NOM BLOG

Christian Post on FRC Refuting Claims it Calls Gays Pedophiles, Wants to Expel Gays

 

The Christian Post:

The LGBT advocacy group Human Rights Campaign and the Southern Poverty Law Center are standing by their decision to label conservative group Family Research Council a "hate" group even as some in their camp back away. But they say it's not because FRC simply opposes same-sex marriage. FRC is "hateful" because it links gay people to pedophiles, they claim.

HRC and SPLC also argue that the "hate" label should stick – even in the wake of a shooting that took place at the FRC headquarters last week – because the conservative group wants to expel gays from the U.S.

But are those claims true?

FRC, which champions traditional marriage and religious freedom, released a document this week refuting the charges of "hate."

"FRC has never said, and does not believe, that most homosexuals are child molesters," the group says in its document.

32 Comments

  1. OvercameSSA
    Posted August 23, 2012 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    I think pedophilia and homosexuality are similar in that they are mental disorders in which people have sexual attractions to people with whom they are unable to procreate. The natural order of things is that people are sexually attracted to people in which sex serves its reproductive purpose.

    That's not hatred. Yes, acts committed on children by pedophiles are vile, but no one is comparing the acts of pedophiles with the acts committed by homosexuals; just the disordered mental states.

    This is a straw man argument promoted by homosexuals to get a knee-jerk emotional reaction.

  2. Sean
    Posted August 23, 2012 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    "no one is comparing the acts of pedophiles with the acts committed by homosexuals"....surely you jest. do you really believe yourself when you say that fringe groups NEVER compare acts of pedophiles to acts of homosexuals?

  3. TC Matthews
    Posted August 23, 2012 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    Sean, If the LGBT lobby wants to continue to distance themselves from their past associations with NAMBLA, hooray for them. Let's not pretend it never happened though.

  4. Betrayal, healing, forgiveness and lessons
    Posted August 23, 2012 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    This does nothing but alienate and anger. In fact it makes a person like me, who opposes the redefinition of marriage based on natural law and reasoned reasons, fundamentally repel against the likes of the ssm mafia. SPLC you are unreasonable and could in turn be considered a "hate group" on your own merits. This group is NOT one that our culture should embrace.

  5. Chairm
    Posted August 23, 2012 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

    Will Spunky retract or wait to follow the lead of the SC or the HRC? Will any SSMer at the very least walk back the false accusation against the FRC?

    Time will tell.

  6. Chairm
    Posted August 23, 2012 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    Will Spunky retract or wait to follow the lead of the SPLC or the HRC? Will any SSMer, at the very least, walk back the false accusation against the FRC?

    Time will tell.

  7. Janie
    Posted August 23, 2012 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

    Mayo Clinic findings: " The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality of 2%—4%) (5, 7, 10, 19, 29, 30). This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children." http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=53036

  8. Paul McMichael
    Posted August 23, 2012 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

    @TC - can you show me ANYWHERE that supports the contention that NAMBLA had wide support from LBGT community? Don't quote me from right wing sites.

    Yet another distortion. You would think that so-called Christians could at least tell the truth.

  9. Paul McMichael
    Posted August 23, 2012 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

    No SSM supporter will walk back on SPLC designation. I heard Peter Sprigg say that homsexuality should be re-criminalised. I heard him state, in jest, that he would rather export gays. I read the FRC reports that falsely link homosexuality with pedophilia and they do not have credible mainstream scholars to support this contrary to what their most recent rebuttal states.

    It's laughable actually, they say they said 'NOT ALL' homosexuals are pedophiles and then go on to claim falsely that homosexuals are high risk for children.

  10. TC Matthews
    Posted August 24, 2012 at 12:26 am | Permalink

    I don't expect you to admit it Paul, yet, there it was. The association is not so far distant that we don't remember.

