Steve Baldwin, like many other so-called Religious Right people, actually risks getting sued/arrested if these so-called “research” inspires so some to want to murder gays. This is the perfect example for why these people were blamed for Matthew Shepard’s murder. Yet what do they say instead? That there were blamed for Matthew’s murder only because they believe that homosexuality is a sin and because of the “Truth in Love” campaign trying to get gays to change. Why didn’t they tell the whole truth?! The day the we hear of someone being inspired to kill gay people due to these so-called “researches” is the day that Baldwin and others like him are going to their asses kicked when the family/familes of the victim(s) come after them! The families will stop will stop at nothing to get lawyer and possibly an ARREST WARRANT for Baldwin and others like to him to see that he and others like him get locked behind bars! The bible mentions in the book of Proverbs that “Lying Lips are an abomination to the Lord”, unfortuantely Baldwin and others like him think they are immune to God’s rule of lying. Makes me wonder what makes him and others like Paul Cameron and the whole so-called “Family Research Council” think they themselves will enter the kingdom of God for for all their big lies and breaking the commandment of bearing false witness against thy neighbor!

The post does not identify Not a single lie told by Baldwin. Truth Teller’s post is ad hominen nonsense.

Pay no attention to what the “Truth Teller Post Is Nonsense” writer says because that itself is nonsense and pure ignorance with no knowledge on the subject. The writer probably will probably believe anything he/she reads or hears from the Religious Right. Steve Baldwin has been caught off guard on lies and some of the sources he sites, like Paul Cameron’s data, have long been discredited. I’ll get to the reasons later. I’ve been following the Religious Right for some years now and have seen the way the way they work. There are good Christians out there who even condemn people like Baldwin for thinking he is working for Jesus Christ himself. One of my good friends happens to be a good-hearted Christian who would never do anything like what Baldwin is doing. For starters, despite the existence of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a pedophile group which targets young boys, and which tries to pretend that it is a “gay rights” group and which real gay rights groups condemn, that does not prove nor is there the existence of proof that homosexuals are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. The questions to asked here are this: exactly how is painting gay people as child molesters any way of teaching the love of God? Jews were painted by the Nazis as threats to people as were African-American people who were said to be more likely to rape women back during the days of the civil rights movement. After the murder of Matthew Shepard, Religious Right groups denied any responsibility of Matthew’s death when the Family Research Council’s Heather Farish said “Don’t blame AA because a drunk was beat up”. It’s always the way that the Religious Right wants it, if violence happens when they scapegoat people it’s always “oh no, that’s not our fault”. Although Matthew’s killers may have never heard their words, repeating allegations about a group of people over many years can poison the atmosphere which can lead to fear and hatred. It’s scary how much people can take the words of others seriously. Take the Rev. Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps, who picketed Shepard’s funeral and who on his grandson’s web site even keeps suggesting that gays molest children. Take a look at the Army of God website, a religious violent group who have known to violently attack abortion clinics, who say the same thing about gay people. There was a 19-year-old man named Brendan Shawn McGarity who after hearing Pat Robertson warn of natural disasters awaiting for Orlando, Florida for celebrating homosexuality was arrested for tearing down gay pride flags all over down. The message here is that peoples’ words do sometimes cause actions, and those inspired the actions never want to take responsibility. Matthew’s parents Dennis and Judy Shepard and the rest of Matthew’s family live today knowing that Matthew’s life was taken away from him. Let’s say that Matthew’s killers were inspired to want to kill him because they read Baldwin’s article, do you really think that Matthew’s parents would just sit and do nothing? No, because any parent or family member of a slain loved one would do anything to get their justice. That means that they would in fact take Baldwin to court for contributing to the loss of Matthew’ life. An interesting fact is that if you were in fact to search Religious Right web sites about Matthew Shepard, they usually mention the “Truth in Love” campaign as the reason they were attacked for Matthew’s death. But for some strange reason they never bother to mention anything about their obsession of portraying gays as child molesters as a reason they might have been blamed even though that’s actually the #1 reason they were blamed in the first place by gay rights groups and liberals. The bottom line is that hatred is NOT pro-family nor is it a “family value”, and Religious Right groups need to start taking responsibility for their rhetoric and stop redefining was teaching the love of Jesus Christ is all about. If they don’t take responsibilty, the law and the court force you to. And yes, Religious Right groups will do anything to win these days in the political world such as lying and scapegoating. And since Baldwin has been caught off guard with lying, even from Stanford Law Review, that’s evidence of slander which could get Baldwin in trouble if his article ever did inspire murder as “Truth Teller” says.

Let’s get the true scientific facts about child molestation by experts who have done research on the field many years:

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority society’s most vulnerable members. Historically, Black men in the United States were often falsely accused of raping White women, and commonly lynched as a result. Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices.
In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children. When Anita Bryant campaigned successfully in 1977 to repeal a Dade County (FL) ordinance prohibiting anti-gay discrimination, she named her organization “Save Our Children,” and warned that “a particularly deviant-minded [gay] teacher could sexually molest children” (Bryant, 1977, p. 114). [Bibliographic references are on a different web page]

In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay people are child molesters. This argument has often been raised in debates about the Boy Scouts of America’s policy to exclude gay scouts and scoutmasters. It has also been raised in connection with recent scandals about the Catholic church’s attempts to cover up the abuse of young males by priests. Indeed, the Vatican’s early response to the 2002 revelations of widespread Church cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests was to declare that gay men should not be ordained.

Public belief in
the stereotype

The number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people are child molesters appears to be decreasing. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed (either strongly or somewhat) with the assertions that “Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children” or that “Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner.”1

By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters.
Consistent with these findings, Gallup polls have found that an increasing number of Americans would allow gay people to be elementary school teachers. For example, the proportion was 54% in 1999, compared to 27% in 1977.

Examining the
Research

Even though most Americans don’t regard gay people as child molesters, confusion remains widespread in this area. To understand the facts, it is important to examine the results of scientific research. However, when we evaluate research on child molestation, our task is complicated by several problems.

One problem is that we do not know to what extent the samples used in research studies are representative of all child molesters. Most studies in this area have been conducted only with convicted perpetrators or with pedophiles who sought professional help. Consequently, they may not accurately describe child molesters who have never been caught or have not sought treatment.

Terminology

A second problem is that the terminology used in this area is often confusing and can even be misleading. We can begin to address that problem by defining some basic terms. Pedophilia and child molestation are used in a variety of ways, even by professionals. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychosexual disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents and children who have reached puberty.

Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, someone who has not reached the age of consent is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.
Although the terms are not always used consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them.

Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don’t imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children.

Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to choose one’s terms carefully.

Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as “homosexual molestation.” The adjective “homosexual” (or “heterosexual” when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim’s gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator’s sexual orientation.

