Reader comments · Christian doctor wants drug advisor job back · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Christian doctor wants drug advisor job back

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Oh no. Yet another self loathing Christian homo. What a jerk – a dangerous jerk.

    1. I don’t see how he is “dangerous.” A jerk, maybe.

      The fact that gay people deny that there is a drug problem in the gay community is even more dangerous, which in fact there is.

      1. Raabe is dangerous because his strong policy views arise from belief based opinion rather than from extensive relevant field work or from scholarly research, he has no special expertise and he is rubbish with evidence.

        1. Robert White 18 May 2011, 10:31am

          Worse, he advocates policy based on belief period. His opinion is based on his belief not the other way around as you state. The problem is that dogmatic beliefs are immune to reason. I have plenty of beliefs based on opinion, and if you can change my opinion the belief will shift along as well. Since dogma can not be shifted then clearly the dogmatist is not suitable for giving advice since that advice can not be based on or swayed by fact or practical circumstance.

      2. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 10:14am

        I’ve never come across anyone that denies that Some in the LGBT community have drug problems.
        That is from all walks of life, not exclusively to this community.
        However this doctors comments were wrong and discriminating.
        For him to be in any poisition of public authority would have been inflammatory, therefore he could not remain in that role.
        He is a nasty, dangerous man, no role should be given if there is to be influence.

        1. I know you want to brush off the drug problem in the gay community (which is my biggest concern) but the thing is that these puppets are do nothings. They are owed favors, so they get appointed to an obscure job that does nothing. And believe me, almost all the laws and regulations and programs that the government does are purely rubbish, if not down right illegal, with giving away of special perks to their friends in power, special rules for the political class while the rest of us are subjected to most oppressive ones. You have to look at the big picture if you want me to be concerned of a problem which you consider yourself to be “big.”

          1. Jock S. Trap 20 May 2011, 12:37pm

            You really don’t actually read other peoples comments do you?
            plus you seem to be in your own little world of paranoia.
            I guess you have your own little plan in the US, I’m guessing because you’ve been treated to your disliking by the Tea Party.
            In the UK I’ve never met anyone who denies there’s a problem with some in the LGBT community and there relying on drugs esp for recreational use.
            Seems we’re clearly more open minded and accepting here than where you are.

      3. Robert White 18 May 2011, 10:36am

        He is dangerous because he advocates positions based on personal and purely subjective “beliefs”. His opinions and input are therefore foregone conclusions. He is unsuited to the role because nothing he “reviews” will be reviewed on its merits, it will be a set theory operation. Each element either does or doesn’t match his dogma. His role on any sitting council could be performed by a placard. If he were walking around saying persons with Hansen’s disease must be shut away and shunned, based on his literal Christianity, would you think he was only a jerk and not dangerous?

        1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 12:20pm

          Totally agree Robert.

      4. Sorry guys, not convinced. Nice try. But most likely than not this guy is nothing but a government pygmy who was owed a favor. He was given a do nothing job with a title. He was going to use it as a stepping stone for more titles and privileges. Then this thing happen. They took it all away and now he is pissed and using the media to get attention and sympathy. Hope that sums it up.

      5. @Pepa

        What do you base your assertion “that the gay community deny there is a drug problem in the gay community” on?

        I see the exact opposite – a deep acknowledgement within the LGBT communities that within some sections of LGBT communities there is a deep seated drug problem … But the argument is much more sophisticated – some have a problem with drugs and some use drugs with no impact on their own or others lives … It is important we act to support those who fall into the former category …

  2. His belief in the malevolent, sky fairy makes him unsuitable for this position.

    His belief in ‘god’ can be classified as a mental illness.

    People with impaired judgement are not suitable for these types of jobs.

    1. connor wallace 17 May 2011, 10:23pm

      It’s not his belief in God that makes him unsuitable you pathetic athiest fool. It’s his completely backward, and dangerous views on gay people.

      1. Robert White 18 May 2011, 10:45am

        It is “his belief in god” that makes him unsuitable. This is not to say _any_ belief in _any_ god makes _anyone_ unsuitable. He as made specific representations as to “his belief” that demonstrate his unsuitability. Plenty of people believe in plenty of things that _don’t_ make them unsuitable for their roles. Unfortunately an unwavering belief in the god of Abraham as rein-visioned by whoever filled his mind with selective interpretations of a particular book, have ruined the man for any purpose that allows him dominion over other peoples lives. The fact that its selective as heck when it comes to Leviticus etc just means that _nobody_ can guess where he draws the line on selling his daughters or driving out persons made “unclean” by Hansen’s disease. In short his “completely backward views” are most certainly _not_ limited to the single topic of gay people. No bigots are that single-topic.

    2. His belief in ‘god’ can be classified as a mental illness.”
      And the APA DSM review that specifies such mental illness is…?

      Crap. No wonder the majority of the human race, disapprove of gay people. I guess Einstein was a mental patient according to David as he used to math to try and figure out “how God’s mind works.”

      1. Pepa, Einstein was not a believer in god. The expression “how gods mind works” was a reference to nature, not a physical entity/deity. In fact, its been shown that most scientists are agnostic or atheist – religion is the domain of those who prefer answers handed to them.

      2. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 10:18am

        “No wonder the majority of the human race, disapprove of gay people.”
        I think that comment actually says more about you.
        Religion is the biggest problem with regards to hate and discrimination in this world.
        Through it wars have started and excuses made for rapes, murders, torture, starvation, homophobia etc
        That such people have such vile minds suggests that the problem is indeed a mental one.
        If we are hated for saying so then I guess truth hurts.

        1. “I think that comment actually says more about you.”
          Nope that is the reality of facts. The majority of the population of this world do not approve of gay people, about 2/3 of the world’s population live in countries where there is no protection for gay people and where discrimination, imprisonment, and murder of gay people are not only acceptable but encouraged.
          Do your research instead of trying to decipherer my intentions.

          1. Jock S. Trap 20 May 2011, 12:45pm

            And all in the name of religion.
            So therefore it’s quite understandable to think these people have mental health issues.
            To openly call for the death of another human being as it throwing away thrash.
            There is nothing humane about calling for an innocent person to be murdered and you standing up for those types doesn’t make you any better.
            At least we have a legitimate reason to dislike after all we’re not the ones doing the murdering.

          2. @Pepa

            Ah but whilst you are factual in saying that many countries afford no protection for gay people and that there is discrimination and imprisonment etc …. that does not mean that the people of those countries agree with those regimes …

            Many recent polls in the USA have cited that a majority of respondents support gay marriage – yet it remains illegal … A majority of people in anonymous surveys in an international survey recently supported LGBT rights regardless of the nation they identified in being from

            Do your research rather than jumping to conclusions?


