Links Between Homosexuality and Pedophilia

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

by James R. Aist


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)


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.

The Gay Agenda: What in the World Is Going On?

Cover of DVD The Gay Agenda: March on WashingtonThe Gay Agenda: What in the World Is Going On?

by James R. Aist

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

“Truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth.”


If I am to fulfill my original goal of informing my fellow born-again Christian believers about aspects of homosexuality that they really should know in order to be able to perceive and understand the culture war that’s underway in today’s world, then I am compelled to write this revealing article. Please do not dismiss these things lightly, as something that does not and will not impact you, your family and/or your quality of life. Because, in doing so, you would be making a very serious mistake.

In another article I detailed background information on the nature and consequences of the homosexual lifestyle (Click HERE), so that you can better put the individual gay agenda items into perspective when you get to them. To document the points I make and for your convenience in looking into these matters more thoroughly on your own, if you are so inclined, I have provided several, carefully selected, key references and links.

Before I delve into the substance of this introductory article, I want to make it very clear that I explicitly differentiate between people who have same-sex attractions but do not act on them, people who have same-sex attractions and practice homosexuality, and the “gay agenda” per se. Those are three completely different things, as just because someone is a homosexual person doesn’t necessarily mean that they push the “gay agenda”, and just because someone is pushing the “gay agenda” doesn’t necessarily mean that they are a homosexual person. Thus, when I speak against the “gay agenda”, I am not speaking against any individual as a homosexual person, but against a social movement with which they may have only a fringe association.

The Gay 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, presumably because they do not want the heterosexual majority in America to know that they have an agenda. Why? Because 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. Action items 14-19 and 21, below, are taken directly from two publications in the late 1980s by two gay activists, Kirk and Madsen (click HERE). 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 will undoubtedly recognize many of these developments as I describe them in the following paragraphs.

The ultimate and most all-encompassing goal of the gay agenda is to force our society to fully accept their lifestyle as  morally, socially,  and religiously equivalent to the heterosexual lifestyle. This goal is for not only acceptance, but also affirmation and celebration of homosexual behavior as normal, natural, healthy and desirable (11, 13, 14). This is what the homosexual movement is really all about. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance is being replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement of homosexuality (11).

The following action points of the gay agenda are not “straw men” trumped up by anti-gay evangelical Christians. Rather, they are taken from published statements by homosexual apologists themselves and are abundantly evident in news reports, both past and contemporary (see 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13):

1. Government encouragement, support and even requirement of sex education courses, prepared and taught by homosexual women and men, presenting homosexuality — and homosexual sex acts — as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle and a viable alternative to heterosexuality (for a recent summary of the queering of sex education in America, click HERE, and for a blatant admission that gay activists want to indoctrinate your kids, click HERE). This is where your children are taught details about homosexual sex acts and forced to commit them. (See 12, 20 and 21);

2. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent (making your children open season for pedophiles). For a recent example and expose of this action item, click HERE;

3. Repeal of all laws that restrict the gender or number of persons entering into a marriage unit;

4. Extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit, regardless of gender or numbers;

5. Addition of “sexual orientation” to the list of minorities protected by anti-discrimination laws (this would be the first minority group in America granted such status based upon volitional behavior rather than upon immutable characteristics, such as gender or race);

6. Deny tax-exempt status to organizations and institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people (this would include Christian churches and para-church ministries);

7. Deny federal funding to institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people (this would include Christian colleges and universities and para-church ministries);

8. Passage of “hate crimes” laws in all 50 states (regardless of the fact that such laws violate the U.S. Constitution);

9. Passage of laws making it criminal to have thoughts and speech of a “homophobic” nature (regardless of the fact that such laws violate the U.S. Constitution);

10. Permeate every level of government with gay-friendly officials (to codify the gay agenda);

11. Demand legalized same-sex marriage, thereby wrecking the traditional institution of marriage (for a recent admission of this intent by a pro-gay activist, click HERE) ;

12. Attack the Bible, especially where homosexuality is condemned, and make it appear that God does not condemn homosexuality by inventing new interpretations of selected verses (7);

13. Win over Christian churches and denominations, thereby neutralizing the greatest obstacle to the homosexual movement (7). This strategy is evidenced by the recent development of “gay theology” (click HERE), the “gay gospel” (click HERE) and the “Queen James Bible” (click HERE) ;

14. Partner with the liberal media in mounting a propaganda campaign to win over the majority of heterosexuals to the homosexual movement;

15. Portray homosexuals as victims, instead of aggressive challengers;

16. Make homosexuals look good by publicizing famous homosexuals who are well-liked by the general public;

17. Make homosexuality look good by portraying lasting, committed homosexual relationships as the norm of the homosexual lifestyle (never mind the facts that such homosexual relationships are the exception rather than the rule and that promiscuity is  rampant in such relationships, relative to heterosexual marriage);

18. Make the anti-gay “victimizers” look bad by coining and repeating charges of hatred and bigotry against anyone who does not agree with them;

19. Knowingly and intentionally propagate lies, myths and hoaxes that promote the ideals and goals of the homosexual movement, in order to win over the heterosexual majority;

20. Punish businesses that do not support the homosexual movement (e.g., boycotts, demonstrations, lawsuits and negative media blitzes).

21. “Jamming”. This tactic refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes the “gay” agenda, and it requires the full cooperation of the liberal media.

If you think, after reading this list of agenda items, that the gay agenda will not affect your own life to any significant degree, you may want to read about true-life examples of the real and present threat of the gay agenda to your personal freedoms, as reported by Gagnon (12). And for a comprehensive, documented list of recent examples of the “gay agenda” in action, click HERE.

Anyone who has been paying attention to current affairs will recognize many of the agenda items listed above as being exactly what is going on in the world. It is clear that the homosexuality advocates are bent on forcing the homosexual ideology and  lifestyle into every aspect of the American experience, including education, government, politics, health, religion, employment, and even our thought and speech. This is the means by which they are forcing our society to fully accept their lifestyle as a healthy, moral, social and religious equivalent to the heterosexual lifestyle, which it clearly is not. And this is why those of us who oppose homosexuality are becoming increasingly vocal and activist about it; we would be willing to tolerate homosexual people keeping their perversions behind closed doors where they belong, but when they take these things into the public arena and try to foist them on society in general, then we push back, and rightly so.

For another insightful treatment of this topic, click HERE.

For a discussion of a Christian response to the “gay agenda”, click HERE.

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)


7. American Family Association. 2006. Gay Activists War Against Christianity. (click HERE)

9. Barber, J.M. 2008. Unmasking the “gay” Agenda. (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. Conservapedia. 2012. Homosexual Agenda. (click HERE)

12. Gagnon, R.A.J. 2004. The Threat of the Homosexual Agenda to Your Freedoms. (click HERE)

13. Smith, F.L. 1993. What You Need to Know About the Deadly Homosexual Assault. Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, OR.

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

20. Citizens for Community Values. 2002. The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Public Schools. (click HERE)

21. Blair, L. 2013. Parents Upset After Middle School Girls Forced Into ‘Lesbian Kiss’ at NY School. (click HERE)