Homosexual Child Molesting
© O. R. Adams Jr., 2009
© O. R. Adams Jr., 2009
BACK TO ARTICLES
To support their agenda of selling homosexuality and homosexual marriage to the people, the homosexualists have come up with the idea of changing the meaning of the words "homosexuality," "homosexual," "pedophile," and the phrase, "child molesting." The purpose is to try to avoid the effect of the statistics and information showing the strikingly high percentage of homosexuals that engage in child molesting in comparison to heterosexuals.
The definition I use for homosexuality is a simple one:
1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.
This definition above is from the American Heritage Dictionary of my Microsoft Bookshelf (1999) computer program. This is the exact same definition as Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary – Unabridged (1954), and is consistent with the present Wikipedia definition. Please note that there is no exception or qualification for the age of either of the parties. It is a definition supported by common sense and for that reason has stood for centuries. But the homosexualists now want to change this definition.
Although one of the most liberal of the encyclopedias, Wikipedia, has not seen fit yet to limit its definition of homosexuality by excluding those who have same sex contacts or attractions to young people of the same sex, I am sure it very well might make that change, when notified of more recent gyrations of those pushing the homosexual agenda. They want to do just that.
The definition of homosexual from the American Heritage Dictionary is simply:
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Again we see that there is no qualification or limitation of any kind.
Why do they want to change the definition of homosexuality in that way? Simply put, the truth is too damaging to their agenda of selling homosexual perversion to the public. They need to try to change the statistics that show that homosexuals have same-sex contacts with children (those legally underage to consent to sex with a person who is not underage) at a rate of 10 to 30 times higher than heterosexuals, using a comparison based on population weighting by the percentage of people that are homosexuals. As we will see, some studies show even higher rates. From my studies, Paul Cameron, Ph.D., a psychologist, and the Family Research Institute which he founded, have done more reliable research on this subject then anyone, and many other studies show similar information. As Dr Cameron stated:
If 2% of the population is responsible for 20% to 40% of something as socially and personally troubling as child molestation, then something must be desperately wrong with that 2%.
The thing that is wrong with homosexuals is that they are pathologically sick, and this was recognized for over a century, and only changed after extreme pressure was brought against professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. This pressure, including violence, began with the homosexual movement in the 1960s. The sexual organs of men and women were made for a male to have sex with a female. The desire of a man to have sex with another man, or a woman to have sex with another woman, is against nature.
The simple definition of a pedophile from the American Heritage Dictionary is:
An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.
It is interesting that in Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary – Unabridged (1954), Pedo is one word, and the suffix, -phile, is separate, but when put together the meaning is the same as the above. In Wikipedia, there is no definition of pedophile, but in the long dissertation on pedophilia, there is this statement:
In law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the local age of consent).
So we see that by common definition, and by common sense, there is nothing that limits the age of the victim to prepubescent children, nor is there any qualification about whether the offender is a homosexual or a heterosexual.
Now pressure will be brought to adopt this new false propaganda about homosexuality and pedophilia.
There is an article, Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation, setting out the claims of the homosexualists on the homosexualist website of Dr. Gregory M. Herek. This is a comprehensive article showing the illogical and ridiculous basis for not calling a person having sex with an underage person of the same sex a homosexual act. I will assume that the article was written by Herek, since it is on his website, and no other author is given. Certainly he is responsible for it, and it sets forth his views. The following is a discussion of that article.
The new qualifications and restrictions they want to put on defining homosexual are shown by the following quotes from the article:
Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator.
The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation.
None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation.
There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males. [Emphasis added on all.]
The above sets up practically impossible tests. It purposefully eliminates all of the common statistics on homosexual child abuse, which are merely same-sex relations where the perpetrator was over the age of consent, and the victim was under the age of consent. This is the exact purpose of all of these new definitions. People who believe their garbage have abandoned all sense of reason.
As stated above, the common definition of pedophilia is:
Sexual attraction felt by an adult toward a child or children.
You will note that no age limit or age categories are given in the definition. In criminal convictions for acts of pedophiles, the crime is defined as an adult, or person over the age of consent, having sex with one under the age of consent. Herek and other homosexualists wish to set up their own definition. It is obviously done for the purpose of their agenda. Herek is probably the most prominent of this group, and his ideas are typical.