          3. Do your research rather than jumping to conclusions?
            Polls are merely opinions NOT LAW. So yes, I have done my research which centers around results rather than intent. I remember that we were told that Prop 8 would not pass because it didn’t have much support in the polls… well we all know what happened in the end. People always have opinions doesn’t mean they will act on them, and if they do not, that means that they are not genuine and that they only said what they said on the poll due to peer pressure or lied because of other factors.

          4. @Pepa

            However, you presume that every country acts in a similar way – many of these countries with law which is discrimantory have a population yearning for equality and fairer treatment not just in terms ofr LGBT issues but also in terms of gender, age, race, religion, voting rights etc – its is not a fair translation to say that because a country has a law that is anti-gay that the entire population is anti gay or even the majority is – thats facile and unsustainable

      3. Robert White 18 May 2011, 10:55am

        Not to pick nits, but the APA DSM would classify religion as mental illness if the DSM didn’t have a whole bunch of exceptions for things like religion. For instance hearing voices is “excepted” if the subject “believes in telepathy”. If I were to never mention the God of Abraham and went on to describe a subject ritual cannibalism, symbolic fetishism, convinced that his life is being controlled by an all powerful and unseen force who he must appease and seek guidance from, a fascination with death particularly death by torture, etc you would find the DSM quite telling. If I remeoved “god” and replaced “hostess snack cake” as his central figure dictating right and wrong then what? (I don’t actually claim religion is “wrong”, but I have yet to see any evidence that it is correct that isn’t circular or indistinguishable from “sugar pill” or random chance.) It does all seem “pretty wacky” though.

        1. but the APA DSM would classify religion as mental illness if the DSM didn’t have a whole bunch of exceptions for things like religion.
          Well thats because there is a reason for that, much like there is a reason why homosexuality is no longer classified as a mental illness. Rather gay people can live healthy lives even with this aberrant orientation and so is true for those who are religious, they live healthy and full lives even with their aberrant beliefs. Psychologists look on how such things affect the individual. Being gay is natural and healthy, and I agree with that. And believing in a higher power is also natural and healthy, and I believe in that as well.

          1. Robert White 25 May 2011, 1:46am

            Please prove the word “aberrant”. First being gay was “unnatural” because “it didn’t happen in nature” but of course it does happen in nature just nobody with religious mania wanted to admit it.

            Being gay isn’t on the mean, nor centered in the average, it is even “marginal” statistically, but nothing demonstrates it to be “aberrant”.

            So “believing in a higher power” is as natural as believing in the flat earth and the turtles that support it. Belief is natural, but forcing those beliefs on others, or requiring others to subscribe to those beliefs as being “the only truth” is a mental disease.

            The poison is in the dosage, and the mania is in the unreason. If your belief denies fact, or incites you to violence, it is diseased. It doesn’t matter what you believe in once you have crossed the line into mania.

            Being sexually attracted to someone, and the genders of the people involved are all verifiable fact. The god of abrahm has no such factual basis. Religion just got their first.

  3. When a so-called drug “expert” is equating drug abuse to homosexuality he invites people to question his credibility. That he wants to be paid/recognised as a government sponsored advisor means that his credibility should be beyond question. That he does not recognise this means that he is an ignorant moron with a broad streak of arrogance and a complete lack of suitability for the role. Perhaps he should sit down, shut up, and not remind other future employers that he is a contemptible arse.

    1. Well said, VALKSY. Hetero quacks are arlways quick to point to non-existent connections of homosexuality to murder, paedophilia, etc. and yet most of these problems stems almost entirely from HETEROSEXUAL men! Hypocrites.

      1. @Nikko

        Not all Heterosexual doctors are homophobic or bigoted … or Christian ….

        1. Paddyswurds 16 May 2011, 6:04pm

          ….Quite a few of them also belong to other Abrahamic fiction cults like Islam or Judaeism. Then there are the ones who adhere to Sikhism, Hinduism Janeism and various other pixie in the sky fictions and almost all are rabidly anti gay. What is it with these nutjobs that they are so obsessed with what other people do in the privacy of their own homes and bedrooms.???

          1. @Paddyswurds

            and there are plenty heterosexual doctors of no faith who regard equality as important

            there are also heterosexual doctors of faith who believe in equality for all their patients

          2. While that is true Stu, it does not detract form this particular individual who lets his medical training be so blatantly overridden by his faith and bigotry….. not a doctor I want advising anyone on medical areas. He’s in the wrong profession.

          3. @Will

            I agree entirely with your comments, I was merely seeking to be rational about some of the comments by Nikko and Paddyswurds which could be taken as suggesting that all heterosexual doctors are always either bigoted, religious or both …. just simply not true …

            As for this particular doctor – heterosexual (I suspect), religious – oh yes, bigoted – very much so …. My choice of GP – er no thank you …. Would I trust him to give unbiased clinical guidance – not one jot ….

          4. Paddyswurds 18 May 2011, 12:37am

            ……If you take time to read my post properly rather than scanning it Stu, i think that you will see i said “quite a few” and “then there are the ones” which can hardly be construed that i mean all. Neither was i concerned with their sexual preference, but rather their adherence to Abrahamic fiction cults and other such cults. Following on from that it naturally follows that those of no faith would most likely be non homophobic. However any doctors of faith who claim to be non homophobic are not to be trusted as one can hardly be in two camps at the same time and be true to either, don’t you agree?

          5. @Paddyswurds ….

            I did read your comment in detail and did not scan it.

            Your comments are always worth commenting on because they are so opinionated and arrogant

            You may have stated “quite a few” but then linked it to “then there are” and linking the entire thread together with your comments made i clear to my perception that you were attacking all heterosexual doctors as being homophobic

          6. As a gay man with a number of Hindu and Sikh friends I would dispute that. They know I am gay and they dont care.

          7. Thank you Shatpang

    2. Jock S. Trap 17 May 2011, 10:22am

      Good point, however the government advisor wasn’t and isn’t a paid position.

      1. Robert White 18 May 2011, 11:01am

        It pays in ego and transfer of credibility. And even unpaid, it give the individual political clout to put medicine in _your_ body or prevent same.

        Before you are allowed to whisper in the kings ear, you should have to prove that your words have value, and if your words are proved lacking, then you should be banished from court.

        Just because the cash doesn’t come from the government coffers does not mean the position does not pay. Its a fine distinction, but gold is crossing palms here somewhere else there wouldn’t now be a legal action.

