Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next

[Pale Rider]

Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next

Homosexuality has jumped out of the closet and into social acceptance. Today, sodomite behavior even enjoys legal protection and political preference. If you had told our grandparents thirty-five years ago that this would be the case, they would have laughed you out of the room.

Thirty-five years ago, the only people who were trumpeting the normalization of homosexuality were left-wing college professors. Few people took them seriously. That was a fatal mistake. We should have remembered Lincoln’s sage instruction:

"The philosophy of the classroom in one generation is the philosophy of the country in the next."

Who can deny that those liberal college professors in the 1960’s changed the direction of the entire nation? It behooves us, therefore, to give serious consideration to what liberal college and university professors are now promoting.

I'm told that in an article in the May/June issue of Society magazine entitled, "Sexual Liberation’s Last Frontier," Associate Professor of Sociology at Temple University, Julia Erickson calls for more tolerance and understanding for pedophiles. Yes, pedophiles. Erickson argues that the word pedophilia is too harsh and judgmental. She prefers using "child-adult sex." She questions research that shows long-term effects of such activity.

Erickson compares the plight of pedophiles to homosexuals in years gone by. She believes punishments inflicted upon pedophiles are too severe and suggests they need social acceptance, even legal protection, instead. You and I are making a serious miscalculation if we disregard people like Erickson as the lunatic fringe of society. We made that mistake thirty-five years ago, and look what has happened.

America has legally and culturally abandoned its Judeo/Christian roots. We have expunged traditional morality from the public square, and from the public conscience. Aberrant sexual misconduct of every kind has taken its place. Adultery, fornication, cohabitation and sodomy are socially acceptable, even politically protected. America currently has no moral compass.

Next on the list to achieve politically correct categorization is pedophilia. Understand that pedophilia is exactly where homosexuality was thirty-five years ago: in the classrooms of liberal college professors. If America doesn’t make a sudden and dramatic turn toward traditional [how about Biblical? - JZ] morality, pedophilia will enjoy the same kind of social and political acceptance that homosexuality now enjoys, and it won’t take thirty-five years to happen, either.

http://home.bluemarble.net/~heartcom...ualitynow.html

[Pale Rider]

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

[Bubbalicious]

you're insane

[Insein]

you're insane

you make such a persuasive argument.

The article does make alot of sense. Had it just been a gays =pedophiles case, i'd have said its a stretch. However, when college proffesors are actively promoting pedophilia as an acceptable act, then it is a serious matter. These people do shape the minds of others very easily. Looking at the last 50 years of this society and we can see many morally reprehensible behavior from the past now being seen as commonplace and even championed as superior to normal society.

[Pale Rider]

you're insane

Yeah I get it... this kind of information just slaps you liberal homo enablers in the face. Kind of hard to perpetuate your tepid line of diatribe against this kind of evidence.

[jillian]

Family Research Institute is real compelling.

[Bubbalicious]

LOL @ "liberal homo enablers"

Come up with a scientific source on something sometime so I might take you at least a little seriously. The Family Research Institute does not qualify.

Better yet, go outside for a while and stop thinking so hard about gay sex all the time.

[Hobbit]

Typical. You can't attack the facts, so you attack the source. This isn't supposed to be a 'scientific' article. It's supposed to be a social commentary. Thrity years ago, a fringe group of liberal professors suggested that homosexuality was normal and should be accepted or even endorsed by our laws. People laughed at them and never took them seriously, and now there's a movement to enact gay marriage across the country.

Now, a fringe group of liberal professors are saying the same things about pedophilia, and those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

[Bubbalicious]

Thrity years ago, a fringe group of liberal professors suggested that homosexuality was normal and should be accepted or even endorsed by our laws.

That fringe group of liberal professors was the American Psychiatric Association. And all the "Moral Majority" had to came back with was Anita Bryant.

[OCA]

LOL @ "liberal homo enablers"

Come up with a scientific source on something sometime so I might take you at least a little seriously. The Family Research Institute does not qualify.

Better yet, go outside for a while and stop thinking so hard about gay sex all the time.

Attacking the source, how quintessentially lib.

Maybe you should try and refute it, or am I asking too much?

[Grumplestillskin]

For the FOURTH time I post this info...

In 1998, another study using four contemporary databases suggested that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years. Source: Cameron, P., Cameron, K., Playfair, WL., " Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life? ", Psychological Reports, 1998, 83, pp. 847-66.