Near the beginning of the article are some rather ridiculous but serious implications. These are the statements:
In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay people are child molesters. This argument was often made in debates about the Boy Scouts of America's policy to exclude gay scouts and scoutmasters. ...
It has also been raised in connection with scandals about the Catholic church's attempts to cover up the abuse of young males by priests. Indeed, the Vatican's early response to the 2002 revelations of widespread Church cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests was to declare that gay men should not be ordained.
The argument is that these offending Scoutmasters and Catholic Priests are not child molesters, because the young people were above puberty; and therefore homosexuals are not child molesters and should be made Priests and Scoutmasters. This would give them even easier access to prey on young people than they had when these offenses were committed. At the time of the offenses, such people were not openly allowed as Priests or Scoutmasters, but many managed to slip under the screen. It doesn't matter whether you call them pedophiles or not, they were still homosexuals and were very dangerous because of there perverted propensities. Apparently Herek and his kind see nothing wrong with these Catholic Priests and Scoutmasters seducing and having sex with young boys under their influence and care, merely because they weren't very small children. Many Catholic Priests and Scoutmasters, and Assistant Scoutmasters, were prosecuted because the victims were under age. Herek makes these comments:
Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. ... [Emphasis added]
Now we see a statement that gives us a key to the above false statement:
In scandals involving the Catholic church, the victims of sexual abuse were often adolescent boys rather than small children. Similarly, the 2006 congressional page scandal involved males who were at least 16 years old. [Emphasis added]
The above statement certainly shows the mindset of these homosexualists. Of course many of the abused children were adolescents and not preadolescent. But they were still children and were abused by homosexuals who were in an authoritative position over them. The perpetrators were certainly recognized as child molesters under the law. In the book, As We Sodomize America, extensive and detailed information is given about these offenses and many others. Both the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts were out millions of dollars because of these terrible offenses by homosexuals.
Also, the homosexuals have continually worked to try to lower the age of consent so that they could not be prosecuted for such offenses, and could more freely prey on the youth of our country. I am sure that Herek and his kind are for lowering the age of consent, because they argue here that these homosexuals are not even child molesters. This tells us what they really are, and how trustworthy they are.
The following is the definition that Herek, to support his agenda, wants us to use:
Pedophilia and child molestation are used in different ways, even by professionals. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty. [Emphasis added.]
So we see the key to their argument. First they want to exclude from the definition of pedophile all offenders who are not shown to have "a preference for prepubescent children." Here we have two things added to their pedophile definition. 1. A preference for such children must be shown – the fact that they molest such children is not sufficient. 2. There is a lower age cutoff – the children must be prepubescent.
But this is not all.
They then want to add so many other qualifications that it would make
statistical determinations all but impossible. To call them a pedophile, we must
show that the offender has "enduring
primary preference for children as sexual partners" And to be
"children" they must be prepubescent, as stated above. Even a
homosexual who commits same-sex molestations on prepubescent children cannot be
called a pedophile, unless this enduring primary preference is shown. What
Using common or legal definitions for pedophile will not fit their agenda. They have to use definitions such as the above to try to manipulate and attack the well supported statistics that show the disproportionate number, weighted by the percentage of homosexuals there are in the population, of same sex (homosexual) attacks on underage children, as compared to the number of opposite sex (heterosexual) attacks on such youth. These ideas developed comparatively recently, as they had made little headway until after I wrote As We Sodomize America which was published in 2001. Although they haven't yet, because of the influence the homosexualists have on the media and academia, it could well be that in the future the dictionaries and encyclopedias will start using definitions to comply with this homosexual agenda. It is a part of the agenda to rewrite both the Bible and our dictionaries so that derogatory things against homosexuality will be removed. Judeo-Christian values, and the integrity supported by them, are abandoned by these people. These writings and ideas of Dr. Herek are prime examples.
All of these technical classifications make little difference anyway. I believe that they are merely to confuse the people. Same-sex child molesting is homosexual child molesting.
To further support his agenda, Herek makes the unsupported statement:
The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. [Emphasis added]
As I will show later in the article, the above statement is contrary to relevant studies; and even if it were true, it would not change anything.