        1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 12:22pm

          Fair point.
          Though I don’t think him not working in this post really is as great a loss and he is making out.

          1. Robert White 18 May 2011, 8:10pm

            It is something close to his only opportunity to shape political discourse and social policy. That is _huge_ to that sort of person. Plus “random guy” doesn’t garner speaking fees anywhere in the same neighborhood as “government advisor” etc, and “stripped of position as government advisor for being biased and unreliable” is a good notch down from “random guy” in most circles. You can bet dollars to donuts that getting ousted will hit him in the wallet big-time.

    3. Jock S. Trap 17 May 2011, 10:23am

      Sorry should have added…
      Therefore as an unpaid position the person taking the post should be unbias in any every way.

    4. When a so-called drug “expert” is equating drug abuse to homosexuality he invites people to question his credibility.

      And what about those who deny that there is drug problem in the community… are those people more credible? Or maybe because most gay sex activists want to hush up this issue?

      1. those who deny that there is drug problem in the community
        Who denies that some, even many, gay men have drug-addiction problems?

        1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 10:24am

          That is my question too Rehan.
          I have Never met anyone who denies that there are Some, repeat, Some in the LGBT community who have problems with drugs.
          So who are you pepa on about?
          Now barring in mind you in the US and we’re in the UK with a story about the UK who are you on about?
          Who have You heard denying this?

          1. Okay, jock we have been through this again.
            Yes I am in the US. So what? Many Brits comment on US gay sites. I have no problem with that. But we must also bare in mind that this site also posts A LOT of gay US news. Now I know how much you want me of this site, and yes I been banned by many sites for saying things that gay web masters did not like. This is why the claim by many on the right that gays are fascists is quite appropriate. Fascists censor and bully people. And yes I have met many gay activists who fit that description quite nicely.
            And to answer you question who are the deniers.. all of you are. Rather you like him or hate him the guy did make a point, gay people are more susceptible to drug abuse and instead the gay activists on this thread sing a different tune. That is a clear sign of denial.

          2. pepa, your comments are just as welcome as anyone else’s and I think the mix of nationalities posting here is a very good thing. But you sometimes give the impression of pronouncing rather than putting your opinion which might explain any hostile comments towards you maybe.
            I read your earlier comments on this thread as a misunderstanding/mis-focus. You were going on about people denying the drug problems amongst gay people, but no-one had been doing that, and that wasn’t the focus of this story. It felt like you’d come in at a late stage and had only got half the story, to me at least.
            But the things that most rubs people up the wrong way is your insistence that we’re all ‘lefties’ etc etc and anyone who raises a polite point of disagreement with you is wrong/socialist/etc.
            Perhaps stop making inaccurate assumptions, moderate your anger and your comments will be taken more seriously? That’s not meant to be rude to you.

          3. Jock S. Trap 20 May 2011, 1:09pm

            I don’t think anyone has even suggested or wish you ‘off this site’ if your reading this I again question your paranoia.
            this isn’t about banning people doesn’t matter where they are if they are contributing why should they be banned.
            Only if they are grossly offensive should they be removed but anyway…
            You still accuse people of being in denial yet in this country I haven’t heard any of it.
            The doctor did not make a point without trying to smear all and paint the LGBT community is a negative light.
            The problem he talked off is not isolated to the LGBT community.
            Yes there is a problem with some but go to any Straight club and you’ll see just the same.
            May I point out the very sad fact that most cases of death via drugs on recreational use in the UK has been young heterosexual women.
            The last was via ketamine.

          4. Jock S. Trap 20 May 2011, 1:13pm

            Nobody underestimates the problems with Crystal Meth whcih I know the US has a serious problem and I myself have lost several friends to the drug.
            By lost I don’t me death I mean there habit.
            I think what is happening here is your supporting a Christian doctor trying to smear all the community as dirty drug addicts but you’re the one in complete denial because you won’t see that this is not an exclusive problem to this community.
            We are however an easy target to all those who which to continue to pan us and brand us immoral.
            It’s a case of seeing reality not bigotry.

          5. Not all gay people have a drug problem …

            To suggest so is irresponsible and inaccurate and demonstrates a bigoted and blinkered viewpoint

            That is not to deny that many gay people do have a drug problem

          6. You ask me where is the denial? Here it is:
            “The problem he talked off is not isolated to the LGBT community.
            Yes there is a problem with some but go to any Straight club and you’ll see just the same.

            Like I have said in the past, almost every gay man I met in the past was into some form of drugs (poppers, 420, lcd, cocaine and meth). My ex grew marijuan in my yard even though I wwas really opposed to it, then finally I got rid of him (for this and many other reasons). My disappointment is how many gay people like yourself seem to brush it off, and assume that it is no bigger than straights using drugs. That could not be further from the truth. It is the permissive attitude that I am referring to that the gay community feeds on in order to continue its drug induced state.

          7. pepa, that comment about straight people in clubs using drugs is not a denial that some gay people might use them too – surely it’s just demonstrating that anyone can use drugs and the sensible thing is to keep that in mind. Granted I’ve got more straight friends than gay ones, but the only drug users amongst my friends are the straight ones. HOWEVER, that does NOT mean that I dispute or deny that in SOME gay circles amongst SOME gay people there’s a drugs problem. I think the worry is Raabe misrepresenting facts to promote a potentially homophobic view. If he has such an agenda, that could blind him.
            Now, clearly, your friends show a different result – but, again, that means that there can be drug problems amongst any groups of people, and that one’s sexuality doesn’t preclude one from using drugs. I’d say it was more environment/experience, wouldn’t you?
            But people’s problem with Raabe was that he quoted a crappy study about gay people being more likely to be paedophiles.

          8. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 11:55am

            “almost every gay man I met in the past was into some form of drugs”
            I think, pepa, that says more about the company you keep and has nothing to do with anybody being in denial.
            Or maybe the problem in the US is much more serious than here in the UK.

          9. @Pepa

            I can’t argue with your experience of all the gay men you have met having tried substances of one sort or another. What I can say is that it is not representative of the experience I have, nor of many of my other friends. I know many of my gay friends and acquaintances have used substances – but equally many have not and some are vociferously anti-drugs. Equally some of my straight friends are prodrug and some anti-drug.
            Until you have some evidence or you know every single gay person and their narcotic habits personally – that is merely your experience and not a reason to judge the global gay communities as being rife with a drug problem. There is one – and most reasonable gay people are not in denial of this.

      2. You are coming acvross as so very angry pepa.

        1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 2:44pm

          Just a tad.

