Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies

[hayden]

<p>Tiny and immaterial to your conversations, but just to correct the record: Inherited diseases do not necessarily have anything to do with the question of whether evolution is fact or not. We have to be careful there, since vis-a-vis a discussion of evolution, you can only take into account those diseases which manifest themselves prior to the child-bearing years. In other words, if evolution is fact, along with “survival of the fittest”, then people can still inherit any and all diseases that typically manifest themselves after the genes have been successfully passed on. Examples include heart disease, many cancers, glaucoma, etc.</p>

<p>I am not getting involved in this discussion pro or con. But I do have a question that arises out of pure curiosity. I’ve never gotten much of an answer from others at my church: For those who believe that homosexuality is wrong because God meant us to procreate, if you could make single-sex marriage illegal, would you also amend the law to make it illegal for post-menapausal women to marry?</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>Yeah the FRC does not have an agenda</p>

<p>Well documented, they have a goal, they hate gays and they don’t hide it, so whatever they say, must be read with that in mind</p>

[logosprincipal]

<p>Just because a group has a position on a subject doesn’t mean that you should throw out everything they say. The article almost exclusively quotes sources that don’t share FRC’s viewpoint on homosexuality. Just because a group (or a person) doesn’t subscribe to the homosexual agenda doesn’t mean that they hate (or fear!) homosexuals. I challenge you to find anything that FRC has said to suggest such a charge.</p>

[ariesathena]

<p>Hayden,</p>

<p>That is certainly true - I know that but did not want to burden the thread with a biology lesson. :)</p>

<p>But since you started it… </p>

<p>I did assume that there is evolution - that’s part of the starting assumption. You can change the assumption if you want, but I was quite clear that we are operating under the Darwinistic theory.</p>

<p>Infertility, IMO, is a perfect example of a failure of the human body that directly affects procreation. I didn’t get into the post-childbearing stuff for several reasons:

1. for men, post-childbearing years are very small;
2. there is evidence that humans are designed to live to help their children raise the grandkids; and
3. everyone dies of something. </p>

<p>We do know that there are diseases which kill before the childbearing years - such as Tay-Sachs. The presence of diseases which kill after those years in no way negates the presence of the former.</p>

[kluge]

<p>Logosprincipal, the FRC article seems to define any adult man who molests a boy as a “homosexual”. In fact, as CGM’s sources note, most adult men who molest boys (or girls) self-identify as heterosexual, and have relationships with adult females, not adult males. It may be that you and CGM are simply engaging in a battle of definitions. The FRC article includes this:

· A study in Child Abuse and Neglect found that 48 percent of the offenders either were married or had been married at some time.[43]</p>

<p>· The Journal of Interpersonal Violence studied the sexual preferences of male pedophiles who sexually abused children. When they compared the sexual response of the pedophiles with the control group, they found, unexpectedly: “Surprisingly, the two groups did not differ in their response to the nude female stimuli.”[44]</p>

<p>· A study in the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa reported that “most of the middle-aged pedophiles have had significant adult sexual activity.”[45] Fifty-eight percent of the pedophiles in one study had at least one child, while other research indicated that “more than two-thirds of the married pedophiles in their sample had children, with an average of two to three children per subject.”[46]</p>

<p>· A report by the Department of Justice addressed the devious stratagems of pedophiles, who will go to great lengths to conceal their true desires: “Preferential sex offenders may be ‘pillars of the community’ and are often described as ‘nice guys.’ They almost always have a means of access to children (for example, through marriage, neighborhood, or occupation.)”[47]

</p>

<p>Those are not people I would describe as “homosexuals.” But the FRC article apparently does. And just what, again, is the homosexual “agenda”?</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>logosprinciple,</p>

<p>

If I accept these numbers, then 9% of the offenders are homosexuals while they make up less than 5% of the population.

</p>

<p>Well, the estimate of gay population is actually 5-10% and then you also have the bisexuals. Adding the statistical error, there’s really NO statistical evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>

Relying upon three large data sets: the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. census, a recent study in Demography estimates the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population at 2.5 percent, and the number of exclusive lesbians at 1.4 percent.