  11. Spunky
    Posted August 24, 2012 at 1:54 am | Permalink

    @ Chairm

    Will Spunky retract or wait to follow the lead of the SC or the HRC? Will any SSMer at the very least walk back the false accusation against the FRC?
    Chairm/a>

    I'll elaborate on one accusation: I once said the FRC "accuse[s] homosexuals of being pedophiles." In case you thought I was accusing the FRC of literally labeling every gay person a pedophile, you (and the FRC it seems) are mistaken. Rather, I was referring to statements like:
    a) "homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses” (false)
    b) "one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order,” (what??)
    c) "the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children." (false, again)
    d) "[t]here is a strong current of pedophilia in the homosexual subculture." (again, what??)

    I don't really see anything to take back. God, they even say in this article, "male homosexuality is a risk factor for child sexual abuse." For the last time: if you define a homosexual as a man who has sex with men, then this is simply not true. Most people who molest boys are only attracted to boys (fixated), or they are attracted to women and boys (regressed) but almost never men.

    I can't bring myself to cite BTB, Dr. Herek, and Rob Tisinai, or the studies cited in those website Find them in previous threads.

  12. Chairm
    Posted August 24, 2012 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    Spunky, you did make the broader accusation in our previous discussion.

    Spunky said: "I can't bring myself to cite [...]

    You had offered three links: two were polemics and another illustrated the confused use of the key terms on this subject by the pro-gay spinners and on misrepresentations as well. That last one is by an individual who is heavily invested in the gay identity filter.

    Spunky said: "For the last time: if you define [...]"

    If that is your promise to use that spin for the last time, good. But I expect you actually meant the opposite and so confirm the fundamental problem with your false accusations.

    Note that the crux is not how to define "a homosexual man". The crux is the intersection of same-sex sexual attraction and same-sex sexual behavior; and here the issue is refined to such attraction and such behavior in the adult-child context.

    You want to define "gay identity" out of same-sex adult-child sexual attractions and sexual behaviors. Again this is an example of the presumed purity that is promoted by the hucksters of gay identity politics.

    Regarding same-sex adult-child sexual behavior:

    Is sexual attraction a key factor? Yes. Is sexual attraction to the same-sex a factor? Yes. Is sexual behavior with children of the same sex a factor? Yes. Is same-sex sexual attraction to children of the same sex a factor? Yes.

    Are there other important factors? Yes.

    Are we to believe that same-sex sexual behavior is not homosexually orientated just because you choose to define homosexual orientation out of the evidence? No.

  13. Chairm
    Posted August 24, 2012 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    Paul McMichael,

    Can you state your reasoning on why society ought to have and support age of consent laws on sexual behavior?

    For example, is there such a thing as immoral sexual behavior and, if yes, what are your criteria for assessing behavior as immoral?

    Do you agree that it is not merely about consent, but about that to which consent is given? Do you agree that this entails not merely private consent but also societal consent? Please explain what you think is your mainstream pro-gay view on these questions.

  14. leo
    Posted August 24, 2012 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    Does FRC claim that "gay people are child molesters?"

    "FRC has never said, and does not believe, that most homosexuals are child molesters. However, it is undisputed that the percentage of child sex abuse cases that are male-on-male is far higher than the percentage of adult males who are homosexual. This suggests that male homosexuality is a risk factor for child sexual abuse. Homosexual activists argue that men who molest boys are not actually "homosexual;" but scholarly evidence undermines that claim. It also cannot be disputed that there is a sub-culture within the homosexual movement that advocates "intergenerational" sexual relationships. FRC's writings on this topic--unlike the SPLC's--have been carefully documented with references to the original scholarly literature".

  15. Spunky
    Posted August 24, 2012 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    @ Chairm

    Note that the crux is not how to define "a homosexual man". The crux is the intersection of same-sex sexual attraction and same-sex sexual behavior; and here the issue is refined to such attraction and such behavior in the adult-child context.

    Sure. Let's replace "men who have sex with men" with "men who are primarily or exclusively attracted to men." Is that okay?