Then meaningless research such as the following is relied on by Herek: "All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners." This would necessarily eliminate many homosexuals, because many homosexuals have a particular interest in younger people, just as many heterosexuals have an interest in younger people, and many of both have sexual attractions to children, although the homosexual molestations are much greater than the heterosexual, weighted by population. This does not make them something besides homosexuals or heterosexuals. I regard these things as purposely done to deceive the public.
The Herek article states:
In a more recent review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259).
This well known lack of a linkage between homosexuality and child molestation accounts for why relatively little research has directly addressed the issue. ...
I consider the statement about the pedophiles not having any interest in older men or women to be false. It is well established that many pedophiles have been married and had relations with older people, or have had grown homosexual partners. In fact there have been both homosexual and heterosexual attacks by married people on their own children, and on children of close family members. If you have paid attention to newspapers over the years you would know that. The above is also false because a very great amount of research has been done on the subject. They are comparisons between same sex (homosexual) molestation of children and opposite sex (heterosexual) molestation of children. It is contrary to the findings of people that have worked with homosexuals, and who have done research to determine what causes homosexuality. It is also contrary to the research and findings of Dr. Judith Reisman. Specific information supporting this will be presented later in this article. Such statements also do not change the facts that same sex molestations are homosexual, and opposite sex molestations are heterosexual. Because of their agenda, they try to obfuscate the issues, and make us believe the opposite of the truth. In addition, not all boys above the age of "immediately post pubertal boys" are over the age of consent. Most, if not all, of the boys molested by Catholic Priests and the boys molested by Scoutmasters and Assistant Scoutmaster, and for which they were prosecuted, were in their teens and had reached puberty. Homosexualists would like to have us ignore these well established facts.
What these people want to do is to set up so many exceptions and qualifications that meaningful research on the subject would be nigh unto impossible, and much would depend on the self-serving subjective statements of the perpetrators. I don't see how any of this could make sense to any reasonable person.
Herek's article is full of statements about how well homosexuals function in jobs, and such, with no references or support, and which if true would still be irrelevant to the subject.
Herek takes up a paper of Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse. Herek's attempt to refute this article is both pitiful and deceitful. He completely ignored the most critical information presented in the article.
Herek makes the statement:
This article is discussed above in the "Other Approaches" section. As the FRC concedes, it contradicts their argument. The abstract summarizes the authors' conclusion: "Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children."
The statement that
"FRC concedes it contradicts their argument" is false. In fact Dailey
pointedly explains why such a statement from Freund was inapplicable, in
footnote 17, stating: "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." Herek's deceit continues in his discussion of the
Silverthorne & Quinsey reference. In any studies like this where selection
is made to get favorable samples in the first place, they are unreliable on
their face. Likewise, where people are informed of the purpose of the studies
where they are shown pictures and asked questions, untrue answers are invited.
None of this has the reliability of research which people like Dailey and Dr.
Paul Cameron rely on which are statistics on known child molesters, who are so
compelled to commit such acts that they do them knowing the possible very
serious consequences. When you limit your studies to "
homosexual males who preferred mature partners" you pretty well
eliminate all child molesters, and when you add to this the fact that the people
in the studies were informed of the purpose, which many were, and they would
have to know anyway, you see how completely meaningless all such
"studies" are. Their only purpose is to build statistics to fit the
the Blanchard et al studies Herek says:
This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether they molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only, or both boys and girls. ... Adult sexual orientation (or even whether the men had an adult sexual orientation) wasn't assessed.
Here we see rather clearly how Herek tries to get around the fact that the attacks were homosexual because they were same-sex. The degree of adult sexual attraction is immaterial to the fact that with common sense, and any long accepted definitions, it is clear that the offenses were by homosexual pedophiles. All of Herek's double talk and new definitions do not change these facts.
Herek continues his misstatements on the Elliot et al studies referred to by Dailey:
Their sexual orientation (gay, heterosexual, bisexual) wasn't assessed.
What Dailey said was:
A study of male child sex offenders in Child Abuse and Neglect found that fourteen percent targeted only males, and a further 28 percent chose males as well as females as victims, thus indicating that 42 percent of male pedophiles engaged in homosexual molestation
The sexual orientation was clearly assessed. Common sense and ordinary definitions were used instead of Herek's special tests.
It becomes seemingly impossible for Herek to make a fair presentation of anything. On a "Jenny" study he says:
The FRC faults the study because the researchers didn't directly interview perpetrators but instead relied on the victims' medical charts for information about the offender's sexual orientation.