</p>

<p>Give me a break! Many many gays/lesbians are in the closet; even their friends and parents don’t know. How the heck the US census would know? LOL! This just goes to show FRC would do anything to demonize gays/lesbians. What a malicious organization! Those people celebrate and party every time they hear a gay/lesbian is killed!</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>It should be noted that the author holds a PhD in RELIGION from MARQUETTE. Well, I think FRC needs someone with a MD from Chicago/Harvard for this topic.</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p><a href=“http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases/20021/Researcher_Cited_in_Anti-Gay_Report_Criticizes_the_Study_as_Biased_and_Misleading.htm[/url]”>http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases/20021/Researcher_Cited_in_Anti-Gay_Report_Criticizes_the_Study_as_Biased_and_Misleading.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, June 14, 2002</p>

<p>RESEARCHER CITED IN ANTI-GAY REPORT CRITICIZES THE ‘STUDY’ AS BIASED AND MISLEADING
Family Research Council Should Apologize for Distorting Truth, Says HRC
WASHINGTON — The Human Rights Campaign today criticized an anti-gay “study” by the Family Research Council falsely linking pedophilia and homosexuality as biased, scientifically unsound and a twisting of the facts to further its right-wing political agenda.</p>

<p>The Washington Blade also published a story today where a researcher cited in the anti-gay group’s study, A. Nicholas Groth, asked FRC to remove his name from the report, “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse,” because the group “misrepresented” his work.</p>

<p>“Since your report, in my view, misrepresents the facts of what we know about this matter from scientific investigation, and does not indicate that my studies on this topic reach conclusions diametrically opposed to yours, I would appreciate your removing any reference to my work in your paper lest it appear to the reader that my research supports your views,” Groth wrote in his letter to FRC. (Full Text of Letter)</p>

<p>“This report distorts the facts and deliberately cited research out of its proper context in an effort to advance the Family Research Council’s anti-gay political agenda,” said HRC Associate Director of Communications Wayne Besen. “FRC should remove Groth’s citation, as he requested, and apologize for distorting his work and the work of any other legitimate researcher they may have misrepresented.”</p>

<p>The report, written by FRC staff member Dr. Timothy J. Dailey, was released in a cynical effort to capitalize off the scandal in the Roman Catholic Church, where some church leaders have tried to scapegoat gay priests for their problems, says HRC.</p>

<p>The report “documents key facts that reveal that homosexuals are over-represented among child sex offenders,” says the FRC study.</p>

<p>“If homosexuality is a clear risk factor for child sexual abuse,” FRC’s report continues, “the ramifications reach far beyond the Catholic Church.”</p>

<p>The facts on child sexual abuse and homosexuality are clear. The American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America all have policy statements stating there is no correlation between homosexuality and child abuse.</p>

<p>“We presume that FRC came to such polar opposite conclusions than the experts because Dr. Timothy J. Dailey, who wrote the group’s ‘study’, is not a medical doctor or psychiatrist, but holds a Ph.D. in religion,” said Besen.</p>

<p>The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian and gay political organization, with members throughout the country. It effectively lobbies Congress, provides campaign support and educates the public to ensure that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.</p>

<ul>
<li>30 -</li>
</ul>

<p>Letter to Family Research Council
A. Nicholas Groth, Ph.D.</p>

<p>June 10, 2002
Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D.
FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL
801 G Street N.W.
Washington, DC 2001</p>

<p>Dear Dr. Dailey:</p>

<p>On the web site <a href=“http://www.frc.org%5B/url%5D”>www.frc.org</a> you reference my work in your article on “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse”. I am writing you to object to my name and research being associated in any way, shape, or form to lend legitimacy to the views proposed in your paper.</p>

<p>If you are, in fact, familiar with my research, you must realize that my studies have indicated that homosexual males pose less risk of sexual harm to children (both male and female) — from both an absolute and a percentage incidence rate — than heterosexual males. Your statement that “the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners” appears to come from the assumption that if an adult male is attracted to a male child, this adult male’s sexual orientation is ipso facto homosexual.</p>

<p>Since your report, in my view, misrepresents the facts of what we know about this matter from scientific investigation, and does not indicate that my studies on this topic reach conclusions diametrically opposed to yours, I would appreciate your removing any reference to my work in your paper lest it appear to the reader that my research supports your views.</p>

<p>Yours truly,</p>

<p>A. Nicholas Groth, Ph.D.</p>

<p>Family Research Council, Pedophilla, Homosexuality, Right-Wing, Study, Children

</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p><a href=“http://www.joekort.com/articles50.htm[/url]”>http://www.joekort.com/articles50.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

… Pedophilia can be viewed as a kind of sexual fetish, wherein the person requires the mental image of a child–not necessarily a flesh-and-blood child–to achieve sexual gratification. Rarely does a pedophile experience sexual desire for adults of either gender. They usually don’t identify as homosexual–the majority identify as heterosexual, even those who abuse children of the same gender They are sexually aroused by youth, not by gender. In contrast, child molesters often exert power and control over children in an effort to dominate them. They do experience sexual desire for adults, but molest children episodically, for reasons apart from sexual desire, much as rapists enjoy power, violence and controlling their humiliated victims. Indeed, research supports that a child molester isn’t any more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual.</p>

