Newsgroup: it.sociale.scout
Titolo: How Homosexualists Redefine Homosexual Child Molesting - Part I

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.
     
 

