Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Bowden · 06-08-2002, 08:14 AM

(Not sure if this belongs here or in media or misc disc. I think a morality question's involved, though, so here it lands.)

Basically their report is just "See how bad they are!!!" hype. I figured it would serve as an object lesson in agenda-slanted reporting for an audience that's already made up its mind.

Excerpt:

Quote:

"You have a tiny percentage of the population -- male homosexuals, less than 3% of the male population -- committing a third of the acts of child sexual abuse," Sprigg says, "and that suggests a much higher prevalence of child sexual abuse among homosexuals than among heterosexuals."

Sprigg reports that homosexual groups are trying to distance themselves from the results of the studies by claiming pedophiles are not "true" homosexuals because homosexuals are not attracted to children....

Sprigg says that argument is just another effort to deflect the truth about the homosexual way of life.

Source: Compilation of Studies Shows Link Between Homosexuality, Child Molestation

<a href="http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/72002b.asp" target="_blank">http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/72002b.asp</a>

Bill Snedden · 06-08-2002, 09:15 PM

Actually, the line of reasoning being employed here reveals more about the bias and agenda of the so-called "family research" council than anything about homosexuality or pedophilia.

The research they cite purports to demonstrate that a disproportionate majority of male pedophiles display a homosexual orientation (higher rate of erotic attraction to adult males). They then use this information to allege that this proves that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals or that there is some sort of causal link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

However, their interpretation of these results is highly questionable. Pedophiles are people whose sexual identity revolves around an attraction to children. Why should we expect to find behavior that mirrors the population norms when attempting to determine their attraction to adults (ie, outside their principal sexual identity)? It would seem to me that their erotic response to adults is irrelevant as it is, at most, a secondary consideration. It's like trying to determine if more gay men are attracted to 20 year old women vs 50 year old women. You might find that the great majority of gay men who have any erotic response to women would prefer the 20 year old, but that still doesn't make them heterosexual.

It seems to me that the best conclusion that they should be able to draw is that there appears to be a relationship between pedophilia and homosexual attraction in men, not the inverse. In other words, male pedophiles who are attracted to young boys are more likely to also be attracted to adult males.

In addition, the interpretations made by the FRC also assume that sexual identity is invariate and discriminate, rather than varying and gradient. In truth, the distinction between "heterosexual" and "homosexual" can be a very fine one for many, many individuals. Some of the studies cited by the FRC explicitly recognize this point, using the "homosexual" label only for individuals engaging exclusively in homosexual relationships and excluding individuals with occasional homosexual contact.

Finally, it also seems questionable to conduct a study about sexuality using subjects who exhibit the symptoms of a sexual pathology. Shouldn't any conclusions drawn be somewhat suspect? After all, if we were to survey 1000 mental patients and found that a disproportionate majority of them believed in UFOs, would we then go on to conclude that people who believed in UFOs were more likely to be insane? Wouldn't we first question whether or not their pathology was likely to affect their possible response to the study?

Of course, the FRC isn't interested in truth. They're only interested in grasping at any straw that supports their pre-ordained and bigoted position.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Alonzo Fyfe · 06-09-2002, 11:20 AM

Another problem with the inferences drawn that displays a bigotry is as follows:

What conclusions would be drawn from evidence that homosexuals are less likely to molest children than heterosexuals. Would we draw any conclusions that heterosexuality should be discouraged and that steps should be taken to deny certain freedoms and liberties to heterosexuals?

The willingness to draw conclusions if the evidence points in one direction that one would not draw if the evidence pointed in the opposite direction betrays the fact that the conclusions themselves are not grounded on the evidence, but on a pre-existing prejudice against the group that one would inflict with the harsher conclusions.

Bill Snedden · 06-10-2002, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe:
<strong>The willingness to draw conclusions if the evidence points in one direction that one would not draw if the evidence pointed in the opposite direction betrays the fact that the conclusions themselves are not grounded on the evidence, but on a pre-existing prejudice against the group that one would inflict with the harsher conclusions.</strong>

Quite true. In fact, one doesn't even have to explore an hypothetical contrafactual in order to see the fallacy at work in their reasoning.

The research does clearly demonstrate that the great majority of child molesters are male; disproportionately so, in fact.

Are these people demanding that men be prohibited from teaching or having contact with children?

No, of course not and that neatly puts the lie to their entire reprehensible endeavor.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

NialScorva · 06-10-2002, 08:20 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there two general (broad brushstroke) patterns that lead to homosexuality-- nature and an abusive childhood that strongly scews the sexual identity? Before anyone goes nuclear, I am *not* saying that homosexuality is caused by an abusive past, rather that it is sometimes the result of an abusive past, along with a host of other problems such as the inability to make long-term connections and tendency to choose abusers.

