Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
England
The left and social liberals have blood on their hands.
They lowered this baby's chances, like they terminally cut off the life chances of millions of others.
Woke is alive and well
- Topic starter Spiderman
- Start date
The left and social liberals have blood on their hands.
They lowered this baby's chances, like they terminally cut off the life chances of millions of others.
CPFCSaturn
Member
- Country
-
England
Do you have blood on your hands for every abuse case involving heterosexual couples, or how does this work..?
Spindle
Member
- Country
-
England
No your lot do though what with all your pedestalising of women so they get to whine about anything and everything
CPFCSaturn
Member
- Country
-
England
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Obviously not as heterosexual couples having children is a natural process and a natural situation for a baby to be raised in......not something that the left/social liberals spent much capital and properganda getting the law changed on.
Those people are everyone who supports it has this child's blood on their hands.
The chance of it being killed would have been lower.
I would have ever allowed that chance to be increased.
CPFCSaturn
Member
- Country
-
England
Can you evidence that?
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Yes.
Evidenced from Grok.
Men who have sex with male children (including bisexual or non-exclusively homosexual men) show elevated representation in child sexual abuse data relative to their population share.
Key patterns from studies
- Victim gender ratios: Female children are victimized more often overall (~2:1 or higher ratio of girl to boy victims in many datasets). However, boys represent a substantial minority (often 20-40%) of CSA victims. Since gay/bisexual men comprise roughly 2-5% of the male population, this creates overrepresentation in male-on-male abuse cases relative to population base rates.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov - Freund et al. (1992) phallometric study: Among sex offenders against children, after adjusting for victim numbers and test sensitivity for true pedophilia, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was ~11:1. In the general population, the ratio of men primarily attracted to adult women vs. adult men is ~20:1. This implies a higher proportional rate of pedophilic interests among men with homosexual erotic development.
tandfonline.com - Abel et al. self-reports (non-incarcerated offenders): Homosexual pedophiles reported far more victims on average (150 boys) than heterosexual ones (20 girls). Bisexual offenders often showed the highest volumes. This highlights that offenders who target boys (regardless of adult self-ID) can be highly prolific.
psychiatryonline.org - Groth & Birnbaum (1978): In 175 convicted male child sex offenders, none were exclusively homosexual in their adult orientation. "Fixated" offenders (primary attraction to children) and "regressed" ones (adult heterosexual or bisexual who offend situationally) dominated. Many men who abused boys identified as heterosexual or bisexual in adult relationships (often married to women).
CPFCSaturn
Member
- Country
-
England
None of that evidences the claim that children are more at risk of abuse if they are adopted by a gay couple.
'More male victims amongst certain offenders' does not translate to 'gay men are more likely to abuse children'.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Yes it does.
You want to muddy the waters with word play when the reality is there in the statistics.
There is an unwillingness to speak plainly because liberals can't accept that different relationships come with different percentages of risks.
If you allow same sex adoption, you put....particular male children under an increased risk of abuse and as we see in this case it led to death.
CPFCSaturn
Member
- Country
-
England
The statistics don't at all prove what you're claiming they do - you're either being dishonest on that or you're failing to understand what Grok is showing you.
If the data genuinely showed that children raised by same sex couples had significantly higher abuse rates, you would be be citing studies on adoption outcomes and household abuse incidence... but you're not, you're citing studies about subsets of offenders and then applying them backwards.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
The chances of two homosexual males being attracted to a male child is higher than for a heterosexual couple. While this isn't an area many people are willing to research the evidence is there in indirect means.
Just like if had two heterosexual males raise a female child you would be raising the chance of one or...even more horribly both being attracted to that child.
It's horrible and a low percent but it's still logic.
The safest place for a child is with their mother and father.
You are in pure denial just as you have proven yourself hopelessly not objective and understanding common sense in the recent past.
You are the same guy who claimed a photo of Tyler Robinson copying a meme (not exclusive to any group) meant that he was far right. You were willing to come on here and make a claim like that....Yet amusingly argue that the evidence isn't here, when it suits you.
