Category Archives: Homosexuality

by

The “Gay Gospel”

Reverend Melvin MillerThe “Gay Gospel”

James R. Aist

“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

The word “gospel” means “good news”. The true Gospel of Jesus Christ is the best good news ever for mankind, and it is for everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. This is the only real Gospel, and for it to be real and effective in a person’s life, there must be repentance from sins (1 John 3:10; 2 Timothy 2:19). The “gay gospel” holds that one can be a Christian, never turn away from the sin of homosexual behavior, and still enjoy eternity in heaven with Jesus. Now any gospel that is not faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as presented in the Bible is the gospel of “a different Jesus”. Let’s see what the Bible has to say about a “different gospel” and a “different Jesus”: “But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.” (2 Corinthians 11:3-4). This is how we can know that Satan is using the “gay gospel” to get Christians who are homosexual to continue to practice homosexuality, feel good about it, and end up in hell, rather than repent of it.

This “gay gospel” is not only a “different gospel”: it is also a heresy called “antinomianism” that can be traced back to the Pauline letters. Antinomianism holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace, moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation. What this heresy has right is that homosexual behavior is sin. However, the denial of the need for repentance of that sin in order to go to heaven flies in the face of the biblical witness. Jesus began his ministry preaching repentance leading to salvation: “After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:14-16). Jesus did not come to save us and our sins, but to save us from our sins. Now, consider these additional Bible passages concerning the requirement for repentance:

“What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?” — Jesus Christ (Mark 8:36).

“Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? (Romans 6:1-2);

“Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” (Romans 3:31);

“If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.” (1 John 1:6);

“Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.” (1 John 3:4-6);

“For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.” (Hebrews 10:26-27).

Does any of that give the impression that anyone can deliberately keep on sinning until they die and still inherit eternal life? Quite the contrary! What it does say is that no one who goes on sinning deliberately has either seen Jesus or known Jesus (i.e., they are not really true believers) and that they can expect only judgment and the fury of a consuming fire when they die (that doesn’t sound like heaven to me!).

And here’s the clincher: “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Here, Paul declares, point blank, that people who are living a homosexual lifestyle will not go to heaven. God has not given a special dispensation (to keep on sinning) to homosexual people because they have sexual attractions for members of their own gender or because they don’t want to repent! We are all – regardless of the nature of our sins — subject to the requirement for repentance of sins in order to receive the Good News (salvation)! So here we are, faced with a choice: Do we believe the doctrine of God, or do we believe the doctrine of men? Let’s go with God on this one.

There is only one, true Gospel of Jesus Christ! So if you are a homosexual Christian who is trusting in the “gay gospel” to get you to heaven, you may want to re-think that. I certainly hope you will. Remember the words of Jesus: “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?” (Mark 8:36).

Finally, I would guess that very few Christians are aware that the Bible has stern rebukes and dire warnings for those who approve of sin or encourage others to sin, but it does (Leviticus 19:1; Isaiah 5:20; Malachi 2:17; Matthew 5:19-20; Matthew 18:6; Romans 14:22). Thus, anyone, including born-again Christians, who even approves of or encourages the sins of homosexuality will, someday, have to answer to God for it. If that’s you, then now is the time to repent!

Do It Yourself

Here’s how to do a study of the Hebrew and Greek root words used in the Bible to express God’s views on homosexuality, without being a Hebrew or Greek scholar yourself: 1) find online and open “Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance” at “Bible Study Tools” (click HERE); 2) follow the instructions given in the introductory pane; 3) check the “Strong’s Numbers” box at the top right of your reading pane to view the Hebrew and Greek lexicons using Strong’s Concordance numbers; 4) enter, in turn, the following Bible verses — Genesis 19:5 with Jude 1:7; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; and I Timothy 1:10 — and click on the respective highlighted words (hyperlinks) to access the appropriate lexicon and read the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek words given in English. You can toggle between the King James Version (KJV) and the New American Standard (NAS) version. You will find, as expected, that wherever homosexual behavior is mentioned, it is consistently condemned as sin, abomination, per-version, etc. And understand that later English versions of the Bible, such as the NIV and MEV, consulted the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, rather than relying solely on the KJV. The claim of gay activists – that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior – is nothing but pure fantasy and wishful thinking, as you can see for yourself.

