A Small Victory

With a wee bit of Googling...

"The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147)."

Another quick "google" search uncovers this:

About a third of the reports of molestation by the populace have involved homosexuality. Likewise, between a fifth and a third of those who have been caught and/or convicted practiced homosexuality. Finally, a fifth to a third of surveyed gays admitted to child molestation. All-in-all, a rather consistent story.

Gee, how could this "google" source have contradictory conclusions?

"fifth to a third of surveyed gays admitted to child molestation"

Please cite the source with a link, thank you.

The fact that young boys are molested by priests more frequently than young girls is most likely due to the fact that priests have closer proximity to young males than young females.

The site you reference is quite laughable - it confuses terms nicely by mixing the ideas of "homosexual" and "homosexual act" throughout the first section.

The second section refers to estimates and guesses as opposed to actual studies.

The third section uses numbers from Kinsey which seems to be routinely bashed for poor methodology, and then throws in numbers from convicted sex offenders as some sort of proof. Wow! I bet if you survey all the convicted murderers, you'll find most of them killed somebody! That's useful.

But, hey, if it makes you feel better, think what you like. I know you will anyway.

Oh, michele, here is his link.

The statement above was made by Dr. Cameron of the Family Research Institute
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

Here's another source:

"The Gay Report," the 1979 work of homosexual researchers Jay and Young revealed that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed admitted to having had sexual relations with boys ages 16 to 19 or younger. Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover sees a "substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia. Rather they argue that pedophilia is an acceptable aspect of sexuality, especially of homosexuality."

And another:

Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. A study in the Journal of Sex Research found, as we have noted above, that "approximately one-third of [child sex offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls." The authors then make a prescient observation: "Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1." 17

These and many more are available by simply googling for what you are looking for. I'm not necessarily endorsing these conclusions, but rather just wanted to point out how easy it is to get sources for whatever it is you want to prove.

Also, note the weasel words in andy's excerpt: "no significant relationship" and "practically no reportage." Why not just post the numbers and let us decide what is significant and practical?

1) I don't have the numbers.

2) People are often quite bad about estimating what is significant statistically.

3) And what the hell does this mean?

Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population.

Wow, who would have thought that pedophiles molest children more than non-pedophiles. The things you learn. :)

Whoops, that was me again.

To anonomous above:

The poorly worded indeed requires a double take (don't blame me, I just hit hit ctrl-c then ctrl-v). Here is what it means:

The percentage of boys molested by homosexuals exceeds the percentage of homosoxuals in the population. In other words, homosexuals are over-represented in the world of pedophelia.

Damn. I must have missed that part of the orientation when I came out of the closet. I'm not at all attracted to young boys.

Am I missing something good? Maybe I should renounce my love of "mature" males and get busy with the pre-teens.

Nah. Too smooth. Bring on the hair!

Keith, that's not an argument. No source provided claims that 100% of homosexuals prefer children. Nice straw man, too bad no one claims it.

Again, I want to point out that my involvment in this thread isn't to argue the connection between homosexuality and pedophelia. I'm not qualified.

My original comment was triggered by what appeared to be a rather un-provoked attack on a fairly benign statement. One can certainly argue (as Michele and andy do) that the fact that these preists molested boys was because that happened to be what was available, and not because they were homosexual. Fair enough.

But to pounce on Jennie for simply concluding that sex between two males, no matter the age, is inherently homosexual in nature seems petty. No doubt there is some history here, so I'll just leave it at that.

I actually pounced on Jennie for her praise of Martin Luther (since removed from her site). I didn't touch the anti-Catholic or anti-gay stuff.

And, yes, there's a bit of history.

I've got an appt. not ignoring any replies. Just not here.... for a while.

The percentage of boys molested by homosexuals exceeds the percentage of homosoxuals in the population. In other words, homosexuals are over-represented in the world of pedophelia.

That still misses the point. A pedophile is a pedophile. The study andy cites in his earlier comment found that pedophiles, even those that molest young boys, are not likely to be homosexual with adults. That is, they are unlikely to be attracted to adult men. I understand that to mean pedophilia is a sexual behavior completely in its own class, a whole different sexual orientation.

To say that "homo-sexuals are overrepresented in the world of pedophilia" is misleading, if you ask me. More accurate would be "Young boys are over-targeted by pedophiles."

oops. That last comment was me.

