Irish Marriage Equality Referendum Draws Near

[Ben Kenobi]

So children who are born out of wedlock don't have a mom?

No, they have a biological mother. Not sure how that applies to a lesbian adoption.

Please tell me which of the 'moms' is a mom.

[giblets]

They're both moms.

[Ben Kenobi]

They're both moms.

Does the child have a father?

[giblets]

No.

[grumbler]

You're gonna have to provide a [[citation needed]].

I've not seen you provide one, so didn't bother. Here's the John Jay http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-acti...-1950-2002.pdf study your link merely references.

http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp

So that's 3 percent of 4 percent of all priests were convicted. So around 1.2 tenths of a percent of all priests were convicted.

You are mixing your data now. Comparing accusations to accusations (which is the only data we have) it is 4% of priests to 0.15% of of Boy Scout leaders. In terms of actions taken, your own source says that "No action was taken against a priest in 10 percent of the allegations," meaning, of course, that action was taken against the other 90%, leaving 3.6% of priests sanctioned for sexual abuse. In the case of the Boy Scouts, 416 of the approximately one million scout leaders were sanctioned. That's, what, 0.04%?

Which confirms what I said:

Which blows what you said right out of the water.

You must learn to read and analyse before spouting what "statistics tell us."

Also, your statistics provided on spousal abuse among homosexuals and straights not only isn't about child abuse, but it shows that non-homosexual males are more likely to abuse their spouses than either homosexual males or females. If you really believed those statistics you threw out, and really believe that you need to provide the child with the option that best protects him or her from abuse, you'd insist that ONLY lesbian couples should be allowed to raise children!

But I suspect that you don't really believe what you claim to believe.

Oh, and everyone has a mother and a father. That's not a "right," it's a biological fact. You can hop off that hobby horse.

[grumbler]

Does the child have a father?

How could it be conceived without a father? This is kinda basic biology here.

[kentonio]

You might want a wakeup call from Londonistan.

Aww, it's so cute watching people who have never been to London talk about what London is like.

So Ben, could you just confirm for us by the way that you didn't run away to America leaving your family behind and then talk about how much you hated them? Because I'm fairly sure there's some evidence on the forum of you confirming exactly this.

[rah]

When has ben ever been interested in real evidence?

[loinburger]

BK: Homosexuals are more likely to abuse children
Everybody Else: Do you have any evidence for this?
BK: Here's a study that shows that homosexuals are less likely to abuse their spouses
Everybody Else: ...
BK: I rest my case
Everybody Else: But...
BK: I REST MY CASE

[Ben Kenobi]

No.

Bzzt, yes the child does have a father. Who's passed on.

How could it be conceived without a father? This is kinda basic biology here.

That's my line!

[Ben Kenobi]

I've not seen you provide one, so didn't bother

I already provided the John Jay.

And it doesn't support your conclusion. 4 percent of priests total were accused. 3 percent of 4 percent, roughly a tenth of a percent of all priests were convicted.

You are mixing your data now. Comparing accusations to accusations (which is the only data we have)

Nope. Sorry. We have actual convictions. And convictions are roughly on par with the scout leaders within a few hundredths of a percent. Just because people accuse Catholic priests more often doesn't mean that they are more likely to actually abuse someone. Accusations!=Convictions.

"No action was taken against a priest in 10 percent of the allegations," meaning, of course, that action was taken against the other 90%

Still doesn't mean they were convicted of a crime, Grumbler. Action can be taken to protect the priest from his accusers. Innocence until proven guilty.

416 of the approximately one million scout leaders were sanctioned. That's, what, 0.04%?

So what you're saying is that the Church is far more diligent in disciplining priests? Isn't that the opposite of what most actually believe?

Also, your statistics provided on spousal abuse among homosexuals and straights not only isn't about child abuse, but it shows that non-homosexual males are more likely to abuse their spouses

That's actually false. 46 percent of all gay men reported abuse within their relationships. Higher than any other number I'm not sure why people choose not to actually read what the study actually says rather than their preferred narrative.

Oh, and everyone has a mother and a father. That's not a "right," it's a biological fact. You can hop off that hobby horse.

Yes, but you believe that a person's sexual desires are more important than the child's right to have a mother and a father.

[grumbler]

I already provided the John Jay.

Actually, you didn't. I provided the John Jay study. You provided some link by some Catholic Church dude.

And it doesn't support your conclusion. 4 percent of priests total were accused. 3 percent of 4 percent, roughly a tenth of a percent of all priests were convicted.