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men’s sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men’s abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don’t convey implicit assumptions about the perpetrator’s sexual orientation.

Typologies of
Offenders

The distinction between gender of victim and sexual orientation of perpetrator is important because many child molesters don’t really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women.

Over the years, this fact has been incorporated into various schemes for categorizing child molesters. For example, Finkelhor and Araji (1986) proposed that perpetrators’ sexual attractions should be conceptualized as ranging along a continuum with exclusive interest in children at one extreme, and exclusive interest in adult partners at the other end.

Typologies of offenders have often included a distinction between those with an enduring primary preference for children as sexual partners and those who have established age-appropriate relationships but who become sexually involved with children under unusual circumstances of extreme stress. Perpetrators in the first category – those with a more or less exclusive interest in children – have often been labeled fixated. Fixation means “a temporary or permanent arrestment of psychological maturation resulting from unresolved formative issues which persist and underlie the organization of subsequent phases of development” (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176). Many clinicians view fixated offenders as being “stuck” at an early stage of psychological development.
By contrast, other molesters are described as regressed. Regression is “a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual’s development” (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177). Regressed offenders have developed an adult sexual orientation but under certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they return to an earlier, less mature psychological state and engage in sexual contact with children.

Some typologies of child molesters break the fixation-regression distinction into multiple categories, and some include additional categories as well (e.g., Knight, 1989). For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.
Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as “fixated;” 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that “in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women….There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males…” (p.180).

Other
Approaches

Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 269 cases in which an adult molester could be identified – fewer than 1% (Jenny et al., 1994).

In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects’ penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).

Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.

The Mainstream View Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. For example, in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote:
Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).

In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, “The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women” (p. 259).

Other
Sexual Abuse

In the recent scandal involving the Catholic church, some Church officials have tried to link sexual abuse with gay priests, arguing that the victims were often adolescent boys rather than small children. Here is an example where the term pedophilia – referring as it does to attractions to prepubescent children – can cause confusion. More broadly, such accusations against gay priests raise the question of whether gay men or lesbians should not be trusted in positions of authority where there is any possibility of sexual abuse or harassment.
Scientific research provides no evidence that homosexual people are less likely than heterosexuals to exercise good judgment and appropriate discretion in their employment settings. There are no data, for example, showing that gay men and lesbians are more likely than heterosexual men and women to sexually harass their subordinates in the workplace. Data from studies using a variety of psychological measures do not indicate that gay people are more likely than heterosexuals to possess any psychological characteristics that would make them less capable of controlling their sexual urges, refraining from the abuse of power, obeying rules and laws, interacting effectively with others, or exercising good judgment in handling authority. As explained elsewhere on this site, sexual orientation is not a mental illness nor is it inherently associated with impaired psychological functioning.

Gay men and lesbians function effectively in a wide variety of employment settings. No differences have been reported between heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals in job performance or ability to properly exercise authority in supervisory roles. As indicated by workplace policies around the United States, a large and growing number of private and public employers do not perceive a problem with hiring gay and bisexual people as employees or managers. A large number of corporations, educational institutions, and local governments have adopted policies that prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation. In many cases, those organizations give employee benefits such as health insurance to employees’ same-sex partners. Indeed, one reason often cited for providing such benefits is that they enable a company to remain competitive by attracting high quality employees who happen to be homosexual or bisexual.

Thus, the scientific literature does not provide any basis for organizations to avoid hiring homosexual or bisexual people, simply on the basis of their sexual orientation, for positions that involve responsibility for or supervision of others, whether children, adolescents, or adults.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/html/facts_molestation.html

Now getting to the reasons why Baldwin’s article is filled with lies and evidence of false data. First off, he mentions Paul Cameron and frequently mentions Cameron’s organization the Family Research Institute. Here’s an example, Baldwin writes:

“Family Research Institute founder and psychologist Paul Cameron, reviewing more than nineteen different academic reports and peer reviewed studies in a 1985 Psychological Reports article, found that homosexuals account for between 25% and 40% of all child molestation.”

Cameron was a former member of the American Psychological Association whose membership was revoked for misusing the findings of other APA scientists in order to support his anti-gay views. Cameron’s sworn statement that homosexuals molest children far more than heterosexuals was found to be lie in court. To learn about the background of Cameron, read these articles:

Psychologist Paul Cameron has used his own studies to claim that homosexuals threaten public health, social order, and the well-being of children. His conclusions are generally at odds with other published research, and objective indices show that his work has had no apparent impact on scientific research on sexual orientation.

Although Cameron has been criticized in the popular press, extensive scientific critiques of his group’s research have not been widely available. Those that have been published have been brief or appeared in obscure journals. This inattention by the scientific community is perhaps not surprising, given the poor quality of the Cameron group’s data and the low prestige of the journals in which they have published. Most scientists have simply ignored the Cameron studies.

Lacking training in research methods and statistics, however, nonscientists may not be equipped to subject the Cameron group’s results to the rigorous scrutiny that they warrant. Consequently, they may mistakenly assume that the Cameron group’s papers are basically sound because they included lengthy bibliographies, reported many statistics, and were published in academic journals. Some members of the lay public may not understand that the mere presence of bibliographic references does not guarantee an assertion’s accuracy or validity, that statistics can easily be generated from faulty data, and that academic journals vary widely in their quality and their criteria for accepting papers for publication.

This section of the site includes a critical review of the principal source of data for the Cameron group’s publications, their 1983-84 surveys conducted in eight US municipalities. Six serious errors are identified in the Cameron group’s sampling techniques, survey methodology, and interpretation of results. The presence of even one of these errors would be sufficient to cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of any study’s results. In combination, they make the data virtually meaningless.

In addition, a brief note describes the fundamental methodological flaw in the Cameron group’s study of obituaries in the gay press.
And data from objective indicators are reported to show that the Cameron group’s studies have had no discernible impact on scientific research. Their papers have been published in journals with extremely low levels of professional prestige and scientific impact, and have been cited in only a handful of other academic articles, most of which criticized their methodology.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html

Paul Cameron Bio and Fact Sheet

Paul Drummond Cameron was born November 9, 1939, in Pittsburgh (PA).
He received his BA from Los Angeles Pacific College in 1961; his MA from California State University, Los Angeles, in 1962; and his PhD from the University of Colorado in 1966. His dissertation was titled Age as a determinant of differences in non-intellective psychological functioning.1

He was affiliated with various colleges and universities until 1980. They include Wayne State University (1967-68), University of Louisville (1970-73), Fuller Graduate School of Psychology [part of the Fuller Theological Seminary] (1976-79), and the University of Nebraska (1979-80).

On his curriculum vitae, he describes himself as a “Researcher/Clinician.” According to the web site of the Nebraska Department of HHS Regulation and Licensure, his license as a Psychologist is “inactive.”