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

by

What Homosexuality Advocates Don’t Want You to Know

This photo was taken on January 19, 2006 in Sa...What Homosexuality Advocates Don’t Want You to Know

James R. Aist

(Note:the numbers in parentheses refer to specific references listed at the end of the article)

Introduction

I am writing this article to give you an opportunity to learn some important facts about homosexuality that are not widely publicized and are often suppressed by the mainstream media. When reading this article, please keep in mind that much of the information here is based on averages within a population and does not necessarily characterize a particular homosexual person or couple. This information may prove useful to you in deciding whether or not you want to support the gay agenda. Either way, it’s always better to make a well-informed decision, so here we go.

What Homosexual People Do Sexually

“Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” (Ephesians 5:11).

This is a topic that the homosexuality advocates do not want you to find out about, because you may find some of these sexual acts to be unnatural and/or perverted, even disgusting, and so not support their homosexual agenda. In the words of the Apostle Paul “…they invent ways of doing evil…” (Romans 1:30). Here is a list of some of the most common sexual practices associated with a homosexual lifestyle: anal-digital manipulation, anal copulation, vaginal/oral sex, dildo/vaginal sex, rimming, fisting and golden showers (1, 3, 10, 12). If you want to know more precisely what these sexual practices involve, please consult the references cited above on your own, as “It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.” (Ephesians 5:12). Having provided this list, allow me to add that not all homosexual people engage in all of these practices (nor could they; think about it!). But they do all engage regularly in some or many of them, especially the first five listed. Although we may differ in opinion about which of these sexual acts are repulsive, what makes them all immoral is that they are same-sex sexual acts and therefore condemned as sin by God. Furthermore, many of these sexual practices are very unhealthy and dangerous ways to enjoy sex, as I will show in the next section.

Unhealthy Consequences of the Homosexual Lifestyle

“Both because of high-risk behavior patterns, such as sexual promiscuity, and because of the harm to the body from specific sexual acts, homosexuals are at a greater risk than heterosexuals for sexually transmitted diseases and other forms of illness and injury.” – Peter Sprigg (14)

Most of the following information is taken from five references (1, 3, 12, 14, 17) and is condensed for brevity. The most notorious sexually transmitted disease (STD) that affects gay men disproportionately is AIDS. Gay and bisexual men have HIV/AIDS at a rate more than 50 times greater than other people groups. In the U.S., deaths attributable to HIV/AIDS are 130 times more common among sexually active homosexual men than among sexually active heterosexual men (American Journal of Public Health, 2011. Volume 101:1133-1138). Many other notable diseases and traumas are associated, at elevated levels, with the gay lifestyle, including anal cancers, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, and Chlamydia (all of which are STDs), proctitis, anal fistula, perirectal abscess, anal fissure, anorectal trauma, anorectal incontinence, rectal ulcers and lymphogranuloma venereum. The prominence of so many of these clinical conditions specifically in gay men led doctors to coin the term “gay bowel syndrome.” Moreover, the homosexual lifestyle reduces the life expectancy of gay men.  In the early 1990s the homosexual lifestyle was estimated to reduce life expectancy of gay  men in the Vancouver, Canada, area by 8 to 20 years, relative to heterosexual men (2). The development and use of new anti-retroviral drugs since the early 1990s has significantly reduced the death rates attributable to HIV/AIDS among gay men in the same area and apparently resulted in an increase of 3.8 years in the life expectancy of gay men relative to that reported earlier.  Nevertheless, the loss of life expectancy attributable to HIV/AIDS was still 9.8 years in 2000 (Canadian Journal of Public Health, 2000. March-April. Volume 91:125-8). According to the same study, life expectancy at age 20 years was only 40.8 years among gay and bisexual men, for a projected total lifespan of 60.8 years. Since this is about 15 years less than the average total life expectancy of ca. 76.4 years in the general male population in Canada in 2000, the results of these studies indicate that the homosexual lifestyle greatly reduced the lifespan of gay men at that time. By comparison, a lifetime of smoking tobacco cigarettes reduces lifespan by about 10 years, on average (15).

Elevated disease rates are also found among lesbians compared to heterosexual women, although the contrasts are not as dramatic as with gay men. Lesbians have been reported to have an increased rate of STDs, including Hepatitis B and C, compared with heterosexual women, as well as a 2.5-fold increased likelihood of bacterial vaginosis. They also have higher rates of breast and gynecologic cancers than heterosexual women.

Why Do Homosexuals Have More Mental Health Problems?

