It's personal here is why: My dad was accused of the crime of linking to a video about Mark Netwon and PEter truong raping babies, then used science against the faggot trolls by saying faggots are more likely to rape kids according to the US library of congress. For making a scientific argument he was sued for his free speech by a gay child fucking pedophile who sends his penis picture to rent boy child prostitutes - you can see the penis picture he sends. unfortunately i can't share the child porn that was in his email box the boy sent back to him.

http://archive.is/bBPyo (see comments too)

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58b7789fe4b058596cba49b5

Mr McKee said that the audio clip and his comment represented a serious and legitimate concern about an increased risk posed to children brought about through commercial surrogacy. He said that he was discussing the nature and risk of paedophilia in connection with the purchase of surrogate babies by male homosexual couples. He said he was motivated not by hate but by an appreciation of the vulnerability and needs of children. Mr McKee said he also considered public discussion of same sex marriage to be important in Australia due to possible changes in the law. He said that the concerns he raised could influence the state of mind of voters in a future referendum on same sex marriage in Australia. Mr McKee said that it was understandable that public discussion of scientific data relating to the relative incidence of paedophilia within the male homosexual community and compared to the male heterosexual community would be strongly resisted by political lobby groups set up to push for same sex marriage. He said that his one paragraph commentary dealt with what he described as “controversial and challenging” child protection concerns in relation to legalised gay marriage between two males of unknown or unverified sexual orientation.

In support of what he said was the academic or scientific basis for the statement made in the second sentence of the publication Mr McKee referred to the article:

“Freund K and Watson R J ‘The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual paedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study’, Journal Sex Marital Ther. 1992, Spring; 18(1): 34 – 43.”

He said that a hyperlink to this reference was provided in the internet discussion which followed the 30 December 2013 publication. Mr McKee made reference to the abstract of the article on which he says his statement was based. The abstract and the article were in evidence. The abstract read as follows:

“Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20 to 1. The present study investigated whether the aetiology of preferred partner sex among paedophiles is related to the aetiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric tests sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true paedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into account consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual paedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11 to 1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true paedophiles among persons with the homosexual erotic development is greater than in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.”

In his evidence Mr McKee set out his conclusions based upon his reading of the article saying:

“If one is reasonably capable of doing arithmetic, one can roughly apply the above data to, say, a representative sample of 100,000 adults in the Australian population. The ratio of 20:1 referred above implies that there will be 95,200 opposite-sex attracted adults and 4,800 same-sex attracted adults in that sample size. If we now assume, for arguments sake, that approximately 1% of all children suffer from some form of sexual molestation at the hands of an adult, then we can assume that 1000 children have been sexually molested in some way by that sample size of 100,000 adults. The above ratio of 2:1 suggests that, of those 1000 unfortunate children, 667 will be girls and 333 will be boys. The report says that it is rare that an adult female sexually molests a child, so we will ignore such unlikely events and assume that only adult males molest children. Therefore the sample size of 100,000 adults would contain approximately 47,600 opposite-sex attracted males and 2,400 same-sex attracted males. These numbers indicate a ratio of 36 heterosexual adult males per female child sexually molested, but a ratio of 3.6 homosexual males per male child sexually molested. On this simplistic analysis of the data, a homosexual male is 10 times more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual male.

The Respondent's comment that a homosexual male is three (3) times more likely to sexually molest a child than a heterosexual male therefore appears substantiated.”

Mr McKee said that he concluded upon the basis of the material in the article and his calculation as he put it “society faces a significantly increased risk of sexually abused children if two men of unknown and unverified sexual orientation are legally permitted to marry in the same way as a man and woman are legally permitted to marry.”

Mr McKee was cross examined on his expressed motivation for the publication and as to the relative incidence of paedophilia among homosexual persons when compared with heterosexuals. He said that it was “a combination of status quo views combined with concern for scientific data that suggest that homosexual men are ten times more likely to have paedophilic sexual orientation compared to the same sample size of heterosexual males”. He said that this was his opinion based upon his scientific research. He said that he had consulted other people on the technical paper and they had come back with similar conclusions. He did not elaborate on who those people were or the specific nature of their conclusions. He said:

“Even though it’s unpalatable for the homosexual community, the fact is that you can make other generalisations about the homosexual community, for example, ACON says that the use of drugs is much, much higher in the homosexual community that in the heterosexual community, probably by a factor of ten. Justice Kirby says the prevalence of Aids is higher in the homosexual community. That is not inciting hatred. So I say the prevalence – based on my scientific research and my gut feel and based on the YouTube clip that the instance of paedophilic sexual orientation is higher amongst homosexuals than heterosexuals and the YouTube clip demonstrated that”.

He went on to say:

“… but I believe that scientific statement and that’s why I have great concerns about two men of unknown sexual orientation being allowed to marry in Australia and adopt babies. I see an ocean of suffering in the future caused by this. I am entitled to have that pessimistic view of same sex marriage – mainly between men …”.

Mr McKee was also cross examined on the difference between the publication in which he stated that homosexual men are three times more likely to commit sex crimes against children and his statement in the evidence in which he said they were ten times more likely to offend. He responded:

“The three times was a less onerous comment. That was based on calculations done at the time based on percentaging the Australian census … number of homosexuals in the Australian population based on the 10% figure that 10% of all crimes against children were done by homosexual paedophiles, whereas when I researched the actual scientific paper and did calculations on a spreadsheet it came out at ten times …”.

On further questioning Mr McKee said that it was his honest belief based on his research that homosexual men are ten times more likely to have paedophilic sexual orientation compared with the same sample size of heterosexual men and that he was being conservative in the estimate contained in the publication.