    I used my definition because these studies examine people who have already had sex with children, and so I wanted to draw a parallel between having sex with children and having sex with adults. But you're right--homosexuality is a sexual orientation. I should have been more general. Thanks for catching that.

    A couple of questions:

    1) How would you define a homosexual? Maybe you have a better definition we can both use.

    2) You don't approve of the links I posted, but you don't say why (aside from the fact that they're polemics and written by people who are pro-gay). What are your counterarguments to what they have written?

    3) Do you believe that a man who is primarily or exclusively attracted to men are at any greater risk of molesting a child than a man who is primarily or exclusively attracted to women?

  16. Preserve Marriage
    Posted August 24, 2012 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

    Paul McMichael wrote, "It's laughable actually, they say they said 'NOT ALL' homosexuals are pedophiles and then go on to claim falsely that homosexuals are high risk for children."

    The homosexual special rights lobbyists are.

    Do you donate to them?

    You know what they're advocating for, with your money, don't you?
    http://classact2012.com/

  17. Preserve Marriage
    Posted August 24, 2012 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

    Video message from Tony Perkins
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJx1tpqe5W8

  18. Chairm
    Posted August 25, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    No, Spunky, your pro-gay spin is not okay.

    The adult who engages in child-adult sexual behavior is not required to do so primarily nor exclusively.

    Indeed, he is likely to disguise himself through behavior that openly contradicts sexual attraction, primary or exclusive or otherwise, to the same-sex and to children.

    It is more complicated than the SPLC's mischaracterization of the FRC's policy statements.

    The bigger point is that the SPLC favors a view that is biased in favor of the gay identity group while the FRC's bias is in favor of children. That difference means a difference in assessment of available evidence.

    None of that justifies the SPLC's hate label against the FRC..

  19. Spunky
    Posted August 25, 2012 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

    @ Chairm

    Please answer my questions. If you have an answer already in the filter, please say so. Otherwise, please stop responding to my comments.

  20. TC Matthews
    Posted August 25, 2012 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

    Getting testy Spunkmeister?

  21. Chairm
    Posted August 26, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Q1. A man is a male adult. The man who who partakes in same-sex sexual behavior (which is not always consensual) is a homosexually-active man. When the object is a male child, the man is the subject who has engaged in adult-child sexual behavior (regardless of claims of mutual consent). The man is homosexually-active with children.

    Q2. You linked to stuff that views this subject through the gay identity filter. It is a view that you might approve but that is no excuse for the false accusation against the FRC.

    You would rather switch from the links to discussion of cited studies in the particulars. See the FRC'stations and try not to limit yourself to the blinkers of the pro-gay bias. Maybe you will find that impossible given your investment in gay identity politics, I dunno.

    Q3. The view of human sexuality that assumes that same-sex sexual behavior is morally acceptable (or that morality is subjective or even irrelevant) is much more susceptible to including adult-child sexual behavior in the "it depends" grey zone that seems ever-expanding. That is moreso regarding adult-child sexual attraction based on flimsy utilitarian notions. It can give cover forgreater indifference, if not greater acceptance, to lowering age of consnet casually, if not officially.

    The man who is homosexually-active is more likely to have been the subject of homosexually-active adults during childhood. That is linked to a cycle whereby the subject as child is more likely to act-out in abusive relationships (some adult-adult and some adult-child). It appears that this cycle does not manifest with most children who experience adult-child sexual behavior; however, there is a disproportion. And that appears to be more pronounced with same-sex adult-child sexual behavior.

    Relatedly, there is evidence that children raised in homosexually-active parenting scenarios tend to experiment more with same-sex sexual behavior and tend to engage in sexual behavior, generally, at earlier ages. While the evidence is not conclusive and while politicization of the issue hinders frank public discussion, there is an intersection of various factors that is making itself known.