I have written in some detail about this topic in another article (click HERE), and the following is a summary of the main points. Homosexuality is associated with significantly elevated levels of mental health problems compared to heterosexuality. Gay activists assume that these differentially elevated levels of mental health problems are a result of social and structural stigmas aimed at homosexual people by a heterosexual, homophobic society, rather than having anything  to do with the homosexual experience per se. Scientists have attempted to prove that this assumption is true by conducting studies that generate an apparent association of either social or structural stigmas with elevated levels of mental health problems in sexual minorities. However, all of these studies have fatal flaws and limitations that prevent scientifically valid cause-and-effect inferences or conclusions to be made, leaving us with the original assumptions still untested. Even the leading researcher in this field admitted that no study has shown that either social or structural stigmas cause mental health problems! Therefore, it remains a real possibility that this phenomenon is caused primarily by the unwanted, dreadful realization — during the emotionally charged and very sensitive pre-teen and teen years — that one is sexually attracted to members of the same gender, instead of to members of the opposite gender, and that this realization is psychologically and mentally devastating to individuals because it dashes their deeply held and cherished hopes and dreams of leading a normal, healthy, heterosexual adult life that includes a wife and children. In other words, could it be that the elevated levels of mental health problems experienced by homosexual people are simply an indirect result of being homosexual in a heterosexual world, rather than a result of social and structural stigmas created by a homophobic, heterosexual majority? Regardless of why sexual minorities have elevated levels of mental health problems, we should always treat homosexual people with appropriate expressions of love, kindness and respect, as these are defined in the Bible. And we should always be quick to share the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with homosexual people when the opportunity presents itself, keeping in mind that we are all made in the image and likeness of God and are dearly loved by Him.

Links between Homosexuality and Pedophilia

In a separate article (click HERE) I have dealt with this topic in much greater detail than I will here. Basically, there are at least three documented links between homosexuality and pedophilia: 1) the percentage of male homosexuals among convicted child molesters is 6-20 times higher than the percentage of male homosexuals in the general population, indicating a direct correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia; 2) the development of both homosexuality and pedophilia is strongly influenced by some factor related to birth order, indicating that homosexuality and pedophilia have a common etiology (i.e., causation); and 3) homosexual pedophilia is an integral, ongoing and valued component of the homosexual movement, indicating a cultural link between homosexuality and pedophilia. You should be aware that there is an organized sub-culture of the homosexual movement that openly preys on boys and claims that they are doing their victims a favor by having sex with them. In America, this sub-culture is represented by NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. This group also lobbies for the repeal of all age-of-consent laws, hoping that some day they can have their way with male children sexually without fear of legal consequences. While NAMBLA is an embarrassment to many in the homosexual “community”, their presence is, nonetheless, a real part of the homosexual movement in America, as adult-youth sex is viewed as an important aspect of gay culture (10, 14).

Bisexual people manifest a dual sexual orientation, heterosexual and homosexual; everyone seems to agree on this point. Heterosexual child molesters are often married with children and so clearly manifest a dual sexual orientation, one being sex-based, and the other age-based; everyone seems to agree on this point as well. So it should not be surprising at all that the preponderance of valid evidence indicates that many male homosexual child molesters also exhibit a dual sexual orientation, one being sex-based, and the other age-based. What is surprising, perhaps, is that not everyone can agree on this point as well.

Gays Gone Wild

Sexual promiscuity is especially characteristic of the male homosexual lifestyle. “Gay liberation in the 1970s was accompanied by an explosion of gay sexuality, especially in tolerant cities such as Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco, where gays concentrated. The director of the New York City Department of Health describes the situation as follows: “By their own reports, many men had large numbers of sexual partners annually, often numbering in the hundreds and even in the thousands.  Frenetic casual and anonymous sex was widespread among homosexual and bisexual men. Bathhouses, back rooms of bars and clubs, and other public settings such as erotic bookstores and movie theaters were, in effect, wide open…these practices and more were accompanied by extremely high rates of sexually transmitted diseases and set the scene for the rapid transmission of HIV once it appeared in the late 1970s.” (7). Although the AIDS epidemic among male homosexuals prompted the increased practice of protected sex among gay men for a time, it was not long before many of them threw caution to the wind and returned to their former practice of unprotected sex: “There were so many AIDS deaths that surviving homosexuals panicked and voluntarily reduced risky sexual practices. Subsequently, many behavioral researchers and AIDS Service Organizations declared the “war on AIDS” won among white male homosexuals. However, homosexuals soon went back to their old ways. As a result, HIV infections and rectal gonorrhea soared among homosexuals…”; “At the same time, rapid progress in the development of new antiretroviral therapies resulted in an announcement at the 11th World AIDS Conference in Vancouver that combination therapy guided by viral load measurements could potentially prevent HIV disease progression indefinitely, if not cure the infection outright. Homosexuals further increased unprotected anal sex (barebacking) and crack cocaine use. Since 1991 and continuing through the middle of the first decade of the twentyfirst century, there has been a steady increase in the rate of unprotected anal intercourse among homosexuals who largely describe themselves as “burned out” on safer sex or resigned to the fact that they will either become infected or infect their primary partners.” (9). In a 2000 British NATSAL survey, a random and population-based sample, men with a homosexual partner during the past 5 years reported having 110 sex partners during that time, compared with 8 sexual partners among those men who reported having no homosexual partnerships (9). Thus, homosexual men have, on average, at least 13 times as many sexual partners as do heterosexual men.