I had not realized that a grown man forcing himself on a young boy was the same thing as a grown man and another grown man having a mutual sexual relationship -- ie, "sex between two males, no matter the age." Sure, looked at clinically, the joining of two same-sex bodies could be described as "homosexual acts between" the two bodies. However, the word "between" has connotations of equality and mutuality, and such hardly exists between an adult male authority figure and an underage boy.

The issues of paedophilia and homosexuals in the priesthood are entirely separate. Priest violate their vows of chastity by having sex. They may do this with consenting adults of either sex, with adults of either sex coerced by the perceived power and authority of the priest, with children in their late teens of either sex, or with children.

Society dictates that teens up to a certain age are not capable of consenting to sex. Most of the time, when priests are not involved, these teens will argue the point. There is a difference between having sex with a willing seventeen year old and a ten year old, despite what the law states.

The portion of the Catholic Church that hates gay people is using this issue to finally address their perception that gay priests are what's wrong with the Church. They utterly fail to recognize that if a priest is celibate, he has not sinned and cannot be condemned. If a priest breaks his vow, he should be condemned within the Church. If a priest engages in an illegal act, he should suffer the consequences for that act. Church leaders that attempt to cover up evidence of illegal acts should suffer the consequences for their actions.

Some priests are loosing their life's work because of one relationship, with an adult or near adult, decades ago. A 24 year old priest having sex with a willing seventeen year old is not paedophilia. It's wrong, and the Church, through confession, has a mechanism that allows the sinner to repent and show repentance.

Priests who do not repent or demonstrate repentance should never have been shielded by the Church. It's own rules insist on that. Both religious and criminal penalties should have been exacted from those priests who committed paedophilia. Neither was, and that is the greatest sin of the Church.

Sex with little boys is not homosexuality. Some homosexuals commit paedophilia. Some heterosexuals commit paedophilia. It is not a sexual orientation issue. Paedophilia is about power and control and the perception of unconditional love. NAMBLA, through its offensive slogans, makes it quite clear that it is about selecting partners who cannot make adult choices. "Sex by eight or it's too late." Paedophilia is about selecting a victim, not a partner. It's rape, not sexual orientation.

Most Catholics have know homosexual priests. In the 1970's there were resorts that catered to them, and the same guys would take their vacation together every year. The presumption is that they violated their vow of celibacy, but I cannot know that, and would not presume to assume that. I have known many priests and I have never seen behavior that I would suspect as that of a paedophile. I've known drunks, and priest that violated their vow of celibacy with women, and men. They overeat. They gossip. They gamble. They have all the weaknesses and vices that other people have.

And a few prey on children, just like others who are not priests. Scout masters, day care workers, coaches, Protestant ministers. I regret the Church failed utterly to expel these vermin from our midst, and leaders such as Cardinal Law should be treated with the contempt they have well earned.

Sorry for the long post, Michele.

As for the Holy Father dabbling in politics. I would expect the leader of the largest consolidated religion in the world to actively preach the views of his church. In the 1980's it was John Paul II's work along with Ronald Reagan's that freed the hundreds of millions that were enslaved to Communism. I would expect that he would preach that you ought to treat everyone nice, you ought not to kill people, war hurts people, and things like that. It is not the purpose of the Bishop of Rome to preach war and death and destruction, even if it is solely confined to the person of Saddam Hussein. The Pope has his job and George Bush has his, and they are both doing them as best they can.

It's rape, not sexual orientation.

I just want to point out that when I categorized pedophilia as sexual orientation, I was just trying to point out that it was independent of hetero or homosexuality, regardless of the gender of the victims. I don't think it's a defensible sexual orientation.

I guess "sexual preference" would have been a better way to put it--and a disgusting, wrong, aberrant one at that.

Hmmmmm ... interesting, pedophilia & homosexuality being called the same thing now ... sorry not reading all the other comments, but as someone who suffered the abuse of a pedophile [he was male & I'm female] I have to disagree wholeheartedly that both can be catagorized together.

There IS a difference between someone who preys on young children & a persons sexual orientation, period, end, dot.

Ah...the Family Research Council study on gays, every bit as reliable as the KKK's analysis of black crime rates.

Another thing, about "73 percent of homosexuals surveyed admitted to having had sexual relations with boys ages 16 to 19 or younger."