    But if a pro-gay bias is presupposed as essential to viewing the truth, on these matters, then, the hate label will continue to be used as a political weapon that turns the pro-child view into so much collateral damage.

    That is how the SSM rhetoric and argumentation has being played out so there is a discernible pattern.

    * * * * *

    Spunky, with all due respect, you do not dictate to me which comments I respond to here. Fellow commenters, including you and I, put their remarks out there for consideration by the readership and even for reply. You do as you will do. And I'll thank you for respecting the same of others here.

  22. Spunky
    Posted August 26, 2012 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

    @ Chairm

    Thank you for answering my questions.

    From your response to my first question, it appears we have different views on what defines a homosexual. I understand why your definition is what it is. Just so you know, my definition is a result of the entire discussion of gay rights. When I talk about marriage, adoption, and nondiscrimination rights for homosexuals, I'm only talking about people fitting my definition--I certainly don't think a man attracted to children should get to marry a child.

    I....think I might understand your answer to question 2. But you use the term "gay identity" in the place of an actual counterargument. I wish you said something like, "Source A says *quotation*, but I disagree because *argument*."

    I'm not sure what your final answer to question 3 is. But thank you for responding.

    *************

    I was not dictating any of your actions; I was simply requesting that you stay on topic when responding to my comments. I spend plenty of time reading what you wrote and attempting to respond to the salient points you make; I often feel that you don't show me the same respect.

    Anyway, given our different approaches to this subject (and the fact that I can't tell how much to (dis)agree with me), I think it's best we stop this line of debate. If you answer question 2 in the manner I suggested, perhaps we could continue.

  23. Chairm
    Posted August 26, 2012 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

    argh.

    typo corrections:

    "See the FRC's statements ..."

    "... more likely to have been the object of ..."

    "... act out in abusive relationship later as an adult ..."

    Apolofies for the typos. Using hand held devise.

  24. bman
    Posted August 27, 2012 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    Spunky->Let's replace "men who have sex with men" with "men who are primarily or exclusively attracted to men." Is that okay?

    As Chairm noted, "A man is a male adult."

    Thus, your statement effectively reduces to this claim, "....homosexual men are exclusively attracted to "[adult males]. Is that okay?"

    That is not OK for definition purposes. Your definition would "define away" the question whether homosexual men are attracted to adolescent boys.

    Furthermore, if you are claiming homosexual men are not attracted to adolescent boys, that would appear false from the outset.

    The burden of proof should be on you in that case, since your claim goes against conventional knowledge.

    Your proposed definition also fits the fallacy called "Begging the Question."

    The Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia defines that as follows:

    Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition relies on an implicit premise [like when "men" implies adult males] ....to establish the truth of that same proposition.

    To avoid begging the question, you could use the word "males" instead of the word "men" or you could say, "attracted to members of the same sex" instead of the word "men."

  25. Chairm
    Posted August 27, 2012 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    Spunky, the topic here is adult-child sexual behavior among homosexually-active men.

    Your complaint against the FRC fell apart when you acknowledged that the FRC does not claim that all homosexually-active men engage in adult-child sexual behavior. As you noted, the FRC said that most do not.

    Whether or not I approve of the links you provided, the content is as I described: the gay identity filter screens out the truth. Redefining the homosexually-active male subject whose sexual object is a child is a blatant misrepresentation of the available evidence.

    By what measure is sexual attraction quantified as 'primarily' or as 'exclusively' this or that? Perhaps behavior. But the FRC made the point that adult-child sexual behavior is often hidden and largely unreported. If self-reporting is the best indirect measure, then, consider the disproportionate reporting by homosexually-active men of having experienced adult-child same-sex sexual behavior.

    The FRC does not exclude from consideration all heterosexually-active men who are eligible to marry or for various legal rights. So your reply makes little sense in the context of this particular accusation against the FRC. But you just admitted the gaycentric context of that accusation.

