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.
Did you miss the part about the other 91.8% of reported rapes being heterosexual rape???? Looks like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunucu Beach
The report is based on actual sexual assault reports available from the Pentagon. According the the article, which cites factual reports and percentages, the author is concerned that if homosexuals in the military are allowed to be open about their preference 1) there will be an increase in homosexual assault (which accounted for 8.2% of the reported cases in 2009) and 2) homosexuals may become a "protected class" within the military.
I would bet the farm that few, if any, of those sexual assaults committed by gays were on other gays. Otherwise, why the need for assault? Just go somewhere and do it in private. I'm not saying that the author's fears are well founded--only that it seems to be a well-researched article based on actual facts.
What I actually missed is...whatever point you are trying to make.
92% of sexual assaults are NOT homosexual assaults. Which means they are most likely heterosexual assaults.
So, your claim is that homosexual males are sexually assaulting straight males because the straight males are not interested in having homosexual sex. If the straight males were interested in homosexual sex they would just have it instead of being assaulted. So there shouldn't be any heterosexual assaults because all the heterosexuals should just 'go somewhere and do it in private'? Why the need for heterosexual assault?
gays should have equal rights and its true gays are in the militery but dont admit it. they will just not hide it besides if they do there job well there should be no reason why they cant join
What I actually missed is...whatever point you are trying to make.
92% of sexual assaults are NOT homosexual assaults. Which means they are most likely heterosexual assaults.
So, your claim is that homosexual males are sexually assaulting straight males because the straight males are not interested in having homosexual sex. If the straight males were interested in homosexual sex they would just have it instead of being assaulted. So there shouldn't be any heterosexual assaults because all the heterosexuals should just 'go somewhere and do it in private'? Why the need for heterosexual assault?
Oy.....
1) I don't "claim" anything and I had no "point" to make. I read the article and was commenting on it, since I figured there would be plenty of people posting who did not read the article in full and would jump in with their own silly comments. (I was right about that.)
2) The article cites facts figures available on public records held by the Pentagon. There is a link in the article to the Pentagon report.
3) The assaults that were homosexual in nature were almost totally male-on-male. (A few female-on-female assaults were reported.) These were 8.2% of the reported assaults.
4) Presumably, the male-on-male assaults would be homosexual-on-straight and that's why it would get reported. If a male welcomes the advances of another male, just go somewhere and do it in private--no need for any assault to take place.
5) The heterosexual rape assaults were male-on-female. That's what takes these assaults out of the category of "homosexual assault" and puts it into the category of "heterosexual assault". These were 91.8% of the reported assaults.
Is it clear now? If not, read the article and click on the links provided to read the actual Pentagon report.
To address the question you asked--why the need for heterosexual assault? Why is there a "need" for any kind of sexual assault? It's something that just happens.
LoL, doesn't surprise me. Considering the FRC has been trying to make homosexuality illegal since 1980. Just because assaults are committed by people of the same gender doesn't correlate that the person committing them was gay. Considering the legal definition is any unwanted contact by anyone and any comments/harassment that are sexual in nature (which includes calling/taunting some one as a f@g).
It certainly doesn't mean all, or any, of the assaults were forcible rapes in either percentage. They imply it, and bring it as their conclusion that all the non straight crimes were, but provide nothing to break down what crimes made up their stat. Skewed propaganda reporting at its best.
SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.
MATTHEWS: So we should outlaw gay behavior.
SPRIGG: Yes.
--Feb 2, 2010.
They also hate birth control, gambling, pornography, evolution, taxes, big government (considering they want to legislate morality), and global warming.
LoL, doesn't surprise me. Considering the FRC has been trying to make homosexuality illegal since 1980. Just because assaults are committed by people of the same gender doesn't correlate that the person committing them was gay. Considering the legal definition is any unwanted contact by anyone and any comments/harassment that are sexual in nature (which includes calling/taunting some one as a f@g).
It certainly doesn't mean all, or any, of the assaults were forcible rapes in either percentage. They imply it, and bring it as their conclusion that all the non straight crimes were, but provide nothing to break down what crimes made up their stat. Skewed propaganda reporting at its best.
SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.
MATTHEWS: So we should outlaw gay behavior.
SPRIGG: Yes.
--Feb 2, 2010.
They also hate birth control, gambling, pornography, evolution, taxes, big government (considering they want to legislate morality), and global warming.
I agree. But their their main agenda appears to be anti-homosexual more than anything of the other areas. Sprigg also thinks all homosexuals should be expelled from the US and that homosexuality should be made illegal. And of course George "rentboy" Rekers was a board member of FRC until he had to resign a few weeks ago when he got caught taking a 10 day European trip with a young gay man hired from rentboy.com who gave him naked massages every day.
That "report" from Mr Sprogg, (sorry Sprigg) is so easy to debunk when you check the actual sources. As are ALL the "reports" by this fringe lobby group and it's sister groups like Family Research Institute, Traditional Values.org. Americans for Truth about Homoexuality and NARTH.
FRC had a "report" on their website for awhile by Timothy Dailey (degree in theology) which was incredibly skewed and completely misrepresented a number of studies. Dailey's main claim to fame was writing books on the Bible and an anecdotal book on the Dark side of homosexuality or some such rubbish. His report can still be found on anti-gay hate sites like traditionalvalues.org
I wish these people could be held accountable for their fear/hate mongering propaganda full of distortions and misinformation. But that's free-speech I guess.
Last edited by Ceist; 05-31-2010 at 03:19 AM..
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.
