I'm a libertarian lawyer and college professor. I blog on religion, history, constitutional law, government policy, philosophy, sexuality, and the American Founding. Everything is fair game though. Over the years, I've been involved in numerous group blogs that come and go. This blog archives almost everything I write.
Email your questions or comments to rowjonathan@aol.com
No one seems to be disputing the uncomfortable fact that "There were 270 reports [of child sexual abuse], and 34% of those were same-sex in nature: committed by a male adult against a male child, or a female adult against a female child", just whether or not same-sex sex actually means "gay".
Again Marty, I don't see the big deal. If it is accepted that pedophiles tend to be fixated on age rather than gender, and given that little boys are 50% of the child population, I wouldn't expect 97% of all molestations to be opposite sex violations.
According to what I have read on the net about this subject, estimates on the percentage of molestation cases in which a boy is the victim range from 20% to 1/3. As nearly all molestation is by men (making the Cameron study even more questionable, because of the high rate of female molesters, more on that below), it looks like 1/5 to 1/3 of molestations are "same-sex."
The question is whether all those same-sex molestations are by gay men. That is demonstrably false.
The following link: http://www.robincmiller.com/gayles4.htm I did find on google that inlcludes a number of studies (e.g., see cites 4 and 5) showing no link between self-identification as gay and child abuse. More importantly I have seen other research (still looking for cites) that show 75-80% of the men who molest boys are involved in a sexual relationship with the boys' mother (they are either the boy's father or stepfather or the mother's boyfriend). There are also a high percentage (5 - 10%) of men who molest boys who are simply pedophiles - they have no attraction to adults at all.
So, when looking at the issue of whether gay men and women should be barred from foster or adoptive care you find that, in fact, self-identified gay people are no more likely to molest children than the population at large. It may well be that some of the men molesting boys who are otherwise in an adult relationship with a woman are really repressed gay men, but they would not identify themselves as such to authorities. Barring openly gay people would not prevent these types of molesters from getting access to children.
There are other issues with this Cameron "research" which make it dubious. How much of this abuse was for the sexual gratification of the adult? The high percentage of women who molested in this study (which is diametrically opposite of the general population) lead me to wonder whether these women were engaged in physical abuse that included the genatalia of the girls. That may not be "sexual abuse" in that the parent was not fulfilling a sexual need by abusing the child (see the book "Sybil" for a description of one mother who used genatalia abuse as one method of horrific physical abuse of her daughter).
Also, the study mentions that only 1% of foster children were sexually abused in Illinois during the study period. Which means 99% were not. Should we base our assessment of an individual's fitness to be a foster parent based on the actions of 1/3 of one percent of current foster parents?
More importantly I have seen other research (still looking for cites) that show 75-80% of the men who molest boys are involved in a sexual relationship with the boys' mother (they are either the boy's father or stepfather or the mother's boyfriend).
I'd like to see those cites, too. I think that's the key. Proponents of the gays-are-molesters idea probably aren't impressed with the idea that molesters don't identify as gay. Proof that the individuals are actively involved with adult women is better.
I think you are all (well most of you, the "gay activists" here) are missing the point. Perhaps deliberately.
The point is that "self-identification" as a homosexual is meaningless. Doom mentions "repressed" gays who are in relationships with other women. Well which is it? Are they gay and fooling around with women? Or straight and fooling around with boys? Or are they bisexuals? Self-labeling gets us nowhere -- actions speak louder than words.
"Orientation" is an invented concept with little basis in biological fact. The objective categories of male and female, and the plain and simple way they are designed to work together are native to every person, and every walking animal on the planet. Their actions speak for themselves.
So when a gay man tells me he "can't" mate with a woman (while visiting a fertility clinic to do just that), i don't buy it. And when a straight guy tells me he "can't" mate with another man (except if he's in prison), i don't buy that either. We are all capable of mono, homo, hetero, and polysexualism. The only thing stopping us from any of these things is our own mind.
So are men who molest boys "gay"? Who cares -- they molest boys! So are men who claim to be soley attracted to other men a risk to little boys? No more so than men who claim to be soley attracted to women are to little girls. Who, by the way, we segregate away from little girls as a matter of course.