What About Lasting, Committed Homosexual Relationships?

The homosexuality activists would have us believe that lasting, committed homosexual relationships are the norm, but the evidence does not support that claim. Research has shown that homosexual relationships are far less likely to last a lifetime and that infidelity is much more common (and is even considered acceptable) in homosexual relationships when compared to heterosexual relationships (5, 6, 12). Dailey and Sprigg (11) compared the length of heterosexual marriages to the length of homosexual relationships. Only 29 percent of homosexual relationships had lasted 4-7 years, while 66 percent of marriages had lasted 10 years. The differences were even more dramatic for the longer time periods: 50 percent of marriages had lasted 20 years, while only 4-5 percent of homosexual relationships had lasted 16-19 years. Clearly, heterosexual marriages involve greater fidelity and are of a much longer duration than are homosexual relationships; fidelity and duration are indicative of commitment to a relationship.

When homosexuality advocates tell you that lasting, committed and faithful homosexual relationships are characteristic of the homosexual lifestyle, don’t believe it; the facts of the matter clearly show that such relationships are the exception, not the rule.

Effects of Homosexual Parenting

I have addressed this issue in greater detail elsewhere (click HERE). Gay activists have insisted for years that there is no difference in the outcomes of parenting by homosexuals when compared to heterosexual parenting. In 2005, the APA published a brief on this topic. In this brief, they cited 59 published articles in support of their summary claim that “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” However, in 2012, Marks published a detailed analysis and critique of the scientific merit of that brief and the literature upon which it was based. Marks found that the studies cited in support of the APA summary claim are woefully lacking in sound scientific design and principles and concluded that the strong assertions made in the APA brief were not substantiated by the published studies used, and were, therefore, unwarranted. Several other, more scientifically sound, studies have provided evidence that, indeed, there are many, often large, and very significant differences in the outcomes of children of homosexual parents compared to children of heterosexual parents. These differences include inferior performance in school, a much lower graduation rate, poor impulse control, depression, suicidal thought, requirement for mental health therapy, cohabitation, unfaithfulness to sexual partners, contraction of sexually transmitted diseases, sexual molestation, lower income levels, drunkenness, tobacco and marijuana use and a very strong tendency for the adult children of homosexuals to self-identify as homosexual. In fact, adult children of homosexual parents are about 12-15 times more likely to be homosexual than are adult children of heterosexual parents. While it is not possible from these studies to conclude that the homosexual orientation of the parents directly or indirectly caused most of the negative outcomes found in their children, the results strongly suggest the possibility that homosexual parenting may not be equivalent to heterosexual parenting after all. The exception may be the homosexual orientation of the adult children of homosexual parents, which, in all likelihood, is heavily influenced by the homosexual orientation of the parents. At the very least, the claim that there are no differences in the outcomes of homosexual vs. heterosexual parents should be abandoned, based on the most scientifically sound research presently available. Perhaps the courts should not be so quick and eager to legalize homosexual adoption after all.

Homosexual parenting presents the children with an immoral role model, as the parents are living in sin. This fact alone makes it clear that homosexual parenting is never equivalent to heterosexual parenting by married couples. And “gay marriage” doesn’t change anything; the parents are still living in sin.