Ask heterosexual males the same question, and you'll get about the the same percentage?

"What!?" you say.

What is the age of the youngest person you've had sex with?

For me, it was a 19 year old when I was 20. But many people start having sex when they are younger, and guess who they are having sex with. Does that imply that I am a "heterosexual pedophile?"

A better question would be:
"Since you've achieved adulthood (18), have you had sexual contact with a person under age (16, 15, etc)?"

Diz, if your comment was in response to mine, I am not expressing myself very well.

I did not mean to put homosexuality (or heterosexuality, for that matter) on the same level as pedophilia. Pedophilia is an aberrant behavior that is developed, hetero and homosexuality are not.

I was trying to clarify that I agreed with the statement that pedophilia = rape, not trying to legitimize it as a valid sexual preference/fetish/whatever. My original comment was trying to respond to the notion that male pedophiles who target boys are inherently homosexual. They're not.

You're right. Pedophilia has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Which was the point I was originally trying to make. Badly.

Well, much has been written in my absence. I'll address some of it:

Andrea writes: "I had not realized that a grown man forcing himself on a young boy was the same thing as a grown man and another grown man having a mutual sexual relationship -- ie, "sex between two males, no matter the age."

--Notice the use of the word "mutual", and not by me I might add. Nice Try. Omit the word "mutual" from your sentence above (because I didn't use it) and you have made no point. I never denied that these were acts of rape, only that *it is the contention of some* that the rapists were driven by homosexual desire.

Diz, I'm very sorry this happened to you. No one (even those with an agenda) has equivicated homosexuality and pedophelia. The only assertion is that there is a correlation and that homosexuals represent a larger portion of the pedophile population than you would expect if there were no connection.

Michele, I have plainly stated that the "Family Council" link was only intended to illustrate how easy it is to find a PhD who has conducted a "study" to back up any assertion. Why is andy not taken to task to dig up numbers behind his source's assertions? Is it because they confirm what you already "know"?

I presented 2 other studies as well that provide numbers to back their claims. It took all of about 5 minutes to dig them up, and I could probably dig up 100 times that If I cared to. I do not.

I find it interesting that you would label that site a "hate site". Why? Because they hold a different opinion than you on the nature, origin, and morality of homosexuality? Please provide a link that displays this alleged "hate" you so easily attribute to anyone who doesn't agree with you. I think you are projecting.

Labeling someone as a "hater" is basically just code for "bigot" and intended to shut down debate. These are idiotarian methods. Careful, your proverbial liberal slip is showing.

Two points:

1) Please don't confuse the Family Reseach Institute with the Family Research Council as has been done in this comment thread. You can disagree with one or both, I care little - but I also know that the so-called Institute is really a fly-by-night fringe organization with a website.

2) Is it legitimate to ask the questions whether the priest scandal has anything to do with homosexuality? Damn straight it is. First off - enough with the pedophilia arguments. This scandal ain't about pedophilia, the vast amount of victims were post-pubescent boys. By definition not pedophilia. Secondly, is significant that the vast majority were boys, not girls? Yes, it is - and not just because of the question of access.

Should we wonder about these things? Yes, we should. Should we reject out of hand the notion that some would like to connect homosexuality with pedophilia - damn straight we should.

Excuse me?! Zymurgist, isn't your last graf exactly what you decry?

Had you refrained from using two "code" words your point might have been better made.

The entire debate is splitting hairs, no matter the motivation the priests should be in prison. In. Prison. Not protected by their vows or the church.

In my opinion Jen is a right-wing nut with a closed mind and a hateful agenda. I repeat...in my opinion... not endorsed by the blog management at ASV.

Why are you hanging around here anyway, shouldn't you be over at Jen's sucking butt and tattling?

"2) Is it legitimate to ask the questions whether the priest scandal has anything to do with homosexuality? Damn straight it is."
NO it isn't. Being homosexual doesn't make one pre-disposed to rape and/or child abuse. No more than being black, short or thin does. It isn't relavent. I'll tell you why in a second.

"First off - enough with the pedophilia arguments. This scandal ain't about pedophilia, the vast amount of victims were post-pubescent boys. By definition not pedophilia."

Wrong. Child, by legal definition, is one that is under 18. Not a legal adult. A 16 year old is still emotionally and legally a child in this country - though he is post-pubescent. Many girls are post-pubescent at age 13. That , by God, is still a child.