Segregating gay men from little boys is no more discrininatory or biased that keeping heterosexual men away from little girls. It's common sense. Thats where your self-labelling takes you.
Only self-identified gays bent on an agenda would refute that. I don't see ANY straight men claiming bias or discrimination when they are not allowed to be alone with young girls. As far as i can tell, straight men haven't sued for access to girl scouts -- but gay men have sued for access to boys.
So are men who molest boys "gay"? Who cares -- they molest boys!
Paul Cameron and his ilk (and the legislators who believe them) claim that people who self-identify as gay should not be allowed to adopt children, be scoutmasters, etc., because "they" molest children. That's why it's necessary to keep pointing out that self-identified gay people are not, as a class, people to be worried about.
The way in which you argue for a point may mean all the difference in terms of whether your policy appears to be justified.
If you argue for X -- even if X is a reasonable position -- while making erroneous or downright bigoted remarks, that doesn't help policy X.
For instance, let's assume that a reasonable argument exists for criticizing Israel's treatment of Palestinians. If you include in your argument, "oh yeah, Jews also like to drink the blood of Palestinian children," you are not helping your case.
I think the strongest argument to be made on behalf of segregating gay men from underaged males in close personal circumstances, with whom the man doesn't have any other type of ordinary relationship (i.e., a "son" a "brother") would be to make an analogy to the need to keep an adult male and an underaged, but post-pubescent, girl separate.
Citing the fraud that gay men are 10 times more likely to commit child-abuse is like arguing that Jews drink with the blood of Palestinian children, in order to argue for more humane treatment of the Palestinians by Israel.
Jon, you pratically agreed with me there -- i can appreciate that. I'm in no way defending Cameron, just pointing out what a useless term "gay" or "orientation" is, when discussing illegal sex with children. Men will naturally be attracted to young females, you said it yourself. And if a man professes that he is "naturally" attracted to other men, then there is nothing "biggotted" about assuming that he will likewise be attracted to young boys in the same way. Such is the cost of his self-identification.
10 comments:
Wall Street Journal does get some credit for publishing this debunking, though, tepid as it is.
No one seems to be disputing the uncomfortable fact that "There were 270 reports [of child sexual abuse], and 34% of those were same-sex in nature: committed by a male adult against a male child, or a female adult against a female child", just whether or not same-sex sex actually means "gay".
Again Marty, I don't see the big deal. If it is accepted that pedophiles tend to be fixated on age rather than gender, and given that little boys are 50% of the child population, I wouldn't expect 97% of all molestations to be opposite sex violations.
If it is accepted.... where would you put the number? Go ahead, take a guess.
According to what I have read on the net about this subject, estimates on the percentage of molestation cases in which a boy is the victim range from 20% to 1/3. As nearly all molestation is by men (making the Cameron study even more questionable, because of the high rate of female molesters, more on that below), it looks like 1/5 to 1/3 of molestations are "same-sex."
The question is whether all those same-sex molestations are by gay men. That is demonstrably false.
The following link: http://www.robincmiller.com/gayles4.htm I did find on google that inlcludes a number of studies (e.g., see cites 4 and 5) showing no link between self-identification as gay and child abuse. More importantly I have seen other research (still looking for cites) that show 75-80% of the men who molest boys are involved in a sexual relationship with the boys' mother (they are either the boy's father or stepfather or the mother's boyfriend). There are also a high percentage (5 - 10%) of men who molest boys who are simply pedophiles - they have no attraction to adults at all.
So, when looking at the issue of whether gay men and women should be barred from foster or adoptive care you find that, in fact, self-identified gay people are no more likely to molest children than the population at large. It may well be that some of the men molesting boys who are otherwise in an adult relationship with a woman are really repressed gay men, but they would not identify themselves as such to authorities. Barring openly gay people would not prevent these types of molesters from getting access to children.