        2. Coming across as angry and antagonistic and blaming everyone who is gay for some reason – be worthwhile lying down on a couch and telling a psychologist about your past to try and evaluate what makes you feel so angry

          1. Okay. LOL. Angry? Antagonistic? So that means that a whole lot of gay activists would have to join in the therapy as well. Oops LOL. O_o

          2. @Pepa

            Not every gay activist – some are cool, laid back and relaxed about others who have differing opinions …

            Maybe you haven’t met them or maybe your anger and antagonistic attitude blinded you to their reasonableness?

        3. Coming across? Meaning it is your opinion. No, I’m not angry. Not as angry as some of you (calling christians mental patients etc). Its funny that you want to accuse me of anger yet almost every thread on Pinknews is filled with it. Maybe you might call that “justified anger.” Or “having a fire in your belly.”
          With me, you confuse anger with independent thinking (maybe its because anger is all you gay sex activists know). You see I do not drink the gay mafia’s kool-aid and regurgitate a script, I speak for myself and not on behalf on anybody else. I am stern and to the point, and I do not believe everything the gay masters of the corporate elite tell me. So maybe you confuse anger with passion for truth. But if you really want to see anger check out the other commenters on this thread, you wont be disappointed.

          1. Then maybe it’s the way you write that comes across as angry, pepa? As I’ve said, I’ve enjoyed discussions with you in the past about the role of government, etc, but sometimes I feel your angry and scornful. I also (as you’ve probably noticed! :D ) get annoyed at you assuming my political preferences, and that of all other posters here. I know there are sometimes anti-American comments on PN and that’s wrong, but you writing we’re all lefties in Europe and that we want to euthanise the old, etc etc is just as wrong. We’re not and we don’t.

          2. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 12:07pm

            Yet most of your “independant thinking” (personally I would call it paranoia) has dictated what everyone else thinks even though you have no idea or simply don’t want to read to find out.

          3. @Pepa

            Strange that you use the phrase independent thinking – when clearly you voice opinions that deem any varying opinion to be wrong and damaging – hardly the open minded independent thinking that I have experienced …. dangerous rhetoric is what I would describe it as

  4. HelenWilson 16 May 2011, 5:29pm

    It says in the bible all governments are established by god. So it seems to me if Mr Rabies accepts the teaching of his bible he would recognise it was his god who sacked him, as he/she controls the government and its actions. So Mr Rabies is really suing his own god, using the logic of Christian scripture he is required by faith to believe is infallible…..Its quite theological pickle Mr Rabies has gotten himself into.

  5. At the time of his sacking the Home Office explained it to the BBC with the following quote:

    “failure to disclose a report which he co-authored which links homosexuality to paedophilia raises concerns over his credibility to provide balanced advice on drug misuse issues and impacts on the smooth-running of the ACMD.”

    Given this was the justification, I am not sure why he has instructed human rights lawyers or how he feels he can justify regaining his position – he did not disclose the report to the government, other members of the committee are uncomfortable with his views on homosexuality and paedophilia and he arguably misled the government by not advising of this report which could be seen as inflammatory

  6. Even if he were right that 20-33% of paedophilia crimes are homosexual in nature, what does that say for the remaining 66-80% that aren’t? Why single out gays when the majority of paedophilia offences commited not just here or in America for example, are mostly oriented towards heterosexuals? He should therefore allude to their aberrant behaviour equally based on their heterosexual orientation. While I’m at it, is heterosexuality is so normal, why is the overhwelmingly vast majority of violent crime in any country committed by heterosexuals? Why is the prison system filled with a large number of heterosexuals compared to the numbers of gay people which has nothing to do with the fact that they are the majority?

    1. “Even if he were right that 20-33% of paedophilia crimes are homosexual in nature, what does that say for the remaining 66-80% that aren’t?”

      If it were true, that means we have a big problem as gay people only make up 2-3% of the population. This disproportionate means that there are more pedophiles who are gay than straight per capita, stated differently, the chances are 10x more likely that a gay person would be a pedophile than a straight person.

      1. Paddyswurds 18 May 2011, 12:52am

        Gay people make up 10 to 12% percent of the worlds population according to Kinsey and Johnston and even tho that was determined almost 40 years ago there is no reason to suppose it has decreased as your figures seem to suggest or indeed that it has increased but is roughly static with an error quoitent of plus or minus .2%. Statistics also suggest that 98% of paedophilia is carried out in the home environment by fathers, brothers and to some extent mothers, which would seem to suggest a much greater incidence of hetrosexual paedophilia than gay paedophilia. Statistics recorded by police in most western countries confirms that this is the case. For your stats to be right it would mean that gay paedophilia is rarely reported, as the weighty end of reported paedophilia is in fact against hetrosexuals. Would you care to explian this disproportion?

        1. Well first you are citing a flawed study… Kinsey used male prisoners to conduct his famous survey. Unless of course you want to establish that all gay men are prisoners or that “10%-12%” of the prison population has engaged in homosexual activity, thats it. Sometimes it is worth wild to check those studies being that they have been around for more than 40 years.
          Oh and by the way, pedophiles use the Kinsey report to justify their abuse, by saying that children as young as newborns have orgasms and are “sexual.” Kinsey even stated that five year olds have orgasms every hour. Now come on… Can you actually believe that? Kinsey is notorious for flawed methodology in collecting this data. (using prisoners, pedophiles, etc)

        2. Even boxturtlebulletin had to let that cat out of the bag on this one:
          “Kinsey’s homosexual sample provides another illustration of the problems in Kinsey’s dataset. Because of the difficulty in finding homosexuals in the repressive atmosphere the time, Dr. Kinsey relied on interviews with members of homophile groups such as the Mattachine Society and homosexual communities in a few large cities. He also interviewed prisoners and institutional populations.

      2. You are quoting faulty research figures, inaccurate definitions of sexual orientation and coming to erronoeous conclusions.

      3. @pepa.
        .”The Universityof California’s psychology department does a very good “facts about homosexuality and child molestation” section, and I’ve taken the following from there. First, the idea of “homosexual [or heterosexual] paedophiles” is not really an accepted one in psychological circles: “many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.”
        (Tom Chivers, The Telegraph)

        1. Excellent quote, Pavlos. That’s the whole point about paedophiles – the gender of their victim is largely irrelevant as pre-pubescent children share the same ‘attractive’ characteristics. It is that ‘childness’ that appeals to them not the gender of their victim.

