Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But for a teaser ... from the very opening, the author starts by linking "Antisemitism" and "Racism" and "anti-gay" to the centered attack on that piece by the FRC. Right there shows a very biased and fraudulent tactic employed so frequently by propagandists. It's a well established practice!
How is this biased and fraudulent?
Dr Herek states:
"Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.
In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children."
Are you trying to claim that anti-gay religious right groups HAVEN'T spread propaganda portraying gay people as a threat to children? Where have you been for the past 50 years?
I'm glad you linked to Dr Herek's Bio page on the University of California website:
Looking at his background, qualifications, experience and worldwide reputation, he should know a just a little more about prejudice and propaganda against gay people than you or I might.
The article entitled "Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation" authored by Gregory M. Herek PhD, is a response/rebuttal to an article entitled "Homosexuality and Child Abuse" authored by Timothy J. Daily published by the Family Research Council. The two articles can be found at these two links:
Dr. Daily can safely be described as a Christian Church activist/advocate who's article about "Homosexuality and Child Abuse" focused on highlighting links between homosexuality and child molestation, citing various "study data" to support his opinions which can be summarized as believing there are strong correlations between male homosexuality and child molestation, and that homosexual activists deny these links for political reasons. And in this sense, one could certainly say his views are religiously centered (biased if you insist), since his PhD is in religion.
I’m glad you admit that FRC’s Tim Dailey’s views are religiously biased and that his PhD is in Religion.
For credibility’s sake, we’ve had a look at Dr Greg Herek’s qualifications and experience:
“Gregory M. Herek is a Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis(UCD). He received his Ph.D. in social psychology from UCD in 1983, then was a postdoctoral fellow at Yale University. He subsequently served as a faculty member at Yale and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York before returning to UCD, first as a research psychologist and later as a tenured professor.”
Apart from having a PhD in Religion, and having written that unpublished opinion piece, what else has he written?
Millennial Deception: Angels, Aliens, and the Antichrist, Sep. 1995 Amazing Prophecies of the Bible: What the Bible Reveals, 1999 Mysteries of the Bible, Aug. 2006 Divine Healing: The power of Faith, 2000 Healing Through the Power of Prayer, 1997 The Gathering Storm, Apr. 1992 Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle, 2003
As well as working for the FRC (which merged with James's Dobson's Focus on the Family), he apparently worked as an editor for Chuck Colson's radio show "Breakpoint"
Dr. Herek's article "Facts about Homosexuality and Child Molestation" is a direct challenge to the former article which is cited in his piece.
Those on the left insist that Dr. Daily's article is a propaganda piece written by an anti-gay Christian motivated by his religious bigotry, while the piece written by Dr. Herek is an unbiased correction of false claims and misinterpreted study data which promotes anti-gay views. Of course, the left contends that Dr. Herek's position is totally unbiased, scientifically sound and supported by the facts, while Dr. Daily's is pure anti-gay rhetoric. Upon closer inspection, Dr. Herek is as far from being unbiased as one could possibly be ... with the reality showing him to be an extremist homosexual activist/advocate, as can be easily determined in his bio which can be reviewed here:
What’s all this nonsense about “those on the left”? I haven’t seen anyone in this thread make those claims about either Dr Herek or Tim Dailey. You’re making up strawman claims again.
However Dr Herek is extremely well qualified, and his arguments are supported by the facts (as we shall see soon). Thanks again for posting a link to his Bio.
As for bias, no doubt he does have ‘pro-gay’ bias towards exposing propaganda against gay people and is an advocate against prejudice. That’s his area of expertise. However calling him an ”extremist homosexual activist” is really over the top and just shows your own biases. Do you seriously think he would have the reputation he does if he was an ”extremist”? Do you think his expert witness testimony would be accepted in a court of law if he was some over the top extremist as you claim? Get a grip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
The facts are, Dr. Herek easily equals if not exceeds any bias that can be demonstrated regarding D. Daily's,
Let's focus attention on Dr. Herek and his "Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation" article.