Child molesters tend to come from similar backgrounds, if I recall correctly. So aren't they misinterpretting a symptom of abuse with people that are naturally homosexual? Seems like equivocation to me. X->G, Y->G, thus X=Y.

babelfish · 06-11-2002, 04:53 AM

This kind of thing really makes me angry.

A male who is attracted to young nubile men is a deviant. A pedophile.

A male who is attracted to young nubile women is merely a normal heterosexual.

The young nubile woman can be just as harmed by the mature heterosexual man's sexual attentions as the young nubile man is harmed by the attentions of the mature homosexual. However, in this society, the first is not really remarked upon, because it's considered within the "normal" bounds of heterosexual behavior.

Because the second case is largely considered "abnormal," however, it is noticed and called deviant.

To me, that's the only difference.

bonduca · 06-11-2002, 06:25 AM

MassAthiest has posted an excellent article about this in Misc. Religion Disc. which I will quote from here:

Quote:

The source of the right's statistics linking gay men with child molestation is discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, who operates the Family Research Institute in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[12] Cameron is responsible for many of the right's most bizarre allegations about gays and lesbians, such as that gays constitute 44 percent of sexual mass murderers, that two-thirds of gay men "ingest biologically significant amounts of feces," and that being a gay male takes 30 years off one's life.

Quote:

In 1978 psychologist Nicholas Groth screened 175 men who had been convicted in Massachusetts of sexual molestation of children and referred by a court for psychological evaluation. He found not a single gay man in this sample. Every one of the perpetrators was either an exclusive heterosexual, a bisexual with a predominantly heterosexual orientation, or a fixated pedophile with no sexual interest in adults.[4]

His conclusion? That "the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."

In the same year, researcher David Newton reviewed the scientific literature and found no reason to believe that anything other than a "random connection" existed between homosexual orientation and child molestation.[5]

Later research has confirmed these findings:

In 1988, renowned sex researcher Kurt Freund at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto studied two groups of paid volunteers and found that gay men responded no more to male child stimuli than heterosexual men responded to female child stimuli.[6] He later described as a "myth" the notion that gay men are more likely than straight men to be child molesters.[7]
In 1992, alarmed over claims made during a campaign for an anti-gay state constitutional amendment in Colorado, two physicians reviewed every case of suspected child molestation evaluated at Children's Hospital in Denver over a one-year period. Of the 269 cases determined to involve molestation by an adult, only two of the perpetrators could be identified as gay or lesbian. The researchers concluded that the risk of child sexual abuse by an identifiably gay or lesbian person was between zero and 3.1%, and that the risk of such abuse by the heterosexual partner of a relative was over 100 times greater.[8]
Child abuse, including sexual abuse, is a terrible reality in this country. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, established by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, nearly 90,000 children are sexually abused every year.[9] According to some researchers, the true number may be five times this.[10]

Approximately 80 percent of these sexually molested children are girls

babelfish · 06-11-2002, 06:58 AM

Great article, bonduca.

So while the Religious Right publicizes and trumpets all these skewed alarmist statistics to terrify their constituents about the evils of homosexuality, millions of little girls are quietly being molested by heterosexuals (many of whom are probably church-going pillars of the community), who are getting away with it because it's not considered all that "abnormal" at all.

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: babelfish ]</p>

06-11-2002, 09:58 AM

Let us not forget that in some muslim countries young girls can be married to adult men, because the Prophet married a child, Aisha. I call this child abuse.

Secular Elation · 06-11-2002, 10:09 AM

This might be relevant. It appared as a letter to the editor today in my local newspaper.

Quote:

I have been following the recent furor over child abuse. I read with interest the recent letter, "Pedo-sexuals abuse kids." The writer labored under the mis-impression that pedophilia is some neutral disorder, with no hetero- or homosexual orientation involved.

This flies in the face of observable, verifiable facts. The inclination to rape a child may well include an additional emotional disorder compared to the rape of an adult. But it is sheer silliness to claim there is no orientation involved.

Only a fraction of these molestations by priests involved girls. Almost all of them were molestation of boys. That is a fact. It is incontrovertible. This is homosexuality, by definition.

I was astonished when that writer claimed she has been lecturing on this topic for over 25 years. No wonder there is so much confusion and misinformation regarding this topic.

Although I do not doubt that reader's sincerity, her unsuccessful attempt to rebut the comments of a previous reader fell short of the mark since her strident reaction not only was unsupported by objective facts, but served to prove the very thing the previous reader was talking about. I decided to check out for myself what the previous reader claimed the Bible said, regarding all of this. Sure enough, he is right. People can, of course, debate the meaning of certain Bible passages, but it is disingenuous to claim that the Bible does not say something, when clearly it does.