"Given what I now know, I believe there are FLAWS with Paul Cameron's study". BILL BENNETT

Oh, and who's Paul Cameron?
Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" ...it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.

In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" ....At its August, 1986 meeting, the ASA officially accepted the committee's report and passed the following resolution:

The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is NOT a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, "The Paul Cameron Case," is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron's frequent lecture and media appearances."8

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...ron_sheet.html

[Hobbit]

That fringe group of liberal professors was the American Psychiatric Association. And all the "Moral Majority" had to came back with was Anita Bryant.

Your dates and my dates are different then. The American Psychiatric Association bowed to pressure once homosexuality gained steam.

[OCA]

That fringe group of liberal professors was the American Psychiatric Association. And all the "Moral Majority" had to came back with was Anita Bryant.

APA caved to political and finacial pressure, that is a fact that has been documented several times.

Why do you insist on apologizing for homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists?

[Grumplestillskin]

APA caved to political and finacial pressure, that is a fact that has been documented several times.

Why do you insist on apologizing for homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists?

This is for Hobbit too. Please provide evidence from unbiased links, or if they are biased, ones that back up their assertions that:

1) The ADA caved to political pressure.
2) They ADA caved to financial pressure.
3) Who put them under such pressure and why.
4) Who were the individuals that provided the pressure and what "power" did they have.
5) Why did these people put the ADA under pressure.
6) Which members of the ADA resigned in protest at these pressures being put on them.

Cheers

BTW, homos are not perverts any more than you are.

[OCA]

For the FOURTH time I post this info...

In 1998, another study using four contemporary databases suggested that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years. Source: Cameron, P., Cameron, K., Playfair, WL., " Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life? ", Psychological Reports, 1998, 83, pp. 847-66.

"Given what I now know, I believe there are FLAWS with Paul Cameron's study". BILL BENNETT

Oh, and who's Paul Cameron?
Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" ...it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.

In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" ....At its August, 1986 meeting, the ASA officially accepted the committee's report and passed the following resolution:

The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is NOT a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, "The Paul Cameron Case," is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron's frequent lecture and media appearances."8

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...ron_sheet.html

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FR..._pedo-sum.html

Pro-Gay Bias In Study of Pedophilia
Homosexuals are considerably more apt to involve themselves sexually with the underage. Anyone actually in contact with the phenomenon has to acknowledge this fact, perhaps most strongly explicated by the chairman of FRI in 1985.1 While homosexual spokesmen have disputed his conclusion, in a paper published in 2000 by Blanchard, Barbareee, Bogaert, Dicky, Klassen, Kuban, and Zucker2 the authors noted that the best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men..; in contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys.... Thus the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles" (p. 464). These figures are quite similar to those we at FRI have used since the early 1980s -- figures that for which gay activists have roundly criticized us. So how do Blanchard, et al., most of whom are from the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, handle this fact that seems so damaging to the homosexual cause? By telling people not to notice, or if they do, not to draw the obvious conclusions.

Here's how they ended their article:
"Implications for Societal Attitudes

A few closing comments are necessary to preclude any misunderstanding or misuse of this study. First, the statistical association of homosexuality and pedophilia concerns development events in utero or in early childhood. Ordinary (teleiophilic) homosexual men are no more likely to molest boys than ordinary (teleiophilic) heterosexual men are to molest girls. Second, the causes of homosexuality are irrelevant to whether it should be considered a psychopathology. That question has already been decided in the negative, on the grounds that homosexuality does not inherently cause distress to the individual or any disability in functioning as a productive member of society (Friedman, 1988; Spitzer, 1981)." (p. 476)

Really? "developmental events in utero or early childhood" -- what is the evidence for this apparent attempt to exculpate those who engage in this behavior? Consider also "does not inherently cause distress to the individual." Both citations are relatively 'ancient' in that the cited authors could not have availed themselves of the research in the 1990s -- when a number of large, relatively unbiased studies on nonvolunteers were published. In 1994, the University of Chicago sex survey12 reported that homosexuals -- both men and women -- less frequently claimed to be happy and more frequently claimed to be unhappy than heterosexuals. More frequent mental disturbance by homosexuals of both sexes has been reported in every large, random-sample study on the issue published in the 1990s! (e.g., the Christchurch study; the NHANES study; the large military twins-registry study; the 1996 NHSDA). And in 2001, in the Archives of General Psychiatry, a large representative sample of the Dutch population3 yielded the same finding, with gays twice and lesbians two or three times more apt to have one or more disorders in either the past 12 months or lifetime So even from the rather narrow perspective of "distress to the individual" the statement is, as near as can now be determined, decidedly false.

