Gay Men and Pedophilia

[Huggins293]

I want to respond to the article connecting gay men to pedophilia.
(http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3)

The article reflects bias toward gay men based on three reasons:

1. It fails to logically explain any relation between adult/adult love to adult/child love. What is in inherent in homosexuality that causes any homosexual to lust after children?

2. Even if a disproportonate amount of pedophiles are gay, it does not prove that homosexuality causes pedophilia. Does a disproportionate number of blacks men in jail prove that being black is a cause of crime?

3. None of these studies cite lesbians as perpertrators of pedophillia. Thus, it is obvious they are targeting gay men. Lesbians and gay men share same sex attraction. Why do the studies only indicate gay men as being disproportionately pedophilic?

Articles like this clearly should be used as a means to study heterosexism/homophobia that still has a stronghold in many segments of our society. Has anyone seen similiar bias in other studies concerning christians, latinos, blacks, women and men? Please share them.

[Vanessa White]

Hey huggins: I wanted to respond, but have not read this article yet or know of others. What I have heard however, in the course of my trainings on gay/lesbian identity, is one of the most prevalent beliefs/myths about homosexuality is that the majority of pedophiles are homosexual in orientation. Actually, over 90% is what I have read, of the perpetrators are heterosexual in orientation. It reminds me of the whole idea that the crime of rape involves sexual motivators, when in all actuality, sex is the weapon wielded as a way of power, having little or nothing to do with sex. There is, indeed, gay men and lesbians who are pedophiles, however, it is not the norm. The majority of pedophiles are also male (sorry guys).

[andrewlittle]

The source of the article highlighted above should be a clue to the bias of the writing.

Quote from Family Research Council website:

The Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.

The FRC claim to speak for all people who are pro-marriage and family values. Here we go again with the same old BS. The site even has pictures of the FRC leaders meeting with good ol' George in the Oval Office. Thankfully, we have the FRC to tell us what comprises a "Judeo-Christian worldview", which none of us, obviously, possess.

Analysis for the sake of validating bias: (from the cited article)

Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. (Now how do we interpret these findings to proof this shit? - Andy) A study in the Journal of Sex Research found, as we have noted above, that "approximately one-third of [child sex offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls." The authors then make a prescient observation: "Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1."
In other words, although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles (that's how - we state that male child molestation is committed only by homosexuals - Andy) commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.
Similarly, the Archives of Sexual Behavior also noted that homosexual pedophiles are significantly overrepresented in child sex offence cases:
The best epidemiological evidence (see below) indicates that only 2 to 4 percent of men attracted to adults prefer men (ACSF Investigators, 1992; Billy et al.,1993; Fay et al.,1989; Johnson et al.,1992); in contrast, around 25 to 40 percent of men attracted to children prefer boys (Blanchard et al.,1999; Gebhard et al.,1965; Mohr et al.,1964). Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles."[18]

Epidemiology - the branch of medicine dealing with the incidence and prevalence of disease in large populations and with detection of the source and cause of epidemics of infectious disease.
Epidemiological evidence can be very useful if, and only if, one considers either homosexuality or pedophilia, or both, to be communicable diseases. Hmmm.

From Wikipedia:

Use of the term pedophile to describe all child sexual offenders is seen as problematic by many people (see 1,2,3 below) especially when viewed from a medical standpoint, as the majority of sex crimes against children are perpetrated by situational offenders rather than people sexually preferring prepubertal children.

The categories of child sexual offenders are generally considered to be a/ preferential - those who stick to a preferred classification of victim (gender included); b/ situational - opportunists who choose children because they are easier to prey on than adults, and to whom gender and age are insignificant; and, c/sadistic - those purely motivated by inflicting pain and torture on other people - this group is also considered "situational" with regard to gender and age of victim.

