Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse

An important portion of an important article:

VICTIM'S TURNED VICTIMIZERS: THE CONSEQUENCES OF HOMOSEXUAL CHILD ABUSE

The steadfast denial of the disturbing ties with pedophilia within the homosexual movement is no purely academic matter. Perhaps the most tragic aspect of the homosexual-pedophile connection is the fact that men who sexually molest boys all too often lead their victims into homosexuality and pedophilia. The evidence indicates that a high percentage of homosexuals and pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children:

·  The Archives of Sexual Behavior reports: "One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender."[70]

·  A study of 279 homosexual/bisexual men with AIDS and control patients discussed in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported: "More than half of both case and control patients reported a sexual act with a male by age 16 years, approximately 20 percent by age 10 years."[71]

·  Noted child sex abuse expert David Finkelhor found that "boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience. . . . Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences."[72]

·  A study in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology found:"In the case of childhood sexual experiences prior to the age of fourteen, 40 percent (of the pedophile sample) reported that they had engaged 'very often' in sexual activity with an adult, with 28 percent stating that this type of activity had occurred 'sometimes'"[73]

·  A National Institute of Justice report states that "the odds that a childhood sexual abuse victim will be arrested as an adult for any sex crime is 4.7 times higher than for people . . . who experienced no victimization as children."[74]

·  A Child Abuse and Neglect study found that 59 percent of male child sex offenders had been "victim of contact sexual abuse as a child."[75]

·  The Journal of Child Psychiatry noted that "there is a tendency among boy victims to recapitulate their own victimization, only this time with themselves in the role of perpetrator and someone else the victim."[76]

The circle of abuse is the tragic legacy of the attempts by homosexuals to legitimize having sex with boys. For too many boys it is already too late to protect them from those who took advantage of their need for love and attention. All too many later perpetrate the abuse by themselves engaging in the sexual abuse of boys. Only by exposing the lies, insincere denials, and deceptions--including those wrapped in scholastic garb--of those who prey sexually on children, can we hope to build a wall of protection around the helpless children among us.

[...]

70. Marie, E. Tomeo, et al., "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons," Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539.
71. Harry W. Haverkos, et al., "The Initiation of Male Homosexual Behavior," The Journal of the American Medical Association 262 (July 28, 1989): 501.
72. Watkins and Bentovim, p. 316.
73. Gary A. Sawle, Jon Kear-Colwell, "Adult Attachment Style and Pedophilia: A Developmental Perspective," International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45 (February 2001):6.
74. Cathy Spatz Widom, "Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse - Later Criminal Consequences," Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse Series:NIJ Research in Brief, (March 1995): 6.
75. Elliott, p. 582.
76. Watkins, p. 319. Watkins mentions several studies confirming that between 19 percent and 61 percent of male sex abusers had previously been sexually abused themselves.

Read the whole article: Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse.

NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) and others have been calling for new research, especially on the efficacy of Reparative Therapy; but other associations, particularly the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association, have made concerted efforts to block all such research because those associations are afraid the outcome of such research will expose the official positions on homosexuality of those associations as having been incorrect for well over 40 years.

Also, if you are tempted to blast either NARTH or me for NARTH being abusive or having no evidence, etc., don't do it. Rather, go to the NARTH site and actually read a great deal there to discover for yourself that NARTH absolutely does not support any punishment or electroshock treatments or anything of the like and does not seek to treat people (adults or children) against their will. You will also find the facts, the evidence, that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts, Reparative Therapy, Conversion Therapy, or whatever term you want to use where we are discussing what NARTH currently supports in terms of therapy, works and works well.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • "...(homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation."

      "25 percent of the offenders were homosexual pedophiles."

      "42 percent of male pedophiles engaged in homosexual molestation."

      "...the percentage of the homosexual pedophiles would be 45.8." Even adjusted downward for exhibitionists, "this would still indicate a much higher percentage (34 percent) of homosexuals among pedophiles than among men who prefer physically mature partners."