"Secondly, is significant that the vast majority were boys, not girls? Yes, it is - and not just because of the question of access."

We only hear about the boys because they are usually the ones more traumatized by that kind of behavior. Girls usually blame themselves and keep it quiet. The ones that can't handle it usually end up with eating disorders. The rest of the girls that it happens to brag about it. I knew more than a couple of Catholic school girls (7th and 8th grade) that had flings with priests or deacons. They though it was cool - they were so grown -up. Ya know.

Michele, congratulations to you and Andy for making her change her ludicrous post somewhat! Usually she just rants that she's right and calls her dissenters liberals and the enemy.

Oh, Jane, I'm sure she still calls us that. :)

WOW bringing out the heavy artillery, the "L" word. A rhetorical Weapon of Mass Destruction! Coupled with " Idoltarian" the new daisy cutter of political discourse. Why don't we just get down to brass tacks and face the fact that Michele and Andy say this stuff because they hate America. [grin]

Rosemary -

If you're not even willing to examine the peculiar nature of the overwhelming incidents of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, then the discussion isn't worth having.

Pedophilia is normally defined as a propensity to engage sexually with a pre-pubescent child. It's the psychological nature of the beast, so to say. I'm quite willing to go on the record as believing that homosexuality, by nature has NOTHING to do with pedophilia.

But then again, if the facts are examined at all - that's not the sort of abuse we're talking about. We're talking about something like 90% of the cases being post-pubescent boys.

Is that significant? You don't seem to be willing to admit that it might be.

Pedophilia is not homosexuality.

Pedophiles are aroused by children--hence the name.

Male pedophiles will, by the basic tenets of society, have more contact with male children--in potentially dangerous situations.

Thus they will prey on males far more often than on females.

Simple logic. Why is this so hard to see?

"pedophiles, even those that molest young boys, are not likely to be homosexual with adults." They're not likely to be sexual with adults, period. They're PED ophiles. Not ADULT ophiles.

Actually, Larry, that's not true. From a study cited at stopchildmolestation.org:

While it is a commonly held belief that men who prefer men as adult sex partners molest boys and men who prefer women as adult sex partners molest girls, our study results suggest something different. (Note: Only 7 percent of child molesters show no sexual interest in adults.)

Alfred E. Kinsey, in his landmark study of male sexuality, divided adult sexual interest into seven categories: three categories of homosexuality, one category of bi-sexuality, and three categories of heterosexuality. The Abel and Harlow study used this "Kinsey Scale" in its questions about adult sexual preference.

The 1,038 men who molested boys reported a range of adult sexual preferences. Contrary to popular belief, only 8 percent reported that they were exclusively homosexual in their adult preferences. The majority of the men who molested boys (51 percent) described themselves as exclusively heterosexual in their adult partner preferences. An additional 19 percent reported they were predominately heterosexual, while yet another 9 percent said they were equally heterosexual and homosexual in their adult sex life. As with other characteristics, the group of 1,038 men who molest boys followed the general pattern of the U.S. male population in regard to their adult sexual preferences. (emphasis mine)

d'oh! Cut off the italics too soon. All of the last 3 paragraphs of my previous comment is quoted from the stopchildmolestation.org site.

Doh! Keep the Kinsey garbage, please.

You can find statistics better than that.

probably, mike. I didn't spend a whole lot of time searching, and I don't present myself as an expert in the field. Larry quoted one of my earlier comments, and what he said struck me as wrong. I went looking for a study that confirmed what I already suspected. This one seemed valid enough to me.

Stopchildmolestation.org seemed like a fairly unbiased place, too (other than that they obviously are against child molesters, though I tend to think that's justified). I could be totally wrong on that, though. Like I say, not an expert.

What about the Kinsey study makes it garbage? And can you point me to a better source that contradicts those findings? I'm honestly curious. Email me citations if you want, or post them here, whichever.

I do disagree with your assertion that the priest molestation cases are not pedophilia. Even if these boys are post-pubescent, they are still underage kids. There's a whole lot of difference between a 14 year old and an adult, and it's not all physical. They're more trusting, more easily manipulated than adults. And even on the physical side of things, a post-pubescent 14-year-old does not really have the body of an average adult.