The Gay Agenda

Homosexuality advocates don’t want you to know that they even have an agenda.  The term “gay agenda” apparently was coined by evangelical Christians to refer to the ideology, goals, strategies and methods of the radical homosexual activists who are primarily responsible for the progress of the homosexual movement in America. The homosexuality advocates themselves vehemently deny that they have any such agenda. Why? Because widespread knowledge of their agenda, or even that they have one, could cast the homosexual movement in a bad light, thereby diminishing support of their goals within the heterosexual majority. The homosexual movement does, in fact, have an agenda. This agenda can be ascertained from their lists of demands published in relation to gay conventions and parades, in various gay print media articles, and in media accounts of the kinds of things they are actually doing. And with electronic media becoming more and more commonplace, the execution of the details of the gay agenda are becoming increasingly publicized and coordinated. You can read about the gay agenda in some detail; just click HERE.

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

References:

1. American College of Pediatricians. 2011. Female Homosexual Behavior. (click HERE)

2. American College of Pediatricians. 2011. Lifespan. (click HERE)

3. American College of Pediatricians. 2011. Male Homosexual Behavior. (click HERE)

4. American College of Pediatricians. 2011. Mental Health. (click HERE)

5. American College of Pediatricians. 2011. Monogamy. (click HERE)

6. American College of Pediatricians. 2011. Promiscuity. (click HERE)

7. Conservapedia.com. Homosexuality and Promiscuity. (click HERE)

8. Barber, M. 2012. The Gay-Activist Science Deniers. (click HERE)

9. Holland, E. 2007. Homosexinfo. Homosexuality, Bisexuality and Promiscuity.  (click HERE)

10. Burtoft, L. 1995. Setting the Record Straight. What Research Really Says About the Social Consequences of Homosexuality. Copyright 1995 Focus on the Family.

11. Dailey, T. and P. Sprigg. Comparing the lifestyles of homosexual couples to married couples. Family research council. (click HERE)

12. Phelan, J.E., N. Whitehead and P.M. Sutton. 2009. What Research Shows: NARTH’S Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality. Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 1, Pages 53-87. (click HERE)

14. Sprigg, P. 2010. The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality. Family research Council. (click HERE)

15. Kaufman, M. 2004. Cigarettes Cut About 10 Years Off Life, 50-Year Study Shows. (click HERE)

16. Douglas, W.A., C. Pakaluk and J. Price. 2012. Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld. Demography, published online 18 November 2012. DOI 10.1007/s13524-012-0169-x. (click HERE)

17. Miles, A. J., T. G. Allen-Mersh and C. Wastell. 1993. Effect of anoreceptive intercourse on anorectal function. J. Roya. Soc. Med .86(3): 144-147. (click HERE)

by

Links Between Homosexuality and Pedophilia

'The ChildLover logo' (CLogo), is "a 'but...Links Between Homosexuality and Pedophilia

by James R. Aist

Introduction

Before I delve into the subject matter of this very sensitive and controversial issue, I want to make a few relevant, clarifying points. First, the vast majority of both homosexual and heterosexual people are not child molesters; thus, one cannot identify a child molester solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. Second, while it is true that male heterosexual pedophiles account for most cases of child molestation, this is due solely to the fact that male heterosexuals outnumber male homosexuals by as much as 67 to 1. And third, the vast majority of child molestations are perpetrated by males, not females; consequently, this article will deal exclusively with male homosexual pedophilia.

The Definition Game

The existence of links between homosexuality and pedophilia is a well-documented and established fact, yet homosexuality advocates deny the reality of it. Whether or not there appears to be such links can depend on how narrowly one defines “homosexual” and “pedophile.” The main argument of homosexuality advocates seems to be that a male who sexually abuses a male child or early teen male is a pedophile, but not a homosexual. They arrive at this conclusion by first arbitrarily defining “homosexual” and “pedophile” in such a narrow way that it is virtually impossible for a “homosexual” to be a “pedophile” and vice versa. Gagnon (2005) describes this “semantic slight of hand” in the following way: “If a pedophile is defined as a person who shows little, if any, erotic interest in adults and a homosexual as a person who shows little, if any, erotic interest in children, then by definition, no homosexual can be a pedophile and few homosexuals will ever engage in a pedophilic act. Voila!” I have not found any scientific, objective rationale given for these restrictive definitions; homosexuality advocates just declare their definition to be fact and then base their results and their interpretations on the assumption that the definition is true. This re-definition of “homosexual” and “pedophile” has all the indications of yet another ploy by homosexuality advocates to make homosexuals look good by denying realities that make them look bad. And I, like many others, am not buying it.

