Skip to comments.Homosexuals and the Pedophile Connection
Posted on 03/15/2003 1:37:36 PM PST by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
If your child was attending a private, religious school would it concern you if the child´s teacher/counselor suddenly admitted that he was gay?
Lutheran High School of Greater Minneapolis found itself in such a situation with Roger Franzen, a gay pastor/teacher who taught religion at the school. Discussions ensued following this discovery and Franzen agreed to resign at the end of the 2000 school year while remaining closeted and celibate.
Less than two years later, attorneys came out of the woodwork to help Franzen sue the school and denomination for discrimination and invasion of privacy.
Minnesotas Human Rights Act, particularly as amended by the infamous 1994 gay rights amendment, seems to specifically afford religious institutions these discretions. The Franzen case should get nowhere fast.
But the issue of gays and public schools was recently highlighted in a U.S. District Court decision involving the New York City public school system. There the court ruled that the school system did not interfere with a teacher´s First Amendment rights when it fired him after discovering his active participation in the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). NAMBLA supports repealing the age of consent and child pornography laws as well as openly endorsing men and boys involved in underage sexual relationships.
But should such a ruling extend to homosexuals without such obvious connections to NAMBLA? The answer lies in whether there is a significant correlation between homosexuals and pedophile activity.
Gay activists have strenuously argued that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children. They point out that the majority of child molestation cases are by heterosexuals. But they neglect a pivotal fact: Homosexuals comprise only a small percentage of the population, yet account for an extraordinarily high percentage of offenses against children.
A recent study in Demography estimated the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population at 2.5 percent, and the number of exclusive lesbians at 1.4 percent. The study took into account three large data sets, including the all-encompassing U.S. Census.
Now consider a report from the Journal of Sex Research which noted that homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses, even though they are outnumbered by heterosexuals 20 to one. Less than four percent of the population commits one-third of the offenses against children!
In The Gay Report, homosexual researchers report data showing that better than 7 out of 10 homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19.
Or consider a study in Archives of Sexual Behavior, which found that of 229 convicted child molesters surveyed, 85 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.
The evidence is clear. Homosexuals have an overwhelming propensity towards child molestation. This is not to say that all homosexuals act out with pedophile tendencies. But the percentage of those who do is so disproportionately high it would be irresponsible and costly to ignore. Just ask the Roman Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church´s coffers are being drained by the millions to defend and settle an array of alleged child sex offenses by a number of priests. But the Catholic Church appears to have left itself open to further lawsuits when the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops adopted a Charter for the protection of children and young people. Included is the declaration that for even a single act of sexual abuse of a minor past, present, or future the offending priest will be permanently removed from the ministry. This one strike, you´re out policy for priests is a common sense start but not enough.
The Bishops´ Charter is silent on the likeliest cause of the abuse problem the existence of a large number of homosexuals in the priesthood. The Conference would benefit by heeding the words of Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Vall, who declared that people with these inclinations just cannot be ordained. That does not imply a final judgment of people with homosexuality. But you cannot be in this field. Instead the Conference, in apparent kowtowing to the gay lobby and political correctness, adopted a Charter that mandates the implementation of adequate screening and evaluative techniques in deciding the fitness of candidates for ordination, as well as a focus on the question of human formation for celibate and chastity.
No matter the screening, even if there is no history of prior child molestation, placing homosexuals in settings with children such as schools is akin to putting heterosexual male sex offenders in a sorority house instead of a halfway house.
With the abnormally high percentage of homosexuals accounting for pedophile activity, children in all school settings private or public need protection. To neglect this is to continue to place our children knowingly in harm´s way.
First of all, prove your premise.
Secondly, what's this "our children" stuff? Gay sex produces no children. Gays can only have kids the way their sex organs were biologically formed to perform -- heterosexually.