CPFCSaturn
Member
- Country
-
England
It’s not logical at all - Grok can explain it to you if you still don’t get it. You’re completely misrepresenting the data.
The fact you’ve AGAIN gone back to Kirk, and misrepresented another argument for good measure, speaks volumes - really poor form, and just fundamentally weak.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Oh really, not when you ask the correct questions.
Again from Grok:
The core evidence (Freund & Watson, 1992)This is one of the most cited exploratory studies using objective phallometric testing (penile arousal measurement):
- Offenders against female children vs. male children occur at roughly ~2:1.
- In the general male population, heterosexual (attracted to adult women) vs. homosexual (attracted to adult men) is roughly ~20:1.
- After adjusting for test sensitivity to detect "true" pedophiles (primary/preferred attraction to prepubescent children) and average victims per offender, they estimated the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles at approximately 11:1.
tandfonline.com
Similar patterns appear in Freund's earlier 1984 work and other phallometric analyses. Some reviews note homosexual pedophilia comprises 9–40% of pedophiles (higher than the ~2–5% adult homosexuality base rate).
CPFCSaturn
Member
- Country
-
England
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
In what sense am I misrepresenting you over Kirk? You did make that ridiculous argument, amongst others, as everyone who read that absolute dross saw.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
I directly presented the evidence to you of scientific testing proving the point. I'm talking percentages nothing more.
Denial of common sense.....ideology over pragmatism.
Common on the left.
CPFCSaturn
Member
- Country
-
England
Fine, AI can explain it to you - dishonest or dumb?
———-
The problem with this argument is that it quietly slides between three completely different categories as if they are interchangeable:
- adult sexual orientation
- sexual offending against children
- adoption outcomes
Those are not the same thing.
The Freund & Watson studies did not show that gay men are more likely to abuse children generally, nor that children raised by same-sex couples are at greater risk. They looked at a very specific forensic sample of convicted offenders using phallometric testing, then extrapolated speculative population ratios from that highly unusual group.
There are several major methodological problems with using this to argue against gay adoption:
- The studies are decades old and based on clinical/criminal samples, not representative populations.
- “Homosexual pedophilia” in these papers refers to offenders targeting male victims, not necessarily men who identify as gay or have adult same-sex relationships.
- Many offenders against boys are situational/opportunistic offenders (availability, access, power dynamics), not homosexually oriented men in the normal adult sense.
- Prison and forensic samples massively distort prevalence estimates because they only capture detected offenders.
- Even if a subgroup appears overrepresented among offenders against boys, that does not tell you the risk posed by stable same-sex adoptive couples.
Most importantly: if your claim is specifically about adoption policy, then the relevant evidence is outcome studies on children raised by same-sex parents. And the mainstream body of research has repeatedly found no elevated rates of abuse or worse developmental outcomes compared with heterosexual households.
There is also a glaring inconsistency in the logic being used here. The overwhelming majority of child sexual abuse is committed by men in ostensibly heterosexual contexts — biological fathers, stepfathers, mothers’ boyfriends, male relatives, clergy, coaches, etc. Nobody therefore concludes that heterosexuality itself is a risk factor disqualifying straight couples from parenting.
You cannot take:
“some offenders against boys are disproportionately male”
and transform it into:
“gay adoptive parents are dangerous.”
That leap is not supported by the evidence.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
No one said they were the same thing.
What they do in percent chances is effect each other.
If you have one set of convicted offenders who are straight and another set of convicted offenders who are homosexual it measured how attracted they would be to male and female children.
Your contention that gay men wouldn't be more attracted to male children at a higher rate than they would be attracted to female ones is.
Stupid.
Just as I recognise that the opposite would be true......As the study indeed found.
Your contention that because this was carried out on convicts that it has no relation to wider population is just a denial of reality.
None of that is evidence against the claim, it's all work around excuses trying to muddy the water.
I will look into that.
An incredibly dim point as heterosexual males out number homosexual on a scale of something like
20:1.