Historically, all pedophiles have been viewed as either heterosexual or homosexual, depending on their own gender and the gender of their victims (Sprigg and Dailey, 2004); a heterosexual pedophile prefers to have sexual relations with children of the opposite sex, whereas a homosexual pedophile prefers to have sexual relations with children of the same sex. In pedophilia, the age of the victim is clearly an important factor in the selection of the sexual “partner”; in fact, there is a continuum of age preference of child molesters from adults to teens to children to babies. To draw a line anywhere along this continuum is arbitrary because it is a continuum and because homosexual sex with a person of any age is still a homosexual act.

The most objective viewpoint appears to be that homosexual pedophilia is where sexual attractions based on gender and on age intersect (Sprigg and Dailey, 2004), to produce a “homosexual pedophile” with dual sexual orientations.

The percentage of male homosexuals among convicted child molesters is many times higher than the percentage of male homosexuals in the general population.

Several studies have shown that approximately 33% of convicted male child molesters molest males (Holland, 2007). In the study by Erickson, et al. (1988), 86% of the male sex offenders who assaulted boys (approximately 35% of the 229 convicted child molesters in the study) self-identified as homosexual; thus, approximately 30% (86% of 35%) of the male sex offenders who assaulted boys self-identified as homosexual. Now let’s compare this 30% to the percentage of self-identified male homosexuals in the general population. According to Wikipedia, 1.0%-1.6% of adult males self-identified as exclusively homosexual in random surveys worldwide. Even if we use the higher-end figure of 1.5% found in the most recent random survey in Great Britain (Doughty, 2012) as a reference point, we find that the percentage of convicted male child molesters who self-identified as homosexual in this study is 20 times as high (30% divided by 1.5%) as the percentage of males in the general population who self-identify as homosexual, thus demonstrating that this point is true and valid. Furthermore, studies using the more objective phallometric methods to assess the sexual orientation of convicted male child molesters have also validated this point (Marshall et al., 1988; Freund and Watson, 1992).

Using the results obtained by Freund and Watson (1992), Gagnon (2005) took into account some of the additional factors that can influence such research results and calculated that homosexual development would result in pedophilia six times as often as heterosexual development does. Thus, there is, in fact, a strong, demonstrable link between homosexuality and pedophilia among convicted male child molesters.

What about studies that claim to provide evidence against such a link between homosexuality and pedophilia? The articles by Groth and Birnbaum (1978) and by Jenny et al. (1994) are perhaps the most often cited studies of this sort and have been critically reviewed by Holland (2007). Problems identified with the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article include: 1) they did not include data on sexual relations that the pedophiles may have had previously with adults; 2) they used a strict definition of male homosexuality that would exclude male pedophiles abusing male victims, thereby assuring that no “homosexual” (by their definition) would be found among the pedophiles (i.e., in this study, there was the appearance that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia were mutually exclusive, due to the strict definition of “homosexual” that was applied to the interpretation of the results); and 3) their definition of “homosexual” was so restrictive that the small sub-sample size representing “homosexual” pedophilia would easily not contain a single “homosexual” child molester, due solely to chance (Holland, 2007). For these reasons, Holland (2007) argued that the conclusion that homosexual pedophilia and homosexuality may be mutually exclusive does not follow from their data.

The article by Jenny et al. (1994) does not fare any better when examined critically (Gagnon, 2005; Sprigg and Dailey, 2004). Firstly, not a single child molester in the database was interviewed! They simply consulted hospital charts containing information from the victim’s parents, case workers or the victims themselves to identify the sexual orientation of the offenders. How could these people possibly know, with certainty, the complete sexual history of these child molesters? In my opinion, their use of such an unreliable, second-party, indirect method to obtain critical information rendered both the data base and the conclusions drawn from them scientifically invalid. And secondly, they used a restrictive definition of “homosexual” that classified any perpetrator who had ever engaged in a heterosexual relationship as “heterosexual”, thus ensuring that the apparent number of “homosexual” perpetrators in the data base would be extremely small. Once again, the use of an arbitrary, restrictive definition of homosexuality yielded the inevitable result: the appearance of no link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