He is chairman of the Family Research Institute, PO Box 62640, Colorado Springs, CO, 80962-2640. Telephone: (303) 681-3113. Fax: (303) 681-3427. E-mail: pdcameron@juno.com

. In the mid-1980s, the gay press labeled Paul Cameron “the most dangerous antigay voice in the United States today.”2,3,4 Here are some important facts about him.

• On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that “Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists” by the APA Board of Directors.5 Cameron has posted an elaborate argument about his expulsion from APA on his website, claiming that he resigned from APA before he was dropped from membership. Like most organizations, however, APA does not allow a member to resign when they are being investigated. And even if Cameron’s claims were accepted as true, it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.

. At its membership meeting on October 19, 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it “formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality.”6

.In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that “Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism” and noted that “Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research.”7 The resolution formally charged an ASA committee with the task of “critically evaluating and publicly responding to the work of Dr. Paul Cameron.”

. At its August, 1986 meeting, the ASA officially accepted the committee’s report and passed the following resolution:
The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, “The Paul Cameron Case,” is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron’s frequent lecture and media appearances.”8

• Cameron’s credibility was also questioned outside of academia. In his written opinion in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to “Cameron’s sworn statement that ‘homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,’” and concluded that “Dr. Paul Cameron…has himself made misrepresentations to this Court” and that “There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron” (p.536).9

Footnotes

1Biographical information obtained from various sources, including Cameron’s curriculum vitae, Who’s Who in the West, 26th Edition, 25th Edition; Who’s Who in America, 52nd Edition, 51st Edition, 50th Edition. (return to text)
2Walter, D. (1985, October 29). Paul Cameron. The Advocate, pp. 28-33. (return to text)
3Fettner, A.G. (1985, September 23). The evil that men do. New York Native, pp. 23-24. (return to text)
4Pietrzyk, M.E. (1994, October 3). Queer science: Paul Cameron, professional sham. The New Republic, pp. 10-12. (return to text)
5Notice: Persons dropped from membership in the American Psychological Association. (1984). Internal communication from APA to all members. (return to text)
6The full NPA resolution read as follows:
The science and profession of psychology in Nebraska as represented by the Nebraska Psychological Association, formally dissociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality. Further, the Nebraska Psychological Association would like it known that Dr. Cameron is not a member of the Association. Dr. Cameron was recently dropped from membership in the American Psychological Association for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists.
[Nebraska Psychological Association. (1984, October 19). Resolution. Minutes of the Nebraska Psychological Association. Omaha, Nebraska: Author.] (return to text)
7A copy of the full ASA resolution in Acrobat PDF format can be downloaded. It read as follows:
WHEREAS Dr. Paul Cameron, a psychologist, was dropped from membership in The American Psychological Association for violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists;
WHEREAS Dr. Paul Cameron has been presented in the media as a sociologist;
WHEREAS Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism;
WHEREAS Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research;
WHEREAS the American Sociological Association is on record as opposing oppressive actions against lesbians and gay men and affirming its commitment to their civil rights;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: THAT the Association reaffirms its opposition to efforts to undermine the civil rights of lesbians and gay men through the distortion of sociological concepts and the falsifying of sociological research; and
THAT the Association articulates this opposition by charging the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology with the task of critically evaluating and publicly responding to the work of Dr. Paul Cameron.
[Sociology group criticizes work of Paul Cameron. (1985, September 10). Lincoln (NE) Star.] (return to text)
8 The final resolution and the committee report were published in ASA Footnotes, February, 1987, page 14. Available from the American Sociological Association, Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, 1722 N Street, NW, Washington DC 20036. (202) 833-3410. (return to text)
9On page 536 of his opinion, Judge Buchmeyer noted the following examples of misrepresentations by Cameron to the Court:
“(i) his sworn statement that “homosexuals are approximately 43 times more apt to commit crimes than is the general population” is a total distortion of the Kinsey data upon which he relies – which, as is obvious to anyone who reads the report, concerns data from a non-representative sample of delinquent homosexuals (and Dr. Cameron compares this group to college and non-college heterosexuals);
(ii) his sworn statement that “homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals” is based upon the same distorted data – and, the Court notes, is directly contrary to other evidence presented at trial besides the testimony of Dr. Simon and Dr. Marmour. (553 F. Supp. 1121 at 1130 n.18.)”
[Baker v. Wade, 106 Federal Rules Decisions 526 (N.D. Texas, 1985).] (return to text)

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html

Why Cameron’s data is a fraud:

Do Any Studies Claim To Show That Homosexuals Are More Likely To Molest Children?

One individual has claimed to have data that prove homosexuals to be child molesters at a higher rate than heterosexuals. That person is Paul Cameron. As detailed elsewhere on this site, Cameron’s survey data are subject to so many methodological flaws as to be virtually meaningless. Even so, his assertions are often quoted by antigay organizations in their attempts to link homosexuality with child sexual abuse.

In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Paul Cameron purported to review published data to answer the question, “Do those who commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their sexual practices?” (p. 1227). He concluded that “at least one-third of the sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual” (p. 1228) and that “those who are bi- to homosexual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth” than are heterosexuals (p. 1231).

Cameron’s findings are based on his assumption that all male-male molestations were committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron’s paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed.

For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of “heterosexual” (i.e., female victim) to “homosexual” (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that “54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners” (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. Cameron’s 54% statistic does not appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation.

It also is noteworthy that, although Cameron assumed that all male-male molestations were committed by homosexuals, he assumed that not all male-female molestations were committed by heterosexuals. He incorporated a “bisexual correction” into his data manipulations to increase further his estimate of the risk posed to children by homosexual/bisexual men.
In the latter half of his paper, Cameron considered whether “homosexual teachers have more frequent sexual interaction with their pupils” (p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of sexual contact between a teacher and pupil reported in ten different sources published between 1920 and 1982, Cameron concluded that “a pupil would appear about 90 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a homosexual practitioner” (p. 1232); the ratio rose to 100 times when Cameron added his bisexual correction.

This ratio is meaningless because no data were obtained concerning the actual sexual orientation of the teachers involved; as before, Cameron assumed that male-male contacts were perpetrated by homosexuals. Furthermore, Cameron’s rationale for selecting particular sources appears to have been completely arbitrary. He described no systematic method for reviewing the literature, and apparently never reviewed the voluminous literature on the sexual development of children and adolescents. His final choice of sources appears to have slanted his findings toward what Cameron described as “the relative absence in the scientific literature of heterosexual teacher-pupil sexual events coupled with persistent, albeit infrequent, homosexual teacher-pupil sexual interactions” (p. 1232).