    Sure your emphasis is on gay this and gay that. But it is irrelevant to the evidence on this topic. As is the underlying presumption of purity of gay identity as often described as "primarily" and "exclusively" this and that.

    The FRC pointed at disproportion, not absolutism. Heightened risk was also noted. But both points are screened out by the gay identity filter.

    Yet your gay emphasis is the basis of your accusation.

    So your links reflect the problem that SPLC supporters brought into the topic for no better reason than to prop-up the false accusation. The SPLC is wrong on this one, for sure.

  26. Spunky
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 12:47 am | Permalink

    @ bman

    I am specifically talking about men who are attracted to men. You are correct that I did not specify my definition enough; however, I think it's in a different place than you think.

    Let's try this.

    A homosexual man is a man who is primarily or exclusively attracted to other men (as opposed to women, but not necessarily boys or girls).

    A heterosexual man is a man who is primarily or exclusively attracted to other women (as opposed to men, but not necessarily boys and girls).

    Definitions for "homosexual woman" and heterosexual woman" are similar.

    With this (much needed) clarification, I believe these definitions avoid begging the question. Thank you for pointing this out.

    I already explained my reasoning for this definition in comment #22.

    Given these definitions, let me ask you, bman: are homosexuals more likely to molest children than heterosexuals? Because the studies I previously cited indicate the answer is no. In other words, a person's sexual orientation toward adults are usually not indicative of their sexual orientation toward children (if any exists). Counter-intuitive? Sure. True? Yes.

  27. bman
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    Spunky->....a person's sexual orientation toward adults are usually not indicative of their sexual orientation toward children...Counter-intuitive? Sure. True? Yes.

    Since adults are not children, any group pre-defined as attracted "to adults" would not be attracted to children "by definition."

    In other words, the definition you propose makes it impossible for you to lose the argument. By analogy, its like tossing a coin and saying, "heads I win tails you lose."

    If you are to meet the burden of proof to overcome conventional thinking, you need to provide compelling statistics rather than some biased
    definition your opponents dispute.

  28. Spunky
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    @ bman

    Since adults are not children, any group pre-defined as attracted "to adults" would not be attracted to children "by definition."

    No, because I did not say homo/heterosexuals are exclusively attracted to adults.

    For example, let's consider Jerry Sandusky. He is a heterosexual by my definition since he is married to a woman (to whom he is presumably attracted), and as far as I know he has had zero sexual attraction to men. However, he has molested countless victims, all of them male.

    Hence you have a man who is exclusively attracted to women (as opposed to men) who also molests little boys.

    Most males who molest boys fit this description (see below).

    Now, consider a homosexual man, say, Anderson Cooper. As far as I know, he is exclusively attracted to men (as opposed to women). Is he also attracted to children? I don't know. Regardless of the answer, he is still a homosexual by my definition.

    I hope this clears things up. If not, let me know.

    If you are to meet the burden of proof to overcome conventional thinking, you need to provide compelling statistics rather than some biased definition your opponents dispute.

    It is very frustrating to see you write this because I have referenced exactly these types of studies numerous times in numerous threads in the NOM Blog. I'll link to one such comment, which in turn links to my sources: here. Please read both articles and watch the video so you can understand my position and the studies that support it.

  29. bman
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

    Spunky-> No, because I did not say homo/heterosexuals are exclusively attracted to adults.

    I am saying your proposed definition implies your conclusion and so it begs the question.

    Here again is what you said, "A homosexual man is a man who is primarily or exclusively attracted to other men (as opposed to women, but not necessarily boys or girls)."

    The phrase, "predominantly or exclusively" differs in some degree, of course, from simply saying, "exclusively."

    It doesn't differ enough to matter, however.

    If you had simply said homosexual men are "exclusively" attracted to men [adults] your proposed definition would have predefined the probability for juvenile attraction among homosexual men at 0%.

    By instead saying they are attracted to men [adults] "predominantly or exclusively," its not quite 0% but it still makes a low probability claim.