    • You are a conundrum, Tom Usher. Your introduction to this site is flat wonderful. Anyone clearly seeing the perversion of the church by Constantine into an organization perpetuating the teachings of the Talmud as law rather than as advice to consider or as a gift rather than shackles cannot be accused of being blind. But your insistence that the perversion, sin and horror of visiting rape on the young is other than a unique practice especially of our powerful - including the current Pope - is a matter of sexual orientation rather than a lack of moral compass or conscience I do not find liberal or convincing.

      I have no hope of dissuading you from a puzzling obsession with the Family Research Council or even Conversion Therapy as I  conclude you to be a homophobe - which I am not. Rather I believe God's Law does not exclude such from compassion or fellowship when the sensitivity of  personal space is respected. But when you advertise this as a refuge for liberals some opinions are held which do not work to agreement.
      Not that I think psychotherapy and psychology exempt from political bias.

      What a person sees when looking around.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council
      The Family Research Council opposes legalized abortion
      ( hmm. Availability of birth control cuts abortion drastically. And one cannot prevent abortion : merely prevent best practice being available. )
      stem-cell research    ( my reading of health researcher/teacher Blue Girl laments such )
      legal recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships in the form of marriage or civil unions
      ( no family : cruelty incarnate breeding social dysfunction and law which is not fair and impartial )

      And risk of being blinded by our preconceptions is not an excuse for recklessness.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
      "Conversion therapy" (also known as "Reparative therapy") is a pseudo-scientific therapy that aims to change sexual orientation.[1][2] Conversion therapy has been a source of intense controversy in the United States and other countries.[3] The American Psychiatric Association
      has condemned psychiatric "treatment" which is "based upon the
      assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon
      the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual
      homosexual orientation."[4] It states that, "Ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation."[5]
      It also states that political and moral debates over the integration of
      gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society have obscured
      scientific data about changing sexual orientation "by calling into
      question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides
      of the issue."[4]

      The highest-profile contemporary advocates of conversion therapy tend to be fundamentalist Christian groups and other right-wing religious organizations.[6] The main organization advocating secular forms of conversion therapy is the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), which often partners with religious groups.[6]

      Southern Poverty Law Center makes no bones in its evaluation.
      http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

      BTW  You will also find 'gay' proponents saying that the worst offenders re: violence against children are 'right wing conservatives.'

      • John, are you hopelessly stuck misbelieving that men sticking their penises up each other's rectums and using each other's rectums as vaginas or glorified hands is just fine rather than sick? Why are you the one who is obsessed with facilitating that behavior and mentality?

        You never read the things I ask you to read. You're just like this, or nearly so, "Pro-Homosexuality Activist, Steven Baudoin, v Tom Usher on Google+" (http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2012/10/15/pro-homosexuality-activist-steven-baudoin-v-tom-usher-on-google.html). When you've read the things to which I've pointed and will continue doing so throughout any discussion and will discuss the issues intelligently, then and only then, will I discuss the matter of homosexuality with you further. Unlike you vis-a-vis me, I have already read everything you point to as the pro-homosexuality activist that you are, and are so by virtue of your repeated visits here to post comments that always duck and dodge the facts (see the Steven Baudoin post above for just some of those) and always advocate the wrong side.

        Do not post here again until you can say that you have read what I've asked you to read and are prepared to discuss the exact points in each.

        I have allowed your comment above solely so that neither others nor you can inaccurately accuse me of ducking anything. I never have. I do block trolls, and you are often on the edge of that. Some believe you crossed that line long ago. In some ways you have, namely ducking facts on my side. You do the typical thing that's done on both wings of the false spectrum (left and right) that is duck each other's valid points. You only hammer away at (what you think, often incorrectly by virtue of the false-propaganda to which you fall) non-facts about your opposition.