In considering the research that states that approximately 10% of pedofiles are preferential (see citations below) the incidence in which boys are molested by someone with a preference for boys is only 10% of the "one-third" cited in the FRC article. That would equate to 3.33% of child molestations being driven by homosexuals, if and only if a preference for young males can be equated with a general preference for males. Any citations to this assumption is missing.

In any case, 3.33% does NOT indicate any disproportionate ratio of homosexual pedofiles, when compared to the general population. It is, in fact, quite proportional. At worst, it states that the gay community has an instance of pedophilia that is virtually identical to the population at large.

When considering the child population as a whole I suggest the following:
a/ the ratio of boys to girls is approximately 49% to 51%. This would indicate that, statistically, 49 out of 100 child molestation victims should be boys, assuming that there is relatively equal access to children of either gender.
b/ Following the FRC logic (seriously flawed, but I'll use iot for sake of argument), fully 49% of child molestation cases, those involving boys, should be allocated to homosexuals.
c/ Since the incidence of molestation of boys is only 33%, I could make an argument that homosexuals are one-third less likely than heterosexuals to commit pedophilia (33/49).
Of course, the problem would be that I would be abusing statistical analysis, in much the same way that the FRC has, in order to make this claim.

Since figures don't lie, we can only assume that the people who present the analysis of the figures take care of that part of the misrepresentation.

Analysis = assumption * bias + or - ones ability to distort the numbers.


1 Joint submission from the Northern Territory Government and Police, 9 March 1995, page 4. Cited in "Organised Criminal Paedophile Activity." 14.8% of the sample were assessed to be pedophiles.
2 DiLorenzo, JoAnn (1981). "How a prominent Ware attorney preyed on troubled boys," They Valley Advocate, quoting the FBI's Kenneth Lanning, who estimates that only 10% of child sex offenders are preferential.
3 Marshall, W.L., Barbaree, H.E., and Eccles, A. (1991). "Early onset and deviant sexuality in child molesters," Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6(3), 323-336. 33.8% of the sample showed arousal to children.

[andrewlittle]

Hey, I just thought of something.

I believe that there may be a link between pedophilia and homophobia.

Can someone help me manipulate - opps, mutilate - crappe, analyze - that's the word I was looking for - analyze the statistics to prove my point?

Skills required: Great imagination, very little ability in math or science (none is better), a total lack of scruples, and a passionate desire to recreate reality into something that resembles the picture inside my head. Damn it, I said my head - not yours.

Of course, angelic looks that disguise your demonic intentions are also a plus.

Next project - creating a marketing or brain-washing program to prove that ex-homophobe therapy really does work. The working title is "Unpucker with Jesus". I was considering using a similar word with an "e" instead of "u", but I thought that might be questionable and possibly a little vague. Another option is Repudiative Therapy but, since I'm going to be making everything else up out of thin air, I'd best not do that with a word for the title.

[Dash]

Jim Burroway offers a most excellent article at his blog Box Turtle Bulletin:

Testing The Premise:
Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?
A discussion of gay sexuality and homosexual molestation
Jim Burroway
September 26, 2005; revised October 16, 2006.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,002.htm



Highly recommended reading!

[erubre]

It appears that whenever reference is made to those who have sexual attraction and/or contact with people under the age of legal consent that then it is called pedophillia. I believe that term is correctly applied only if the underage person has not reached the age of puberty. The age of consent is different in other areas, other states and countries. Some places it is 14, other places 18. The age of puberty is different for each individual and generally that age goes lower every few years. If I remember correctly it is 3 months on average every ten years for the past several decades. I do not believe it is correct to use the term pedophillia with regard to sexual attraction to persons over the age of puberty regardless of the age of consent in any given area. I believe that the reason the term pedophillia is misapplied, as usually is, is in order to more strongly inflame the public against the sexual attraction or conduct. There is an important difference between sexual attraction between a person under the age of puberty then with one over that age. But seldom is the distinction made. The term pedophillia is not a legal term but a clinical term. Often a person is refered to as a "child" in one circumstance but the same person may be regarded an "adult" in another set of circumstances. Truthfullness in this matter by using the correct term could go a long way in overcoming some of the prejudice, bigotry, discrimination and intolerance. Of course sexual conduct should only take place within the law, meaning between persons of legal age to consent. But it is important to realize that, to be correct, it is still not pedophillia if both participants are over the age of puberty. It is not pedophillia if all persons involved have reached puberty. Whether activity is legal or illegal depends on the age of consent where the activity takes place. It is important to be aware that regardless of the legal age of consent the law is not always in all places applied indiscriminately. When homosexuality is involved the age of consent may not be considered due to discrimination etc.