The articles by Gagnon (2005), Holland (2007), and Sprigg and Dailey (2004) similarly expose the flaws in other publications often cited as evidence that there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Feel free to read these articles through and reach your own conclusions. My conclusion is that the validity and preponderance of available evidence favors the truth and reality of this link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Some have contended that male pedophiles are not really homosexual because they do not have sexual attraction for adult males. Sprigg and Dailey (2004), Gagnon (2005) and Holland (2007) have extensively reviewed and evaluated the literature on this point, and the reader is referred to these sources for a more detailed analysis and discussion of the evidence. First, let’s note that the definition restricting “homosexual” to those individuals having sexual attraction for adults is arbitrary and biased. Second, the results of Erickson et al. (1988), discussed above, provide  evidence that male pedophiles are homosexual because they do have sexual attraction for adult males, based on their self-identification as “homosexual.” And third, Marshall et al. (1988) and Freund and Watson (1992) found, using the more objective phallometric methods, that many male homosexual pedophiles do, in fact, have significant levels of sexual attraction to adult males and are, therefore, truly homosexual by any objective definition.

Still others argue that male pedophiles are not really homosexual because homosexuality and pedophilia represent separate, distinct and mutually exclusive sexual orientations, citing differences in feminine behavior, feminine identification and early puberty (Holland, 2007). However, there is considerable evidence, summarized by Gagnon (2005) and Holland (2007), that homosexuality and pedophilia are not separate and distinct sexual orientations after all. Perhaps the most convincing of such evidence is the discovery that the development of both homosexuality and pedophilia is strongly influenced by some factor related to birth order (Bogaert et al., 1997; Blanchard and Bogaert, 1988; Blanchard et al., 2000). This additional link between homosexuality and pedophilia is one of common etiology (i.e., causation). After considering evidence related to both birth order and the order in which erotic sex preference and erotic age preference develop in individuals, Gagnon (2005) concluded that “significant continuity exists that justifies seeing a spectrum of developing homoerotic possibilities rather than a sharp line separating two polar extremes” (i.e., “homosexual” and “pedophile” defined so as to be mutually exclusive). Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that many, if not all, male homosexual pedophiles have a dual sexual preference, one based on the sex of the victim and the other based on the age of the victim.

Homosexual pedophilia is an integral, ongoing and valued component of the homosexual movement.

Baldwin (2002) and Sprigg and Dailey (2004) have documented extensively this component of the homosexual movement. The practice and celebration of consensual sexual involvement of adult homosexual men with young male teens and boys has a history dating back to ancient times. In modern times, this practice is largely represented in America by an organization called the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This group openly and proudly practices, and lobbies for acceptance of, pedophilia, claiming that they are doing their under-age victims a favor by having sex with them. In the USA, the legal age of sexual consent is determined at the state level, with all states presently falling in the 16-18 year range. However, world-wide the legal age of consent for sexual relations varies from less than 12 years of age to about 21 years of age, with 13-18 being most common. There is no reason to assume, in view of the prevalence of liberal attitudes regarding sexual morality in America, that our own legal age of consent will not be conformed to that of other, more lenient countries, in the near future. In fact, NAMBLA lobbies for the repeal of all age-of-consent laws in the USA, hoping that some day they can have their way sexually with male children of any age without fear of legal consequences. While NAMBLA is an embarrassment to some in the homosexual community, it appears that, as a whole, the homosexual community is doing more to embrace them than to marginalize them. And their presence is a real, substantial and integral part of the homosexual movement in America, as adult-youth sex is viewed and promoted by many in the homosexual community as an important, and valued, aspect of gay culture (Dailey, T.). This is an undeniable manifestation of yet another link between homosexuality and pedophilia, this link being of a more cultural nature and having an extensive historical witness.

Since the U. S. Supreme Court declared recently that so-called “gay marriage” is legal in all 50 states, pedophiles have become increasingly emboldened and committed to having pedophilia accepted as merely another sexual orientation. Their end game is to gain for pedophiles the same preferential treatment that is presently given to the homosexual orientation. That would include legalization of pedophilia and marriage to minors. This would make their sexual relations with minors legal, and they would then be free to prey on your minor children and grandchildren without penalty of law! (click HERE)

 

Closing Comments

Bisexual people manifest a dual sexual orientation, heterosexual and homosexual; everyone seems to agree on this point. Heterosexual child molesters are often married with children and so clearly manifest a dual sexual orientation, one being sex-based, and the other age-based; everyone seems to agree on this point as well. So it should not be surprising at all that the preponderance of valid evidence indicates that many male homosexual child molesters also exhibit a dual sexual orientation, one being sex-based, and the other age-based. What is surprising, perhaps, is that not everyone can agree on this point as well.