Likewise "any disability in functioning as a productive member of society." Where have these scholars been living? AIDS has devastated homosexual men, and disproportionately affected homosexual women. A host of self-inflicted problems (e.g., higher rates of suicide, substance abuse) as well has higher rates of physical disease, mental disturbance, murder, and accidents contribute to a sharply reduced lifespan.4 And if as a class you die young, and you are disproportionately involved in substance abuse and corruption of youth, you cannot contribute as much to society as those who live normal lifespans and do not endanger their neighbors with their drug-use or their neighbors' children with their sexual predilections.

Another article dealing with the proportionality issue of child abuse was published by Freund and Watson in 1992. These authors5 noted the 1985 literature review by FRI's chairman, and agreed that the ratio of female to male pedophilic victims was about 2:1, even as the proportion of heterosexual to homosexual men is about 20:1. Freund and Watson did some 'figuring' to arrive at an estimate that homosexual men are 'only' twice as apt to be pedophiles. They concluded that their findings generated support for the notion that "a homosexual development notably often does not result in androphilia [sexual desire for men] but in homosexual pedophilia [desire for boys]. ... This, of course, should not be understood as saying that androphiles may have a greater propensity to offend against children than do gynephiles [men interested in sex with women],...." (p. 41). Notice that both sets of Canadian investigators went to some lengths to 'interpret' or 'gloss' their results as not harmful to the gay rights cause, but were honest enough to report 'the facts' as they found them.

How is either research team to account for the fact that 23% of the 671 gays in the Bell and Weinberg study in San Francisco6 said that half or less" of their partners "were 16 or younger when the respondent was 21 or older"? Might this mean that about a quarter of gays have engaged in pedophilia? Certainly, in California in 1970, the activity they admitted to met the definition of 'illegal sexual contact with the underage' [the age of consent was 18 yr.]. Then, some might have only had sex with those aged 16. How many had sex with boys aged 15 or less? Bell et al didn't ask. But in the original Kinsey study7it was 27% of gays (Kinsey's standard was having sex with the underage 'when you were aged 18 or older'). And how many had sex with boys aged 13 or less -- an age that is defined as 'protected by immaturity' in almost all of the nations in the world8 at this time? The original Kinsey data suggests that that figure must be somewhere around 14% of gays under his 'aged 18 or older' standard (7, p. 512). 14% is about a seventh of gays! Add-in the fact that a disproportionate number of homosexuals have sex with animals (most studies, including the two from the Kinsey Institute, have reported proportionately 4 to 6 times as frequently as among heterosexuals [in the Bell et al study in San Francisco,9 respondents were asked whether or not they had engaged in sex with animals. Among men, 134 (19.5 percent) of 685 homosexual men answered yes, as opposed to 18 (5.4 percent) of 334 heterosexual men. Among women, 19 (6.5 percent) of 292 lesbians said they had engaged in sex with animals, while none of the heterosexual women said they had done so [1981, p. 161]), and homosexuals are more apt to engage in sadomasochism [26% of the gays v 4.5% of the heterosexual men and 9.6% of the lesbians. 2.7% of the heterosexual women had engaged in sexual sadism (9, p. 161)] and you get a picture of people who more frequently sexualize the players and parts in life -- people who are if you will, 'omnisexual.'