A subsequent paper by Cameron and others (Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, & Cameron, 1986) described data collected in a door-to-door survey in seven U.S. cities and towns, and generally repeated the conclusions reached in Cameron (1985). As before, male-male sexual assaults were referred to as “homosexual” molestations (e.g., Abstract, p.327) and the perpetrators’ sexual orientation apparently was not assessed. This study also suffers from severe methodological problems (Brown & Cole, 1985). These problems are discussed in detail elsewhere on this site.

In summary, the findings reported in the papers by Cameron et al. cannot be considered valid. The work is too methodologically flawed.

Conclusion

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

Notes

1. The survey was conducted under the auspices of the Kinsey Institute (Klassen, Williams, & Levitt, 1989). (return to text)

2. Sexual abuse by women occurs but has not been well documented. It has most often been documented in cases of a female accomplice assisting a male perpetrator in procuring victims, or an adult woman seducing a young male (Erickson, Walbek, & Seely, 1988; Finkelhor, 1984; Johnson & Shrier, 1987). Perhaps it is not surprising, therefore, that the child molester stereotype is applied more often to gay men than to lesbians. (return to text)

WorldNetDaily, a conservative internet news source, was the first news source to bring up Baldwin’s article. WND mentioned that Baldwin’s article was sent to Stanford Law Review but SLR “backed out”. However, a gay right’s group known as the RainbowAlliance and even SLR president Ben Howich responded to this allegation to which Howich from an email says never happened because Baldwin never did submit his article to SLR:

How The Right Wing Fringe Operates
Recycling Old Discredited “Research”

The following is a recent example of how the right wing fringe groups operate in order to get their misinformation repeatedly recycled in the press.

On April 29.2002 an article titled “Pedophilia more common among ‘gays’”, by Jon Dougherty appeared at WorldNetDaily.com. The article appeared at the following URL:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.aspARTICLE_ID=27431

Several Rainbow Alliance members followed this article closely. The following was written by one of the members.

If you don’t know, World Nut Daily is an extreme right-wing “news” site that offers opinion as fact. Their most liberal columnist is Bill O’Reilley - you get the idea.

The article that appeared above contains the following quote:

“…wrote Steve Baldwin in, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,” soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review after Stanford Law Review backed out.” Note the italicized phrase.

Regent University is right wing fringe activist Pat Robertson’s diploma mill. A Law Review is an academic journal published by law schools which discuss in an academic and very detailed way, approaches to the law. For example the latest issue of the Stanford Law Review (SLR) has a 56 page book review! Articles are extensively footnoted and can be a real slog to read. Law Reviews are run by senior, academically gifted law students under faculty guidance.

Since the Christian reich is notorious for twisting the truth and outright lying I decided to email the President of the SLR to see if they had “backed out” (note the implication - there is a clear innuendo that SLR had accepted the article and then backed out under some sort of political pressure).

Lo, and behold, not only had the SLR NOT “backed out”, the article had never been submitted. Read The Editor’s Response:

From: THOMASTALLIS
4/30/2002 12:37 pm
To: Angelus Profanus (ASTROANGEL7)
(14 of 59)

10310.14 in reply to 10310.13

When I saw the reference to Stanford Law Review, I had the chutzpah to write to the editor. Here is the reply to my email (reprinted with permission):
Thank you for your inquiry, and thank you for giving us the opportunity to clarify this matter.
The article in question was never submitted to the Stanford LawReview for consideration, much less accepted for publication. A search of our comprehensive electronic records of all submissions for the past 2-1/2 years reveals that the article was not submitted to us, and nobody on our staff recalls such an article. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that we would reject an article on the grounds that the story insinuates: It has not been our policy to reject articles for politically motivated reasons.
We have contacted the author and publisher of the story, and have asked them to take appropriate action. We anticipate they will, and that will end this matter.
Yours truly,
Ben Horwich
President, Stanford Law Review
Crown Quadrangle
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610

http://forums.about.com/ab-christianity/messages?msg=10310.14

The italicised phrase, above, is a big fat lie, and the SLR President was not pleased. Within 24 hours the offending phrase was removed from the article.

I got into quite a tussle with a fundamentalist on an online forum over the lie and he emailed the author of the article. The author of the article said (after he had been threatened by Stanford’s law school and removed the offending phrase) that there was a mistake and the article had been submitted to the Stanford Law & Policy Review (SL&PR). Naturally, I emailed the editor of that journal. He telephoned me and told me that the article at issue here had never been submitted to SL&PR either! Another lie. (Note that the individual who claimed to have received the e-mail from Steve Baldwin later deleted all of his own messages on the subject.)

Regent University Law Review has now published the article (requires Acrobat Reader):

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.PDF

The article is short (16 pages) for a law review article and contains the same old discredited religious reich lies, this time with footnotes pointed to Cameron, Reisman and other usual suspects. It contains nothing new. It simply recycles old material in the hope that the refutations have been forgotten. In other words, it’s a rotting corpse tarted up in a brand new academic gown.

Another Rainbow Alliance member has this to say about the “study”.

Firstly because there’s nothing new in this ‘new study’. In fact its just added a few out-of-context quotes to spice up a collection of warmed-up ‘statistics’ from a number of notoriously unreliable sources - Kinsey-hater Judith Reisman, Dr Nicolosi from NARTH and (though he isn’t mentioned by name in WNR - perhaps because even they know by now his ‘statistics’ are a complete fraud) Dr Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute. It’s mostly Cameron’s statistics which underlie the article.

The 1985 paper linking gays to paedophilia in Psychological Reports (indicentally a virtually worthless journal according to academic rankings) seems to be the centrepiece of Baldwin’s paper - yet it has been completely debunked. Cameron assumed every sexual abuse incident involving boys was carried out by homosexuals, despite the fact that most other studies show that 80% are in fact carried out by men whose adult sexual preferences are towards women. Paedophilia is about power, not homosexuality. Further, Cameron then took all the attacks on young boys, and divided them by the lowest possible estimate of the proportion of gay men in the total population (even though underreporting bias means some estimates of the number of gay men are known to be way below the mark). Obviously a statistic based on redefining homosexuality when it comes to child abusers - to get the largest possible number -but dividing it by the lowest available share of homosexuals in the total population is going to produce an indefensible figure.

This and various other even more outrageously idefensible and defamatory ‘statistics’ on homosexuality which Cameron was putting out have been shredded in the courts, condemned by the UK Press Complaints Commissions and resulted in Cameron’s expulsion from and censure by various professional organizations.

So why is Baldwin trying to revive Cameron’s stuff - and the equally discredited work of Judith Reisman - now ? Presumably because the subject is topical with the Roman Catholic Church’s current fiasco.

