The Madness Continues--Canada Loses Its Bearings

[Brad]

Zoot:

The John Jay report says 80.9% of victims were male. This tells us little about the prevalence of abuse among gays unless we know the percent of all priests who were gay.
usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/incident3.pdf
*Table 4.3.1 *GENDER OF ALLEGED VICTIM

**Gender Count % of Total

**Male 8,499 80.9%

Female 2,004 19.1%

Transsexual 2 .0%

Total 10,505 100.0%

98.5% of surveys reported the gender of the alleged victim.

Pardon? Just in case you didn’t know, there are no female priests. The priest abuse scandal, along with seminary scandals not involving abuse, are a result of homosexuals and homosexual sympathesizers throughout the church in America. This has been well documented in several books.

 

[Zoot]

jlw:

That’s 102%, Zoot.

The fomatting is a problem. There is a space between the “2” and the “.0” in the transexual category. So that means there were two transexual victims which effectively represent 0% of the total population.

Check the link for a much better format. The format kept changing when I pasted from the Adobe document.

 

[Zoot]

Brad:

Pardon? Just in case you didn’t know, there are no female priests. The priest abuse scandal, along with seminary scandals not involving abuse, are a result of homosexuals and homosexual sympathesizers throughout the church in America. This has been well documented in several books.

If 80.9% of priests were gay, then there is no difference between prevelance among gays and straights. The 80.9% number tells us nothing about the prevelance of abuse by gays as opposed to straights unless we know the gay/straight breakdown.

 

[jlw]

Zoot:

If 80.9% of priests were gay, then there is no difference between prevelance among gays and straights. The 80.9% number tells us nothing about the prevelance of abuse by gays as opposed to straights unless we know the gay/straight breakdown.

Huh?? Three readings and I can’t understand the above post. Help.

 

[Bob_Baran]

Brad:

Pardon? Just in case you didn’t know, there are no female priests. The priest abuse scandal, along with seminary scandals not involving abuse, are a result of homosexuals and homosexual sympathesizers throughout the church in America. This has been well documented in several books.

I believe the report talks about victims gender not priests.

 

[Zoot]

jlw:

Huh?? Three readings and I can’t understand the above post. Help.

OK. Let’s assume gay priests only abuse males, and straight priests only abuse females.

Abuse rate among gay priests = (Male victims)/ (gay priests)

Abuse rate among straight priests = (Female victims)/ (straight priests)

We know the numerators. We don’t know the denominators. If we vary the denomonators, we vary the abuse rates.

So, knowing the number of male and female victime tells us nothing about the rate of abuse among either gay or straight priests.

 

[Brad]

Zoot:

If 80.9% of priests were gay, then there is no difference between prevelance among gays and straights. The 80.9% number tells us nothing about the prevelance of abuse by gays as opposed to straights unless we know the gay/straight breakdown.

If men had sexual acts with teenage boys, then these were homosexual acts. Conservatively speaking, 80.9% of such cases were men with males. That is homosexual activity.

It seems you are acting under the premise that people are born homosexual, and that somehow, someone born hetereosexual might decide to have a homosexual mental moment. However, there is zero scientific evidence that shows either.

The priest scandal was homosexual in nature. The amount of female child abuse, although wrong no matter what, was minute in comparison to kids in school settings.

 

[jlw]

Zoot:

OK. Let’s assume gay priests only abuse males, and straight priests only abuse females.

Abuse rate among gay priests = (Male victims)/ (gay priests)

Abuse rate among straight priests = (Female victims)/ (straight priests)

We know the numerators. We don’t know the denominators. If we vary the denomonators, we vary the abuse rates.

So, knowing the number of male and female victime tells us nothing about the rate of abuse among either gay or straight priests.

A couple of numbers have been thrown around here–80% or 90% of the priests aledgedly involved in abuse WERE GAY, right??

So the 80.9% male victim correletes somewhat with the 80% gay priest number does it not?? I’m missing something, right?

 

[Brad]

Zoot:

OK. Let’s assume gay priests only abuse males, and straight priests only abuse females.

Abuse rate among gay priests = (Male victims)/ (gay priests)

Abuse rate among straight priests = (Female victims)/ (straight priests)

We know the numerators. We don’t know the denominators. If we vary the denomonators, we vary the abuse rates.

So, knowing the number of male and female victime tells us nothing about the rate of abuse among either gay or straight priests.

Nope. Not playing that game. At least 80.9 percent of the cases of abuse were homosexual in nature and thus committed by “homosexuals.” Period.

 

[Brad]

We’ve been through this on previous threads. Undisputed scientifc data shows homosexuals, by nature, are multiple times more promiscuous than heterosexuals. To imply that homosexual priests (that enter a profession that contains close quarters with men predominantly and frequently) might be less promiscuous than heterosexual priests is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Brad]

jlw:

A couple of numbers have been thrown around here–80% or 90% of the priests aledgedly involved in abuse WERE GAY, right??

So the 80.9% male victim correletes somewhat with the 80% gay priest number does it not?? I’m missing something, right?

