Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse:
Science, Religion, and the Slippery Slope
Read the above article by Mark E. Pietrzyk (Click blue text) and then answer one of the following questions:
- What is the writer's stance, or attitude toward the subject?
- What is the writer's voice?
- What assumptions does the writer seem to be making about the audience?
- What is the writer's primary purpose?
- How does the writer develop ideas?
- Does the text appeal to emotions?
- Is the text fair?
- Is the evidence strong?
- Is the text effective?
20 comments:
I'm choosing to answer question #8: is the evidence strong? Yes! Yes, the evidence against male molesters being gay is very strong. The article at first talked about how religious groups assume male molesters are automatically gay, but then gave true evidence from doctors stating male molesters are not homosexuals. In fact they don't want anything to do with having adult male relationships. The reason male molesters go after young boys is because they are looking to remind themselves of their youth and they are caught up in there childhood. So to go and molest and boy beings them to that young age they want to be at again. The evidence of that is clearly stated by the doctors in the article. Dr. Abel found that only 21% of the molesters are homosexual. The other 80% are heterosexual or bi. Overall, the evidence is strong and shows that male molesters are not neccessarily gay.
The text in which the author wrote in was very fair. He provided evidence from both sides. Also speculated the ideas of homosexuals do most of the molesting when that is not true according to Dr. Abel’s research in which homosexuals are only 21% of the molesters and the other 79% are heterosexual or bisexual. Another point Dr. Abel made was that most men committing molestation were married and had children of their own. The author also gave different religious points of views and how these certain religions see the situation. Overall I thought the author did a good job addressing both sides and proved a point that homosexuals aren’t the majority of the molesters.
I also choose to answer question #8. The evidence is strong that the male molesters of little boys aren't necessarily gay, they are just trying to go back to an age they loved. The fact that some men are gay, also, does not automatically make them a preditor to young boys, it just means that they want to have a relationship with an adult male. The article shows that just because a male molests a child, it doesn't mean he is gay. As Whitney mentioned, only 21% of molesters are gay, where the rest are straight or bi. There is no profound evidence that just because a man molests a young buy that he is gay... or that if a man is gay he will be a threat to young boys.
Andrew M.
Noon Class
6. Does the text appeal to emotions? In a way it does. Mark E. Pietrzyk words seem to jump out at me. Some words carry their own emotional connotation. In other words, some of the words used create a feeling for the reader.
"homosexual", "pedophile" and other similar words prokoke a wide range of feelings. From digust or even hatred to sympathy and understanding. The evidence given is nearly iron clad. Put together well and presented in a proffesional way. I personally enjoyed reading what the author wrote. The text shined light on "religous people(s)" ;who openly hate and discredite gays; attempt to link their way of living to the molestation of children; young males in paticular. Those close minded people automatically assume ALL child molesters are gay, henceforth they believe All gay people are child molesters. My personal outlook on people like that is astonishment. I cant believe some can draw such a huge conclusion. It appears to me those groups, prey upon the myths and misunderstanding of homosexuals to heterosexuals. Lastly, the article lets the reader in on something those religious groups fail to say when arguing. "In fact, the Judeo-Christian tradition and many other religious traditions tolerated and even affirmed pedophilic relationships for centuries." I have never really heard anything about this, so I found it hypocritical of people that fall under that religious affiliation and then attempt to link pedophillia with homosexuality.
I choose to answer question #3 what assumptions dose the writer seem to be making about the audience . The assumptions is that all gay people are going to be pedophilia . This is not the case , most homosexuals don’t pose a threat to kids . Most of these people love kids like a mother loves there child. Most of them are very good to there children and the children’s friends . The writer had a lot of good points like when he stated that “The scientists who authored the studies made no such claim about homosexuals posing a greater threat to children, and in fact in many cases argued the opposite.” The biggest threat to are kids is closers to home , not out side of the home . I don’t think of gay people being pedophilia, I don’t think of them at all. For the most part there funny . They walk ,and talk better then most of us females . I’m more concerned when my kid are around there friends fathers or uncle then, I my if they were around gay person.
I chose Topic #1; the author’s main purpose of this article was to try and explain that homosexuals are not to blame for the majority of child molesting. Mark E. Pietrzyk tries to explain that homosexuals are not to blame for the sexual abuse of minors with the support of several doctors and study results. The studies show that homosexuals prefer the more developed and masculant futures of mature men rather than the feminine features of pre-pubescent boys. The majority of child molesting men are common people; they have families and children of their own, and are respected figures in their society.
Im choosing to answer question #1. The question is what is the writer's stance or attitude towards the subject, I think Mark E. Pietrzyk is trying to make it across that all child molestors are not actually gay. Most people think child molestors are men who molest young boys.Pietrzyk states some facts that back this statement. I think he is also trying to put the point across that it can be a common man who is a molestor.
Does the writing provide emotions? The author provides many facts that contain emotional words. For example boy, molestor. These words put together show an emotion. Also, the author points out a comment, "Why not marry three men? Three women? A man and a boy?. These comments where made by a Chrisitan believer. As I read this part of the article, I knew right away what side this person was. To me, these questions where said with anger and irony. In this part of the article, the author enhances emotions.