He continues on, outlining the flaws in Dr. Daily's assessments of the subject data as a purposeful misrepresentation to advance his anti-gay agenda, and takes individual arguments presented in Dr. Daily's article, and rebuts them, one by one, adding his "Facts" to the conclusions (as exemplified in the title itself ... "Facts about .....". But are these really facts or just Dr. Herek's opinions and interpretations of the data, which is just as biased as he claims Dr. Daily is? Let's look at the evidence:
Well, yes. They ARE facts. As the studies themselves will show. But you have shown that you haven’t even read the original studies and articles yourself, so how would you know?
BTW, A. Nicholas Groth himself had something to say to Tim Dailey about misrepresenting his studies:
Groth writes:
“Since your report, in my view, misrepresents the facts of what we know about this matter from scientific investigation, and does not indicate that my studies on this topic reach conclusions diametrically opposed to yours, I would appreciate your removing any reference to my work in your paper lest it appear to the reader that my research supports your views.”
(Groth, A. Nicholas. Letter to Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D., Family Research Council. June 10, 2002. Included in the Human Rights Campaign’s press release dated June 14, 2002)
"Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.
Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them.
This is setting the stage for further delineations between Child Molesters and those who may have those feelings but don't act upon them, with a clear intention to desensitize and rehabilitate the negative views of those people attracted to children, including the inference that not all of them are actually children ...some are teenagers ... so I suppose it is OKAY for a 50 year old man to sodomize a 13 year old boy?
No, it’s ‘setting the stage’ for accuracy in using scientific/medical terminology.
You are deliberately ignoring the fact that infants (under 5), pre-pubescent children (under 11 or 12), pubescent young teens (13-15), and post-pubescent adolescents (15-19) are very different. Do you completely ignore correct terminology and call a 21 year old male attracted to an 17 year old female a pedophile?
And no it is NOT okay for a 50 year old man to sodomize a 13 year old boy - whether he is a fixated pedophile or a regressed homosexual or a regressed heterosexual child molestor.
It's getting late in Australia, so i'll be back to go through the rest of the quotes.
Please at least read up on some of the correct terminology - infantophile, pedophile, hebephile, ephebophile, and teleiophile, instead of calling things you don't understand "pseudoscience doubletalk".
The reality is that most gay men are fairly easy to identify because of their lack of masculine qualities and their obvious feminine aspects. With some exceptions, a gay male can be identified from a mile away, in an instant.
The reality is that intelligent people started realizing this was a lot of bilge by the 1960s. It's a self-confirming bias. If you see a masculine homosexual, you don't mentally tag them as homosexual, and unless they choose to strike up a conversation about their sexual tastes, they don't count. This is elementary common sense.
Please at least read up on some of the correct terminology - infantophile, pedophile, hebephile, ephebophile, and teleiophile, instead of calling things you don't understand "pseudoscience doubletalk".
He's not capable of doing so. We've been through this before.
"Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.
Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them.
These distinctions actually help clarify the discussion. Do you not see a difference between molesting a child and a teenager? Do you not also see the difference between being attracted to someone vs. actually raping them? GuyNTexas: When reading that quote, where do you get the sense that anyone is saying it's okay to rape a child/teen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
so I suppose it is OKAY for a 50 year old man to sodomize a 13 year old boy?
"Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups."
Yes yes, I know the SPLC is considered a 'liberal' group. However I don't think even you can claim that the FRC doesn't have a huge bias against gay people.
The FRC strenuously protested against this 'hate group' classification, but read what the SPLC has to say about their response as it gives an overview of the type of malicious propaganda the FRC has spread about gay people:
It doesn't surprise me that you'd cite the Southern Poverty Law Center as supporting you position. The SPLC is an abomination of leftist anti-American filth who make the ACLU look like ultra-conservatives. No matter what issue is before them, one can automatically take an opposing stance with full confidence that such opposition has an 99.9% chance of being correct.
In any case, once again you continue to use the diversion tactic, refocusing time and again on the "anti-gay" bias crap, in order to avoid addressing the issues presented.
I have thoroughly outlined the flaws in common sense and logic central to your position, and I have taken your side's arguments one by one, and exposed the slanted interpretations of data collected from FIXED studies that were designed from the outset to produce a predetermined outcome.
I consider your deliberate avoidance of addressing those issues as a confession that you are unable to argue them effectively.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No matter what issue is before them, one can automatically take an opposing stance with full confidence that such opposition has an 99.9% chance of being correct. 
