr. Clowes in the name of the pro-life movement and in the name of the RCC. This suggests a few questions for us to consider: Has the RCC publicly denounced this specific propaganda, or similar propaganda?
Has any Bishop of the Church EVER taken it upon himself to warn faithful Catholics about such “calumny”? If not, why not? The RCC is normally quick to denounce Catholic individuals and organizations which stray from the path of Catholic teaching (especially when it comes to Catholic politicians who dissent on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage). But where is the Church’s zeal when it comes to setting the record straight on anti-gay propaganda? Cheers…Martin
Hi Martin
ReplyDeleteI'm not following the logic of this argument here so maybe you can clear this up. I"ll use CAPS to differentiate my words from yours since it gets confusing who's saying what sometimes when your quoting.
Clowes writes: “A study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that "... the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men ... the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality." This was taken from a February 1989 study published in the Journal of Sex Research entitled: “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Erotic Age Preference” by Kurt Freund et al.
I'M WITH YOU SO FAR...
While the quote is taken from a legitimate peer reviewed journal, the quote is entirely out of context. We have seen this tactic employed by Mr. Clowes before, and there is little reason to believe the rest of his quotes are not equally flawed. In fact, the study itself states the following on its first page:
OK SO WHY IS IT OUT OF CONTEXT AND WHERE IS THE FLAWED LOGIC?
“Homosexual males who preferred physically mature male partners, responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children.” Got that? Ordinary gay men were no more attracted to children than ordinary straight men.
SO GAY AND STRAIGHT MALES THAT PREFER MATURE PARTNERS DON'T GET TURNED ON BY CHILDREN. THAT OUTCOME ISN'T SURPRISING SINCE THEY ARE CLEARLY CLASSIFIED AS MEN PREFERRING MATURE PARTNERS.
The logical equivalent to this argument would be claiming the proportion of men caught for impaired driving is substantially larger than the proportion of women caught for impaired.
But statistics show that men that don't drink alcohol drive drunk no more than women that don't drink. Therefore men are no more likely to drive drunk than women?
You also use the term "ordinary gay men". Is there an "unordinary gay man" and how do you determine which is which?
Cheers
Paul
On this point Paul, I will give you the benefit of the doubt because the use of the term “homosexual” and “heterosexual” can be confusing when used in conjunction with the term “pedophile”.
ReplyDeleteThere is no argument on my part that male pedophiles favour male children. Many studies have confirmed this fact. However, just because a male pedophile favours male children does not make them “homosexual” in their orientation.
Why? Because many of these male pedophiles identify as heterosexual, and in fact, are living in opposite sex marriages. Outwardly, they do not look anything like adult homosexuals living in same-sex relationships. These heterosexual looking pedophiles often favour male children.
My point is that Clowes is not accurately presenting the study findings. He is trying to create the impression that male pedophiles who are attracted to male children behave similarly to gay men who are attracted to adults. He is conflating the two populations.
The study clearly notes that adults who are attracted to adults (regardless of being homosexual or heterosexual) are equally attracted to children. Therefore, non-pedophile homosexual men are no different than non-pedophile heterosexual men. I am showing readers that the following conclusion drawn by Clowes was invalid, namely:
“…the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality.”
Pedophilia is not more closely linked to homosexuality, when we understand homosexuality to be a legitimately expressed same-sex attraction between two consenting adults. This is what I mean by “ordinary gay men”.
We both know the reason why Clowes uses this research in the way that he has. Clowes did not educate his audience about the nature of pedophilia, rather, he repeatedly linked pedophilia to “ordinary gay men”.
Remember, the gay rights movement is not interested in securing the rights of pedophiles. They are interested only in securing the rights of what I call “ordinary gay men”. To continually conflate and associate homosexuality with pedophilia is dishonest, and is in fact, a view that is not supported by any credible evidence or any credible psychological organization.
If you had read the earlier link that I provided to you back in November from the Mayo Clinic, you would have learned these basic facts about pedophilia.
So Paul…I repeat my question from the thread below: When you originally decided to use Clowes’ research in support of your claims, how did you account for his obvious misrepresentations of various study findings? Did you examine any of Clowes claims before you repeated them? How did you reconcile Clowes’ incredible (and non-credible) claims in the face of so much contrary evidence from reputable sources such as the Mayo Clinic and the American Psychological Association? Did you not think that Clowes’ incredible claims, that defied the repeated conclusions of recent courts and parliaments, deserved no further examination because Clowes supported your pre-existing views?
Or did you select Clowes’ article because it confirmed your anti-gay biases? Did you copy and paste it because it looked scientific and sounded authoritative? Did you think it made you look like less of a bigot because it gave you ready made scientific reasons to say the most vile things about gay parents?
In spite of your so called “love” and “friendship” towards gays, I actually think you demonstrate my point perfectly that many anti-gay bigots say they “love”, “respect” and befriend” gays, when in fact, this so-called “love”, “respect” and “friendship” is nothing more than a smokescreen to cover a very bigoted heart.
Cheers…Martin