• How Homosexualists Redefine Homosexual Child Molesting - Part I

    From It's Not Too Late To Stop@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 31 07:55:17 2017
    XPost: uk.philosophy.atheism, uk.media.tv.misc, alt.gossip.royalty
    XPost: alt.connecticut

    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.
     

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