A Homosexuality DICTIONARY for Born-again Christians

English: Gender symbols, sexual orientation: h...

A Homosexuality DICTIONARY for Born-again Christians

James R. Aist

Introduction

The homosexual movement is advancing by way of a massive and ongoing propaganda campaign, fueled by the liberal media, to win over the hearts and minds of the heterosexual majority to their cause, the “gay agenda” (click HERE). One of the strategies employed by gay activists is to control the definitions of key words and terms so that their “gay agenda” can be convincingly marketed to the general public, including born-again Christians (click HERE). A few examples of this strategy should help to illustrate more clearly what I’m talking about: 1) the term “homosexual” is defined by gay activists as a person’s identity, thus making it seem, by definition, that disapproval of homosexuality is a personal attack on who they are, rather than merely disapproval of what they do sexually; 2) a homosexual person who has been substantially transformed to heterosexual but has even the slightest, residual recurrence of same-sex attractions is still identified as “homosexual” by gay activists, rendering it impossible, by definition, for them to ever be seen as the truly “ex-homosexual” or “straight” people they have become (click HERE); and 3) a male pedophile who abuses children of the same gender is categorized by gay activists as a heterosexual pedophile if he has ever had sex with an adult female, regardless of whether or not he also has had sex with adult men, making it appear, by definition, that there are no homosexual pedophiles, and thus, that there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia (click HERE).

In order to counteract this self-serving “name game” employed by gay activists, and to help born-again Christians navigate intelligently the rhetoric of the homosexuality debate, I have developed a new a set of definitions that more accurately reflects the realities of homosexuality from a more “biblically correct” — as opposed to a “politically correct” — point of view.

Many of the new definitions I propose here may seem, at first glance, to be virtually equivalent to the old ones, but, in practice they are really quite different. Please be sure to read the ADDENDUM for a further explanation of these distinctions.

The Definitions

PERSONAL IDENTITY

Person: a human being. God does not categorize people as “heterosexuals” or “homosexuals”. He sees us as human beings created in His image and dearly loved. This is our true identity. What people do sexually is not really who they are. Although we are all sinners, we are so strongly loved by Him that He offered His only begotten Son, Jesus, to die for us, in order to reconcile us to Himself. No one is outside the scope of His love.

SEXUALITY

Heterosexuality: Refers to the condition of wanting to have sex with human beings of the opposite gender.

Homosexuality: Refers to the condition of wanting to have sex with human beings of the same gender.

Bisexuality: Refers to the condition of wanting to have sex with members of both the opposite gender and the same gender.

SEXUAL PERSONS

Heterosexual person: A human being who wants to have sex with members of the opposite gender.

Ex-heterosexual person: A human being who used to want to have, and is not having, sex with members of the opposite gender. Whether or not they still have some opposite-sex attractions is not determinative; this is about choice of sexual behavior (see ADDENDUM).

Homosexual person: A human being who wants to have sex with members of the same gender.

Ex-homosexual person: A human being who used to want to have, and is not having, sex with members of the same gender. Whether or not they still have some same-sex attractions is not determinative; this is about choice of sexual behavior (see ADDENDUM).

Bisexual person: A human being who wants to have sex with members of both the opposite gender and the same gender.

Ex-bisexual person: A human being who used to want to have, and is not having, sex with members of both the opposite gender and the same gender. Whether or not they still have some bisexual attractions is not determinative; this is about choice of sexual behavior (see ADDENDUM).

ORIENTATIONS

Sexual orientation: Refers to the gender (opposite, same or both) with which a human being wants to have sex.

Heterosexual orientation: Wanting to have sex with members of the opposite gender.

Homosexual orientation: Wanting to have sex with members of the same gender.

Bisexual Orientation: Wanting to have sex with members of both the opposite and the same gender.

ATTRACTIONS

Sexual attractions: Refers to the sexual feelings or desires or urges of a human being toward members of  the opposite gender and/or the same gender.

Opposite-sex attractions: Refers to the sexual feelings or desires or urges of a human being toward members of the opposite gender. If such attractions are toward a person other than your spouse, then they are temptations to sin sexually, in any context.

Same-sex attractions: Refers to the sexual feelings or desires or urges of a human being toward members of the same gender. These attractions are always temptations to sin sexually, in any context.

Bisexual Attractions: Refers to the sexual feelings or desires or urges of a human being toward members of both the opposite and the same genders. These dual attractions are temptations to sin, in any context.

PEDOPHILIA

Pedophile: An adult human being who wants to have sex with children. Such a person has two sexual orientations; one toward the gender of the victims (gender based) and another toward children (age based) (click HERE).

Heterosexual pedophile: An adult human being who wants to have sex with children of the opposite gender.

Homosexual pedophile: An adult human being who wants to have sex with children of the same gender.

Bisexual pedophile: An adult human being who wants to have sex with children of both genders.