[novaseeker]

Under our current cultural understandings, yes, it is very wrong and abusive.

The problem is that at least some anti-gay folk take those current cultural understandings and apply them to, say, Ancient Greece, observe that a good deal of the same-sex activity that was taking place there was ephebophilic (typically using the word pederasty) and draw a conclusion along the lines of: "See ... homosexual men do tend to be disproportionately interested in 'boys' ... look at what they did when the culture was tolerant of same sex relations", when of course it was completely normal in Ancient Greece for these activities to take place regardless of the gender of the partners they were not socially unaccepted or considered immoral, and the age difference and ranges also applied to opposite-sex relationships such as marriage where the "woman" party to the marriage was typically between 12 and 15 and 10-20 years younger than her mate. Alas, most people are not that sophisticated historically, and will be convinced by such casual and distortive references, which is problematic for us, of course.

All of this is very cultural, and we have to remember that. For the situation of ancient Greece to apply to day would be very immoral and wrong, of course, but we also have to be aware that the current anti-gay people in this culture of ours are not above distorting history to misrepresent us in the current cultural context as well.

[erubre]

Originally Posted by davidcom

The term that accurately applies to an attraction to adolescents is ephebophilia. You're correct that "pedophile" applies only to a person who is attracted to pre-pubescent children.

This however doesn't change the fact that sexual activity with vulnerable persons is immoral whether it is illegal or not. For an adult person to engage in sexual activity with an adolescent is wrong whether its pedophilia or not.

In some places, if not all states and countries, where both or all parties in sexual activity are at or above the age of puberty but under the age of legal consent, it may be illegal for them to engage mutually in sexual activity. Whether the law in that regard is enforced is another matter, but it could be. What is moral or immoral is another matter. Not everything immoral is illegal, as not everything moral is legal. And the issue of morality may be different for every individual.

[BronzDragon]

Originally Posted by Huggins293

I want to respond to the article connecting gay men to pedophilia.

» Thom says: ☛ Herek, Gregory M. [Ph.D.], Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation; University of California, Davis; Davis, CA ( http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...lestation.html ); 2006;

The Strength of an academic source is that it is peer reviewed, and must be cited. They also declare the method of research, the questions and their causes, and if APA, the results of the research and any experiments needed to bring this paper to completion.

[Rick336]

Just yesterday here in Winston-Salem a Baptist Minister was arrested for seducing a 17 year old boy over the internet. This is the second time since October that a leader of a local Baptist Church has been arrested for seducing teenage boys.

If we are to use the same reasoning that this study does then aren't Southern Baptists a threat to underage boys?

Of course not. And neither are gay men.

Rick

[ladyinred]

Ok, we obviously know that Paul Cameron hates gays, couldnot his research as a result have been distorted to support his biases.... I'm going to re read his stuff but it apparently does show a propensity to set out and objective to demonize gays in general...The man has been discredited by APA as a quack or a pseudo scientist for obvious reasons he has no integrity.. when we look at other studies by more qualified or reputable science it seeks to come up with more objective data that is not confined to their biases...