        2. The thing is that the jury is still out on this one. However I am more convinced that rather having a pedophile problem we have a “chicken hawk” problem where gay men prey on young gay teens and abuse them and/or exploit them or even is some cases pimp them out to other chicken hawks. This is based on my own observations and of doing my own research on the subject. I tend to believe that the pedophile rate between gay and straight is the same, but it hasn’t been proven fully well. My point in the beginning was that if you depend on faulty numbers then you are able to get faulty results that end up making the gay community looking bad.

          1. Did you do a lot of field work pepa? I’m interested in how did you identified the chickenhawks and got to know them to do your research.
            It must have been really difficult to collect accurate data.
            Are you a professional in this field pepa?

          2. @Pepa

            Strange now that someone comes back to you on your paedophile comments with a reasoned and respected opinion that you suddenly refer to personal observation and self research …. back tracking?

          3. Again, this is based on my personal observation. Many people do it on here as well.

          4. @Pepa

            However, on this particular issue immediately prior you were using hard evidence rather than soft opinion – but when that evidence was challenged you changed the emphasis of your direction of thought and moved to softer opinion based argument.

            Seems to demonstrate an attitude of denial – evidence challenged, most of us would reflect on that and consider whether we needed to reflect on our opinions and moderate them – you inside slightly change emphasis and seek weaker softer evidence that is unchallengeable because it is based on personal observation but equally due to the softer nature of the evidence – the opinion and personal observation is of little, if any, real evidential value.

  7. Typographical error in my last post, I meant …”if heterosexuality is so nomarl…”

  8. “normal”, sorry.

  9. johnny33308 16 May 2011, 7:52pm

    What movement to make pedophilia legal? Who would join such a movement? Certainly not gay men; we like other men. Personally I find children very annoying and avoid them. I’m tired of the Chrisitnas making up stories about gay people. They need to mind their own business. Many of them appear to be mentally ill and say outrageous things. They have no business in a secular society, or civil rights issues. Many of them seem to be quite evil, in fact. Wouldn’t it be lovely if most of them just disappeared?

    1. What movement to make pedophilia legal?”
      This one:
      “The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) was formed in 1978. It was inspired by the success of a campaign based in Boston’s gay community to defend against a local witchhunt.”

      1. Paddyswurds 18 May 2011, 1:05am

        … the NAMBlA was, and what still remains of it, a hetrosexual construct and was firmly rejected by the Boston Gay Community of which I was part at the time.In fact the Gay community went to court to be disassociated from this nefarious group.
        Your attempt to lay this odious group at the GBL door exposes your agenda as an extreme homophobic Abrahamic cultist.

        1. Your attempt to lay this odious group at the GBL door exposes your agenda as an extreme homophobic Abrahamic cultist.
          And that is according to what? The commenter asked if there was a movement to make pedophilia legal and yes THERE IS. Your frustrations are correct but should not be directed at me. I am simply pointing out what is out there. And there is no need to come out and attack people with childish name calling. There is no need for that unless you are a sophmore who needs education in how to communicate properly.
          But just to let you know, the late gay activist Harry Hay supported and defended NAMBLA as well as other gay activists who venerate him (including safe school czar Kevin Jennings), so going after is of no use and is completely futile.

          1. pepa, “The article (Raabe’s) also goes on about links between “the gay movement” and NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association (a real thing, weirdly), but only mentions one quote from the NAMBLA chief to support that claim – who, presumably, was trying to align his horrible group with gay-rights activism to give it an air of respectability. It also quotes a political scientist claiming that paedophile groups were once allied with the gay and lesbian movement. None of this supports in the slightest the claim that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles.”
            (Tom Chivers, The Telegraph)

          2. “But just to let you know, the late gay activist Harry Hay supported and defended NAMBLA as well as other gay activists who venerate him”

            Hitler was christian – ergo all christians are potential murderers and jew haters. The fallacy of the small sample to prove the whole.

        2. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 10:30am

          Actually pepa recently resign from the Tea Party (only over cuts mind) this year so I think that pretty much answer any questions.

      2. NAMBLA chief was attempting to align his horrible group with gay-rights activism to give it an air of respectability.

        1. Absolutely Pavlos

          The background of NAMBLA was originally found in a extremist pseudo – Christian fundamentalist cult

          Boston and other US LGBT groups repeatedly condemned the NAMBLA

          1. @ Stu,
            I will then ask the following: and your observations are based on personal or professional ones? I have made several personal observations myself, so not saying that its not bad… just wondering how you come up with this observation? I will also ask you what Pavlos asked me (and one you seemed to jump on as well):
            “Did you do a lot of field work pepa [stu]? I’m interested in how did you identified the chickenhawks [christian fundamentalist cult] and got to know them to do your research.
            It must have been really difficult to collect accurate data.
            Are you a professional in this field pepa [stu]?

          2. @Pepa

            I suggest you read the book “I know my first name is Steven” by Mike Echells who was abused by many in the NAMBLA movement and cites personal experience of fundamentalist Christianity being prevalent in many in the group.

        2. The thing is that it wasn’t just the NAMBLA chief.

          1. What thing is … who else was it? That did what?

  10. Not one person here sympatises that this man is without a job now. ou all seem to go on about being humane, but you all are full of spiteful glee, because he critised homosexuality, not homosexuals. Ye are all thinking thru yer knobs

    1. Yeah, Ronnie, that’s it, we are all spiteful becuase some christian bigot chucked out half his brain and college education in lieu of discrimination and a intellectually debase religion, and now has a boo-hoo becuase he isn’t suitable for the job. Grow up, you fool.

    2. Maybe he should, you know, apply for a job he’s actually qualified for instead of bitching about being sacked from one for which he isn’t.

      1. Jock S. Trap 17 May 2011, 10:39am

        Excellent point, Rachel.

    3. “Ye are all thinking thru yer knobs”

      Nice comment, by the way Ronnie. A typically uncouth and vulgar remark as I would expect from one like you who thinks everyone is as sexually preoccupied as you are. Take you head out of the bible for five minutes and get the counselling you clearly need.

    4. Jock S. Trap 17 May 2011, 10:37am

      Actually we’re not thinking thru our knobs but you are talking out of your arse.
      This man lost his job which was an unpaid position so please explain exactly what he is loosing out on?
      Also “because he critised homosexuality, not homosexuals”
      Erm… Seriously?

    5. Fcuk off ronnie you’re a cnut

    6. Ronnie, he’s without a job because he withheld information from his employer. His actions led to his sacking.

    7. Ronnie, when you use rather “Crude language”, and over sexualised imagery, it is quite clear that the only person being spiteful is your self. Ronnie would you be able to use reiterate this type of language on the Christian Institue website on facebook, without being censored and banned.

      I think not!!!