The other interesting thing is that, to cover for the poor quality of the work and the fact that it clearly isn’t up to the standards of any reputable journal (the only place he could publish, the Regent University Law Review is a virtually defunct publication, largely under the control of Pat Robertson), Baldwin has taken to lying openly about the journal. In particular, the WNR article said the prestigious Stanford Law Review had originally intended to publish, but then ‘backed out’(the clear insinuation being that it was under political pressure - the usual whine of the Cameron/Reisman/Socarides/Nicolisi brigade whose work is the heart of Baldwin’s article). In fact, the editor of the SLR hastily replied to me that THE BALDWIN ARTICLE WAS NEVER SUBMITTED TO THE SLR. You will now find that particular false claim, which libeled the integrity of a reputable journal, has been withdrawn from the WNR site, presumably under the threat of legal action.

However, Baldwin then compounded his mistake by switching the libel to another journal: he claimed it was a typo, and the journal which had backed out was in fact the Stanford Law and Policy Review. Again, an email from a friend to the editor brought a very rapid phone call confirming that Baldwin had never submitted his article to SL&PR either.

It’s quite clear that Baldwin, a right-wing politico with links to the John Birch society, has taken to openly lying about his article, in order to try and get back onto the agenda some very sub-standard work which has long ago been dismissed by those who have carried out serious study in the field. For virtually all studies are agreed: homosexuality is a quite a separate thing from paedophilia (the fact that NAMBLA like to pretend they are a gay rights organization is irrelevant: every gay group denounces them continually). Several studies confirm that homosexuals are no more likely to abuse pre-pubescent children than heterosexuals (in fact, possibly rather less likely to - since much of this abuse is carried out by fathers on their own sons).

http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/HowTheyOperate.html

Here’s what a women named Maggie, who used to be a member of the Religious Right Radicals said by email about the true reasons for why the Religious Right paints gays as child molesters:

In reply to your questions, let me say that the radicals in the Religious Right, in order to keep their power or control, have to constantly provide the Religious Right with enemies to battle. Twenty years ago, when I left the radicals, the only thing necessary to turn people against someone was to accuse that person of being gay. Because of our American prudish attitudes about sex, it made no difference if the statement was true or false, that person’s reputation was destroyed. But, as time went along, people, even in the Religious Right, began to tolerate in various degrees the gay lifestyle.

The radicals, who are found mostly in Fundamentalist Protestants and Traditionalist Catholics, wanting to keep the gays as another “enemy” to do battle against, began proclaiming that homosexuals are child molesters. We have seen how effective this has been recently in destroying reputaions when the accusations were made against Catholic priests whom the radicals detest. The “facts” in those accusations were terribly distorted and frequently fabricated but the success has been fantastic simply because the only “evidence” was one person’s word against another. A man points at a teacher or priest or doctor and says, “He raped me when I was fourteen years old.” The only response the accused can say is, “I didn’t do it.” Since it is impossible to prove a negative, the accuser wins the case and the accused’s reputation is destroyed.

The radicals in the Religious Right have no sense of guilt at all about lying, creating false documents, false research, even lying under oath in a court of law since they believe God has given them permission to do this in order to “defeat Satan.” They feel it is their duty to do “whatever is necessary to destroy evil” and prepare the way for the Kingdom of God. How often have we heard G. W. Bush say he will do what is necessary to destroy those whom he calls evil? He is only repeating what all other radicals in the Religious Right have been saying for decades. (It is probably small consolation for you to learn that the RRR also lie and create false research about everything and everyone else that they don’t like.) I call this the God syndrome in that such people believe they are allowed to act in God’s place in christinanzing the world. It is a frightening thing for any thinking person to witness.

I honestly don’t know how to fight back against such treachery. It would be interesting to see what would happen if someone brought charges of accomplice to murder against someone whose false “research” had inspired a person to murder gays.

Peace,
Maggie

—- In Radical_Right@yahoogroups.com

Here are other lies the Religious Right is known for in an article by Dr. Marty Klein, a sex education expert:

The Sex Lies of the Religious Right
How Conservatives Distort The Facts Of Life

BY MARTY KLEIN
A Sex Education Expert

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie-deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.”
—JOHN F. KENNEDY

They lie. When Jimmy Swaggart ranted at the cameras in his televangelical tent that sex education classes promoted incest, it was a lie. When Jerry Falwell told followers of his Good Time Gospel show that “homosexuals know they are going to die and they are going to take as many people with them as they can,” it was a lie.

Breaking the third and ninth commandments is business as usual for members of the religious right. On their television stations, in school curricula, through their think tanks and in our national newspapers they lie about sex. They lie so big and loud and so often that many people assume they must be telling the truth.

At every opportunity these liars construct a false and defamatory image of sexuality. Pat Robertson says “oral sex is against nature.” Anti-family-planning educator Father John McGoey tells a Human Life International Symposium that “there is absolutely nothing loving about sex. Lust is as destructive of love inside of marriage as it is outside.” James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, castigates “sex experts who say abstinence but mean anything goes.” The American Family Association charges that school systems are “reshaping children’s attitudes and behavior toward hedonism, heterosexual as well as homosexual.”

Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed can tell Ted Koppel on Nightline that “this is bestiality, pedophilia, child molestation. According to the Carnegie Mellon survey [of the Internet], one quarter of all the images involve the torture of women,” and go unquestioned. Michael McManus, a conservative columnist who wrote an introduction to the Meese Commission Report, can use the same media moment to claim that “aberrant sex predominates. Sex between husband and wife can be beautiful. But that is not the image being pulled down by cyberspace users. What’s sought are photos of deviant sex: women in bondage, being tortured. It is massively harmful.” Never mind that a swift cruise on the Internet will refute such claims; most people aren’t online. One has to ask: Whose sexual imagination is at work? What tortured thoughts go through their minds when they consider their own sex lives?

It’s easy to refute the sex lies of the right using data from biology, medicine, criminology and developmental psychology. But the right doesn’t use language to communicate facts about sex. Instead, it conveys emotions about sex—fear, hatred, self-disgust. Those emotions are far from what sex should and can be. Yet those emotions are shaping public policy.

Take Swaggart’s idea that sex education encourages incest. Listen to the emotion behind his message: I am afraid of my own sexuality and that of my children. It is blame-shifting: An outside force creates incest. If the schools didn’t do it, the devil will take the blame. Witness Bev Russell, a powerful member of the Christian Coalition, who began molesting his stepdaughter Susan Smith when she was 14 or 15. According to news reports, he would come home from putting up campaign posters for Pat Robertson to fondle her. Smith grew up with a warped set of sexual values—and drowned her two children in hope of keeping the love of a man. Her stepfather continued to have sex with her just months prior to the murders. Incest is a powerful, corrupt form of sex education.
Images offer an easy way out. But it wasn’t an image that prompted Father Bruce Ritter (founder of Covenant House and a member of the Meese Commission) to reportedly fondle boys on couches, or that encouraged Jimmy Swaggart to hire prostitutes so he could look up their dresses. A sex expert discussing the birds and bees was not what drove Jim Bakker to climb on top of a young secretary in a hotel room at a religious conference. They do not explain the thousands of children who are molested by priests and pastors.