[ladyinred]

The man paints a totally negative view of gays in general,saying that a disproportionate number of gays are rapists ,serial killers, drug addicts, spreaders of stds and aids, self destructive, same blah, blah, blah.. The man's research is obviously biased and he shows an abnormal obsession with gays in particular, why not do a study on heterosexual rapists, criminals, serial killers, pedophiles, heterosexuals who get stds and other diseases and engage in self destructive lifestyles..how about straight men and women who engage in promiscious sexual behavior, or what about the ones who visit prostitutes?Or have oral and anal sex or engage in other sexual behaviors...Or have extramaritial affairs, Or who abuse children? Have gone to jail? Committed certain offenses?Had fights with their patrners or public brawls ?

What about the large amount of pornography indulged in by many heterosexuals.. Or use drugs and alcohol by them? Why not a fair objective study on both groups.. because he is biased and hell bent on proving his thesis that all homosexuals live and engage in destructive lifestyles while overlooking that there are many heterosexuals who do the same... Most rapists as far as I know rape women in disproportionate numbers... It is a crime of violence.
The man even suggested homosexuals be exterminated and you ought to see his website , it has a family portrait on it that comes from the fifties, even his language doesn't fit in with psychological jargon that is normally reserved for many psychologists. the man is infantile... he is definitely biased..
If anything why not do research into any form of destructive behavior regardless of gender or sexual orientation and find out about what are the causes, that at least would promote a balanced view... why not do a study on why a disproportionate number of teens today in our society are having sex at an earlier age, how about teenage pregnancies... or teenage drug use.. or how about juvenile crime...suicide, date rape?

Why even take this man seriously, he just has a narrow focus on homosexuality as an abnormality and is obviously obsessive in his preoccupation with homosexuality. Psychologists would see this as an abnormal obssessive fixation or use some similar terminology to explain his abnormal behavior.. What are his undelying motives....he sees homosexuality as a crime against humanity... His research is totally negative.

I was reading on his website that children in gay families say that they had troubled childhoods.. I'll make an assertion that no child grows up in a perfect household and many children have had troubled childhoods or far from perfect childhoods. Even those with parents who love them, still have to deal with society at large and life at large... We all know of kids who get picked on by bullies, or are called names and made fun of at school or experience other difficulties through no fault of their parents, to just name a few things that go on in adolescent life... I'm not going to say much more other than he can be taken too seriously by people who want to believe him. That makes him dangerous, but his research can hardly be called reasonable...

If this was a man who was truly a good researcher or a scientist who would be more balanced in his view and more objective... it might be different... or if he was someone who was trying to do research to understand more about the behavior or the person... I might validate his findings. Think on this,anyone who says a certain group of people(Gays) should be exterminated should tell you alot about the mental workings of a person. No legitimate psychologist or researcher would ever say those things.. They want to study human behavior and know more about it , but most good psychologists aim at helping the person understand their own behavior and to deal with their own issues without trying to promote bias(Or at least hopefully..)

Yes his research does condemn gays as the worst sort of human being possible, but that can hardly be founded on reason...Not to say that there aren't gays that do engage in self destructive behavior or criminal behavior but that could hardly make them the brunt of most of societal problems or ills. Or make them the only ones. In general sense ,all human beings can engage in either constructive or destructive behavior ,healthy or unhealthy .... but that fits the human race in general, these problems could hardly be isolated to a certain group of people based on their sexual orientation.

There are many psychologists and researchers who are alot more advanced in their understanding of human behavior than him... He uses terminology such as mental healthism.... I've never personally heard a qualified counselor ,psychiatrist or psychologist ever use such terminology..

In effect if I were to describe his research, I would have to say compared to many he is like the runt of the litter.... He's like the Forrest Gump of research.. He has a basically distorted focus on certain negative tendacies or behaviors of certain people and has made a sweeping overgeneralization that all gays do the same..