      1. Ronnie, when you use rather “Crude language”, and over sexualised imagery, it is quite clear that the only person being spiteful is your self.”
        Clearly he isn’t the only one, I mean just take a look at this thread alone… If you are not going to condemn those on your side of the debate for doing the same thing then your condemnation only seems to be one-sided.

        1. Well pepa, did anyone else here use crass and sexually obsessed language? No. Just Ronnie. And you supporting him. Go figure.

          1. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 10:31am

            Exactly Will.

          2. Yes there were two comments that made references to semen and ejaculation. Clearly violating the rules of Pinknews. Thy were reported and such comments have been removed.

    8. No, he is part of a network with many connections to the political class. He can easily find another do nothing job anytime he wants. He is doing this for publicity and the gay mafia is doing its best to ensure such publicity.
      Quite frankly he blames gay people for drug abuse (though there is a drug problem in the gay community) because more likely than not he does not want people to know that the US/UK governments are the biggest importers of cocaine from Afghanistan, and that the US government is operating drug cartels in Mexico. Nope, not a word. Real criminals will always distract us and makes us blame others (like gays). Though there is a drug problem in the community, I do not blame gay people entirely.

      1. Cheers for the stunning “factual” blogs there, pepa, I always use blogs as my paper of record for sourcing facts. We won’t even try address the silliness of the “gay mafia” comment.

        1. It is blog of a former government employee. You can chose to accept it or not. That is your choice. But at least a provide that choice and not ridicule those with different views. But to me you are more about attacking me than it is about the references cited. Again people can chose to believe what they want to believe. Its called freedom. You should try it sometime.

          1. “Its called freedom. You should try it sometime.”

            Yawn. Typical American bullsh!t rhetoric. There’s a more obvious explanation for your acceptance of this conspiracy gay mafia nonsense:- you have mild schizophrenia.

          2. Jock S. Trap 21 May 2011, 10:36am

            Here! Here! Will.

          3. @Will,
            Okay… lol. So then anybody else that posts links to professional blogs should be ignored from now on? That would include all references made in the past by many of you who also used blogs (including Pinknews) and must therefore be rejected.
            Though what is hilarious is the following:
            Yawn. Typical American bullsh!t rhetoric. Even though I am the “angry one.” LOL. Yes freedom, that seven letter word many gay activists despised and something Her Majesty’s Royal surfs of England do not know anything about.

      2. The biggest importers of cocaine from Afghanistan? Goodness, the Afghans must be diverisfying impressively!

          1. You might want to inform the Afghan people of this novel and scintillating fact. Alternatively, you might want to look up the difference between cocaine and heroin.

          2. Jock S. Trap 21 May 2011, 10:37am

            Good call Rehan!
            Seems someone doesn’t do research.

    9. Paddyswurds 18 May 2011, 1:14am

      ……..This creep is without a job because he concealed information he knew to be inflamatory and injurious to a section of the British population and deserves no better. In fact had the law been carried through to it’s intended conclusion he would ideally have spent time at Her Majestys pleasure as his application and appointment was fradulent. He should count himself lucky he didn’t become some lifers b!tch in Strangeways. How do you seperate homosexuality and homosexuals by the way. Are you saying that because of how we were born we should not have the right to the pursuit of happiness and a fulfilled sexual life?. How very “christian” of you.

    10. Ronnie, the invitation to sit on the government drugs advisoty panel would usually be for a period of three years, it is an unpaid position not a regular wage paying job.

  11. Raabes case is being funded by the Christian Institute, an extremist Christian activist group who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and who want Christian law to dictate civil law in the UK and ultimately the country to be run as a Christian theocracy.
    They are Christian reconstructivists or dominionist’s obssessively anti-gay and against gay rights, against marriage equality, against sex outside of marriage, against womens choice regarding abortion, against Islam.
    A Home Office spokesman said: “Dr Raabe’s failure to disclose a controversial report that he had co-authored which, among other things, links homosexuality to paedophilia, raised concerns over his credibility to provide balanced advice on drug misuse issues.”

    In other words it seems Raabe was economical with the truth and attempted to conceal his unscientific tendency to misrepresent research results so that they appear to support his evangelical bias or prejudice rather than objective reality.

    1. What was it Nick Clegg said; “Britain must be more robust in defending our liberal culture”

      Well this is Crunch Time, Nick!

    2. Who on earth funds the Chrisitian Inst, they seem to specialise in cases that don’t have any way of winning like this one. I guess it’s more about publicity to promote their wacko Chrisitan fundametelism rather than winning

      1. The taxpayer partly funds the Christian Institute: it’s a registered charity.

        Yeah, I know.

        1. Jock S. Trap 17 May 2011, 5:20pm

          Proof then that we need to separate State and Religion and stop funding bigotted organisations.

    3. against sex outside of marriage, against womens choice regarding abortion, against Islam.
      And we as gay people must side with you on these issues because…?
      Sex outside of marriage is contrary to what marriage actually is, even gay marriage proponents agree with me on this.
      Abortion has also killed many gay fetuses and the community is being deprived of fresh new gay people from coming into being.
      And Islam… well… Islamists either execute gay people or shun them.
      You seem to be more concerned about protecting adultery, homophobic islamists and killing babies than you are about gay people’s natural rights. Typical leftist.

      1. Sex outside of marriage is contrary to what marriage actually is, even gay marriage proponents agree with me on this.
        You must know some remarkably immature people then, with little idea of what marriage meant historically (one rule for men, another for women) or what it means to many adults today.

        1. Not sure what this supposed to mean. Please specify. I am guessing you really think that sex outside of marriage is okay. Well in that case why even marry? Just have sex. In fact the majority of gay men have that kind of lifestyle. Sex is more important than love to these gay men. Which is why later in life they live very lonely live full of regret and fear of getting old.

          1. What preposterous generalisations. Marriage is a tribal and economical contract for the vast majority of the world’s population, and was even more so in the past. You must live in a Disneyland bubble if you imagine that everlasting, sexually-exclusive romantic love – or even erotomania – is, or has ever been, the principal impulse behind marriage.

          2. @ Rehan,

            So again, you are opposed to marriage then? If you do not want to wake up with the same person everyday and have sex with the same person every night then why even marry them? It doesn’t make sense… This is the type of thinking that has lead to many destructive behavior and loveless lives. My assertions that gay people oppose marriage and monogamy seem to be coming true.

          3. @ pepa: not in the slightest, I believe if people want to marry, whether for love or to be recognised as legal next-of-kin or for inheritance/tax purposes or companionship or any combination of the above, then it’s their choice and they should be able to do so. Sexual exclusivity is for couples to decide for themselves.
            And while your circle of gay friends is clearly different, the majority of gay men I know in London are in CPs, which rather undermines your assertion that [all?] gay people “oppose marrige”.