Dr. Dailey's article fully explains the Jenny studies, and the special definitions they use for their agenda of defining homosexuals and pedophiles, which are so exclusive that rarely could there be a homosexual pedophile. The article states:
Are Men Who Molest Boys Really
Apologists Insist on a Simplistic Stereotype of Pedophilia
Central to the attempts to separate homosexuality from pedophilia is the claim that pedophiles cannot, by definition, be considered homosexuals. Relying upon a questionable methodology, the gay advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign published a "Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation and Child Abuse," that states: "A sexual abuser who molests a child of the same sex is usually not considered homosexual."
The basis for this claim is the view that pedophiles who molest boys cannot be considered homosexual if that individual has at any time been married or sexually involved with women.
'Homosexual Pedophiles': A Clinical Term
The fact is, however, that the terms "homosexual" and "pedophile" are not mutually exclusive: they describe two intersecting types of sexual attraction. Webster's Dictionary defines "homosexual" as someone who is sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. "Pedophile" is defined as "an adult who is sexually attracted to young children." The former definition refers to the gender of the desired sexual object, while the latter refers to the age of the desired sexual object.
A male "homosexual pedophile," then, is defined as someone who is generally (but not exclusively, see below) sexually attracted to boys, while a female "homosexual pedophile" is sexually attracted to girls.
Furthermore, Herek deceitfully leaves out the salient facts in the Jenny study, which Dailey explains in Footnote 23 of his article:
The Jenny study used this narrow profile despite the fact that the study itself found that 22 percent of the perpetrators were of the same sex as the victim. In these cases the molesters clearly engaged in homosexual sexual molestation.
Twenty-two percent of the molestations were homosexual, and using a 2% figure for the percentage that homosexuals are of the total population, this would be a ratio of 11 to 1. On a probability basis, homosexuals are 11 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. This fits in the low end of most valid statistics on this problem. They generally range from 10 to 30 times. Also these figures are very conservative for two reasons. By far, most of the homosexual molesters are men abusing boys; and sexual abuse of boys is under-reported. And, since there are both men and women in the 2% homosexual category, using 2% is too high for the number of homosexual men. On the under-reporting of sexual abuse by boys, the Dailey article states:
Dr. Robert Johnson, in Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, reports: "The vast majority of cases of male sexual molestation is not reported. As a result, these young men keep both the incidents and their feelings to themselves."
The Department of Justice report on child sexual exploitation explains why the percentage of boy victims is underestimated: "Adolescent boy victims are highly likely to deny certain types of sexual activity. . . . They are embarrassed and ashamed of their behavior and rightfully believe that society will not understand their victimization. ... No matter what the investigator does, most adolescent boys will deny they were victims."
And certainly if the boy does not report the molestation, the molester is not going to. Therefore, a very large number of the homosexual molestations never come to light.
The offenders were not asked their
sexual orientation (gay, straight, bisexual) and the paper does not report any
information about the nature of the offenders' adult sexual relationships, or
even if they had any such relationships.
First, the study clearly showed that it was of men who molested boys. This in itself shows that they were homosexual pedophiles. Herek tries to get away form this by his special definitions. The study even went further and showed that the molesters were also "attracted to men of all ages." Herek still tries to argue that even this has no bearing on whether or not they were homosexuals. It certainly can get ridiculous when you abandon common sense. Herek completely ignores another Marshall study referred to by Dailey, where 30% of the male sex offenders admitted to sex with adult males, as well as with the boys they molested.
Herek criticizes a study of Bickley & Beech referred to by Dailey. The thrust of the criticism seems to be that there were other studies that were somewhat different, and that the studies had little meaning because they focused only on the sex of the victim, without determining the sex of the offender. However, it has been well established that the vast majority of child molesters are male, so male molestation of boys would be homosexual. However, the tests do concentrate on recidivism, and have no great bearing on the percentages of homosexuals that are sex offenders. On this part I would agree with Herek. But the information does go to show more of the excesses of homosexuals.
Dailey referred to some writings of the homosexuals, Jay and Young. The only thing Herek came up with on this was:
This book, published nearly 30 years ago by a team of
writer-activists, is not a scientific study. The authors' survey methodology is
not reported in detail and, because it was a journalistic work, the survey was
never subjected to scientific peer review.