Even if your premise were true -- and you haven't proven it -- same-sex molestation is still homosexuality to the victim. The resulting trauma would be a homosexuality issue and no doubt confuse the person as to their own so-called sexual orientation (disorientation more like). If this person goes on to become a perp, who's to really say what their "orientation" is? That's a case for gay therapy.
It amazes me how gays seem to feel they are some kind of collective psychics and can say who is and is not oriented their way. If you were going to say a child molester is not gay then why can you say they are heterosexual? If you do not want a same-sex molester in your orientation column, what gives you the right to put them in mine? If it truely had nothing to do with sex, as you say, then would the perp belong in either category?
Logic says that they should belong either in the category that matches the act -- homosexuality -- or in no sexual category at all. You cannot call a man who molests boys a heterosexual. There is nothing heterosexual about it.
There is a problem with "science" that is one-sided. If you are going to sell the concept that same-sex child molesting has nothing to do with sexual orientation, then, to stay objective, you have to factor in the idea that a homosexual oriented person could conceivably molest an opposite sex child as surely as a heterosexual could molest a same sex child. But there is no such consideration in these so-called studies. All they do is aim to prove the perp is not gay. The perp is then considered heterosexual by default or something. That's dishonest.
Equally dishonest is this whole premise that hetero and homo sexuality is on some kind of equal normality status. Gay desire does not match human anatomy and biology. It is an unnatural desire. That factual premise is conveniently left out of most political and "scientific" debates dealing with homosexuality these days.
Clearly we do not all define "reputable" the same way.
Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, someone who has not reached the age of consent is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.
Although the terms are not always used consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them.
Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children.
Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to choose one's terms carefully.
Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.
To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't convey implicit assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.
Typologies of Offenders
The distinction between gender of victim and sexual orientation of perpetrator is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women.
Over the years, this fact has been incorporated into various schemes for categorizing child molesters. For example, Finkelhor and Araji (1986) proposed that perpetrators' sexual attractions should be conceptualized as ranging along a continuum with exclusive interest in children at one extreme, and exclusive interest in adult partners at the other end.
Typologies of offenders have often included a distinction between those with an enduring primary preference for children as sexual partners and those who have established age-appropriate relationships but who become sexually involved with children under unusual circumstances of extreme stress. Perpetrators in the first category those with a more or less exclusive interest in children have often been labeled fixated. Fixation means "a temporary or permanent arrestment of psychological maturation resulting from unresolved formative issues which persist and underlie the organization of subsequent phases of development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176). Many clinicians view fixated offenders as being "stuck" at an early stage of psychological development.
By contrast, other molesters are described as regressed. Regression is "a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual's development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177). Regressed offenders have developed an adult sexual orientation but under certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they return to an earlier, less mature psychological state and engage in sexual contact with children.
Some typologies of child molesters break the fixation-regression distinction into multiple categories, and some include additional categories as well (e.g., Knight, 1989). For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals 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.
There is some dangerous definition manipulation in all of this, to begin with. Also, the assumption that gay desire is normal skews the argument from the get-go.
With false premises intact, if someone is fixated only on children of the same-sex sexually, can you at least admit that it is a distortion of homosexuality, not heterosexuality? All perps in the group who only have sex with children, and only children of the same sex, should go in the homosexual category.
Furthermore, all persons who either have sex only with children of either sex and persons who have sex with both children and adults of both sexes should go in categories according to their act, not there so-called inclusive, sex-obsessed desires. Similarly, persons who only have sex with children of the opposite sex go in the hetero column.
As the studies itself confesses, if you draw the "orientation" line at a certain age, what age do you draw it at? Don't most of us limit ourselves to certain age groups (usually our own). It appears that the study, motivated by wanting to get gays off the accountability hook, want to take out the adolescent ages by drawing a distinction between cases that involve age of consent issues and pedophiles. That's sick. Age of consent laws are there for a reason. Hands off the adolescents.
The study goes on (I did not cut and past that part) to draw conclusions based on the "there is no data" argument. That's lame and -- surprise, surprise -- always ends up favoring their own liberal, pro-gay political view. It's a biased and dishonest analysis.