      2. I cite those things he is set against because they align perfectly with the Christian Fundamentalist’s program of action, I intend to impress upon you that he is an extremist Christian zealot and a member of a Christian reconstructivist group who claim belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.and who use lobbying and litigation in an attempt to incorporate Biblical law into our civil law.

        1. Robert White 18 May 2011, 11:04am

          Yep, get them lepers to follow behind the hoard Josiah, they are unclean… plus how much again for my daughter… no wait, we have to stone her now because she don’t wanna be a slave…

          Leviticus Forever!

        2. @ Pavlos,
          I’m not impressed with your dither. Nor am I impressed with the fact that you don’t care about the basic tenets of marriage: commitment, relationship, sexual monogamy etc…

          1. Totally wrong there pepa, I have been in a long-time monogamous, committed relationship with my partner and I don’t think we should be excluded from civil marriage because of a bumper sticker slogan that says marriage is between one man and one woman.
            I think civil marriage is a wonderful institution for opposite couples and for same sex couples, I want to have access to it. and to be able to say I am married andto be able to introduce my partner as my spouse after all these years together.
            You are the one dithering on.

          2. @ pepa: I understand you’re from the US – do your own nation’s divorce statistics not suggest that the ideals (rather than tenet) of lifelong commitment and sexual exclusivity are not really workable in the developed world? You certainly seem, as a nation, to be obsessed with monogamy which, as you will know, just means ‘married to one person at a time.
            Sorry, rather off-topic.

          3. @ Pavlos,

            So you are more interested in the title of marriage rather than being actually married to someone who you really love and are exclusive to. The reason for marriage today is to carve out a special relationship that exclusive of all others.

          4. pepa, I don’t get your comments. Why did you say that to Pavlos? He (movingly to me) explained his love for his partner, his monogamy and his wish to marry, and you write that nasty reply. Why? How could you possibly make the assumption that Pavlos doesn’t want to be exclusive to the person he loves?
            Sorry, but that’s plain nasty.
            (sorry for butting in there, Pavlos)

      3. “Sex outside of marriage is contrary to what marriage actually is”

        So what? Its not illegal. Its only “immoral” to muppets like you who get their intellect and opinions handed down to them by priests and other people “who know what god wants”. And I have never met ONE married or CP’ed gay couple who think sex outside marriage is wrong – if for no other reason other then because CP/marriage wasn’t an option for so long.

        The use of the word “natural rights is another fallacy of the “faithful” – quite frankly, its a stupid mistake you all make.

        1. @ Will
          *Shakes head in shame and emabarrasment*
          I never been this embarrassed for the gay community. Since you think its okay to have multiple sex partners outside of marriage, 1) Would you allow your partner have sex with somebody more attractive than you? 2)How would you feel if your father had affairs with other women and bore children with said women? Would you be okay with that? 3) In that case why even bother getting married? If you can have sexual relationships with other people then what does it mean to get married? Is it just a title to be used so as to “feel equal” to straights? Most likely yes.

          1. I think you’ve misunderstood, pepa. I read Will’s comment as saying that gay people had little choice but to have sex outside of marriage because we weren’t allowed to get married – ie marriage was purposely withheld from us, so we had no chance to comply with the ‘having sex in marriage’ bit if we chose to.

          2. And where did Will mention having multiple partners?! Take off your ‘I know exactly what you’re going to say’ glasses there, please! I think you’ve misread the comment blinded by your own views of the behaviour of SOME gay people – ie you anticipated something which wasn’t actually said.

          3. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 2:27pm

            I think that Gay/Lesbian couples tend to be more accepting of reality than straight couples in that we accept partners do play sometimes away.
            By that I’m not saying we find it easier.
            I don’t know any straight marriage that hadn’t had an affair somewhere down the line and for most it ends with those couples splitting up and divorcing.
            I know I used to be jealous of others but now older I accept that things do happen but at the end of the day it’s my bed that person is in not anyone elses.
            My partner and I still love and enjoy each other as much as we ever did even after 18 years but I wouldn’t get sh!tty with him if he went out had a few drinks and played, reality is it happens in all relationships and there’s nothing we can do about it.
            Some accept that others don’t.
            Accepting it doesn’t mean the love is less in fact it makes my relationship strong because even though both of us accept things happen, both of us happily Choose not to act on it and that means a hell of a lot more.

          4. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 2:30pm

            So why can’t I celebrate my love by marrying the person I love most in this world?
            My relationship has seen most of our straight friends marrying and divorce a couple twice and one other 3 times.
            It’s ironic that it is my relationship friends look up to because we have been together for a long time yet unlike them I cannot celebrate it by marriage.

      4. Oh, please not the ‘you’re all lefties’ crap again, pepa. You’re not on PN for a while then you burst in making a volley of comments. This is a genuinely interested question, not a dig at you – why do you do this? Is it to defend everything right wing/religious? Or has something happened that motivates you to take your anger out on random posters here every so often?
        None of those questions are meant to be rude. I’d really like to know where you’re coming from.

        1. Well it is an interesting question that has two parts to it: 1) Dissent is valuable in a democracy and dissenters usually provide a wider perspective of the issues. I don’t dissent on everything, there are some things I do agree with gay activists. And my dissent on certain issues stems from my own research and experience as a gay activist myself. Its not based on religion, but rather history, documented information and research done by others. 2) You will get to know more of where I come from and how I approach the issues as I post more. I know I have many detractors on here, but thats okay. They seem to be more focused on me than the information I provide. I think there should be room in our community for those with independent takes on the issues, it is more refreshing than having those who simply regurgitate the usual political talking points.

          1. pepa, I’m genuinely interested in where you’re coming from. I think you’ve been met with hostility on other sites? Don’t assume that that will always be the case here. If you’ve got points to make, please do make them, and give some background/explanation if you wish.

          2. And thank you for your reply.

      5. Jock S. Trap 18 May 2011, 2:46pm

        pepa… Why?

        1. Oy vey… Take a deep breath and relax…
          Its called discussion. You may like what I say, and you may not.
          You made yourself very clear that you oppose what I say. I don’t know how much clearer you want be.

        2. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2011, 2:32pm

          Thanks for falling for that.
          Do you even know why is asked Why?
          Most people ask before assuming.
          Thank you.
          Have a good day.