Herek makes no attempt to refute this significant statement:
In The Gay Report, by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger.
Significantly, the other statements in Herek's paper indicate that he would not consider the above as child molesting, anyway, because the boys were past puberty. The fact that they may be below the age of consent apparently makes no difference to such people as Herek.
Dailey referred to a study by W. D. Erickson, stating:
A study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual."
All that Herek could come up with on this was:
However, no details are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret. Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described above) indicates is relevant.
Herek would have us believe that male on male molestation is not homosexual molestation, merely because some molesters described themselves as bisexual instead of homosexual. This is false and is just further confusion that Herek would like to introduce.
The following in the Dailey article was ignored by Herek for obvious reasons:
Fr. John Harvey, founder and director of Courage, a support ministry for Catholics who struggle with same-sex attraction, explains that "the pedophile differs from the ordinary homosexual in that the former admires boyishness in the object of his affections, while the latter admires manliness." However, the categories are not completely separate:
While granting that the majority of homosexuals are not aroused by young boys, the distinction between homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia is not quite absolute. In some cases the interest oscillates between young adolescents and adults, in others between boys and adolescents; in exceptional cases a man may be interested in boys at one time and adults at another.
It is information like the above that shows the completely false basis of all of the new definitions the homosexualists want us to use. In addition, studies show that many homosexuals have had changes in their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, and vice versa, several times during their lives – some as many as four times. Therefore, under their new rules, none of these could be considered homosexual molesters. It is well known that many homosexuals have been married to the opposite sex and had children, and as Dailey points out, so have many homosexual pedophiles. When considered together, under their new rules no homosexual could be considered a child molester.
Dailey also goes into another matter which Herek ignores. That is the push that has been going on for some time to sell man-boy love to the public just like it has sold homosexuality. This is a part of the dilemma of people like Herek. They can't very well sell this to the public, and at the same time say that no homosexuals molest boys. Dailey details how articles promoting this "intergenerational relationship" are being published in professional journals.
The Herek article makes a pitiful attempt to refute a few of the things in the Dailey article, but completely ignores most of the important things in the article. It is interesting that among the many things ignored by Herek were Dailey's references to homosexual pedophile writings such as those of David Thorstad, and writings about the "great gays" of history that met their downfall because of their unlawful relations with underage boys. Why? I believe that the reason is that the homosexual movement has a three-pronged dilemma. They know that the well known relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia is against their trying to sell homosexuality and homosexual marriage to the public. On the other hand they know that the man/boy love element, promoted by those such as Thorstad, is an integral part of the homosexual movement, and that an important part of the homosexual agenda is to lower the age of consent, so that homosexuals can legally prey on more of the young. They are also presently placing a lot of importance on the homosexual writings trying to convince the public that "love" (sexual relations) between men and boys is a good thing. Another problem is that they are continually trying to sell to the public the idea that a number of the great men of history were "gays;" but history also shows that many, if not all, were also pedophiles, and so compelled by their homosexual pedophilia desires that they threw caution to the winds and were convicted as homosexual pedophiles. In fact, if it were not for the convictions, we would not even know that many of the "greats" were homosexuals. It is indeed difficult to go in all of these directions at the same time. Some of their gyrations, like those of Herek, get downright comical.
Herek knows that some of the greatest researchers on the relations between homosexuals and youth are Dr. Paul Cameron and Family Research Institute. So Dr. Herek makes an even more pitiful attempt to try to refute some of the research done by them. Herek's whole attack is simply based on his false premise:
Cameron's claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals.
In fact Herek's complete arguments and his paper fall apart once we recognize the falsity of that premise of Herek. To say that a male-male relationship is not homosexual belies all common sense and reason, and is contrary to the long recognized and accepted definitions of both homosexual and pedophile acts.
In Pro-Gay Bias in Study of Pedophilia, the Family Research Institute
fully refutes the methodology of the Herek paper, as well as others trying to
fool the people with their unreasonable methods of determining whether or not
same-sex molestations are homosexual.
It is interesting how Herek even contradicts himself. Criticizing the FRC study he stated: "The offenders were not asked their sexual orientation ... ." Then on the Erickson, et al, study, Herek states: "The paper asserts in passing that "Eighty-six percent of [male] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (p. 83). However, no details are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret." How ridiculous can you get? What difference does it make whether they were asked or volunteered the information? The statement clearly shows that the information was obtained from the offender.