        You are totally mistaken that I say homosexual predation upon boys is sexual orientation and not immorality. It is both. Homosexuality is immoral itself, and a hugely disproportionate slice of sexual abuse upon boys is perpetrated by homosexuals. That's a fact. Homosexuality is a slippery slope. It is the boiling-frog syndrome. License to adult homosex is to leave the door cracked to more of the same line of thinking. Even now, the pedophiles are clamoring for the door for them to be wide open for the exact same reasons the homosexuals who first pushed for adult-only homosex pushed for that. Many of those homosexuals once they gained their foothold, started openly supporting the elimination of age-of-consent laws. That's pushing for legalizing pedophilia. If I ask you whether they are right or wrong on it, you are the type who doesn't answer. Then on my side, we look at you as some sort of facilitator at best and quite possibly a closeted something or other, which I am not.

        You throw the word obsession around extremely loosely. That's typical of the homosexual activists. I am bound and determined that California SB 1172 shall not stand and for the reasons I've stated on this site very clearly. You, on the other hand, do not stand up against that fascistic law. Why is that? The reason is obvious. You are more interested in protecting your fragile ego than in standing up for homosexually raped children. Why am I obsessed with protecting the children? Just be glad that I'm a pacifist, John. If I agreed with even the "Just War Theory," I would be making war, violent, total war to eliminate the plague.

        If you are for the boys who have been homosexually abused who develop unwanted same-sex attraction as a result, then you are against SB 1172, period. Are you for or against it? Do you stand up against it on your blog and in comments on sites?

        I agree with the Family Research Council when they are right and only then. They are vastly more correct on homosexuality than are you.

        As for "Conversion Therapy," you still are unable to discuss it in any detail because you have never, and I mean never, studied anything about it. The only thing you have done is regurgitate the few extremely misguided talking points (more like yelling points) of the most vapid homosexual activists. You, John, are a tool of theirs. You are a false-propaganda echo wall. They tell you. You tell others. They strategize. You are their willing soldier. "Yours in not to wonder why. Yours is but to do or die." That's you, John. Look in the mirror before it's too late. Get straight.

        You have used the nonsense term "homophobe" before here. Define it. I have clearly made plain that it is never irrational to "fear" for the children being led down the garden path by the Pied Pipers of homosexuality. The path leads to a huge proportion of the HIV/AIDS cases in the whole world, which ended up spreading into the more promiscuous heterosexual population largely via bi-sexuality. HIV/AIDS is far from the only disease, not even counting that homosex is a mental disease to begin with.

        "Rather I believe God's Law does not exclude such from compassion or fellowship when the sensitivity of personal space is respected." Where did I lack compassion? You have a great deal of nerve, John. As for personal space, if you are including the personal space to tear each other's rectal tissue without the likes of me stating in public that, that is not a good or healthy thing mentally, physically, or spiritually, then you can forget it. That's what the freedom of speech aspect concerning California SB 1172 is all about. Your fascistic tendencies though on that issue come through loudly and clearly. Your theology is severely lacking on the issue also. Jesus made clear who is and is not to be considered a heathen and not a member of his Church. Unrepentant homosexuals are excluded, period. That's good! Jesus is right!

        "But when you advertise this as a refuge for liberals some opinions are held which do not work to agreement." That's for you in your mind solely because even though you've been visiting this site for years, you have never bothered to read, consider, see, and understand the full-context of the theology beginning with Isaiah 32:5 cross-referencing the entire Bible and the full reading thereof. You aren't that kind of thinker, John. You haven't even tried. Yet you come here and make theological pronouncements that my reading of the Bible is illiberal. Your problem is that you don't understand the meaning of the word "liberal." Pro-homosexuality is not liberal, John. It's enslavement to all the attendant problems that come with that false lifestyle, if one may even call it life. Jesus clearly calls it death. You though won't know how or where or anything about why that's true about Jesus because you don't care enough to find out. That holds true for every single self-styled name-only Christian: false Christian.

        "Not that I think psychotherapy and psychology exempt from political bias." Well, how do they say it sarcastically: "You think?"

