Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Culture news: Homosexual movement and "intergenerational sex"
Matt Barber has written a piece that looks at the relationship between homosexual abuse of children and their later "gay identity." Like other features of homosexual culture (e.g. health problems related to it), homosexual abuse of children is kept out of public view. Yet it is present, and as other aspects of life are redefined to permit homosexual behavior, Barber asks how long it will be before we hear arguments for the permissibility of "intergenerational sex."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wish pastors would use a little intelligence when referencing article, especially from organizations like LifeSiteNews where facts are not carefully checked.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, there is within the article one glaring error and that is every incident in which a boy is molested by a man is equated with "a homosexual pedophile." By this definition, of course, no boy would ever be molested by a "heterosexual pedophile." In reality, having visited a number of men in prison for molesting kids, I have never encountered a pedophile who self-identified as gay or homosexual. In reality, the pedophiles I have met, especially those who molested boys, react very strong against being called homosexual as the sexual abuse of boys tends to be about domination while these men see being "homosexual" as a sign of weakness.
(I also do not know where they got the 86% identifying themselves as "homosexual" or "bisexual" although 86% would be pretty close to the ratio of those who molested either boys or both boys and girls. So I would suspect these are men who admitted to molesting boys and the authors changed the terminology to "homosexual" as they did in equating same gender molestation with "homosexual.")
A little research would also have revealed that the 46% of homosexual men who were molested as children is drawn from studies of those who sought counseling. Having talked with a significant number of homosexual men, I would say that more of them were indeed molested as children than among the heterosexual population but that it does not approach the 46% level. That level is about as accurate as it would be if we tried to identify the percentage of people who have attempted suicide based only on interviews with people who have sought psychological counseling - it would be artificially and significantly inflated.
Now I don't say this either to approve of homosexuality nor to negate the effects of child molestation. Having been raped myself as a boy I know very well the horrible after affects of sexual abuse. And, even if it were true that most children who are molested do not suffer any harm from adult/child sexual relations (a shaky assumption at best), the damage that happens to those who ARE affected is so severe that laws against adult/child sex should remain firmly in place.
But articles like this distract us from the real cause. Neither homosexuality nor its acceptance is the root and, even if our society reverses course on the acceptance of homosexuality, it will do little to prevent molestation. Because the roots of molestation lie in the breakdown of marriage as a whole, not just the concept of same-sex marriage. Divorce, a high percentage of single parents (most of whom are women), multiple step parent families, etc. all contribute to a society in which boys who lack a father's presence become vulnerable to those who would use them sexually. These boys will indeed often receive from the man with whom they are sexually involved many "good" and "positive" things along with the sex and may remember the relationship quite fondly. But the tragedy is that they will pay with their bodies for these good things they should have received for free from a father.
This article takes one symptom of the breakdown of the family, homosexuality, and blames it for another symptom, pedophilia. While this is more convenient than looking at the root cause in our own backyard, it is not helpful. The fact the article twists language and facts to do this only adds to the ammunition of those who would attack the Church.
Please, therefore, use a little more discretion when selecting articles to highlight in the future. Please keep in mind that just because something is sensational and seems to support your point of view doesn't mean that it is correct of accurate.
Hedgehog,
ReplyDeleteYou misrepresent the piece when you say that the author is reducing sexual molestation to the root cause of homosexuality. His point is quite different and very straightforward. He is saying that homosexuals are more likely to molest sexually boys, and that in turn boys who have been sexually molested in this way are more likely to become homosexuals. Rather than calling my intelligence into question, you need to read more carefully.
You yourself confirm the point of the piece when you write: “Having talked with a significant number of homosexual men, I would say that more of them were indeed molested as children than among the heterosexual population but that it does not approach the 46% level.” Now in my experience research of this kind produces varying results due to methodological differences and researcher bias. Each side in turn chooses studies that better support their position. You may dispute the exact percentage – a fact that I don’t at all find surprising. But note that you are also providing evidence that supports the point being made by the author.
Hmm
ReplyDeleteI think you need to read both the article and my response again when you have had some sleep and are able to think a little more clearly.
I never said "that the author is reducing sexual molestation to the root cause of homosexuality" though there is no denying that he himself identifies it as a significant rood cause in the paragraph following the 46% figure. Rather, I actually claimed the opposite, that the author is ascribing a high percentage of incidents of pedophilia to homosexuals. This is a blatant scare tactic on his part (especially when he intentionally uses redefinition to achieve a percentage of 86% of pedophiles as homosexual or bisexual).
Nor did I, in saying that a higher percentage of homosexuals were molested as children, identify that molestation as a cause of homosexuality. Mere correlations between numbers do not identify which is the cause of the other. It maybe that being molested as a child increases a boys chance of becoming homosexual. Or, it may be that being attracted to members of the same sex increases the child's risk for being molested. Or it may be that there is no cause and effect relationship at all. If, as many believe, homosexuality is caused by the family environment, it may very well be that the same factors which cause homosexuality also make a kid more vulnerable to sexual abuse. Mere numbers prove nothing and that is why church leaders and pastors need to learn how to read studies and articles much more carefully and to think before they hold up an author as an authority.
Also, you did not deal at all with the fact that Barber didn't simply use "methodological differences" when he changed definitions to equate "homosexual pedophile" with same gender molestation. This was blatant deceit on his part in order to artificially inflate the percentages and be sensational.
Barber is, unfortunately, quite well known for twisting statistics and drawing unwarranted conclusions from them. This article alone should make pastors extremely cautious of using his material.
in the end Barber does a tremendous amount of harm by making those who stand against gay marriage and quote his articles look foolish.
Hedgehog,
ReplyDeleteYou do assert that the author is reducing sexual molestation to the root cause of homosexuality when you write: “But articles like this distract us from the real cause. Neither homosexuality nor its acceptance is the root and, even if our society reverses course on the acceptance of homosexuality, it will do little to prevent molestation.”
There are many who work with this kind of research who believe the evidence indicates that homosexual molestation is a significant factor in producing later homosexual orientation. The point that it is not the only factor does not change the importance of this. You obviously draw a different conclusion. On this we are at an impasse.
You return to the criticism that you raised in your original response: “Firstly, there is within the article one glaring error and that is every incident in which a boy is molested by a man is equated with ‘a homosexual pedophile." By this definition, of course, no boy would ever be molested by a "heterosexual pedophile.” I think this is a good place for me to end since it illustrates some of the recurring problems in your responses.
The author begins by discussing homosexual men who molest boys, using the alleged example of Bryan Singer. A homosexual man who molests a boy can certainly be described as a “homosexual pedophile.” Then in the paragraph just before he uses the term ‘homosexual pedophile” he writes, “This demonstrates, as notes Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, that ‘homosexual or bisexual men are approximately 10 times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men.’” The very fact he quotes a statement describing how heterosexual men can molest children indicates that heterosexual pedophiles exist – as you describe you from your personal experience. Your criticism has no basis.
In conclusion, let me suggest that in the future it does not assist intellectual discourse to begin by insulting the intelligence of the other party. If you have further problems, I suggest you take them up with Matt Barber – leaving aside the insults that you direct towards him in your responses.