Being molested must be a terrible trauma, and my heart goes out to that person. But if we are to successfully combat the scourge of child abuse, it has to be from a position of honesty and integrity. As Christ said, you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-08-2002, 09:15 PM	#2
Bill Snedden Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,597	Actually, the line of reasoning being employed here reveals more about the bias and agenda of the so-called "family research" council than anything about homosexuality or pedophilia. The research they cite purports to demonstrate that a disproportionate majority of male pedophiles display a homosexual orientation (higher rate of erotic attraction to adult males). They then use this information to allege that this proves that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals or that there is some sort of causal link between homosexuality and pedophilia. However, their interpretation of these results is highly questionable. Pedophiles are people whose sexual identity revolves around an attraction to children. Why should we expect to find behavior that mirrors the population norms when attempting to determine their attraction to adults (ie, outside their principal sexual identity)? It would seem to me that their erotic response to adults is irrelevant as it is, at most, a secondary consideration. It's like trying to determine if more gay men are attracted to 20 year old women vs 50 year old women. You might find that the great majority of gay men who have any erotic response to women would prefer the 20 year old, but that still doesn't make them heterosexual. It seems to me that the best conclusion that they should be able to draw is that there appears to be a relationship between pedophilia and homosexual attraction in men, not the inverse. In other words, male pedophiles who are attracted to young boys are more likely to also be attracted to adult males. In addition, the interpretations made by the FRC also assume that sexual identity is invariate and discriminate, rather than varying and gradient. In truth, the distinction between "heterosexual" and "homosexual" can be a very fine one for many, many individuals. Some of the studies cited by the FRC explicitly recognize this point, using the "homosexual" label only for individuals engaging exclusively in homosexual relationships and excluding individuals with occasional homosexual contact. Finally, it also seems questionable to conduct a study about sexuality using subjects who exhibit the symptoms of a sexual pathology. Shouldn't any conclusions drawn be somewhat suspect? After all, if we were to survey 1000 mental patients and found that a disproportionate majority of them believed in UFOs, would we then go on to conclude that people who believed in UFOs were more likely to be insane? Wouldn't we first question whether or not their pathology was likely to affect their possible response to the study? Of course, the FRC isn't interested in truth. They're only interested in grasping at any straw that supports their pre-ordained and bigoted position. Regards, Bill Snedden

06-09-2002, 11:20 AM	#3
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	Another problem with the inferences drawn that displays a bigotry is as follows: What conclusions would be drawn from evidence that homosexuals are less likely to molest children than heterosexuals. Would we draw any conclusions that heterosexuality should be discouraged and that steps should be taken to deny certain freedoms and liberties to heterosexuals? The willingness to draw conclusions if the evidence points in one direction that one would not draw if the evidence pointed in the opposite direction betrays the fact that the conclusions themselves are not grounded on the evidence, but on a pre-existing prejudice against the group that one would inflict with the harsher conclusions.

06-10-2002, 08:20 PM	#5
NialScorva Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Median strip of DC beltway Posts: 1,888	Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there two general (broad brushstroke) patterns that lead to homosexuality-- nature and an abusive childhood that strongly scews the sexual identity? Before anyone goes nuclear, I am not saying that homosexuality is caused by an abusive past, rather that it is sometimes the result of an abusive past, along with a host of other problems such as the inability to make long-term connections and tendency to choose abusers. Child molesters tend to come from similar backgrounds, if I recall correctly. So aren't they misinterpretting a symptom of abuse with people that are naturally homosexual? Seems like equivocation to me. X->G, Y->G, thus X=Y.

06-11-2002, 04:53 AM	#6
babelfish Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Augusta, Maine, USA Posts: 2,046	This kind of thing really makes me angry. A male who is attracted to young nubile men is a deviant. A pedophile. A male who is attracted to young nubile women is merely a normal heterosexual. The young nubile woman can be just as harmed by the mature heterosexual man's sexual attentions as the young nubile man is harmed by the attentions of the mature homosexual. However, in this society, the first is not really remarked upon, because it's considered within the "normal" bounds of heterosexual behavior. Because the second case is largely considered "abnormal," however, it is noticed and called deviant. To me, that's the only difference.

06-11-2002, 06:58 AM	#8
babelfish Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Augusta, Maine, USA Posts: 2,046	Great article, bonduca. So while the Religious Right publicizes and trumpets all these skewed alarmist statistics to terrify their constituents about the evils of homosexuality, millions of little girls are quietly being molested by heterosexuals (many of whom are probably church-going pillars of the community), who are getting away with it because it's not considered all that "abnormal" at all. [ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: babelfish ]</p>

06-11-2002, 09:58 AM	#9
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	Let us not forget that in some muslim countries young girls can be married to adult men, because the Prophet married a child, Aisha. I call this child abuse.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.