Gregory Herek, an openly homosexual/gay activist psychologist at the University of California at Davis has criticized our published material on homosexuals in general and on the link between homosexuality and child molestation in particular. Herek criticizes the fact that no one, including us, knows the sexual orientation" of the man who molests boys in any study. We hold that "a homosexual" is "one who engages in homosexuality," and even if a person caught molesting a boy called himself a heterosexual that would be irrelevant (many men who have sex with men and get HIV call themselves "heterosexual." Self-labeling is interesting, but it is hardly determinative as to who is, by their actions, considered a homosexual. The standard of 'what the individual does' rather than what he says he is is the standard employed throughout AIDS research, the 1996 NHSDA, the Dutch study cited above, etc.). As a matter of fact, it appears that most people caught molesting boys call themselves "homosexual" or "bisexual" -- in one study (the only one of which we are aware in which the question as to 'identity' was asked), 86% of those incarcerated for molesting boys described themselves as homosexual or "bisexual" (10, p. 83) -- what the other 14% called themselves is not reported, but their behavior makes clear what they reasonably should be considered. A "homosexual" (or an omnisexual) is one who has sex with his own sex, quite apart from what he claims he "is." While Masters and Johnson suggested ambisexual" to describe many homosexuals since they go 'both ways -- that is, have sex with both their and the opposite sex,' we feel it makes the most sense to call them "omnisexual" (like 'omnivorous,' denoting willingness to eat both plants and animals) with a 'major' or emphasis in homosexuality, which suggestively accounts for their more frequent sex with animals, children, scatophilia, S & M, etc. Herek cites the 1994 Jenny et al11 study of hospital charts at Denver Children's Hospital of 269 children molested as demonstrating that the molester was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 269 cases." As a matter of fact, 22% of the children in this study were homosexually molested -- but only 2 of the children's hospital charts either explicitly (in one case) or implicitly (in the other case) mentioned homosexuality of the perpetrator and only one molestation by "someone who could be classified as a pedophile or preferential child molester" (11, p. 43). The rest of the 'sexual preferences' of the molesters were not listed on the charts and were assumed to be heterosexual and nonpedophiles by Jenny et al., -- often merely because the perpetrator was living with the mother of the boy molested. Because you have sex with a mother hardly means that you will not have sex with a boy. For instance, in the large (over 20,000 respondents) random French survey, of those who "reported having had sexual intercourse with a same sex partner at least once also stated that they had had sexual intercourse with persons of the opposite sex (4% of men and 2.5% of women reported practices with partners of both sexes)" (p. 111). For the sample as a whole, "4.1% of men and 2.6% of women reported having had at least once same sex partner" (p. 108). Thus, only 2.4% of men who had ever engaged in homosexuality and 3.8% of women who had ever engaged in homosexuality failed to also engage in heterosexuality.14 This is how some married men molest boys and some married women molest girls -- engaging in homosexuality is seldom the only kind of sex such an individual participates in. People whose worlds are 'colored sexual' often find any number of sexual things to do to and with others of many different ages, different species, and, of course, the opposite and same sex.

Returning to the Jenny et al. study, are the overwhelming proportion (over 99%) of those who molested children not "pedophiles" because they were not listed as such on the hospital charts? Perhaps "pedophiles" only commit about 1% of child molestations. But the 1% figure seems a tad improbable. Of course it depends upon what you mean by "pedophile." if the standard that 'any adult who voluntarily engages in homosexual activity is a homosexual' is applied to the Jenny et al. study, then every one of the child molesters was a pedophile. If we narrow the definition of pedophile" to those who 'major' in sex with children," then the Jenny et al. study does not tell us, and it still seems unlikely that only one perpetrator was a "pedophile" by this standard. The Jenny et al study also does not tell us how many of the molesters "majored" in homosexual activity (some of the girls molested by men were probably molested by 'homosexuals' under this definition). Why do we know so little? The sexual orientation" of the perpetrator was apparently not mentioned in any of the other hospital charts! Neither the children nor the perpetrators were interviewed for the Jenny study, only the hospital charts were examined. Hospital charts seldom record 'guesses' as to the "sexual orientation" of the perpetrator. If 60 (22%) of the children were homosexually molested, by any reasonable definition of 'what a homosexual is,' these children were molested by a person who engages in homosexuality -- i.e., a homosexual. Because a person engages in homosexuality does not mean that he does not engage in heterosexuality. Very few "homosexuals" have failed to have sex with the opposite sex. Thus both FRI and the Univ. of Chicago investigators12 reported that only 5% of women who have sex with women and 9% of men who have sex with men said that they were heterosexual virgins, the corresponding figures for the FRI study were 5% and 8%. In any given 5 year period, it appears likely that most of those who have sex with their own sex also have sex with the opposite sex. A goodly number of men who molest boys also molest girls1 -- all of these men are omnisexuals with an apparent 'major' or 'minor' in homosexuality. Our research has been published and defended in peer-reviewed, scientific journals. Herek's criticisms of us have not met this standard, nor has he replied to our defense of the validity of our data. As time marches on, just about all of the findings we have reported from our 1983-84 study have been replicated by other investigators -- most of whom disagree vehemently with our interpretations of those findings. But the findings are 'the facts,' the interpretations of those facts are just that -- interpretations or reasoned opinions.