September 29, 2004


Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse (Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D., 9/29/04, Family Research Council)

Scandals involving the sexual abuse of under-age boys by homosexual priests have rocked the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, defenders of homosexuality argue that youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to include homosexuals among their adult leaders. Similarly, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist organization that targets schools, has spearheaded the formation of "Gay-Straight Alliances" among students. GLSEN encourages homosexual teachers--even in the youngest grades--to be open about their sexuality, as a way of providing role models to "gay" students. In addition, laws or policies banning employment discrimination based on "sexual orientation" usually make no exception for those who work with children or youth.

Many parents have become concerned that children may be molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even "recruited" into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle. Gay activists dismiss such concerns--in part, by strenuously insisting that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children.

However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:

· Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.

· Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).

· The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.

· Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

· Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.

· Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote "intergenerational intimacy."

Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.

The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls.

What's especially troublesome is the willingness of even presumably well-intentioned folk to ignore this for their own political reasons--for example, the way opponents of Catholicism insist its paedophilia scandals are inherent to the Church rather than a function of the unwise recruitment of gay priests; or the way libertarians lionized Pim Fortuyn.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 29, 2004 3:30 PM

It is not impossible that homosexual men are more likely to be attracted to prepubescents than people with other sexual orientations. This article, because it fails to distinguish between pedophilia and sexual relationships with underage but sexually mature boys, doesn't prove that.

Most, though not all, of the priest abuse cases were with sexually mature boys, both troubled teens the priests were counseling and altar boys. That is a serious problem, but it has nothing to do (by definition) with pedophilia.

Posted by: David Cohen at September 29, 2004 5:02 PM

That's a useful distinction. I did a story once, in Des Moines, about gay bars and interviewed some denizens.

I asked one when he had started disco hopping.

He was 15, he said.

And who introduced him?

"The choir director at church."

They're everywhere.

However, I'd propose they are at least as prevalent in the church, which is all about power and exploitation, as in any other organization.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 29, 2004 5:10 PM

Since most of the alleged victims in the pedophilia scandal within the Catholic Church were postpubescent boys, I would have to believe that what actually occurred was not molestation but statuatory rape, which is physically consentual but not legally consentual because teenagers--unlike adults--don't understand the whole ramifications of their actions. Another words, the teenage boys liked it, but the adults should have known better.

Posted by: Vince at September 29, 2004 6:21 PM

The Catholic clergy sex xcandals are not pedophilia per se, but a related sexual kink called ehebephilia.

If the kid's before puberty, its pedophilia.
If it's a post-puberty-but-still-underage teen, it's ehebephilia.

Here's a perspective that came to me one day:

I understand that one of the SEX-AY archetypes in the gay community is the teenage boy, sexually mature but still jail bait.

For a gay ehebephile, being around teenage altarboys every Mass might be like a straight male working with strippers and supermodels day after day after day after day after day...

I think at least some of these priests thought they could handle it, and one day they just cracked.

Vow of Celibacy applies both ways, gay or straight.

Posted by: Ken at September 29, 2004 7:26 PM

"Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls)."

Well, like, Duh.

Posted by: at September 29, 2004 8:30 PM

Another problem that compounds his paper is that society is far liklier to consider a relationship between an adult man and underaged but post-pubescent teen to be "abuse," than a likewise relationship between and equally aged heterosexual couple.

Ever since the Ancient Jews declared that girls become adults at the age of 12, in Western culture, relations between a male over 18, and a young teen girl have been tolerated or accepted, so long as it took place within the context of a marriage. Two famous celebrities -- Jerry Lee Lewis and Lorretta Lynn were both involved in LEGAL marriages in the South in the 50s (the bastion of social conservatism) where the male party was over 18 and the female was just 13!

And some anti-abortion websites have reported that there is a shockingly high number of the underaged girls who come in for abortions were impregnated by adults, leading to the conclusion that relations between an adult male and underaged female are vastly underreported as "abuse."

Could you imagine the outcry that would have occured if an adult male wanted to "marry" a 13-year-old boy as did Jerry Lee Lewis. Until this double standard is eliminated, Dailey's figures aren't worth the paper that they are written on.

And one other thing -- the paper puts men who have relations with post-pubescent teens (which desires stem from a normal homosexual orientation) with men who molest pre-pubescent boys (true pedophiles) who, virtually all of them, are not true homosexuals; they aren't attracted to adult males; they don't self define as gay and aren't part of the gay community.

When Daily cites a statistic that gays are only between 1-3% of the population, he is relying on survey data where the folks being surveyed have to "self-define" themselves as what they are. The men who molest pre-pubescent boys, almost always define themselves as "heterosexual" in those studies. Thus, it is blatantly dishonest to lump them in with the homosexual population simply because the gender of the boys that they molest is male.

Posted by: Jon Rowe at September 30, 2004 12:09 PM


My first paragraph should have read:

"Another problem that compounds his paper is that society is far liklier to consider a relationship between an adult man and underaged but post-pubescent MALE teen to be 'abuse,' than a likewise relationship between and equally aged heterosexual couple."

Posted by: at September 30, 2004 12:13 PM

Orrin's theory about gay seminaries does not hold water.

Out here, beloved Father Joe was chased out for getting it on with little boys.

But he didn't come from a US gay seminary. He was trained in the Philippines.

And it ain't new, either.

I was looking through our 1926 files the other day and came across another 'beloved Father Joe' who was removed suddenly for 'exhaustion'

Heh heh heh

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 30, 2004 4:29 PM

Nothing new under the sun, Harry, thanks for the heads up. The recruitment of homosexuals for tyhe seminary was a unique change in direction for the church occuring in the 1960's. Prior to that time, open homosexual tendencies would have been a disqualification rather than a trait actually sought out.

Posted by: at October 1, 2004 10:47 PM

Well, I was being recruited for the seminary in the '60s, but I sure didn't notice the open appeal to homosexuals.

Guess I was naive

Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 2, 2004 3:35 PM

Maybe someone misunderstood one of your come hither glances?

Posted by: oj at October 2, 2004 3:52 PM

I am not a pedophile. I am attracted to young adult males. I worry that I will not be able to discern young men from old boys. Please help me figure out what is happening in my brain.

Posted by: Mark at November 28, 2004 1:46 AM


Both urges are wrong, but help is fairly easy to find:

Posted by: oj at November 28, 2004 10:41 AM