        You are conflating homosexuality and abortion. If someone opposes one, he is condemned because some person opposes both? There goes any possibility for you to separate adult-only homosexuals from child-adult homosexuals. Both are for homosexuality, so now the adult-only homosexual must be wrong solely because there are homosexual pedophiles. I don't make that claim. I talk about the slippery slope and facilitation where people don't make clear where they agree or disagree with others. I never hide where I disagree, and you find that a conundrum. That's your lack, not mine. You need to do more of what I do, not the other way around. The whole world needs to do what I do: sort the truth from the falsehood. Don't lump everybody together incorrectly, such as you do concerning the term "liberal." You combine the vile in with the liberal. You pollute it. I stand for real liberal devices. Pedophilia is illiberal. Figure it out.

        Abortion has root causes. Those need addressing. Masking the symptoms via contraception is no solution. First they talk about contraception in light ways. Then they move onto "free love," including pedophilia. It's the slippery slope, John. I realize not everyone can get everything simultaneously, but I am dead set against avoiding topics for the sake of those who never want to get at root causes. You see, John, those who don't want to get at root causes are of the Satanic spirit. I'm not of that spirit.

        Stem-cell research is becoming doable without using aborted fetuses. That's been brought forward precisely because people of conscience said no to using aborted children. You are aware that there are those advocating that children even 2 years old can be eliminated/aborted from this plane of existence because those children have not developed mentally – a certain degree of permanent memories, etc.? It's more of that slippery slope you want to ignore.

        John, the Wikipedia is about as lightweight a source concerning Reparative Therapy as it gets for being as prominent a source as it is. The editors there prevent the truth about authentic, up-to-date, Reparative Therapy. What difference does that make to you though, right? Go ahead. Go edit that page adding links to sites and articles that refute every pro-homosexuality claim made in that article. See how long they stay up.

        Do you pay no attention to where I have been highly censored? Do you really think I can go to the Wikipedia and using only source materials, refute the anti-NARTH forces there without those forces ripping down what I add there no matter how perfectly in line with the "rules" and being hyper careful to avoid anything not drily academic? Just how naive are you?

        The founder of the Wikipedia got his start in pornography is my understanding. The staff editors are mostly "liberal" Jews or were when the group was small. So-called liberal Jews are probably the hardest of the hardcore homosexual activists. It's just a fact. It's not any Jews as an ethnic group. I certainly don't agree with Eustace Mullins when he starts in with his ethnic bigotry: "THE BIOLOGICAL JEW." I draw a line I don't cross there even as I'm totally anti-Zionism, as you know and have known. I don't lump all Jews together, far from it. Also, there are many Jews who are NARTH members. Facts! Wikipedia has been highly Zionist, John. It is highly pro-homosexuality and not based upon science but false-propaganda. The Wikipedia is good for many things, but not so much on those two issues.

        Read the links I've provided in the post: "Pro-Homosexuality Activist, Steven Baudoin, v Tom Usher on Google+" (http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2012/10/15/pro-homosexuality-activist-steven-baudoin-v-tom-usher-on-google.html). Read my posts and comments on SB 1172 on this blog. There's a search feature here. Every false claim made in that Wikipedia article is addressed. You don't know one-sided propaganda when you see it?

        "The highest-profile contemporary advocates of conversion therapy tend to be fundamentalist Christian groups and other right-wing religious organizations.[6] The main organization advocating secular forms of conversion therapy is the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), which often partners with religious groups.[6]" So what, John? Notice the "tend to be." Who am I? I'm not some exception who makes some rule that because Fundamentalists know about RT makes RT wrong. Where's your logic? I'm not saying that personality never has anything to do with anything or that one should not suspect things based upon who supports it. I'm saying that if you suspect something that way, then check into it enough that you won't be duped wholesale by wicked people against the Fundamentalists. There are such people you know. The worst violent criminals are often those who hate Fundamentalists a great deal, curse them, etc., for whatever reason. Surely you not siding with them on everything just because they are against Fundamentalism? One can disagree with Fundamentalism without being a Satanist and friend of all those who hate Fundamentalists. I disagree with certain Fundamentalist readings of scripture, not all.

