Search for on  
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
     
 Home
 About CWA
 Join CWA
 Give/Donate
- Donate Now
- More Ways to Give
 Get Involved
- Federal
- State/Local
 Media Center
 Legislation
 Beverly LaHaye
 Institute
 Culture and Family Issues
- C&F Report Archives
- Papers
 Legal Studies
 Family Voice
- Subscribe Online!
 Multimedia
 Shop CWA
 About CWA
 CWALAC
 Project 535
 Employment
 Internships
 Brochures
 Recently on CWA
 Links

 

Homosexuals Disproportionately Linked to Child Sex Abuse, Study Says     6/5/2002

Homosexuals Disproportionately Linked to Child Sex Abuse, Study Says
By

“The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls,” writes Family Research Council analyst Timothy Dailey in a new report.

“Gay” advocates routinely attempt to deny the homosexual-pedophile connection by claiming that “pedophiles who molest boys cannot be considered homosexual if that individual has at any time been married or sexually involved with women,” Dailey writes.

Moreover, men who sexually exploit young boys “all too often lead their victims into homosexuality and pedophilia,” according to the paper. “The evidence indicates that a high percentage of homosexuals and pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children.”

To bolster the latter claim, Dailey cites a 2001 Archives of Sexual Behavior study that revealed that 46 percent of the homosexual men surveyed and 22 percent of lesbians surveyed “reported having been molested by a person of the same gender.” That compares to 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women who reported past same-sex abuse.

‘GAY’ VITRIOL
Homosexual militants led by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) reacted to the FRC report with a mixture of venom and ad hominem attacks.

“The American people must recognize this so-called report for what it truly is: nothing more than hateful, pathetic, and misleading propaganda that has little to no basis in fact,” NGLTF Executive Director Lorri Jean said in a statement. “Its solitary goal is to create an atmosphere of hate while capitalizing on tragic events unfolding within the Catholic Church. The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender [GLBT] community will not stand idly by while foot soldiers for religious fanatics wrap their tool of discrimination in the guise of scientific inquiry.”

Jean said, “It is astounding that an organization that claims to promote Christian values can with such hostility and willfulness spread lies about a group of people.” She then asserted that FRC would be to blame for future violence against homosexuals:

This is more than offensive; it’s dangerous. If there is one instance of discrimination or worse, a hate-motivated crime against any member of the GLBT community because of the FRC’s histrionic misinformation, the responsibility is squarely on their shoulders and consciences.

SLOPPY DIATRIBE
The Task Force release got some facts wrong. For example, it cited a 1999 FRC report that it called “Homosexual Activists Work is to Normalize Sex with Boys” [sic]. The booklet’s actual title was, “Homosexual Activists Work to Lower the Age of Sexual Consent,” written by Robert Knight (now director of the Culture & Family Institute) and Frank York, now a writer for the Traditional Values Coalition.

The Task Force also wrongly cited a 1989 study by researcher Kurt Freund, in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy: “contrary to the blatant misrepresentations by FRC, Freund’s report actually finds that ‘homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to be attracted to children.’”

That quotation was actually by Dailey himself, as part of a footnote explaining the limitations of Freund’s and other researchers’ methodology. Here is Footnote 17 from the FRC paper:

17. Kurt Freund, et al., “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference,” [Journal of Sex Research 26 (February 1989)] p. 107. In this and previous studies, Freund claims that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to be attracted to children (p. 115). However, Silverthorn, et al., mentions the limitations of studies by Freund and others: “Studies of homosexual male preferences are also limited… . The Freund et al. (1973) study was possibly compromised because the homosexual men used in the study were selected to be sexually attracted to adults, but not teenaged, males. The Bailey et al. (1994) study was limited in that it did not present participants with objective stimuli but simply asked participants to report what age of sexual partner they preferred … the Jankowiak et al. (1992) study … was limited in two ways: the homosexual male participants had a limited age range of ‘middle-aged professionals’ and the stimuli presented to participants were also of a limited age range (‘university to middle-aged’).” Silverthorn attempted to correct these deficiencies, and in his study found that homosexuals “preferred younger partners than those who preferred female partners” — including those as young as fifteen. Zebulon A. Silverthorne & Vernon L. Quinsey, “Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (February 2000): 67–76.

Printer Friendly Version

Recent Articles
Homosexuals Say They’ll Ignore No-Protest Order in Jerusalem
The Top Ten Da Vinci Code Distortions
Baseball’s Latest Scandal: Going After the Church
'A Superhero for Choice'
ACLU Seeks Mandatory Homosexual Sensitivity Training
Virgins Not Allowed!
Christian Activist Marcavage to Appeal Rejection of Lawsuit against Temple University
CWA’s Knight to Speak on Suburban Washington Sex-Ed Curriculum
New Genetics Study Undermines Gay Gene Theory
Apology Not Enough for ABC’s ‘Monday Nude Football’ Skit

 

 
 

 

Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806

Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives



 
    ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....