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

Recommended Readings:

1) Barber, M. 2013. Left’s new crusade: adult-kid sex. (Click HERE)

2) Barber, M. 2014. Left’s push for adult-child sex. (click HERE)

References:

Baldwin, S. 2002. Child molestation and the homosexual movement. Regent University Law Review 14:267-282. (click HERE)

Blanchard, A. and A .F. Bogaert. 1998. Birth order in homosexual versus heterosexual sex offenders against children, pubescents, and adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior 27:595-603.

Blanchard, A., H. E. Barbaree, A. F. Bogaert, R. Dickey, P. Klassen, M.E. Kuban and K. J. Zucker. 2000. Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior 29:463-478.

Bogaert, A. F., S. Bezeau, M.E. Kuban and R. Blanchard. 1997. Pedophilia, sexual orientation, and birth order. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 106:331-335.

Dailey, T. Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse. (click HERE)

Doughty, S. 2012. One in 66 Britons is gay or bisexual – NOT one in ten, as previously thought. (click HERE)

Erickson, W. D., N. H. Walbeck, and R. K. Seely. 1988. Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior 17:77-86.

Freund, K. and R. J. Watson. 1992. The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18:34-43.

Gagnon, Robert A. J. 2005. Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture. Part II:Science: Causation and Psychopathology, Promiscuity, Pedophelia, and Sexually Transmitted Disease. (click HERE)

Groth, A. N. and H. J. Birnbaum. 1978. Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior 7:175-181.

Holland, E. 2007. Sexuality: homosexuality, child molestation, pedophilia and hebephilia. (click HERE)

Jenny, C., T. A. Roesler and K. L. Poyer. 1994. Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics 94:41-44.

Marshall, W. L., H. E. Barbaree and J. Butt. 1988. Sexual offenders against male children: sexual preferences. Behavior Research and Therapy 26:383-391.

Sprigg, P. and T. Dailey. 2004. Google Books. Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality. Chapter 6. Is There a Link Between Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse? Pages 121-142.

by

Ears to Hear, Born Again and Gay Theology

Picture of an infant wearing a hearing aidEars to Hear, Born Again and Gay Theology

by James R. Aist

This article brings a word of wisdom and encouragement for those of us who do not find the arguments of “gay theology” to be either legitimate or persuasive. There are three points to be made here:

First, everyone is born into this world with a heart of stone (Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26) and deaf ears (Deuteronomy 29:3-4). The only ones who can listen to the word of God and believe it are those to whom God has given a “heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26) and “ears to hear” (Isaiah 32:1-4). These are the ones we are able to reach with the truth of God’s word; they are our target audience, if you will. We love the others, but we cannot expect them to agree with us unless and until God gives them a “heart of flesh” and “ears to hear”. That is God’s decision and His work, not ours;

Second, those to whom God gives a “heart of flesh” and “ears to hear” will, at some point in the conversion process, become “born again”. To be “born again” is not an option for salvation; it is an absolute requirement (John 3:1-8). When one is “born again”, God, by the Holy Spirit, replaces their heart of stone with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26); that is, He removes the old human spirit they were born with, which is at enmity with God, and replaces it with a new human spirit (Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26), which is from God (John 3:1-8) and in harmony with God. The “born again” person loves the word of God and eagerly believes (receives) it (1 John 4:6). But to those who are not “born again”, it is foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18 and 2:13); we should not expect them to believe it, because in their present condition, they cannot (1 Corinthians 2:13 and 1 John 4:6). To persist in trying to persuade them becomes, at some point, “casting our pearls before swine”, and Jesus instructed us not to do that: “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces” (Matthew 7:6); and

Third, here is my “take home” message. Let us continue to proclaim the truth of God’s word for the sake of those who are “born again” and are in the process of being sanctified by the Holy Spirit (that’s all of us who are “born again”!). And let us not grow weary in doing this good work (Galatians 6:9) because unbelievers rant and rail against us; they are still at work in the earth doing the work of the devil (1 John 3:8 and Ephesians 2:2), so do not listen to them. The outcome of this “labor of love” of ours is up to God, not us. God only asks us to do our part by continuing to proclaim the truth of His word. He alone will bring forth the fruit of our labor according to His perfect will, His perfect plan and His perfect timing (Galatians 6:9).

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)