        You march in lockstep based not on facts and science but duping ideology. I pick and choose per issue and all lined up with my Theology. I don't agree with everything said by others who also agree with me on a given issue of a given point concerning an issue. Do you? If so, you're in bed with the pedophiles. Are you telling me that there is absolutely nothing you agree with that NARTH says? The reason you can't honestly answer that is because you have never bothered to even read their stuff. When do you think the term "secular" was introduced on the Wikipedia article? Why don't you go check the editing history there and let us all know. Do you think it was after the false-propaganda that NARTH is a religious association was shot down by people who actually had a clue about NARTH?

        "Southern Poverty Law Center makes no bones in its evaluation.
        http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council"

        Are you kidding? The SPLC has become a joke. The Family Research Council was completely right to point out that the SPLC's false claims about the FRC were directly partially responsible for the climate where a pro-homosexuality nut/terrorist tried to murder a bunch of people at the FRC. Have you read the FRC's stuff? I don't agree with everything they say, but they are not advocating Old Testament capital punishment for homosexuality. Some people do who involve themselves with the FRC. You can't lump them all together, as the SPLC does. Besides, the SPLC is loaded with non-heterosexuals. The SPLC is a bunch of pro-homosexuality activists. You point to a source that doesn't look at the facts or science behind NARTH as a source about the issue of homosexuality and Reparative Therapy? Again, read the links I've provided. Those are only the tip of a huge iceberg of facts that you've been ducking over and over because you are actually afraid. You are phobic about finding out the truth.

        Truthphobia, you suffer from it. You're suffering from it about as much as Steven Baudoin. You guys are a mess.

        Look, the laws suits are filed. The facts will come out. The false-propagandists can't silence NARTH in court. They censor where you read, but they can't yet censor what is given in court as testimony. Deal with it. If the court ignores the facts, NARTH and the others will appeal right on up to the US Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court ignores the facts, well then you're living in a homosexual fascist dictatorship of your making if you're living in the US and support CA SB 1172. Of course, you live in Canada, John, which is in many ways worse than the US when it comes to forcing the homosexualization of a nation.

        "BTW You will also find 'gay' proponents saying that the worst offenders re: violence against children are 'right wing conservatives.'" They are referring to what is called corporal punishment and not sexual abuse and certainly not per capita. You conveniently left those aspects out because you are a false-propagandist or stupid, John. Are you stupid?

        I don't like physical punishment. There are better ways than coercive aversion therapy. Isn't it interesting that you brought that up. The advocates of SB 1172 falsely claimed that Reparative Therapy is coercive aversion therapy (physical punishment) when NARTH had, and still has, right on its site that the association is officially opposed to, and recommends against, coercive aversion that is physical punishment. NARTH is for voluntary therapy only! Get that through your head and stand up to the liars who pushed through CA SB 1172!

        Aversion can cover non-physical discipline. "Liberal" parents, homosexual parents, use that on their children. Nevertheless, you'd have to put the question of aversion of the non-physical type to NARTH.

        So much for your knowing a hole in the ground from where your homosexual buddies want to ram their penises, John, oh, your grandsons' anuses too. Maybe you're fine with that. I'm not, and neither is Jesus/God.

        Graphic? We need reality. We need stark contrasts, not pussy footing around and calling those who do not engage in and don't want to engage in sodomy but who want to protect children from the stealthy homosexual-pedophilia predators coming in sheep's clothing, closet homosexual-pedophiles themselves.

        When are you going to realize that you are on the insane side of this issue?

        Really, don't post here again until you ready to follow the extremely clear and very fair rules. Not one pro-homosexuality activist has made it yet. They can't and remain homosexual. It's a fact. Homosexuality is a mental illness that preclude ultimate truth seeking about homosexuality. The closest any homosexual has come to not being completely insane about it is this: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151209808987376&set=pb.58022632375.-2207520000.1350514577&type=1&theater She is not as generally crazy as Steven and you are. She's wrong about homosex, but you two are more wrong about it than she is.