And the Catholic Church paid millions and millions of dollars for their culpability in preventing more priests from being convicted. The Church itself took action against 90% of the accused, meaning 3.6% of priests, according to the Church, were guilty of sexual misconduct of some sort with minors. The fact that there were so few criminal convictions was the reason the Church had to pay so much compensation - Church officials were abetting the criminals.

Nope. Sorry. We have actual convictions. And convictions are roughly on par with the scout leaders within a few hundredths of a percent. Just because people accuse Catholic priests more often doesn't mean that they are more likely to actually abuse someone. Accusations!=Convictions.

Nope. You are not reading the actual John Jay report. That report had absolutely no information on Boy Scout leader convictions, nor has the Boy Scouts organization had to pay millions and millions of dollars in compensation for abetting sexual predators. The only direct comparison we have is the percentages of Catholic priests and Boy Scout leaders that were sanctioned by their organizations: 3.6% for priests, 0.04% for Boy Scout leaders. And that's from a study done for the US conference of bishops, so hardly likely to underplay Scout problems. Priests were 90 times as likely to be sexual predators. Those are the stats we have available (though they are not perfect).

Still doesn't mean they were convicted of a crime, Grumbler. Action can be taken to protect the priest from his accusers. Innocence until proven guilty.

We are not a court of law. We are a couple of guys looking at the data. The data we have says you are wrong.

So what you're saying is that the Church is far more diligent in disciplining priests? Isn't that the opposite of what most actually believe?

We don't know how relatively diligent the Church is at priests. We don't have another group of priests to compare the church's diligence to. We do know that the Catholic Church has paid enormous sums of money to compensate victims for its protection of child molesters.

That's actually false. 46 percent of all gay men reported abuse within their relationships. Higher than any other number I'm not sure why people choose not to actually read what the study actually says rather than their preferred narrative.

That's not what the numbers show. According to your Atlantic article, 43% of heterosexual women reported that they had been victims of abuse by their partners (men), while 40% of gay men reported the same (again, the perps here would be men). 46% of lesbian women reported having been with a violent partner, but it isn't clear in this case who the batterer was - in any case, the average for homosexual men and women turns out to be the same as the average for heterosexual women. You should read the stories you link, so you don't confuse the numbers.

Of course, these numbers are for partner abuse, so aren't relevant to arguments about child abuse.

Yes, but you believe that a person's sexual desires are more important than the child's right to have a mother and a father.

A child doesn't have a "right" to a mother and father, they just have a mother and father. So do dogs, and sheep, and birds, and fish. To argue that something has a "right" to something that it simply has by biological necessity is the height of absurdity.

Not to mention, of course, that your entire statement here is a strawman argument, for I have said nothing about sexual desires whatever. My arguments have had only to do with your bogus use of "statistics" that you don't even appear to understand.

[giblets]

Bzzt, yes the child does have a father. Who's passed on.

You're conflating biological origin with rearing. If a child gets adopted by a new father, that doesn't mean they now have two dads does it? If a child is raised by an adopted mother and father, that doesn't mean they have four parents does it?

[grumbler]

You're conflating biological origin with rearing. If a child gets adopted by a new father, that doesn't mean they now have two dads does it? If a child is raised by an adopted mother and father, that doesn't mean they have four parents does it?

Yep. There's even a term for this: foster parents. As far as the child is concerned, that's probably a distinction without a difference, I'll concede; ask a foster child who his or her father or mother is, and the response will almost always be the foster father or mother.

[Elok]

The problem is when you say that you oppose homosexual adoption because of concerns over child abuse, but then you refuse to apply the same standard to African-American adoptions - it's obvious that you don't really believe that abuse statistics should be used to collectively punish entire demographics, and so the argument is dishonest.

The problem is that he's attempting to justify an essentially virtue-ethics belief in utilitarian/consequentialist terms he doesn't really believe in himself. Catholicism doesn't believe homosexuality is wrong because of AIDS or child molesting or drag queens breaking their legs in high heels or whatever. Catholicism believes homosexuality is wrong because it has a vision of goodness as adhering to a certain mode of living, and that mode of living does not include same-sex relations. That is, gayness is bad in itself. This belief is impossible to argue; the form of virtue we should conform ourselves to is essentially mandated by divine fiat. So he tries to argue for it in terms of a non-Catholic moral standard. Which doesn't work, and reduces him to a punching bag, but he's got some sort of weird masochistic thing going on.