<p>In fact, some research shows that for pedophiles, the gender of the child is immaterial. Accessibility is more the factor in who a pedophile abuses. This may explain the high incidence of children molested in church communities and fraternal organizations, where the pedophile may more easily have access to children. In these situations, an adult male is trusted by those around him, including children and their families. Males are often given access to boys to mentor, teach, coach and advise. Therefore, a male pedophile may have easier access to a male child. In trying to make sense of an adult male’s sexually abusing a male child, many of us mislabel it as an act of homosexuality, which it isn’t. </p>

<p>…In the same way, a pedophile abusing a child of the same sex is not perpetrating a homosexual act, but an act of violence and exploitation using sexuality. There is a world of difference between these two things, but it requires a subtle understanding of the inner motivation of the abuser.</p>

<p>To call child molestation of a boy by a man "homosexual” or of a girl by a man “heterosexual” is to misunderstand pedophilia. No true pedophile is attracted to adults, so neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality applies…</p>

<p>Interestingly, Anna C. Salter writes, in “Predators, Pedophiles, Rapists and other Sex Offenders”, that when a man molests little girls, we call him a “pedophile” and not a “heterosexual.” Of course, when a man molests little boys, people say outright, or mutter under their breath, "homosexual. Herek writes that because of our society’s aversion to male homosexuality, and the attempts made by some to represent gay men as a danger to “family values,” many in our society immediately think of male-male molestation as homosexuality. He compares this with the time when African Americans were often falsely accused of raping white women, and when medieval Jews were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Both are examples of how mainstream society eagerly jumped to conclusions to that justified discrimination and violence against these minorities. Today, gays face the same kind of prejudice. Most recently, we’ve seen gay men unfairly turned out of the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of this myth that gay men are likely to be child molesters. Keeping gays out of scouting won’t protect boys from pedophiles.</p>

<p>In reality, abuse of boys by gay pedophiles is rare, and the abuse of girls by lesbians is rarer still. Nicholas Groth is a noted authority on this topic. In a 1982 study by Grot, he asks, “Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children, and are pre-adolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual.” Herek writes, similarly, that abuse of boys by gay men is rare; and that the abuse of girls by lesbians is rarer still…</p>

<p>We know so much more than we did historically and yet have a long way to go. We can understand child sexual abuse further when people’s bias and prejudice are removed and the evidence is empirical and scientific.

</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>Gore Vidal (an expert?) on the subject, from the Left:</p>

<p>“There is no such thing as a homosexual or a heterosexual person. There are only homo – or heterosexual acts. Most people are a mixture of impulses if not practices.”</p>

<p>FWIW, I have no idea if the author’s correct–based on his vast experience with both, I just take him at his word.</p>

[logosprincipal]

<p>In keeping with the topic of the thread, we’ve been able to have a dialogue here in which different opinions on the subject of homosexuality have been presented. Students on public college campuses should have the same opportunity without their words being labeled “hate speech” and suppressed. Anyone is free to disagree with what is said and present their own arguments in a setting where there is true freedom of speech. </p>

<p>kluge,</p>

<p>The point of the information that you quote is that both homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles are often attracted to adults as well and that many pedophiles cover up their perversion by marrying and having children. </p>

<p>You seem to be closer to the homosexual issue than I am, so I’m surprised that you’d be asking me what their agenda is. If you don’t know, I’m sure that you could visit some homosexual activist websites and find out what they would like to accomplish.</p>

<p>Sam Lee,</p>

<p>If you don’t like the numbers from the “Demography” article there are others that you can look at. I’ve never heard any credible researcher say that homosexuals make up close to 10% of the population.</p>

[leanid]

<p>dmd,</p>

<p>Are you with cgm or something?! I do not know that I have a “my God” anymore than anybody else has “their God”. Hasn’t paganism been discredited for over 2000 years?</p>

<p>Why would my remark about genitalia imply evolution? Couldn’t God have created the arrangement?</p>

<p>I have no idea at all why God “created” homosexuals, but again, that assumes that they are born and not made. </p>

<p>I won’t even attempt to take on the “God” subject except to say that God appears to be dead or irrelevant to a lot of people - not for anything that God has or has not done, but for the highly improbable (not to say impossible!) reason that man has finally figured out, compartamentalized and for all intents DEFINED God, thereby LIMITING God, which is the most ridiculous mistake man can make. God has to be beyond our comprehension. To understand God makes God LESS than God.</p>

<p>Finally, I do think that God, in what ever way God cannot be defined, has a divine sense of humor, but I am probably wrong, of course!</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>leanid says:</p>

<p>“Hasn’t paganism been discredited for over 2000 years?”</p>

<p>discredited? how so? who discredited paganism? was there a committee? that statement just shows that some people feel their faith is “superior” to others</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>What I have been reading on this thread is that many people claim to KNOW what God thinks about gays and lesbians, and that they are sinners</p>

<p>That is claiming to know God…</p>

[leanid]

<p>cgm - Hope you weren’t referring to me, because you won’t find it.</p>

<p>Are you saying that paganism is where the truth lies?</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>I am saying how do you it isn’t? I want to know what you mean by discredited? What does that mean?</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>logosprincipal</p>

<p>

The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.

