But in actuality, the results of "37%" is men who had at least one homosexual experience, not with under-age people like you said. If you're going to quote science to a scientist, please have the intellect to do your research.

And this study is well out of date. In reference to this study, the main criticisms pertain to sample selection and sample bias. Two main problems identified were that a significant portions of the samples come from prison populations and male prostitutes, and that people who volunteer to be interviewed about taboo subject are likely to suffer from the problem of self-selection, both of which undermine the usefulness of the sample in terms of determining the tendencies of the overall population.

In short, the results are not considered entirely reliable by the scientific community, and modern research has eclipsed this study.

That, Vee, is science. Real science. Not your biased homophobic view of pseudo-science…. your biased "christian science" is a oxymoron.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

So, if you have a few minutes (and you do seem to be finding a fair bit of time for the site in general), maybe you could go back to it and tell me why there is such a difference between the Gallup Coexist poll (which you appear to believe proves your point that every last Muslim on the planet is devil spawn) compared to the poll of British born Muslims that actually shows that tolerance and integration levels are massively higher). As I have made very clear, I will provide more evidence, once we have looked at this, but there seems little point in moving off the first once, if as I suspect, I'm utterly wasting my time on someone who actually has no real idea what they are taking about, but likes the sound of their own voice.

(Report comment to the moderator)

I wonder if "Vee" and "SMC" are one and the same? Both seem to like to cite umpteen studies to support their claims but then fail to publish a list of them.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

Well, this gay non-paedophile certainly can't . . . STILL . . . after many years of friendship with a very fine heterosexual human being who is now 60 and still single and who since his 20s has been aware of an overpowering attraction to young women in the 15 to 20 years age-bracket. He is a person of exceptional moral values. He has worked as a social worker and in other pastoral capacities BECAUSE it is part of his very fine nature TO CARE for the young AND everybody. What he has always known is that if he were to give free reign to his talent for caring he would care to the degree of intimacy. This he has battled with continually. We have occasionally talked about this feeling within him and it is so akin to the priestly or pastoral "caringness" promoted by the churches that we have considered that it may well spring from what was engendered in him as a child by his religious instructors: that to care and sacrifice yourself for the good of others is the highest vocation of a human being. It's almost akin to a martyr complex. It has mental masochistic elements to it. ("For you, Jesus, and you alone, I give everything I am and can be" sort of thing.)

As I say, this is as close as we have come to analysing the source of his love of much younger women. Some years ago he believed he had at last found love. She was 17. He was about 50. He was finally happy and fulfilled, largely because he was able to lavish care upon her. She had had a wretched upbringing at the hands of her family. Unfortunately she only needed his extraordinary caringness and after two years he had helped her into a healthier state of mind from which she then wished to launch out on life as a fairly ordinary young woman hoping for a man of roughly the same age as herself. Of course, with love he let her go and was glad to see her happy, though at the same time he felt desolate and does still.

Anyway, what transpires from remembering this case with which I am fairly intimately familiar is that this is a case which reminds us of what can perhaps be called "true paedophilia" – an inclination to love much younger people than oneself in a virtuous manner. The "paedophilia" of these eight individuals in Scotland is one of destructiveness and abuse. There was no "philia" in it at all it seems, except "love of horrifically abusing the young".

Lastly, I must echo John K's wise observation: why, Dan, would you avoid reacting to Vee's obvious prejudice? (And we note that "Vee" has still not published here her bibliography of scientific proof which "establishes" that "Homosexuals have a disposition to paedophilia". Are you completely unable to do so, "Vee"?)

(Report comment to the moderator)

Not sure why you would avoid reacting to Vee's obvious prejudice?

(Report comment to the moderator)

Anyway, this is a horrible story, but it speaks more about the need to vet those who work with children so much more thoroughly. This guy must work with others who knew he was a bit suspect, so why didn't they inform someone? That is the bigger question I feel. If I met him and had the first whiff of what he was up to I would tip off the services.

How did they manage to do this in the first place? Vile. Perhaps there are different levels of paedophiles, surely these guys are at the most extreme end. It's actually unimaginable how a 3 month old child could be a sexual object. Incomprehensible.

One thing is for sure, these types are strangely self-destructive. They know it's wrong, but they can't stop themselves and seek help – see his last quote "… I knew this day was coming". How on earth can a non-paedophile ever understand this wretched compulsion?

Psychologists have much work to do to uncover what drives offenders like Rennie to do what he did in the first place.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

As I suspected then with regards to Vee

(Report comment to the moderator)

'Please publish below, you vile lying bigoted SHIT, the complete bibliography of scientific literature which you have claimed "establishes" that "Homosexuals have a disposition to paedophilia".'

Please note everybody that twisted contorted screwed-up little "Vee" HAS been back to this thread SINCE (see Comment 24) but that "Vee" has FAILED to publish here his/her complete bibliography of scientific literature which "establishes" that "Homosexuals have a disposition to paedophilia".

"Vee" is a sad internet troll. I suggest that every time it/him/her posts anything here simply follow the posting with the message:

"Vee" is a sad internet troll.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

Yes Vee there is much more I agree . . . and it is interesting how you desseminated and why you have only choosen some aspects of Kinsey's work

1.Ignoring the context and age ranges of underage sexual activites
2.Ignoring statistics with regards to Hetetrosexual under age sexual activites
3.Ignoring modern sexology, sexuality and gender studies and more upto date research as well . . . very interesting.

Modern thinking is that Pedophiles are both homo and heterosexually orientated.

Vee you do not seem to know much about human sexuality
Vee are you a fundamentalist christian?
Vee do you generally go around inciting homophobic hatered.

(Report comment to the moderator)

"The Gay Report" always was useless except for the self-titillation of the 1% who filled out and returned the enormous questionnaire, and the self-titillation of anti-gay crotch-faced creeps like Peter LaBarbera.

(Report comment to the moderator)

Of course none of the numbers in the Kinsey reports, none of the statistics or percentages (and I'm not addressing anything else in the reports) can be applied to the public in general; except a small population of criminal and mentally ill people like those Kinsey had access to and interviewed for his studies and reports.

(Report comment to the moderator)

"Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two reports. . . The important allegations from the scientific viewpoint are imperfections in the sample and unethical, possibly criminal, observations on children…The book goes beyond that, however, for Kinsey, et. al, questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of “normal” sexual behaviour. . . Kinsey, an otherwise harmless student of the gall wasp, has left his former co-workers some explaining to do."

So fuck-off prats.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)