    In other words, its an argument in a circle. First you propose a definition that implies low probability, then you reach a conclusion based on the low probability definition you proposed!

    Your proposed definition matches the description of Begging the Question quoted earlier, ".... a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition [made by Spunky] relies on an implicit premise [of low probability] ....to establish the truth of [low probability]."

    Spunky->Hence...a man who is exclusively attracted to women (as opposed to men) who also molests little boys.

    Homosexuals on this blog often object that homosexual men feel pressured by society to marry women.

    Since its common for homosexual men to marry a woman and live a secret life of homosexuality, why can't the example you propose be viewed as that instead of, "a man who is exclusively attracted to women?"

    Spunky->It is very frustrating to see you write [you need to provide compelling statistics rather than some biased definition your opponents dispute] because I have referenced exactly these types of studies numerous times in numerous threads in the NOM Blog.

    You can't simply link to references and say a compelling argument was made.

    Rather, you must state some specific argument and allow it to undergo cross examination to determine if its a compelling argument or not.

    If you think a compelling argument was made in a reference pose the argument here. Otherwise, any link to references should be viewed only as an introduction to your viewpoint.

  30. bman
    Posted August 30, 2012 at 12:24 am | Permalink

    Correction: I quoted Spunky correctly as saying "primarily or exclusively" but then quoted it incorrectly later as "predominantly or exclusively."

  31. Spunky
    Posted August 30, 2012 at 12:38 am | Permalink

    @ bman

    I am saying your proposed definition implies your conclusion and so it begs the question.

    I know what begging the question is; you even cited its meaning in a previous comment. You don't need to keep explaining it. I just think you're not understanding what I'm saying.

    An adult has two different types of attraction: toward adults and toward children. I am saying that a person's sexual orientation toward other adults is what determines whether I call that person a homosexual or heterosexual. The person's orientation toward children does not enter into the definition.

    For this reason, a person who is only attracted to children is neither a homosexual nor a heterosexual under my definition. If you don't approve of this definition, I can use the word "gay" in place of "homosexual."

    The reason I use this definition is to separate a person's orientation toward adults and his orientation toward children.

    You can't simply link to references and say a compelling argument was made.

    Each source I cite includes a specific compelling argument (a polemic, as Chairm would say) that a person's orientation and behavior toward adults do not imply his orientation and behavior toward children. I'm not going to rehash their arguments simply for the sake of saying "I made the argument." Burroway, Herek, and Tisinai stated their arguments better than I could ever hope to.

    I'm not spamming you with information either. These articles take about 10 minutes to read each, and the video only 5 to watch. I remember writing several posts on the Ruth Blog dissecting the Whitehead paper you linked to. Just read the articles I linked to. If you have issues with their arguments, you should voice them. Otherwise, I'll assume you have no counterargument.

  32. bman
    Posted August 30, 2012 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    Spunky->I am saying that a person's sexual orientation toward other adults is what determines whether I call that person a homosexual or heterosexual.

    What then do you "call" a 4th grade boy attracted to 4th grade girls?

    Do you wait until he becomes attracted to adult women before you call him heterosexual?

    The point is that the word heterosexual is not defined in the dictionary by the age of the person to whom one is attracted, or by the age of the person attracted to the opposite sex, but its an age neutral term for being opposite sex attracted.

    Also, your "definition" effectively denies the existence of what most people believe to exist - that a significant percentage of homosexual men are attracted to adolescent boys [and to men].

    Even if we suppose homosexual men exist who are interested only in adult partners, its a false dilemma to think no other types of homosexuals exist. You claim to be a "rational" activist but you appear "overly rationalistic" and artificially "compartmental" in that regard.

    You said if I do not respond to your links you will assume I have no counterargument.

    If you pose no additional argument here, I will suppose you have no compelling argument to offer.

    Lastly, you did not address the question about homosexuals being married to women and having secret homosexual lifestyles.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.