Clearly their are both heterosexul and homosexual pedophiles. The question is, does being homosexual mean you are more likely to be a pedophile than a heterosexual (per capita of course).

I'm sure a legitimate answer could be reach by conducting studies and analyzing data fairly, but I get the feeling the pro-gay groups would be out in force against you and your findings.

All studies are biased based on the ideology of their backers, but truth is truth. The best way to understand the truth is to expose it to multiple angles of perception. If there were new perspectives on the truth to be found in researching the behaviour of gays, these people (the "gay haters" if you will) would be all over them (I suspect).

Why shouldn't they? If they came out with a study saying that your demographic is more likely to beat puppies to death with baseball bats, wouldn't you feel somewhat irritated that your group was painted with this puppy-murdering label even if it's only 0.001% of you that kill puppies?

Even if we accept the dubious assessment that pedophiles who molest boys must be gay, even though most of them seem to be otherwise heterosexual (Not impossible of course, since gay people pretending to be heterosexual is not exactly unheard of.), the fact we then end up with - that gays are overrepresented among child molestors - does not prove anything meaningful. To show a real difference you either need to show that people who are and have been sine adolescense openly gay and live out their sexuality are still more likely than average to molest children, or you would need a control group of heterosexual men that has suppressed their sexuality because of societal norms.

(And of course even then, basing any decisions about a whole group on some fact like 0.08% rather than 0.05% are pedophiles, is probably not something you would have done if you didn't already have a personal bias against the group.)

Difficult area here. I'd prefer the government not tell me how I use the information I have, and if that leads me to discriminate, so be it.

An example. I want to test my future hires with a general intelligence test. I'm sure to get sued AND lose if I do this today. The government is insisting I toss out valuable information in pursuit of some insane egalitarian fantasy.

If I answer your last question honestly, I'll be banned, assuming it's not already too late. And that is a wonderful example of the corruption of the culture. Some issues are no longer viable.

ITD,

You're loading your language here in a very poor manner. There's a difference between a "protected class" and saying a people cannot discriminate according to a particular personal characteristic. As mosdef said, but that you neglected to address, people are not allowed to discriminate against people just for being white, nor are they allowed to discriminate against people just for being black. It would be just as wrong for someone not to hire me because I'm straight as it would be for someone not to hire someone because he or she was gay. Homosexuals aren't getting special treatment here. They're getting equal treatment. Calling them a "protected class" completely misrepresents what's going on.

I don't really see that in my area. I see government subsidizing post-secondary "education" where employment candidates are given rankings I can use as indicators as to who is smart or hard working or both. I've never heard of someone getting sued for requesting a university transcript with a job application.

I think that coming out and saying "the gays are secretly bad and are brainwashing people" and then refusing to expand on that when someone asks for more detail is more "bannable" than saying why you think that. There must be a "why", you can't possibly make such damning assertions based on your gut feelings (I assume).

Again, I'm not a lawyer but....

If I were to look into one of the large gay lobby's 'to do' list I'm certain that near the top would be to engineer getting sexual orientation written into every anti-discrimination law in the land, right next to race and gender. It's the universal trump card, opening successful litigation on any number of fronts.

Now as far as special treatment, try this one. Assume gays are universally protected from discrimination by law everywhere. I can still discriminate against smokers*, an unprotected class. How is that not special treatment? Is it OK because hatin on smokers is OK?

*Not a personal crusade. Smoke-free 18 years.

And...? I'm sure that was the original goal of the NAACP, too. And for Susan B. Anthony. Heaven forbid that some group wants to get rights for its members equal to those rights of the general population.

There are plenty of AC drones that can explain this better than I. You are interested in having the state force me act in a way that suits you, or the protected class. Since you ignored commenting on the second paragraph, I'll assume you're OK with hatin on smokers, discriminate at will, up against the wall you....OK, not that far, but....I can refure to hire them if that is my choice. But not so with gays, once they are protected. You see it as 'their right'. I see it as coercion at the point of a gun.

As I posted a few days ago, liberty or equality, choose one.

The sad part is that the biological mother of the foster children was a much better parent than the government. Maybe she should have been allowed to choose the parents. Nah, that's crazy.

Brown V. Board of Education must have really pissed you off. "That black protected class! Going to school and drinking out of the same water fountains as me! Its the end of liberty!"

I don't think All Men Were Created Equal was a typo ITD...

Consider the word homophobe. When did this nugget spring into existence? I'll guess that it was maybe 1990 +/- 5 years. But not until recently, say, the last several years, was it right up there with 'racist'. Today, it's a career killer in most white collar jobs, instant death in academia.

What does it take to accidently get labled a homophobe? Not too damn much if you're, for instance, researching pedophilia occurance in gays. Who would risk it? So the research will never happen. End of story.

The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study.

Note the date, 1991. Won't be digging into this one again. Also, who's gonna step up here: "Using phallometric test sensitivities..." Anyone? Bueller?

Was there anything else? How long did you spend finding this one?

The thought behind having laws that prohibit discrimination because of race, gender or sexual orientation is that these characteristics are not chosen. Smoking is quite different.

I just did a google search.

Most links seem to come from religious sites that I know people here would not respect.

Like this one - still an interesting read though

Surely you see just how dangerous this minute distinction could be. If I'm genetically predisposed to damn near anything, you'd have me believe I deserve state protection? Nightmarish. Also, once I smoke, I'm an addict, unable to help myself. No doubt you can see I need state protection. Now add in a thousand other congenital maladies and you're protecting everyone.

That was interesting. I wonder, if your goal was to spin the result exactly opposite of Cameron, would you be able to find a dozen studies that found no difference? Also, you'd need to find them dated 1990 or before to be fair.

Also, I forgot about these folks: NAMBLA

I certainly see how dangerous it can be. But certainly you see that you being "genetically predisposed to damn near anything" is also quite different. Gender, race and sexual orientation not being something you choose is only half the reasoning behind these laws obviously. The other half is that they imply no significant difference in the ability to do a good job. Note, for example, that it will generally be fine to not give someone a job because of ******ation.

I don't agree with discrimination laws. I don't like discrimination, but I don't think anyone should be forced to interact with anyone if they don't want to. That said, gender, race and sexual orientation have not been arbitrarily pulled out of a hat to be "the protected groups", while smokers and ******s just got unlucky.

Wrong.

He should already know that.

No.

I'll make this easy: at the very least, in order to get the answer he's looking for, you need to assume the average number of children molested by all four pedo combinations is the same, which - thanks to 1/3+ of the victims knowing their abusers - it assuredly isn't.

But I have the hat right here! You failed to pull out alcoholics, who's claim to genetic predisposition is, IMO, quite similar to that of gays. It's also a group that includes a few that are there by choice, also IMO, similar to gays.

The tide will be endless, and so again, I must lobby that fat middle-aged white guys deserve every possible protection from discrimination the law can afford. Have you no sense of decency, man?

How are smokers discriminated against? Are you just talking about smokers not being allowed to smoke in certain places, or are you saying that just being a smoker is a disadvantage in certain areas?