Zoot may be trying to make the outrageous case that the priesthood a) overwhelminlgy homosexual and b) a greater percentage of the homosexual priests are actually less predatory than the heterosexual priests.

In other words, a bunch of hooey.

 

[Zoot]

jlw:

A couple of numbers have been thrown around here–80% or 90% of the priests aledgedly involved in abuse WERE GAY, right??

So the 80.9% male victim correletes somewhat with the 80% gay priest number does it not?? I’m missing something, right?

I don’t think anyone knows what percentage of priests were gay.

However, taking the example, if 80.9% of all priests were gay, then 19.1% were straight. (These are only for example since I don’t know the percentage breakdown.)

Abuse rate among gay priests = (Male victims)/ (gay priests)
= 80.9%/80.9%
= 1

Abuse rate among straight priests = (Female victims)/ (str priests)
= 19.1%/19.1%
= 1

This would say the rate of abuse among gay priests is exactly the same as among straight priests.

Now let’s vary the breakdown. Let’s say 50% of priests were gay and 50% were straight. Now we have:

Abuse rate among gay priests = (Male victims)/ (gay priests)
= 80.9%/50%
= 1.168

Abuse rate among straight priests = (Female victims)/ (str priests)
= 19.1%/50%
= .38

Now we could say that the rate among gays is three times the rate among straights. It all depends on that unknown denominator.

Note: While I have used the label “abuse rate” it is not really accurate. To develop a rate, one would need the exact numbers, not the percentages.

 

[Zoot]

Brad:

If men had sexual acts with teenage boys, then these were homosexual acts. Conservatively speaking, 80.9% of such cases were men with males. That is homosexual activity.

It seems you are acting under the premise that people are born homosexual, and that somehow, someone born hetereosexual might decide to have a homosexual mental moment. However, there is zero scientific evidence that shows either.

The priest scandal was homosexual in nature. The amount of female child abuse, although wrong no matter what, was minute in comparison to kids in school settings.

This is a simple math question. The same principles apply regardless of the subject matter.

Is 19.1% minute in compasrion with 80.9%?

 

[Zoot]

Brad:

Nope. Not playing that game. At least 80.9 percent of the cases of abuse were homosexual in nature and thus committed by “homosexuals.” Period.

I agree. That’s why I say the gay abuse rate is

Male victims / gay priests

However, that tells us nothing about the prevelance of abuse among a gay population compared to a straight population.

 

[jlw]

Zoot:

This is a simple math question. The same principles apply regardless of the subject matter.

Is 19.1% minute in compasrion with 80.9%?

yeah…and??

 

[Zoot]

Brad:

We’ve been through this on previous threads. Undisputed scientifc data shows homosexuals, by nature, are multiple times more promiscuous than heterosexuals. To imply that homosexual priests (that enter a profession that contains close quarters with men predominantly and frequently) might be less promiscuous than heterosexual priests is intellectually dishonest.

The data is very disputed.

I imply nothing. I simply say that without knowing the percentage of all priests who are gay, and the percentage of all priests who are straight, we can say nothing about the prevelance of abuse among a gay population compared to a straight population.

This is simple math.

 

[Zoot]

Brad:

Zoot may be trying to make the outrageous case that the priesthood a) overwhelminlgy homosexual and b) a greater percentage of the homosexual priests are actually less predatory than the heterosexual priests.

In other words, a bunch of hooey.

I have made no claims about the distribution of gays and straights in the priesthood.

I do claim that simply knowing the sex of the victims tells us nothing about the prevelance of abuse among a gay population compared to a straight population.

Does anyone know the percentage of all priests who are gay? Straight?

 

[Zoot]

jlw:

yeah…and??

There really is no “and.”

The only point is that one cannot say abuse is more prevelant in the gay population as compared to the straight population unless one knows the breakdown of gays and straights in the total population.

 

[Brad]

Zoot:

The data is very disputed.

I imply nothing. I simply say that without knowing the percentage of all priests who are gay, and the percentage of all priests who are straight, we can say nothing about the prevelance of abuse among a gay population compared to a straight population.

This is simple math.

The data is very disputed by you. But it’s not disputed by the AIDS journal or any other scientific study of sexual behavior.

I refer back to post 31 in light of my maintaining that homosexuals are multiple times more promiscuous than heterosexuals (until scientific data is shown that proves otherwise, not data that tries to simply raise questions - anyone simpleton can produce that kind of data), it is simply not reasonable to think that heterosexual priests abused children at a higher rate than homosexual priests.

 

[jlw]

Zoot:

I have made no claims about the distribution of gays and straights in the priesthood.

I do claim that simply knowing the sex of the victims tells us nothing about the prevelance of abuse among a gay population compared to a straight population.

Does anyone know the percentage of all priests who are gay? Straight?

No, I don’t.

However,for the purpose of studying THE ACTUAL ALLEGED ABUSE, I don’t care about the numbers for the entire priesthood.

I only care about the priests INVOLVED in sexual abuse!!

8 out of 10 priests, who not only broke their vows of celabacy, but also acted out disordered sexuality by abusing minors WERE GAY.

That’s a big deal!