  12. How interesting to see that familiar human rights lawyer, James Dingemans QC name reappear. He has represented the human rights of a number of anti-gay Christians seeking to manifest their discriminatory beliefs against the human rights of gays. The Bulls, Lilian Ladele. The Christian Institute (CI) have employed him on several occasions to argue in favour of discrimination grounded in some Christians obsessive beliefs about sexual characteristics.

    Raabe himself faces questions about his credibility & bias because his paper is so clearly at odds with established research into convictions for paedophilia, which whilst showing a higher prevalence of male-on-male convictions which Raabe calls ‘homosexual’ the perpetrators are typically married men: they are sexually attracted to adult women and young males, so might more accurately be called bisexual. Most paedophiles are heterosexual. Most victims are females. There are still too few convictions.

  13. He wants his job back, because he’s unemployable elsewhere.

    1. Sitting on the drugs advisory panel is not a paid job, it is more of an opportunity to have influence on government policy and that is exactly why this fundamentalist Christian wants to get back in there.

  14. I believe Dr Raabe is also out of the medical and scientific mainstream when it comes to pragmatic drug control matters like harm minimisation and risk reduction through measures like supervised injecting facilities. What about needle exchanges?

    1. Totally, I agree Craig

  15. Ed Johnson 17 May 2011, 7:33am

    Someone looks slightly closet gay in that photo! Come out, be happy, get on with your life. Done!

  16. Hans Christian Raabe’s views are not mainstream scientific views but merely opinions and beliefs.
    The problem is that the ACMD is an expert committee where members base their policy views on their experience in the field or extensive relevant scholarship…unlike Raabe’s

    1. “Dr Hans-Christian Raabe of the ACMD: it doesn’t matter that you’re a Christian, you’re just no good with evidence”

  17. This is the same anti-LGBT junk science that’s been regurgitated for decades.

  18. And Nick Griffin wants to be prime minister. But he’s never going to be. Maybe he should apply to the daily mail, he seems to be good at writing biased filth to suit his personal puritanical agenda.

  19. Jock S. Trap 17 May 2011, 10:19am

    He lied end of.
    He is not suitable for the job end of.
    Two words spring to mind here…
    “Get Stuffed”
    He should never be in the job esp in any public position. He’s a nasty piece of work and another one who think his discriminating Christian views should take president over anything else esp the law of the land.
    Get Rid end of.

  20. No-brainer.
    He concealed relevant information about himself when seeking this job.
    He peddles distorted twaddle when said job requires scientific reliability.
    He is a bad joke.

  21. I love the way he says he is not anti gay. Has anyone else noticed that right wing christians do this all the time, say really nasty hateful things (e.g. bishop who said floods in yorkshire = gods punishment on gays) then go onto say that they are not anti gay.

    It annoys me so much that such evident hypocrites are given the time of day.

  22. Religion being the opium of the people, it would seem to me to be unwise to employ a long-time user like Hans Christian Raabe as a government drugs advisor… hopelessly addicted as he apparently is to religious illusion.

  23. I wouldn’t mind betting this bigot has a huge male porn collection. The loudest homophobes are often the most closeted of all.

    In America apparently, the largest number of porn subscribers are usually found in conservative, bible-thumping states, mostly straight too.

    I’ve always believed in the old addage…”those who protest too much are the most suspect of all”. Just what is this obsession about sex they all seem to have in common, let alone the rants against gay sex?

    1. If only it were that simple Robert

  24. Robert White 18 May 2011, 10:25am

    I think is comment regarding Bradford et al (1988) just proves he is a horrifically bad scientist, which should be grounds enough for his dismissal. That 33% of child abuse is “homosexual in nature” has nothing to do with homosexuality. Virtually all pedophiles self-identify as straight, and just as rape is a crime of power not sex, pedophilia is known to be a crime of influence and opportunity. An actual scientist would know that such a citation is not scientifically or statistically valid in relation to his position on homosexuality per se. If he said he didn’t support sufferers of Hansen’s disease because the bible says they are unclean, what would be the response?

    1. Pathological bias is a delusional mental illness. Extreme pathological bias, homophobic or racist, is treated with anti-psychotic drugs in California State Prison.

  25. I don’t see why he was fired. The Home Office themselves published a report stating that 25% – 33% of pedophiliac acts were homosexual in nature.

    I would actually read Dr Rabbe’s report before loudly dismissing it. All it does it state statistics.

    1. He was fired for withholding information from his employer.

      1. He could just as easily have been dropped from this unpaid post for having no relevant expertise and being really useless at the job .

    2. Robert White 19 May 2011, 3:52am

      Look at my comment, it’s just above yours. When you use words in a scientific context they are quite specific and most people don’t get that. It is easy, sloppy, and unforgivable when people who don’t understand science try to use it. For instance, if I said there was a statistically significant correlation between hard candy consumption and increased cancer rates… what did I just say? (note the example is totally _not_ based in fact, its an example.) Most people think this statement would mean that hard candy causes cancer. Thing is, to be “statistically significant” is not the same as what most people use the word significant to mean; that is if the measured thing is _just_ _barely_ significant enough to not be utter noise, it is “statistically significant”. Second “correlation is not causation” (e.g. there are more cancer cases near cell phone towers than not, because there are more people near cell phone towers, etc). “in nature” in that study is a warning sign to be careful.

    3. homosexual isn’t to do with pedos and they shouldn’t be spouting that crap

      1. @Chester
        Below, Dr Christopher Shell is propagating this myth, and spouting the usual paranoid nonsense associated with the denial of heterosexual child abuse.

  26. Dr Christopher Shell 21 May 2011, 12:15pm

    The Home Office thinks it is so important that it can decide in advance what scientific findings will be. There are no papers known to me showing that homosexuals are less likely, equally likely, or *somewhat* more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals are. But there are eight separate pieces of research, including some very large-scale ones, which show that they are *much* more likely to be. Namely, Freund et al. JournalSexMaritalTherapy’84, Cameron et al. PsychlReports’86, Bradford et al. PsJUnivOttawa’88, Erickson et al. ArchSexBehavior’88, Freund&Watson JSMT’92, Cameron ‘Gay Nineties'(1993), Laumann et al. ‘Social Organisation of Sexuality'(1994), Hughes ClinicalPediatrics’07.

    1. Nice try “Dr Christopher Shell”
      The “Cameron Journal or any research published by this group” is univerally ignored for three reasons.
      1. It is not a peer reviewed journal
      2. Research pay to have articles published in the journal
      3. The Journal is dominated by a right wing Fundamentalist Christian agenda

      1. In a nutshell, a Journal for Christian fundamentalist Christian Crackpots
        @ Dr Christopher Shell, is that the best you can do?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.