There are other issues with this Cameron "research" which make it dubious. How much of this abuse was for the sexual gratification of the adult? The high percentage of women who molested in this study (which is diametrically opposite of the general population) lead me to wonder whether these women were engaged in physical abuse that included the genatalia of the girls. That may not be "sexual abuse" in that the parent was not fulfilling a sexual need by abusing the child (see the book "Sybil" for a description of one mother who used genatalia abuse as one method of horrific physical abuse of her daughter).
Also, the study mentions that only 1% of foster children were sexually abused in Illinois during the study period. Which means 99% were not. Should we base our assessment of an individual's fitness to be a foster parent based on the actions of 1/3 of one percent of current foster parents?
More importantly I have seen other research (still looking for cites) that show 75-80% of the men who molest boys are involved in a sexual relationship with the boys' mother (they are either the boy's father or stepfather or the mother's boyfriend).
I'd like to see those cites, too. I think that's the key. Proponents of the gays-are-molesters idea probably aren't impressed with the idea that molesters don't identify as gay. Proof that the individuals are actively involved with adult women is better.
I think you are all (well most of you, the "gay activists" here) are missing the point. Perhaps deliberately.
The point is that "self-identification" as a homosexual is meaningless. Doom mentions "repressed" gays who are in relationships with other women. Well which is it? Are they gay and fooling around with women? Or straight and fooling around with boys? Or are they bisexuals? Self-labeling gets us nowhere -- actions speak louder than words.
"Orientation" is an invented concept with little basis in biological fact. The objective categories of male and female, and the plain and simple way they are designed to work together are native to every person, and every walking animal on the planet. Their actions speak for themselves.
So when a gay man tells me he "can't" mate with a woman (while visiting a fertility clinic to do just that), i don't buy it. And when a straight guy tells me he "can't" mate with another man (except if he's in prison), i don't buy that either. We are all capable of mono, homo, hetero, and polysexualism. The only thing stopping us from any of these things is our own mind.
So are men who molest boys "gay"? Who cares -- they molest boys! So are men who claim to be soley attracted to other men a risk to little boys? No more so than men who claim to be soley attracted to women are to little girls. Who, by the way, we segregate away from little girls as a matter of course.
Segregating gay men from little boys is no more discrininatory or biased that keeping heterosexual men away from little girls. It's common sense. Thats where your self-labelling takes you.
Only self-identified gays bent on an agenda would refute that. I don't see ANY straight men claiming bias or discrimination when they are not allowed to be alone with young girls. As far as i can tell, straight men haven't sued for access to girl scouts -- but gay men have sued for access to boys.
Just a little bit peculiar, isn't it?
So are men who molest boys "gay"? Who cares -- they molest boys!
Paul Cameron and his ilk (and the legislators who believe them) claim that people who self-identify as gay should not be allowed to adopt children, be scoutmasters, etc., because "they" molest children. That's why it's necessary to keep pointing out that self-identified gay people are not, as a class, people to be worried about.
Marty,
The way in which you argue for a point may mean all the difference in terms of whether your policy appears to be justified.
If you argue for X -- even if X is a reasonable position -- while making erroneous or downright bigoted remarks, that doesn't help policy X.
For instance, let's assume that a reasonable argument exists for criticizing Israel's treatment of Palestinians. If you include in your argument, "oh yeah, Jews also like to drink the blood of Palestinian children," you are not helping your case.
I think the strongest argument to be made on behalf of segregating gay men from underaged males in close personal circumstances, with whom the man doesn't have any other type of ordinary relationship (i.e., a "son" a "brother") would be to make an analogy to the need to keep an adult male and an underaged, but post-pubescent, girl separate.
Citing the fraud that gay men are 10 times more likely to commit child-abuse is like arguing that Jews drink with the blood of Palestinian children, in order to argue for more humane treatment of the Palestinians by Israel.
Jon, you pratically agreed with me there -- i can appreciate that. I'm in no way defending Cameron, just pointing out what a useless term "gay" or "orientation" is, when discussing illegal sex with children. Men will naturally be attracted to young females, you said it yourself. And if a man professes that he is "naturally" attracted to other men, then there is nothing "biggotted" about assuming that he will likewise be attracted to young boys in the same way. Such is the cost of his self-identification.
Post a Comment