[ladyinred]

To further put this in perspective, even if you are a GLBT person living in a monagamous relationship, or even a single gay who goes to church and tries to live a decent life, they will always find ways to discredit you... no matter what good you try to do, or no matter how much you try to live a good life... it doesn't matter... You could be honest, you could be caring, you could love your children, love God.. It will not matter. Take Jesus as the example even though he lived a blameless life he was still afronted with people who reviled and discredited him and even said he was the devil himself, criticized him and even attacked him on his views.. He was even said to have had a demon in him when he performed miracles and there were those who hated him and wanted him dead. So whats new in todays world?

[Rick336]

Here's how Paul Cameron describes homosexuality:

"Homosexuality is an infectious appetite with personal and social consequenses. It is like the dog that gets a taste for blood after killing its first victim and desires to get more victims thereafter with a ravenous hunger."

Keep in mind that James Dobson supports this man's opinion which tells you a little about Dobson's commitment to the values of truth and respect.

Here's a link to the Southern Poverty Law Center that has a bio on Paul Cameron:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?aid=587

Rick

[ladyinred]

Here is food for thought, I heard it from Wayne Dyer on PBS.. Be independent of the good opinion of others. Again this relates back to Jesus and his ministries. Many people today are much like the religious pharisees of Jesus day who didn't like or approve of his way of worshipping God or doing things.. He often came head to head with them and they would do anything to discredit him .
He did not conform to their world view or their way of doing things nor to their way of thinking. He even said many of his own would reject him... Jesus had faced many of the same problems that GLBT people are facing today. He was hardly in the norm...He hardly fit into the usual practice of things in his day..he hardly conformed to the practices of the pharisees... He was often rejected, ridiculed , criticized, and as I said earlier people even would call him demon possessed, and said he had performed miracles through the devil.
He faced scorn ,contempt , was laughed at and was even disliked in many cases..even gossiped about and had his own character and integrity maligned .He faced the same trials that we faced, because he didn't fit in or conform to what was considered the standard or normal for his day...Would you say Jesus tried to fit in or conform to what was considered the normal religious practices of his day.. Obviously he didn't... Did he practice what the religious contemporaries of his day did, obviously not.. So what I am trying to say to GLBT people.. is if we face the same trials why should it be considered out of the ordinary... The thing is people tend to cling to the old status quo of doing what is right considered by someone elses standards or ideals.. but even though the religious protagonist want everyone to fit into their ideal of a heterosexual marriage with the kids. not everyone conforms to their standard or ideal.. there are other families, married without children, single, single parents ,relatives raising children such as grandparents raising children,people who adopt, people who live with roomates, people who are divorced... Older children living with their parents and caring for their parents, the list goes on.. so obviously these people don't fit into their ideal or standards either and according to their belief system apparently must not be considered normal , since their ideal of perfection is one man, one woman and children.
Even if they could force people to live a certain way, I guarantee it would not last long because people will not long be subdued to tyranny without some sort of revolt or revulsion... or resistance.. Throughout history we see this is the case... Either that or they would go underground and live some secret life... Why are there so many divorces.. perhaps people felt obligated to marry , or perhaps for the wrong reasons, or perhaps it was expected of them...?
I will relay something I heard from a friend and this is quite curious, she said she has heard alot of stories of married men have secret affairs with other men... Surprised me... Secret lives? Reminds me of Ted Haggerty...

[ladyinred]