It about percentage risk elevation.
Yes it is.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
I looked into it.
it's important to counter Saturn's claim he makes in his reply.....or the AI he was using anyway.
He wrote, ' the relevant evidence is outcome studies on children raised by same-sex parents. And the mainstream body of research has repeatedly found no elevated rates of abuse or worse developmental outcomes compared with heterosexual households.'
In response I asked Grok about this with this question.
Is it true that relevant evidence in outcome studies on children raised by same-sex parents have repeatedly found no elevated rates of abuse and that the people conducting the research had no bias or selection issues.
No, this is not fully accurate. While many studies on children raised by same-sex parents report no elevated rates of abuse (or even lower in some cases), the body of evidence has recurring methodological limitations, selection issues, and researcher/advocacy biases that complicate strong claims of "no differences."
heritage.org
Studies claiming "no elevated abuse"
it's important to counter Saturn's claim he makes in his reply.....or the AI he was using anyway.
He wrote, ' the relevant evidence is outcome studies on children raised by same-sex parents. And the mainstream body of research has repeatedly found no elevated rates of abuse or worse developmental outcomes compared with heterosexual households.'
In response I asked Grok about this with this question.
Is it true that relevant evidence in outcome studies on children raised by same-sex parents have repeatedly found no elevated rates of abuse and that the people conducting the research had no bias or selection issues.
No, this is not fully accurate. While many studies on children raised by same-sex parents report no elevated rates of abuse (or even lower in some cases), the body of evidence has recurring methodological limitations, selection issues, and researcher/advocacy biases that complicate strong claims of "no differences."
heritage.org
Studies claiming "no elevated abuse"
- Longitudinal studies like the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) and various convenience or recruited samples often find comparable or lower physical/sexual abuse reports. For example, one report on adolescents in planned lesbian families found zero reports of physical or sexual victimization by parents/caregivers.
medscape.com - Reviews (e.g., Cornell "What We Know" project) summarize that most studies (often 70-75+) conclude children fare similarly on well-being measures, including maltreatment proxies.
whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu - Some clinical/hospital data (e.g., Jenny et al. 1994) show very low involvement of gay/lesbian-identified adults in identified CSA cases.
apa.org
- Convenience/snowball sampling and self-reports: Many early studies recruited via LGBT networks, advocacy groups, or high-SES lesbian mothers who volunteered. This introduces social desirability bias (parents underreporting problems) and selection bias toward stable, motivated, higher-income families. Random/population samples are rare due to the small population.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov - Small samples and low power: Many studies have <50-100 children in same-sex households, making it hard to detect rare events like severe abuse. They often rely on parental reports rather than child self-reports or official records.
heritage.org - Confounding factors: Studies frequently compare stable, planned same-sex families to general heterosexual ones without fully accounting for family transitions, prior instability, or pre-adoption risks in adoptive contexts. Critics note that "no difference" conclusions often come from studies designed to affirm similarity.
acpeds.org
- Regnerus (2012) and Sullins analyses (using Add Health, NHIS, etc.): Children with a parent who had same-sex relationships reported substantially higher rates of sexual abuse/touching by caregivers (e.g., 23% vs. 2% in some breakdowns for lesbian mothers; elevated forced sex reports). Emotional problems and other maltreatment indicators were also higher in some datasets.
documents.parliament.qld.gov.au - These used broader population samples but faced heavy criticism for including children from unstable/transitional families (not always "raised by" stable same-sex couples from birth). Defenders argue this reflects real-world patterns, as same-sex relationships historically showed higher instability.
thepublicdiscourse.com - Older forensic/custody studies (e.g., Cameron) and some meta-analyses also flagged disproportionate harms, though these are criticized for sampling biases in the opposite direction.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ASCPFC
Member
- Location
- Pro-Cathedral/caravan park
- Country
Ireland
UK slavery reparations must be top issue at Commonwealth summit, says campaigner
No thanks. We would all be due reparations for something. Suck it up.
No thanks. We would all be due reparations for something. Suck it up.