There are so many studies and links within that article, that I find it difficult to cherry pick any for this discussion.

I appreciate your reply. What I find frustrating is that a study such as this one, with all its many faults, is touted as evidence in discussions like the one Adam has here. It is not evidence. Yet it is cited by many other studies and editorials and activists.

The study was completed in 1994, and it actually described the type of study that would be much more definitive. Has no one done that study? Why not?

Is there no one that has addressed the underlying question in your discussion with Adam? That is, does a man/boy relation make that man a homosexual?

the number of studies done by groups like the AFA and other hyper religious groups far outnumber the number of studies done and published by the “gay agenda” drivers. Right now, the article I linked to is the definative article used by most social scientists and trackers of social abnormalities, such as pedophilia.

I’m trying not to make the “everyone knows” claims that Adam makes, but essentially the APA and other organizations that study and define the definitions of scientific labels agree with the first study, and they note the smallish sample size. I have the same disagreements with you on some of the methods used and I keep looking for more peer reviewed studies that give a more definative answer to this question.

My disagreement with radical religious groups is that they want to dehumanize and demonize gays with studies that just don’t meet the requirements and redefine relationships to make things appear much worse.

Homosexuals deserve the same recognitions in communities as everyone else. If we really want to skew numbers and react poorly to a situation, lets look at the number of priests and religious personel that have abused male children. Are all of those homosexual? Are they previously abused? Who are they? Why should any priest be allowed near a child?

And yet, despite what should have been a great fear of these “gay” priests, no priest has been killed because of their sexuality or their abuse of a child, no one has hysterically over-reacted to the priesthood’s abuse of children and forced laws on them to separate them out of normal society.

Yet thats not the same for homosexuals that want to live a normal life with a single partner, that are healthy, that deserve to live in health and happiness. People like Adam and Bryan Fischer want to shove these people back into the alleys and closets of society, so that they are forced to hide their sexuality behind false fronts. It gives these people more comfort when they arn’t confronted by homosexuality in any form whatsoever.

I went to your site and read the study you linked to. In the meantime, you and Adam have brought up the very thing that your study fails to address. That is, is a man that molests a boy a homosexual? This is what your study says on the matter:

“It might be argued that women offending against girls and men offending against boys constitutes homosexual conduct. One might also argue that the men in heterosexual relationships with the mothers or grandmothers of abused boys were really “bisexual” because of the evidence of relationships with individuals of both sexes. However, this post facto characterization of behavior, in addition to distracting us from the reality that child abuse has occurred, takes us far afield from the question of whether or not a group of persons may be committing a disproportionate amount of the child abuse in the community.”

Huh? That’s a big time avoidance of the question.

Adam’s statistics are based on the assumption that man/boy contact “proves” homosexuality. This particular study does not disprove that assumption.

Also of note is this paragraph,

“The central problem in conducting this study was attempting to establish the alleged offender’s sexual orientation. The authors had to decide on a definition of what might identify someone as homosexual. Definitions of homosexual orientation can be based on (1)categorization of specific sexual behaviors, (2)self identification, or (3)social perception of the individual’s presentation to the community.”

(bolded numbers added)

The study uses only one of the above forms of defining homosexual orientation: social perception. I would argue that social perception of homosexuality was very different when this study was conducted (1994) than it is now. To be sure, more homosexuals were “in the closet” then than now. Perceiving if these men were homosexuals would be much more difficult because it was much more hidden.

I do have more general critiques of the study. Only 269 children were studied. Of these, only 50 were boys. That doesn’t seem very representative of the abused population. Interestingly, 84% of the abused boys were abused by men. However, 94% of the abused girls were abused by men as well. Also of note is the fact that all of the abusers are categorized as “alleged”. None of the data used for the study comes from the abusers or from court records. Therefore, we don’t know if any of the “alleged abusers” is actually the abuser. They have simply been accused.

The study itself proposes ways to improve,

“The current study would be improved if done prospectively with a standardized interview format where negative responses were routinely charted.”

“The definitive study of this question would be a prospective, longitudinal design that collected data concerning a specific cohort of children over a time frame of many years.”

I appreciate the link to a peer reviewed study on the subject. However, this one doesn’t answer the question at hand.

I will post this at your site as well.

Homosexuals are just as unlikely to be a predator as you or ayone else. You can accept that or you can be a whackjob screaming at your bunny slippers in a home somewhere. Hatred has that effect.

It’s as if I declared I was a non-smoker and swore up and down that I was, but went out and smoked that the same researchers would no doubt declare me a non-smoker because of my declaation.

And unfortunately for you, the scientific and medical world agrees with me on an overwhelming basis.

Essentially, though, I will summarize the findings of many doctorate level studies: that the percentage of sexual child abuse by homosexuals is exactly the same as their percentage in society, slightly above 2%.

I would even be willing to accept a slightly higher figure, if the study concluded that there was a reasonable standard deviation and that the number studied was high enough. I would also respect a study that didn’t attempt to redefine homosexuality in order to raise the percentage.

Those that keep twisting the definition of homosexuality would normally end up with over 10% of the population as homosexual (and possibly as high as 40-50%, I would estimate). The problem is that they won’t post their redefinitions in a succinct manner that can be repeated by other studies.

I’d be curious to know if you have any statistics to compare with those that Adam has provided?

Your agenda will mean death, great amounts of it. Intolerance, death camps, anarchy are the only results that come from religious domination and the demands that it forces on a society. Nothing good has come from agendas like that.

Long live the FSM. Arrgh, I’m a pirate.

And no, there is no homosexual agenda, but I’m glad you’ve tried out the Conspiracy Theory game. I’m sure our hosts have some great parting gifts for you.

You’ve proven it’s pointless, your mind is closed. You are going to hate, revile and demonize homosexuals without regards to facts, with disregard for their humanity and in the fact of the teachings of Christ. How can anyone that reads this blog begin to trust you or anyone that you’re affiliated with, such as Bryan Fischer? I don’t think you know you’re lying, that you are furthering the cause of those that wish to turn America into a fundamentalist Christian nation. If you want an “agenda” maybe you should check out what Daddy Dobson and his clones are doing with a little more pessimism. I don’t think you’re capable of it, though, you’re just too wound up in the whole thing to see anything with an open mind, and pessimism does require that, at the very least.

You ignore organizations the protect and counsel children, you ignore organizations that have worldwide recognition and you ignore the major schools of thought and you make these claims? For what ends? What do you want to do, force gay’s underground? Make them hide, make them shunned and reviled by society?

I read your dissertation to that question a few months ago, it’s nothing more than God gibberish and biggotry with very little of your thoughts having the consistancy of independence from the AFA, the FRC, or even the CCC.

And stop playing pathetic semantics games and answer a question for once.

Yes, I may never remove the “ghey” (whoever they are) from society but you will never succeed in removing the “e” from aren’t no matter how much you try.

Also, you can only come up with these numbers if you redefine pedophilia, and your assumption that those 18 and younger can’t be pedophiles? I’d like to see a reason you decided to make that assumption. I think the APA would definately disagree with you.

See, you don’t understand what you are doing here. You are at the bidding of the church, demonizing a segment of the population for nothing other than legislature. You arn’t going to remove the ghey from society, you arn’t going to cure them, you arn’t going to change these numbers. You are using fake statistics and your pathetic assumptions to harm a segment of society. That makes you a bigot, although a statistical bigot.

Shoot, 47% of the population knows that 90% of the statistics are made up on the spot.

I understand your need to dehumanize homosexuals, and to demonize them, but you only make yourself look like a tool when you continue to use false statistics and misleading studies to make your case.

Just like that lying scumbag, Bryan Fischer.