Gay Pedophiles?1 min read

LGBT
31 May, 2006
14

OK, so the Family Research Council, an avowedly Christian right political organization, is trying to make a case that homosexual men are proportionally over-represented in pedophile cases. However, they make this claim, as far as I can tell, with the assumption that if a man molests a boy, he is a homosexual, or that is a homosexual act. I don’t buy that, but do you? But purely speaking, it is a same-sex event. Hmmmm.

Tags: LGBT

Sam says:
31 May, 2006 at 11:14 AM
The sexual assault of another is not an expression of sexual preference, but rather, access and the desire for power. Case closed. Priests raped boys because they had access to them; the same goes for women with access to boys. Give men unfettered access to girls, and there will be numerous raped girls. Or, to put it another way, nobody is alleging that there is something wrong with heterosexuality when men rape girls.
Log in to Reply
danielg says:
31 May, 2006 at 1:59 PM
Good point. But you didn't answer the question directly. It would be interesting to find out how many priests who molested boys also identify as gay.
Log in to Reply
Sam says:
1 June, 2006 at 1:38 AM
It doesn't matter what they identify as Seeker – that's the point. The sexual abuse of children is outside the realm of normal sexuality. As such, a man who rapes girls isn't heterosexual as a result; he's a rapist. Sexuality relates to appropriate expressions of said desire; raping kids isn't appropriate, so it doesn't shed light on sexuality.
Log in to Reply
danielg says:
1 June, 2006 at 2:26 AM
But what if gays are actually over-represented in the pedophile population – don't you think that's an important piece of information?
Or what if they are underrepresented? Don't you think that would be important to prove one way or the other, at least to shut up the people who make such allegations? You can't just close your eyes and say "la la la I'm not listening."
Log in to Reply
Sam says:
1 June, 2006 at 1:43 PM
Excuse me Seeker, but at no point have I said, “La la la, I’m not listening.”
1. I find it very unlikely that gays are “overrepresented” in the world’s population of pedophiles.
2. Similarly, I find it very unlikely that straights are “overrepresented.”
3. Why? Because homo and heterosexuality have NOTHING TO DO WITH PEDOPHILIA. How many times do I have to explain this?
4. Finally, let’s suppose that straights are overrepresented? Are you going to impugn the motives of straights everywhere? Are you going to acknowledge your own responsibility for the molestation of children?
5. Of course you’re not.
Log in to Reply
danielg says:
1 June, 2006 at 6:22 AM
I find it very unlikely that gays are "overrepresented" in the world's population of pedophiles.
Is that just an opinion, or do you have data?
homo and heterosexuality have NOTHING TO DO WITH PEDOPHILIA
Well, that's a nice opinion. However, others disagree. Wouldn't it be nice to do some science around that idea to put it to rest?
Finally, let's suppose that straights are overrepresented? Are you going to impugn the motives of straights everywhere?
The reason to ask this question is in trying to answer the related question – is homosexuality a mental disorder? Is it associated with other disorders (it already correlates with higher suicide and depression rates which can not be explained by social stigma alone). If we find out related maladies, we may be able to understand, diagnose, and treat it better.
No one in their right mind would consider heterosexuality a sickness, since it is required for continued survival – it is obviously natural. Homosexuality is not obviously so – in fact, on first blush, it appears to be against nature, from a design and procreation perspective.
Because of this, homosexuality is a reasonable subject for pathology research, just like other sexual pathologies, including sexual aggression, compulsisve promiscuity, sexual addictions, and pedophilia.
Log in to Reply
Louis says:
1 June, 2006 at 9:11 AM
Sam, why do you continue to argue with this guy over this subject? Isn't it obvious from the above that he is an outright bigot and homophobe? He blatantly lumps gays in with pedophiles, the sexually "aggressive" (rapists?), and addicts, thus presenting his bias against gay people. There is NO WAY that he will ever admit that homosexuality is normal. In this, he represents the christianist viewpoint: anti-gay and anti-science. His anti-gay stance is of a piece with his anti-evolution viewpoint; he speaks for the powerful force which is presently trying to take over America (ie, fundamentalist, evangelical, conservative Christianity) and force its supersitions on the rest of us. Gays are a convenient scapegoat and rallying cry for their malicious agenda. I hope America wakes up to this threat before it's too late.
Log in to Reply
Cineaste says:
1 June, 2006 at 9:41 AM
Is there any way to get passed the fundamentalist brainwashing though? FCL said that, "Evangelicals are much more likely to home school, to associate only with church friends and otherwise reject much of any involvement with society (with the exception of course of trying to use the government to enforce their views)."
Log in to Reply
danielg says:
1 June, 2006 at 2:08 PM
Well, I can see that you are not interested in answering these questions with science, but with self-righteous indignation and moral superiority instead. Fine.
Log in to Reply
Cineaste says:
1 June, 2006 at 2:58 PM
No Seeker, it's just that Sam totally got the better of you on this issue. That you refuse to acknowledge any of Sam's excellent logical arguments lends credence to what Louis said. Your continuous denial of all viewpoints counter to your own made me think of what FCL said about Evangelicals, that's all. :(
Log in to Reply
Louis says:
2 June, 2006 at 6:41 AM
seeker accused us of "self-righteous indignation and moral superiority."
ROTFL!!!!!!!
Log in to Reply
danielg says:
2 June, 2006 at 7:57 AM
Because homo and heterosexuality have NOTHING TO DO WITH PEDOPHILIA.
Sam doesn't use any logic, just statements of faith like the one above. On the other hand, I explained my logic – i merely ask if there is a correlation – it's like asking "are blacks overepresented in prison"?
Of course, the answer is yes. Then you have to decide what that means.
So when I ask "are gays over-represented in pedophile populations", you could get all huffy and say "why are you asking such an offensive question", and maybe some people respond that way to the blacks in prison question. But personal huffiness should not get in the way of empirical inquiry.
If gays ARE overrepresented in the pedophile population (and we most certainly can use science to determine that, or attempt to), what does that mean?
I may think it means that they are related maladies, but that may not be the case at all. It may mean something else. But at least, some of us would like to explore that avenue. If you are not interested, that's fine.
Log in to Reply
regexp says:
2 June, 2006 at 9:24 AM
maybe sam is just annoyed about so called "research" from the AFA being used to try to prove a point. if you want a counterpoint – hit the link below but since it doesn't come from a christrian organization – seeker will most likely just ignore it…. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_…
and a five second google search comes up with a variety of resources – those that deal with the honestly and those like from the AFA who just want to eliminate anyone that doesn't agree with them.
Log in to Reply
danielg says:
2 June, 2006 at 9:57 AM
None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women….There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males…"
OK, so there's one study that seems to address the question. At least someone has data. I'd have to look more closely at the study, but I'm glad that site is not putting it's head in the sand and just spouting denials. They also seemed to do a good job of refuting one other study.
Thanks for the link. If I was more interested in this subject, I might search the internet. Maybe if I get time. And for the record, I don't trust the AFA.
Log in to Reply

You must log in to post a comment.

Gay Pedophiles?1 min read

14 Responses

Subscribe by Email

Browse by Category

Log In