The religious right sees sexuality as an external force, a threat to rationality, authority, religion and marital fidelity. A devilishly clever energy, sex continually manifests itself in new ways. Fashion ads. Rap music. Sex education. Soft-core porn. Videos. Phone sex. Fully clothed cheerleaders at high school footbal games.

Once you believe sex is an outside force, you look for it everywhere-which is a textbook definition of paranoia. How else to explain the obsessive search for temptation that causes someone to find the letters SEX in a few frames of The Lion King, or the naked breast of a sunbather in a Where’s Waldo puzzle?

Sometimes the obsessive fears of the right are comic: The American Family Association in Florida forced the passage of an ordinance banning nude sunbathing on a beach near Cape Canaveral with the explanation, “It will allow you and your family to walk without fear of being offended, or worse, physically attacked by nude or partially nude persons.” Beware, beware of the naked man.

Clearly, the religious right and its cohorts are dreadfully frightened of their own eroticism. They struggle against their fleshly desires, but they cannot deny that their flesh desires. They may loathe their fantasies of legs, breasts and mouths, but they cannot banish the images. They preach that desire is weakness. And their own weakness terrifies them.

To overcome this emotional conflict they project their terror onto others: I’m not the bad one, you are. I’m not afraid of me, I’m afraid of you. Repelled by their own sexuality, they loathe and thus fear others’ sexuality. And as a misplaced attempt to control their own eroticism,they try to control others’. That’s how we get a Randall Terry telling peration Rescue supporters, “I want you to let a wave of intolerance wash over you. We are called by God to conquer this nation.”

The key consequence of these lies is a personal and cultural environment of fear of sexuality, especially male sexuality. People learn to mistrust their eroticism, which leads to suffering, acting out, self-repression and the desire for salvation. Feeling the need to protect self, family and community, people turn to institutions (such as the church and conservative political organizations) that acknowledge this fear of sexuality. The resulting culture of fear and mistrust fits perfectly into the right’s political-moral worldview. Satan already exists, as do temptation, the battle for good and evil, a theory of human guilt, an infallible instruction book and an angry, asexual god. The right can integrate any new sexual phenomenon (phone sex, cyberporn, etc.) into its existing model (temptation, immorality) and proposed solution (repression).

Most recently we have the Reverend Donald E. Wildmon charging that Calvin Klein ads are “child porn,” and insisting that they be investigated by the Justice Department. Only a mind obsessed with sex could perceive child porn in images of fully clothed teenagers mostly doing nothing.

While the Calvin Klein ads may strike you as tasteless, creepy or simply hot, they are not sexual abuse or exploitation. Wildmon, however, demands that the Justice Department go through photographer Steven Meisel’s files to see what else happened at the shooting of the commercials. Calvin Klein is the best thing that ever happened to the zealous and priggish Wildmon. The reverend wants the feds to go after every magazine that ran the print ads and go after every city that had the images plastered on the sides of its buses. Are you now or have you ever been aroused by a Calvin Klein ad? In all of the coverage of this issue only a handful of columnists had the courage to describe the crusade as nonsense. Child porn is a new form of redbaiting. Since no one can seem to be for child porn, no one will rise to defend the accused.

Wildmon is outraged by images of underwear—-because those images focus attention on sexual anatomy. That which underwear conceals, it reveals. At some point, underwear ceases to be a tool of personal hygiene and becomes part of our erotic vocabulary. Cotton briefs become lingerie in sexual awakenings. And that is exactly what upsets Wildmon: He thinks, I must draw the line here, or I will lose control. He cannot admire, fantasize, express awe or warm his soul over nature’s heat. If he had his way, Calvin Klein’s penance would be to design underwear that could not be removed until the wearer was 21 and married.

And so Wildmon sponsors clinics for porn addicts—devoted to the notion that even the briefest exposure to sex leads inexorably down the path to debauchery. What others call sexual growth, or discovery, Wildmon views as a force of satanic proportions.

Wildmon’s own approach to sex education is a comic book (distributed by the AFA) called God’s Quiet Voice. In it, a young boy wrestles with the choice of looking at a classmate’s collection of pinups. A pastor tells the boy, “Jesus would have been upset if you had looked at that magazine. We wouldn’t want that, would we?”

The boy answers, “No way! I don’t want to do anything to upset Jesus, ‘cause he died on the cross to forgive me of my sins!”

This is an agonizingly simplistic view. Phyllis Schlafly, head of the Eagle Forum, says, “The facts of life can be told in 15 minutes.” She also says, “Sex education is robbing children of their childhood.” But the sex lies of the religious right are sex education. Imagine the brainwashing that led three 12-year-olds to write a letter to the Chicago Tribune that reads, “We watched The Lion King and unfortunately, we saw SEX spelled out in a cloud of dust. We can’t believe Disney would do such a thing! Little kids watch this movie. Now you can’t even watch a movie without being faced with pornography!” A spelling bee becomes pornography? No doubt these kids will grow up to be sexually healthy adults.

The right’s picture of pure, nonerotic humans is a fantasy, a yearning for a simple, guilt-free existence without ambiguity or moral conflict. It idealizes this imaginary state and urges us to protect ourselves from any lust that might crawl across our virtue.

Having scared people about others’ sexuality, the right promises to rectify the situation. It will take your fear seriously and tell you exactly what to do, feel and believe. It will press legislators to limit the sexual choices you can make. It will continue to find new instances of sexual danger and keep you informed of the ever-growing scourge. It will seek and destroy all temptation. This last is the most dangerous lie of all.

If the members of the religious right are unable to control themselves, should we let them control America?

SEX LIES REFUTED

LIE: “Condoms do not protect you from AIDS.”
—MICHAEL SCHWARTZ, FREE CONGRESS FOUNDATION

FACT: Even the worst quality condom is “10,000 times better in terms of reducing exposure to HIV” than unprotected sex.

—DR. RONALD CAREY, FDA

LIE: “At first the girl (and guy) [who choose abortion] may feel relieved that they no longer have to worry about the responsibilities of parenthood. But in the long run, they will feel guilt, depression and anxiety… making it nearly impossible for her ever to forget the abortion.”

—Sex Respect HIGH SCHOOL CURRICULUM

FACT: “A review of more than 250 studies of possible psychological effects of abortion by the U.S. Surgeon General and the American Psychological Association found that abortion does not cause short-term or long-term negative effects for the majority of women undergoing the procedure.”

—Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex

LIE: “How do people become pedophiles? Usually, pornography walks you down that path until you get to the place where you’ve seen everything that a man and a woman can do together, and then you make that little jump over to perversions.”

—JAMES DOBSON, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY

FACT: “The FBI has no evidence that pornography causes crimes. Pedophilia has absolutely nothing to do with adult pornography.”

—FBI AGENT KEN LANNING

LIE: “Too much sex education too soon causes undue curiosity and obsession with sex.”

—BEVERLY LA HAYE, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA

FACT: After taking a Planned Parenthood-approved course, “teens were more likely to delay initiation of sexual intercourse; and when they did initiate it, they decreased their levels of unprotected sex by 40 percent.”

—Family Planning Perspectives

LIE: “Gays and lesbians live perverted, twisted lives that feed upon the unsuspecting and the innocent, like our children.”

—THE REVEREND LOU SHELDON TRADITIONAL VALUES COALITION (Sheldon produced a video, Gay Rights/Special Rights, that claims gays are 18 times more likely than straight people to be child molesters.)

FACT: “In this sample [of 352 evaluated children], a child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is more than 100 times greater than by someone who might be identified as being homosexual, lesbian or bisexual.”

—-C. JENNY ET AL., Pediatrics

LIE: “Sex education classes are like in-home sales parties for abortion.”

—PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY

FACT: “Most sex education classes in the U.S. do not discuss abortion. In fact, in many states such discussion is prohibited.”

—LESLIE KANTOR DIRECTOR, SEXUALITY INFORMATION AND EDUCATION COUNCIL OF THE U.S.

LIE: “Cyberporn is pervasive. Half of 8.5 million downloads involved child pornography and 83.5 percent of the images seen on Usenet, a part of the Internet, were pornographic.”
—MICHAEL MCMANUS, COLUMNIST

FACT: According to the Carnegie Mellon study, pornographic image files represent three percent of all messages on the Usenet newsgroups. As for kid porn, the research found no images depicting hard-core sex acts with children.

LIE: “There is no way to have premarital sex without hurting someone.”

—-Sex Respect CURRICULUM

FACT: “The vast majority of Americans have intercourse before marriage. There is no evidence that this damages individuals or marriages.”

—LESLIE KANTOR, SlECUS

LIE: “Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”

—PAT ROBERTSON

FACT: Try consulting your nearest reality.

More Lies of the Religious Right:

Conservative Christians and Truth-Telling

Words: 785
Date: 2000

In my many years of participating in our country’s cultural war, the aspect of the debate that has disheartened me the most is the religious right’s sheer disdain for the truth.

God instructed Christians that “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” This ninth of the Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, seems pretty straightforward. Yet conservative Christians appear to believe that this stricture can be waived when warring with the devil.

Consider a television ad the Virginia-based Christian Action Network tried unsuccessfully to run in New York during the Hillary Clinton-Rick Lazio senatorial race. The spot featured pictures of Hillary with the following voice-over:

“It is rumored that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian. It is rumored that Hillary Clinton supports homosexual marriage. It is rumored that Hillary Clinton will leave her husband upon taking office. It was rumored that Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. Sometimes rumors are true.”

When asked for the inside scoop on Hillary’s supposed lesbianism, CAN’s executive director Phillip Vaught conceded that “It’s not like we can prove this.” His justification? The ad was just “trying to ask questions the media should be asking.”[1]

The high-profile New York campaign wasn’t the only one during the 2000 election season in which conservative Christians attempted to appeal to prejudice against gays and lesbians. Colorado for Family Values twice intervened in Denver-area state senate contests, first attacking Gary McPherson in the GOP primary with a mailing featuring two m

Coninuation left off from last post:

two men kissing, and later charging Democratic challenger Sue Windels with supporting the “radical homosexual agenda.” (At least this mailing varied the presentation by featuring two women kissing.)[2] Meanwhile, in Orange County, California, the Traditional Values Coalition sent a mailing to Armenian-American voters characterizing Democratic congressional candidate Adam Schiff as “a champion of the homosexual agenda.”[3]

Is gay-baiting Christian behavior? Would Jesus have sanctioned appeals to bias? Can this genre of political advocacy be considered anything but?

In its war against the “homosexual agenda,” the Christian right seems to have particular difficulty in accurately portraying the results of research by secular scientists:

• When a coalition of Christian organizations undertook a national ex-gay advertising campaign two years ago, their pitches cited the work of Boston physician Robert Garofalo as evidence that homosexuality is self-destructive. Garofalo, whose research into gay youth suicide and substance abuse led him to conclude that these behaviors were due to alienation from a rejecting society, blasted the ads as “a complete misrepresentation of what the research actually says.”[4]

• In a “Culture Facts” newsletter published only nine days after Matthew Shepard’s death, the Family Research Council cited the research of Lisa Waldner, an assistant professor of sociology, for the proposition that 47.5 percent of lesbian relationships involve domestic abuse, compared to 0.22 percent of heterosexual marital relationships. When contacted by New York Times writer Frank Rich, Waldner described this portrayal of her results as “misleading” and the comparison with married women as meaningless due to incompatible research methodologies.[5]

• Notorious anti-gay researcher Paul Cameron has cited Dr. Nicholoas Groth’s work on sexual molestation of children in Cameron’s efforts to link gay men with pedophilia. But Cameron, Groth says, “misrepresents my findings and distorts them to advance his homophobic views.”[6]

Not even pure fabrication appears to be beyond the conservative Christian ken. When Christian conservatives attempted to overturn a Miami anti-discrimination ordinance in 1999, the local Christian Coalition chapter circulated a fictitious “Gay Manifesto.” This spurious document embraced a variety of sensational demands and ended with the ominous warning that “If all these things do not come to pass quickly, we will subject Orthodox Jews and Christians to the most sustained hatred and vilification in recent memory.”[7]

In fact, this “manifesto” originated in the fervid imagination of former congressman William Dannemeyer, who, in his 1989 book Shadow in the Land: Homosexuality in America, attempted to “paraphrase the argument the homosexual community is making.”[8]

Civilized societies have recognized that even warfare should be conducted according to rules. Nations have signed treaties prohibiting genocide, precluding the use of chemical weapons, and protecting the wounded and sick on the battlefield. I submit that, in analogous fashion, the ninth commandment should govern the Christian right’s war against gays and lesbians.

In applying this directive, Christians must acknowledge God’s demand that His commandments be followed with absolute faithfulness. Jesus instructs us to “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” While we all fall far short of this goal, Christians may do nothing less than strive for it at all times.