All reliable researchers recognize that what the offender might say is not nearly as important as what he does. If they did not have homosexual (same-sex) desires, and very strongly, they would not commit the serious crimes of having sex with underage boys.
All of the restrictions the homosexualists want to put on interpreting statistics, would practically make it impossible to make a determination, which is their obvious purpose – concealment of the facts. It would completely eliminate the main body of available information, which is the statistics on the people convicted on same-sex molestations. Going into all of the silly requirements of Herek and the other homosexualists is not relevant to the investigation and conviction of the crime of pedophilia – therefore the records would not contain such information.
Contrary to the
propaganda of Herek and his bunch, this unequivocal statement is found on the
website of The Sexual Psychophysiology Laboratory, University
Recent evidence suggests that pedophilia may be associated with homosexuality, mental retardation, and high maternal age. Homosexuality in the general population is estimated at 2% while homosexuality in pedophiles is estimated at up to 40%. [Emphasis added]
When a Catholic Priest has sex with a young boy, his sexual attraction to that boy is indeed great. It is so great that he flings aside his deep religious vows and commits a felony along with it. This is exactly what the homosexuals Kirk and Madsen were talking about in their book, After the Ball, in their discussion of how great the urge actually is. When discussing how the failure to resist this same-sex attraction to boys was the downfall of what they considered the great homosexuals of history, they said:
When you find a given failing even in a community's best and brightest, you suspect it's overwhelming prevalence among the great unwashed. In this context, it's noteworthy that Alan Turing, Oscar Wilde, and perhaps Leonardo da Vinci—each, in his own time and unique vein, among the most brilliant minds the gay community ever produced—all embroiled themselves in serious legal trouble by carrying on indiscreetly with young men. Da Vinci stood trial; Wilde was imprisoned, destroying his personality and career; Turing chemically castrated by order of the court, killed himself. [Emphasis added.]
[And remarking on the same propensities in so many homosexuals, generally, they added:]
And on the clay feet of their betters, more humble gays continue to bumble along.
To the above they could have added another, the great poet, Walt Whitman:
Although he is celebrated today as a gay poet, Walt Whitman began his career as a teacher. In 1841 he was denounced from the pulpit, tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail for sexual involvement with his male students. (Reynolds, D. C., , Walt Whitman's America: a cultural biography, New York: Knoph.) ...
Even with so much to lose, those "great gays" referred to above gave in to their same-sex attractions to younger boys, and suffered the consequences. The Catholic Priests and Scoutmasters threw their vows and honor to the winds, and engaged in something they knew they could be put in the penitentiary for. Their same sex attraction to these young boys had to be extremely great. It is no wonder that so many of the ones of the more common homosexuals, who Kirk and Madsen called the "great unwashed," "bumble along" giving in to the same propensities as the greater ones.
Dr. Judith Reisman is one of the most widely known and widely respected researchers on child sexual abuse. She states:
This author’s additional research in this area included a content analysis of the biographies of 150 famous homosexuals which yielded a rate of 67% involving man boy sex. It is similarly typical that early abuse victims tend to similarly victimize boys at about the same age of their own abuse. [Emphasis added]
The article by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey should all be carefully read by those interested in this subject. The most important parts were ignored completely by Dr. Herek. One of the key parts he does not cover was about "Victims Turned Victimizers: The Consequences of Homosexual Child Abuse," (pp. 11-12). It contains a volume of information consistent with the last sentence quoted above by Dr. Judith Resiman. These things not only show relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia, but bear on what many feel is one of the primary causes of homosexuality in many boys. Dailey states:
The steadfast denial of the disturbing ties with pedophilia within the homosexual movement is no purely academic matter. Perhaps the most tragic aspect of the homosexual-pedophile connection is the fact that men who sexually molest boys all too often lead their victims into homosexuality and pedophilia. The evidence indicates that a high percentage of homosexuals and pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children ... .
He gives six studies that irrefutably establish the basis of the above statement.