</p>

<p>That’s from the FRC’s article. So clearly there’s “widely accepted claim” out there though that author of FRC’s article tries to dispute it.</p>

<p>

In fact, some research shows that for pedophiles, the gender of the child is immaterial. Accessibility is more the factor in who a pedophile abuses. This may explain the high incidence of children molested in church communities and fraternal organizations, where the pedophile may more easily have access to children. In these situations, an adult male is trusted by those around him, including children and their families. Males are often given access to boys to mentor, teach, coach and advise. Therefore, a male pedophile may have easier access to a male child. In trying to make sense of an adult male’s sexually abusing a male child, many of us mislabel it as an act of homosexuality, which it isn’t.

</p>

<p>Yet the author in that FRC’s article took advantage of it and just labeled it “homosexual act”. The guy is no doctor or psychiatrst and doesn’t even hold any degree in science. No wonder the whole “study” sounds more like a poor summary paper. I felt like I was reading some advertistment. I’d never read any scientific journal article with such biased tone throughout my years in engineering school. LOL! </p>

<p>

If you are, in fact, familiar with my research, you must realize that my studies have indicated that homosexual males pose less risk of sexual harm to children (both male and female) — from both an absolute and a percentage incidence rate — than heterosexual males. Your statement that “the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners” appears to come from the assumption that if an adult male is attracted to a male child, this adult male’s sexual orientation is ipso facto homosexual.

</p>

<p>I bet this is how he approached his “study”. He had a predefined and biased goal to demonize gays/lesbians (his thesis) and searched every article under the sun using keywords '“homosexuals” and “pedephiles”. The he read them without really understanding them but took any sentence out there that seemed to fit his “thesis statement” and did so out of the context and put them all together in a “cohesive” way. Good enough for a high school paper. “study”? No way! :)</p>

[leanid]

<p>“I am saying how do you it isn’t?” - I do not follow the meaning of that sentence.</p>

<p>Let me correct my statement. Perhaps “discredited” is wishful thinking, and, I admit, is contrary to the idea that God is undefinable. If one believes in monotheism then one would naturally “discredit” the notion of polytheism.</p>

<p>Did you see the History Channel’s presentation of the Scope’s Trial (“Ten Days that Changed America” series)? During the trial a very true thought was expressed by William Jennings Bryan in his anti-evolution stance.</p>

<p>He said that if we discarded the idea that we were created in God’s image and therefore answerable to a supreme being (I am paraphrasing) and replaced it with the theory that life was just some incredible happenstance with no Creator behind, and that we were actually descended from monkees rather than God, then it makes all life meaningless and the world a bewildering place where anything – and I maen ANYTHING is okay, beacuse there is no right and wrong, no good and evil.</p>

<p>This is the unfortunate state we find ourselves in now. And, it is an indefensible one at that. What do we stand for – FREEDOM?! What has always been said about wars? – that the most dangerous ones are those based on religion – where one’s very reason for living is threatened. The war we are waging on Iraq, Afghanistan and by extension the Islamic world is a grave mistake and one which will no doubt require the use of nuclear weapons (if we do not manage to gracefully pull out) because “they” willl not give up and “we” cannot beat them on moral grounds – because, frankly the belief in humanistic “freedoms” is no match for the UNIFYING belief in a religion based on God, a supernatural (not human) being. Much as we would like to “enlighten” them, it is they who feel more strongly that we are the ones living in a NEW Dark Age.</p>

[logosprincipal]

<p>Sam Lee,</p>

<p>That’s the great thing! Thoughts are presented here that you are free to disagree with and to challenge. Unfortunately that freedom isn’t afforded on all of our college campuses. I’m a Christian, but I don’t consider someone who challenges my beliefs to be guilty of religious “hate speech”. One hopes that any dialogue will be civil and intelligent and carried out with the purpose of seeking truth, but obviously that won’t always be the case. It should be allowed anyway, and even the tenor of an argument speaks volumes.</p>

<p>You seem like a nice person, and I certainly have no bad feelings toward you even though we disagree on this issue.</p>