While no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, some studies indicate that approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual. K. Freund et al., Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197.
35% of molestations are same-sex. They are not necessarily committed by the 2% of the population who identify themselves as "homosexual".
So as long as we manipulate the premise we can control the outcome of the study? Most inmates do not identify themselves as criminals (they're all innocent you know), but their behavior reveals the truth. Behavioral studies should at least have consistency when analyzing deeds. It is what it is.
You're right -- there's no disputing that.
However, the manipulations of these studies aren't looking at behavior. They're looking to score political points by mixing behavior (35% of molestations) and self-identity (2% is homosexual).
More people behave homosexually than identify as "homosexual".
Or, to continue your example, there are more people committing jailable offences than there are people who are "inmates".
Ok, this is what you disagree with . Does anyone have legitimate first hand stuff. I can only seem to find liks to this (above) being referenced (Has anyone read it.) BTW, this starts that 35% of pedopihiles are homosexual. Do you think they mean are molesting children of same sex or are self described.
Define "homosexual" then. Is it not one who practices homosexuality? At minimum, it is one who desires to practice homosexuality. Wouldn't all who practice it first desire it?
On the other analogy: If you commit a crime, just because you are not in jail doesn't make you less of a criminal. Similarly, claiming to be innocent doesn't make that true either. (And being accused doesn't make you guilty if you truly didn't do it.)
My point is: Truth is an observable absolute. Behavior is an observable factor. It is what it is. To find absolute truth you cannot deny uncomfortable, observable factors.
Feelings, on the other hand, are not as easy to know or observe. What one feels is not always related to truth. Emotion is pliable by experience as well as expectation of future outcome. Science is totally reliant on accurate observation of relevant matter. Any adjustment of premise will most certainly produce skewed results.
Behavioral science is a subjective science because it mixes the observable (deeds) with the subjective (why?). I am not saying it does not have value, but it does not have a lot of absolutes. Anatomy and biology, on the other hand, are precise and observable. When human behavior does not match human biology, the so-called science of behavior will never produce accurate results (being a subjective study) if it does not acknowledge the clear and observable truths of the other human sciences.
To claim that a person desires homosexual relations with a child is not homosexual in "orientation" is a complete contradiction and manipulation of clear meanings of words. It forces the "scientist" to draw conclusions by allowing feelings to trump facts and observable deeds. That's nonsense.
If a behavioral study manipulates the premises in such a manner, it can never draw an honest conclusion.
I do not imply that the behaviors are compulsive. They clearly are rooted in desire. But desire itself does not make something normal. Biologically, it is undeniably unnatural.
Let me also say that of the examples you listed, only one is vying for equal status to natural human sexual function. That is homosexuality. That is my point. It might be a desire that some people have. As a free society, we might choose to tolerate it to a certain level. But it is not equal, normal, natural...etc...to heterosexual relations. It is not an example for children to follow. It is not something equal in function to heterosexual marriage and family. It is not just an alternative lifestyle and ideal for all young human individuals to consider aspiring to. It should be left on a tolerable lower status in our society.
However "homosexual" is defined, it must be a consistant definition throughout the study and all analyses. If you want to define it as "anyone who has ever had a homosexual experience", then OK, fine with me -- what percentage of the population has ever had a homosexual experience?
That is the only number that can be validly compared to the percentage of same-sex molestations.
Those blurbs quoted above mix definitions, defining "homosexual" by the activity in one half and defining it by self-identity in the other.
Back to the other analogy: If you commit a crime, just because you are not in jail doesn't make you less of a criminal. Similarly, claiming to be innocent doesn't make that true either.
Can you look at the number of people in jail and draw conclusions and comparions on the total number of "criminals"? How do people who have gotten off on a technicality fall into the comparison? ("Criminals" being defined as 'anyone who has committed a jailable offense')