Also curiously enough there are pedophiles that sexually molest both girls and boys.. But what does Cameron call a pedophile A 19 year old going with a 16 year old? There are plenty of 25 year old guys who could be said to do the same thing.. We hear about even 45 year old men sleeping with their 17-18 year old babysitter. That homosexuals are more likely to bcome pedophiles is highly unlikely.
I was reading the Cameron's website and he said that homosexuals were in the top six as serial killers, more likely to commit crimes and go to prison,more likely to fight and and often were arrested fro public disorderly conduct(like fight with someone else)more likely to rape..Gimmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeee a break.Not one thing did he say was postive, it was totally negative.. It painted a totally negative picture of GLBT people in general. I might understand a study of detructive tendacies or negative or antisocial behavior, but that could hardly be confined to the GLBT population..
Of course anyone who wants to paint an entirely negative picture of a group could easily do so based on their prejudices and judgements.. Let's say for example in the past when there was the inquisition and other atrocities committed by those of the Christian faith, would it be fair to say all Christians do such things or did do such things... Would it be fair to judge the Catholic church today based on history... Many in the Catholic church today would not condone violence, much less war or atrocity.. Let's say a gay man was arrested for an incident that occurred when he was younger, is it fair to judge him based on the past, if he is no longer the same person today and wouldn't do the same things? Let's say a man was promiscious when he was younger but not now and in a monogamous relationship, would it be fair to judge him by his past actions...Let's say a young gay man did drugs and was wild in his younger dyas and has since settled down and no longer uses drugs... would it be fair to judge him basd on past actions.
So even this was a study based on partial facts and findings , for example... It still is underestimating the fact that human nature does grow and evolve and change... It is now true that many gays are more cautious in their sexual behavior because of aids, but it is also true that there is a basic misperception and stigma that has attached aids to homosexual.. where theoretically it was supposed to originate.. I don't think any of us can claim to have absolute knowledge as to the orgins of diseases or the spread of them and certain practices may help avoid in alleviating them...
But what explains the large epidemic of aids in countries like Africa where it is estimated that ten million children are now orphaned to the disease.. (Who were their parents? Predominately heterosexuals) If aids originated in homosexuals and is a homosexual disease, then only homosexuals could and would get it... I actually read an article where gay men were a part of a government experiment and actually were infected unknowingly with the disease. While that may sound like a conspiracy theory, the goverment is not above that type of behavior and did experiements on unwitting American soldiers with chemical and gases without their knowledge..and it has been documented and proven.
I remember reading about this experiment on gay men in New York city for a hepititus vaccine, I think it happened in New York City if I remember correctly but I'd have to get the information again and my memory isn't always correct ,but it was an ad calling for homosexual men to be guinea pigs for a certain experiment that supposedly was to provide a vacine.. Her si an articl though that might be interestinghttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_thread/thread/2bfb9a371b0e2f45/d48c287b4686dbb8%23d48c287b4686dbb8, and here is an article on the hepatitus vaccines experiment in New York..http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/t.../hivconsp.html ( found it and my memory did serve correct) and world stats on aids..http://www.avert.org/worldstats.html, and this is a real interesting one saying aids originated in Africa in the late 70's http://aidsbiowar.com/page2.htm While I'm not a big conspiracy buff unless there is proof behind it. The experiments done on militray men were found out years later because the govt covered it up and denied it.. We heard about the experiments done in Nazi Germany with eugenics and frankly I think there are a few madmen running the country and in the govt.. here is another article that Eugenics also was practiced in America...http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/021500-02.htm ,Also an article on Nazi eugenics who hated homosexuals.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics
Ok now lets take a look at Paul Camerons study on homosexuals and those who accept it many in the fundamnetalist or conservative Christian movement and many in the republican party are of that movement... Paul Cameron basically madea statement that homosexuals should be exterminated, could the government had carried out secret experiments on gay men above without their knowing as mentioned in the above articles claims, and being unknowlingly infected with the virus spead it to other gay men.. Don't put anything past them.. While I'm not saying to be paranoid... I still wouldn't put it past the government to do soething like that.. They've done worst in the past...So how dangerous is Cameron, I'd say take him seriously because there are too many people who do... and believe his research..I wouldn't write him of as some idle threat...He even looks like a blonde Hitler.