PRACTICING SEXUALITY

Biblical marriage: a lifelong, exclusive commitment between one man and one woman. There is no other valid kind of marriage (click HERE).

Practicing heterosexual: A human being who is having sex with a member/members of the opposite gender. Outside of the bounds of biblical marriage, this is always sexual sin, in any context (click HERE).

Practicing homosexual: A human being who is having sex with a member/members of the same gender. This is always sexual sin, in any context (click HERE).

Practicing bisexual: A human being who is having sex with members of both genders. This is always sexual sin, in any context.

Practicing pedophile: An adult human being who is having sex with children. This is always sexual sin, in any context (click HERE).

NAMING AND CLAIMING

“Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” – Jesus (Matthew 5:10-12)

Anti-gay: a misleading charge used by gay activists to attach a negative label to anything a born-again Christian says that opposes the “gay agenda.” We are anti-sin (of all kinds) and pro-people (of all kinds). It is a blessing to be called “anti-gay” by a gay activist.

Bigot: a born-again Christian who steadfastly refuses to deny anything that the Bible says about homosexuality. It is a blessing to be called a “bigot” by a gay activist.

Born that way: a hoax perpetrated by gay activists to gain sympathy and support for the “gay agenda.” Homosexual people develop homosexually post partum, due, primarily, to “environmental” influences; no one is “born that way” (click HERE).

Cherry picker: a born-again Christian who realizes and understands that only the moral laws of the Old Testament (along with the moral laws of the New Testament) are binding today (click HERE). It is a blessing to be called a “cherry picker” by a gay activist.

Created that way: slander against the God of the Bible. God does not tempt anyone to sin by creating them homosexual (click HERE).

Fundie: a born-again Christian who refuses to deny anything that the Bible says about homosexuality. It is a blessing to be called a “fundie” by a gay activist.

Gay bashing: a false charge used by gay activists to attach a negative label to anything a born-again Christian says that opposes the “gay agenda.” We bash sin, lies and pretense, but not people. It is a blessing to be accused of “gay bashing” by a gay activist.

Gay “marriage”: a fantasy created by gay activists in a vain attempt to confer dignity and pride to homosexual couples. According to the God of the Bible, there is no such thing as “gay marriage” (click HERE).

Hate: a false charge used by gay activists to attach a negative label to anything a born-again Christian says that opposes the “gay agenda.” We hate sin, not people. It is a blessing to be accused of “hate” by a gay activist.

Homophobe: a charge used by gay activists to attach a negative label to a born-again Christian who says anything that opposes the “gay agenda.” We’re not afraid of homosexuality; we just don’t like sin. It is a blessing to be called a “homophobe” by a gay activist.

Homosexuality is immutable: a hoax perpetrated by gay activists to gain sympathy and support for the “gay agenda.” Numerous studies have shown that both religiously and secularly mediated change in sexual orientation occurs in highly motivated, dissatisfied homosexuals at success rates of around 25%-30%, which is comparable to the success rates generally achieved by therapists and counselors for treatment of psychological disorders and behavioral problems, such as alcoholism (click HERE).

Hypocrite: a charge used by gay activists in a vain attempt to convince born-again Christians that they are not qualified to weigh in on homosexual matters. It is a blessing to be called a “hypocrite” by a gay activist.

Liar: a charge used by gay activists to attach a negative label to any born-again Christian who speaks out against the “gay agenda.” It is a blessing to be called a “liar” by a gay activist.

Love: Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. To a gay activist, love means you hold up a mirror in front of someone and help them like whatever they see. It is a blessing to be called “unloving” by a gay activist.

After Word

Above all, let us be quick to treat homosexual people with respect and dignity and to share the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with them. And may we not let our hearts become darkened with hatred towards homosexual people, just because we hate their homosexual lifestyle. As the Apostle Paul said, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (Ephesians 6:12).

ADDENDUM

Some may protest that “wants to have sex with”, as used here, is equivalent to “has same-sex attractions”, but the two are not interchangeable. While it is probably true that most consensual sex occurs between two people who find each other “sexually attractive”, a person may find someone to be sexually attractive without really wanting to have sex with them. Here are some examples to illustrate this point: 1) a teenage boy discovers that he is sexually attracted to men, but he doesn’t want to have sex with men because he wants to, instead, get married to a woman and father children; 2) a straight, married man who wants to have sex with his wife may see another woman, notice that she is “sexually attractive” and let it go at that, without wanting to actually have sex with her too; and 3) an ex-gay man who no longer wants to have sex with men may see a man, notice that he is sexually attractive and let it go at that, without wanting to actually have sex with him. Thus, people, whether they experience opposite-sex attractions or same-sex attractions, do not necessarily want to have sex with everyone they meet whom they find to be “sexually attractive.” And that is why “wants to have sex with” is not equivalent to “has same-sex attractions.”

(For more articles about HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

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.