XPost: tx.politics.republic, alt.travel

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.[1] 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.[2] 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%.[3]

The thing that is wrong with homosexuals is that they are
pathologically sick, and this was recognized for over a
century[4], 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.[5] 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).[6]

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,[7] 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.[8] 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.[9] 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 absurdity!

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.[10] 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[11]. 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 homosexual agenda.

On 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 'Homosexuals'?

Gay 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.

On a Marshall, et al, study referred to by Dailey, Herek tries
to detract from its relevance by making such statements as:

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.[12] 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.[13]

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?

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)