[ladyinred]

If you take this seriously then you are quacked... Paul Cameron according to research on heterosexual familes state that women ae more likely to be violent than men and have higher incidences of aggression then men..While I won't exclude there aren't women who are abusive toward men and I cannot say what the percentage is , but how come there aren't shelters for battered men ? And ones overfilling with women and their children with waiting lists.In his research ,women are more likely to kill their children than men and commit as much sexual abuse of children as men.......http://fathersforlife.org/fv/family_...ge.htm#women_v,
http://fathersforlife.org/fv/family_...age.htm#sex_ca Is Paul Cameron a misogynist? Must hate women as much as he hates homosexuals.Heterossexual men are just poor victims who can do no wrong..

[ladyinred]

Also I was reading some research on pedophiles it seems they don't have a definite sexual orientation, they just like kids,some will molest both , some will have a certain preference... But there doesn't seem to be valid research that links it to a definite sexual orientation.. The research does conclude that a pedophile does have a definite preference of children over adults....And this is what is defined as a pedophile. But there are people who molest children who aren't pedophiles.. but it would be erroneous to equate pedophilia with homosexuality.. If most heterosexuals are supposedly normal by virtue of marriage the how come there are those who molest, or even rape women or children.. Would this be a characteristic of being heterosexual then? Would it be fair to eqaute such acts with heterosexuality then.. Of course not...

[ladyinred]

Why I found this particular subject disturbing is I found that it bothered a few people on this website that Camerons research was disturbing, I call it pseudo-science and which is why I chose to look into and write further on the subject to clarify things. There are no fixed characteristics that govern any group of people.. As I said if someone is married and molests children does that define heterosexuality in general..it obviously does not. Cameron's studies are often prejudicial and bigoted , after reading some of his research on women he seems to have a bent on research that tends to justify certain stereotypes about a certain group of people.. Again certain characteristics are not fixed to a certain group of people. People's characters or lack of it are variable. For all we know he might have deliberately set out to pick a certain group that would fit into his stereotypes and biases.. The old saying if you want to prove something badly enough , you can always justify the means for doing so... His psychological methods remind me of the science of Eugenics.. trying to prove that a certain group are inherently bad, immoral deficient and therefore need to be disposed of. Read this on eugenics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics That would then certainly validate a need to get rid of those awful homosexuals wouldn't it? Let's legislate hate and deprive them of equal rights, they are a degenerate bunch...They don't deserve the same rights as others...
If we can plant the seeds of suspicion , hate and fear in peoples mind , we'll be able to justify the means to an end to make laws that would further deprive them of rights and liberty.. Look how awful and morally depraved and inferior they are to us.... Hate wears many guises and if you look at the history of eugenics in Nazi , it seems to apply to the same rationale and thinking of Paul Cameron.. After all homosexuals should be exterminated.. Sound familiar... Like I said I've seen a picture of the man, he looks like a blond Hitler... Paul Cameron is demented in his own way.. Let's look at the history of genocide and extermination of a certain group of people... it is usually the intent to demonize the selct object of that hatred as the moral degenerate , the trouble of social problems the threat to the welfare of society.. During the holocaust the jews were depicted as vile animals , antisocial, the problems , the depraved ,a threat to Germans....http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/3_FRAMES_PAGE.htm
In a mind as twisted as Paul Cameron's ,the same reasoning reasonates in his mind as that of the Nazi's and Hitler... they needed a scapegoat as well.
Hatred is much like love ,you plant that seed of consciousness and it will grow... People who want to believe in Paul Cameron's research will gravitate to it .. I would never say hatred and fear are passive as we've seen through out history of mankind it has been anything but...

[BrianB]

I'm not sure this is the correct thread to share this but here goes. I was in counseling for anxiety and depression and was becoming comfortable sharing with this counselor. It had been going through my mind for some time that maybe I could share my attraction for men with him so I finally did it. He tried to reassure me that it was okay. Do you want to know how he did this? He told me that he had worked for years with sex offenders and nothing I could say would shock him. I asked for a different counselor after that session. That was very hurtful that the first thing he thought of was sex offenders.