Dailey's article also goes at length into the subjects of Pedophilia in Gay Culture and The Historical Connection Between Pedophilia and the Gay Rights Movement. (pp. 7-11) He presents volumes of information on how the promotion of man-boy love has been an integral part of the homosexual movement, and how they have worked together to lower the age of consent laws, so that homosexuals could legally prey on the young. He details much of the "Gay Literature" that promotes the pedophile theme of man-boy "love." Most of these things were also covered at length, from different sources in As We Sodomize America, Relations With Youth (pp. 52-77). Also Judith Reisman goes into this at length in her article referred to above.
The following is from a special report of the Traditional Values Coalition, entitled Exposed: The Next Phase of the Homosexual Agenda:
In May, 2004, the NGLTF [National Gay Lesbian Task Force] announced a new alliance with the Woodhull Freedom Foundation (WFF), a sexual liberation group that seeks to abolish laws against prostitution; overturn “age of consent” laws protecting children from adult sexual predators ... .
The following is from an article, Report: Pedophilia more common among "gays," by writer Jon Dougherty:
The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, "Male Intergenerational Intimacy," containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home."
As an example of just how ridiculous these new would-be definitions are, let us consider the brutal homosexual rape and murder of little 13 year old Jesse Dirkhising, in Prairie Grove, Arkansas, on September 26, 1999, by two homosexual "partners," David Don Carpenter and Joshua Brown, in their home. He "was brutally raped, tortured and murdered -- for fun, for thrills, for the hell of it." He was raped at least six times by these men over a period of several hours. First, under the idiotic definitions of Herek and his bunch, these men could not be considered pedophiles or child molesters, because the boy had reached puberty. Secondly, even though the men admittedly lived together as "lovers," the perpetrators could not even be considered homosexuals under the new definitions of the homosexualists, because two qualifications for this are not met:
They were not shown to have an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation.
They were not shown to be men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males.
Another sad thing about the rape and murder of this little 13 year old boy is how the media tried to downplay it, because the two offenders were homosexuals, as related by the two articles referred to.
A recent similar case involving the homosexual rape of a child was reported in Media Blackout Homosexual Attack, Register of Opinion (Official Publication of Public Advocate), August, 2009. The article states:
June 27, 2009, police arrested Frank Lombard, the associate director of Duke University's Center for Health Policy for attempting to sell the body of his 5-year-old adopted son to an undercover FBI agent posing as another child molester. An open homosexual, Lombard lived with his "partner" Kenneth Shipp in Durham North Carolina, where the two homosexuals allegedly "raised" two adopted boys.
The federal sting operation that led to the arrest revealed that Lombard ... had broadcast live video of himself on the internet molesting a child on four separate occasions. Investigators believe the boy to be his adopted son.
In conversations with undercover agents leading up to the arrest, Lombard admitted to abusing the child since infancy, allowing several others to do so as well, and sedating the child with Benadryl to make the abuse "easier." ...
Even with such a high profile case and sensational crime, however, all major media networks have suppressed the story. ...
"... We're looking at a child scarred for life. There are no words for such wickedness."
Lombard, a striking example of the very real correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia, awaits trial in Washington, D.C.
For an online story
of the above homosexual rapes by
It cannot be denied, even under the restrictions of the homosexualists, that Lombard was a pedophile. But, although this fiend was clearly a homosexual, under these new "rules" of Herek and his kind, he could not be classified as one for the same reasons that the fiends who attacked little Jesse Dirkhising could not be classified as homosexuals under their special rules.
The relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia is established beyond any reasonable doubt, and those who don't recognize it are either very misinformed, or are hiding from the truth. The attempt to cover up these truths by the new definitions of the homosexualists disintegrates on examination. Allowing homosexuals to be in positions where they are in constant contact with young people is both dangerous and foolhardy, as has been well established by the incidents with the Catholic Priests and in the Boy Scouts.
See the section, Relations With Youth, in the book, As
As We Sodomize America, supra,
As We Sodomize America, supra, pp.
 See the article, Liberal Revisionists Present False History and Moral Decay, under Articles on this website.
 Homosexuality and Child Abuse, by Timothy J. Dailey, PhD. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyHomosexualAbuse.htm
As we Sodomize America, supra,
pp. 137, 143.
As We Sodomize America, supra, p.
 Supra, p. 53.
Where are the Arrests of Thousands of Men that Gave AIDS to Boys?, by Judith
A. Reisman, PhD., p. 3. http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/CALIF%20HEARING5.pdf
BACK TO ARTICLES