I'm choosing to answer question #9: Is the text affective? Well I believe that the text is very well affective. I believe it is well presented and well thought out with many facts. It not only takes one side of the homosexuality side but bothe. It attacts while deffending at the same time. Many facts are presented accusing and defending the homosexuality dispute. Overall I believe the article is very effective in disputing its points.
Journal #24
I choose to answer question # 4. The writer’s primary purpose is to argue the opinion that most of the sexual offenders are homosexuals or gays. The writer presents findings from different aspects of science, religion and history of sexuality to inform the audience about the topic. I think the article is not very effective because there is way too much scattered information. In my opinion this makes the reader get bored and loose interest.
9."Is the text effective?" It is my belief that the text is extremely effective. The writer initially grabs his reader with a well developed introduction which states his opposition to the idea that homosexuals are more likely to molest young boys along with discrediting the notion of the "slippery-slope." The writer then goes on in the body paragraphs to support his main ideas with facts and statistics. What i found most effective, however, was the discrediting of his opposition's manipulated statistics, showing that most of the quotes established by others had been half truths or made up entirely. Doing this presents the writer in such a way that he comes acrosss tohis audience as signifigantly more credible to his audience than say the otherside.
I choose the answer to Question # 1 I believer the athoer was show that homosexual people are not more likly to molest childern. It is more likley for a strait person to be a molester that it is for a homosexual. It is a proven fact that homosexuals go for more mature men and dont prey on little children. I think that his main topic is that normal men are more likly to molest a little child that it would be for a Homosexual man to.
I will choose to answer question number two: “What is the writer’s voice?” Whenever the writer speaks of the “Judeo Christian values” I get a very negative feeling from him. Therefore, I believe his voice is quite adversarial. The writer likes to lump all “conservative Judeo-Christians” into one large group, a strategy used by today's media and many others when criticizing “Judeo-Christian values.” Also, the writer’s insistent use of the word “taboo”, in my opinion, gives a distinctive almost derogatory tone to his writing. The writer, instead of convincing “Judeo-Christians” to join his side simply offends them and chases them away. In the end he will end up simply “preaching to the choir.” In other words, the writer’s adversarial voice makes this article ineffective in swaying anyone from one of his targeted audiences, the “conservative Judeo-Christians.”
I think that the writer’s primary purpose was to inform people homosexuality and how it is linked pedophilia, also known the “slippery slope.” The author had many statistics that were related to homosexuals who had sexual activities with minors including both males and females. The writer also mentioned the how certain religions explained their version of the “slippery slope” argument. The writer also explained the beliefs of different religions and what different religions thought about sexual relations with children. The author informed the audience that Christianity followed the Roman law on setting an age limit for marriage.
#4: The purpose that I gathered from this article is to disprove to the public the myth that male homosexuals are a threat to the nations children. It goes on to show, backed up by psychological evidence, that that is completely untrue. And that it is quite the opposite, that heterosexual males pose a greater threat of pedophilia than homosexual males.
question number seven: is the text fair?
Personally i think that it is. Everyones entitled to their opinion and freedom of speech and this article shows several different researchers findings on this very touchy debate. One professor states that a fixated child molestor sexually assaults children because he still in his mind thinks of himself as a child and acts out these crimes to try to get back to his "childlike" self. But then another proffesor states that most child molestors are respected well educated men right in our community. I believe that a lot of the article had pathos and it was emotional to me reading all these facts and thats exactly why i believe it was a fair article. All research done in the article didnt exactly point fingers at homosexuals or heterosexuals but gives if i might say clear specific facts and even quotes right from the bible! That was a shock to me. I really liked how they used different religions and their beliefs. Overall i think it was a fair article.
In response to question number six, I feel that the author absolutely appeals to emotions. I think that the author intentionally makes conservative Christians out to be almost villianous. Their word choice was strong and pejorative. I think that the author meant to envoke distrust of Judeo-Christian ethics and reasoning. Additionally, I think it was written to make Christians look foolish.
I think over all the article was well written, despite the fact that some of the claims were false and it was clearly biased.
I am going to answer question number eight, is the evidense strong. I do not think that the evidense is rock solid. The two main arguements are that the studies that supposedly prove that gay men are more likely to be pedofiliacs is distorted and not true, and that the church is hypocritical because they used to allow very young marriage. These are strong arguements and have many professionals that say they are true, but there is no evidence directly from the sources. For example, the author should have included a study and pointed out its faults or shown a bible excerpt that would support his arguements. I do not think that this is completely necesary to have included, but it would have made the arguement even stronger.
1) What is the writer's stance, or attitude toward the subject?
Obviously, he is urging people to vote "yes" for Prop 107 (the title is a give-away). Leo is saying that marriage is a constitution made only for a man and a woman, and I strongly agree with him. He clearly states that married couples of different sexes (male and female) generate an emotionally and physically healthy child. Basically, his stance on this subject is to explain how important marriage is in our "social order." He believes it gives children better chances of becoming a successful parent after their parents; well, that is if marriage of "one man, one woman" is worth any value to these families.
Post a Comment