June 5, 2012
CA CONSERVATIVE writes:
You recently stated: “Heterosexual men commit sexual abuse too, but they do not have the same rate of sexual perversion against the young.” I immediately thought, “of course.” But I decided to do a bit of research online and consider the positions of various psychologists and statisticians on the topic. I found a pretty compelling debate exists. Certainly, one would assume that advocates of homosexuality would mount a formidable defense. If your claim is unimpeachable, it would rank among the top reasons to challenge homosexual marriage, particularly given its scientific, rather than moral basis. but it seems that there are reasonable bodies of research on both sides of the argument. For example, in some studies, they’ve hooked up known sex offenders to diagnostic devices, capable of testing sexual arousal. They then display pornographic imagery, both homosexual and heterosexual. The intent is to determine, regardless of professed “orientation,” whether child molesters tend to be more frequently aroused by homosexual or heterosexual pornography. Now, I don’t know useful this type of testing is in formulating a conclusion, but it does seem like a large body of psychologists contradict each other and approach your assertion using a wide variety of statistics and diagnostic approaches.
So my question to you – what research do you rely on and have you considered the challenges mounted by its opponents?
Thank you for your blog and frequent insights.
The predilection of homosexuals for young partners is something homosexuals themselves openly discuss. There is no heterosexual equivalent of the North American Man/Boy Love Association that has advocated for consensual sex with the young.
Steve Baldwin cites research here that indicates that homosexuals have significantly higher rates of child molestation. Alfred Kinsey found in the 1940s that 31 percent of homosexual men surveyed had had sex with minors.
However, there is more to the issue. Though this does not fit with my contention that homosexuals molest children at a higher rate, I take it as a given that when a man seduces an 18-year-old boy, who is of the legal age of consent, it is more damaging than when a man seduces an 18-year-old girl. In the former case a young person is introduced at an impressionable age to homosexuality, which is inherently immoral and destructive.
I have several gay friends, both men and women. Their views on gay marriage and gay child-rearing vary.
My gut tells me that neither “gay marriage” nor gay child-rearing are great ideas, but I would certainly prefer to speak firmly and fairly on this matter. I’d prefer it immensely if gays had stuck with the right to do as they wished in the privacy of their own homes. I recognize that liberalism (adolescent rebellion incarnate) will not allow any such return.
I believe your argument that what is best for a child is formative experiences with both his father and mother. I also believe your argument that women leaving the home in favor of the workforce has proven especially detrimental to children.
How then to reconcile these arguments with the lesbian couple I know who are raising a child together? One stays home. The other is a doctor. I’m not sure how the one became pregnant (whether by anonymous sperm donor or a family friend’s donation). I imagine their little girl will have some confusion and be more prone to lesbianism, herself (I think you’ve shared research indicating that the children of homosexual parents tend to greater sexual experimentation and outright homosexuality). Clearly, for two happy lesbians raising a child, this latter argument won’t raise much concern. Further, how does one rank the harm to a child, having his mother in the workforce, vis a vis a stay-at-home lesbian mom and the absence of a male father?
And, of course, it seems to me that two women raising a child is an entirely different sort of issue than two men raising a child, which introduces (potentially) the greater risk of pedophilia?
Frankly, I find the whole thing confusing.
The idea that it is less harmful for a child to have lesbian “mothers” than to have a mother working outside the home is just plain far-fetched. Attention cannot make up for the utter anomaly of lesbian “parents” or for having been conceived in an artificial, commercial transaction, estranged from one’s own father by intention. Furthermore, the fact that many children are in less-than-ideal circumstances does not justify even more damaging situations for others.
Parenthood involves all stages of life not just infancy and early childhood. Think of this child as an adolescent and young woman trying to understand men. Think of her as the parent of her own children. Many children have not known their grandfathers, but they are not lied to and told that it isn’t at all important who he was. That’s what homosexual “parenthood” does. It foists a big lie upon the young, who know the truth in their hearts.
Hamlet knows that something is wrong in Denmark. He knows his father has been killed. In the same way, her father has been swept from her life and everyone pretends nothing is amiss.
The word “father” is written on the inner being of every person. Fatherhood underlies all that is good. The child of lesbian “parents’ is cut off not just from her own roots but from history itself. Lesbians can love a child and raise her safely. But they can’t make her part of civilization because everywhere a civilized society affirms fatherhood. They can’t introduce her to God because God cherishes human fatherhood.
The homosexual project cannot stop at same-sex marriage; it must also banish the categories of ‘mother’ and ‘father.’ It is radically opposed to true parenthood.
— Comments —
Jill Farris writes:
Two women or men who are raising a child together in a homosexual relationship are not in a “happy” relationship no matter how normal they strive to appear. Both people have rejected themselves. A woman who refuses to use her body in the way it was made to be used (and all of us would gag in shock if we witnessed homosexual “love” expressed physically) is a woman who has rejected herself. She and her “partner” cannot turn from their self-hatred to truly love one another or a child.
I have never known a truly happy and “gay” homosexual. This is because they are mired in a lifestyle of self-rejection. Let’s say it out loud.; homosexuality is a self-focused sin. A couple of self-focused individuals who have rejected the way God created them could not possibly raise a child selflessly.
CA Conservative mentioned that he has a number of “gay friends.” Just because a person is homosexual doesn’t mean he doesn’t have many good qualities, but having a homosexual friend is like having a friend who is an alcoholic. Sooner or later, the nature of the disorder becomes apparent. It’s not friendship to approve of it.
[SEE a reader’s comments here.]
Posted by Laura Wood in Uncategorized