Half-truths, misrepresentations and slanted journalism—to say nothing of fabrications—simply don’t make the grade.

http://www.robincmiller.com/other1.htm

What good-hearted Christians have to say:

Liberated Christians
PO Box 32835, Phoenix Az 85064-2835

Promoting Intimacy and Other-Centered Sexuality

COPYRIGHTED 1997 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - MAY BE REPRINTED OR QUOTED FROM ONLY IF CREDIT IS GIVEN LIBERATED CHRISTIANS, MAILING ADDRESS IS SHOWN AND WE ARE SENT A COPY OF PUBLICATION.

Note: Liberated Christians is a primarily about heterosexual relationships. While we are supportive of all sexual orientations, the leaders do not have the resources to assist them in their special issues. Thus, our Fellowship groups are not appropriate for gays/lesbians. However, individually Dave (an extreme heterosexual - Kinsey Scale= 0) has done extensive biblical research and has been active supporting biblical homosexuality for many years. However, there is no “official” stand as an organization on homosexuality other than general support.

The idea of trying to blame homosexuals for any child abuse
is shear poppycock!

As 7/12/94 article in USA Today Child Molesters Rarely Homosexual points out a child is 100 times as likely to be
sexually abused by a heterosexual than a gay adult. Its unfair to connect pedophile with gay or lesbians.

The view that homosexuals are likely child molesters often underlies custody challenges filed against gay parents and
the dismissal of gay Boy Scout and youth group leaders.

Dr. Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, studied 269 sexual abused children examined during one year at Denver Children’s Hospital. Investigation shows:

80% of girls were molested by a man who was or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the child s mother or another relative.

75% of boys were abused by males in heterosexual relationships with female relatives.

Only 1 of 219 girls was molested by a lesbian; 1 out of 50 boys by a gay male. This is a much lower percentage than the likely 6-10% of the population that is homosexual, therefore the incidence of gays molesting is much lower than the rate for heterosexuals.

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/childabuse.html

Summary: Learn to appreciate others and teach about love, not fear and hate.

I only caught the very tail end of the spam above. The part about Dr. Carole Jenny’s study was interesting. 219 girls were abused and 50 boys were abused. They were mainly abused by men. (Of course, abuse of girls is more likely to be detected, for obvious reasons.) In my mind, it is highly improper to classify a man who sleeps with young boys as a “heterosexual” even if he may have at some time had a sexual relationship with a woman. Those facts seem to make the rate of paedophillia among gay males disproportionately high. It is obvious, however, that the vast majority of heterosexuals and homosexuals do not abuse children.

“In my mind, it is highly improper to classify a man who sleeps with young boys as a “heterosexual” even if he may have at some time had a sexual relationship with a woman. Those facts seem to make the rate of paedophillia among gay males disproportionately high.”

If you read the artilcle “Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation” listed above that “For every family of a gay loved one” posted, there is a reason to why homosexuality and pedophilia are two different things. Most pedophiles are fixated on children and children only, such as the NAMBLA pedophiles. But it is a proven fact that most of the abuse on young boys is done by fathers to their own sons. When someone is described to be gay people are going to think that the person is attracted to men not children. Being described as a pedophile is what fits that description. Of course it can be possible for someone to be gay and a pedophile as weel as straight and a pedophile.

jkl writes:

“But it is a proven fact that most of the abuse on young boys is done by fathers to their own sons.”

Oh, really? This is an even more egregious falsehood than the notion put out by liberal groups and media that domestic abuse consists mainly of husbands attacking their wives, whereas in fact the preponderance of domestic abuse involves unmarried people. In the same way, jkl believes that sexual molestation of boys is committed primarily by the boys’ own fathers. In other words, it’s not sexual liberation that has brought about unprecedented child molestation in our society, it’s traditional fatherhood!

The left always blames the evil conquences of its attack on the social order on the social order itself. This demonstrates how the left is not just sinful, but actively evil.

jkl writes:

“But it is a proven fact that most of the abuse on young boys is done by fathers to their own sons.”

Oh, really? This is an even more egregious falsehood than the notion put out by liberal groups and media that domestic abuse consists mainly of husbands attacking their wives, whereas in fact the preponderance of domestic abuse involves unmarried people. In the same way, jkl believes that sexual molestation of boys is committed primarily by the boys’ own fathers. In other words, it’s not sexual liberation that has brought about unprecedented child molestation in our society, it’s traditional fatherhood!

The left always blames the evil conquences of its attack on the social order on the social order itself. This demonstrates how the left is not just sinful, but actively evil.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on November 26, 2003 01:40 PM

And I suppose that painting gays as child molesters is not evil? Is this what the bible teaches you? Even thought the bible says “judge not yest ye be judged”? Are you familiar with Paul Cameron? Should we say the same things about blaks and jews? Is this the way to teach the love of Christ? You think caring Christians approve of this and find no offence to the way they are teaching the Bible? Do you not care for what happened to Matthew Shepard? Let’s say in fact we do hear someday that someone goes out to kill gay people because he read such “researches” claiming that gays are more likely to molest children, what do you think the families of the victims are going to want to do the people who wrote the “researhes”? They would show them the true meaning of “pro-family” by getting the law on their side to go after these people! That’s just the thing, we don’t hear about gay people painting Christians as threats to people. I happen to be a Christian myslef with gay friends and this is an outrage. The bible mentions that there will be people who claim they are working for God when they are in fact doing wrong. That means that a lot of these “pro-family” groups like the Family Research Council, Colorado For Family Values and Traditional Values Coalition and even Steve Baldwin himself probably will not inherit the kingdom of God. There more they keep painting gay people as child molesters the more they are hurting people emotionally. Don’t they realize this hurts gay kids too? And the more they keep painting gay people as child molesters they more they press their luck with the possibility of someone taking their words seriously. And if these peoples’ “researches” ever do have someone kill gay people, when the families of the victims come after them I bet they will be running scared when they are confronted by the families! Plus, you better get it through your head that the Religious Right will lie about anything in their hopes of cleaning up sex issues, lies that are debunked with simple research. I’ll repost something that was posted above:

[Note by LA: I’ve deleted the article and other material that jkl put here. This is a discussion forum, not a place to publish entire articles. If jkl wants to provide a link to an article he may do so.]

jkl, I guess Lawrence Auster just doesn’t get it. I understand what you mean because I myslef am a Christian. I’m taught in church to learn to respect and help others and not label anyone. The death of Matthew Shepard was very sad for me. I myself don’t understand why the Religious Right needs to be labeling people with false allegations that have proven wrong by experts who have studied the field for many years. It’s best to treat others with respect and stop trying to cause hatred in this world. This is the reason this world will never be a perfect place. Just like in the days of the civil rights movement black people were spat upon with nasty allegations when all they wanted to be treated fairly. Unfortuantely, the Religious Right doesen’t seem to realize that making allegations like this is just about the same. I’m was taught that God loves everyone and doesn’t hate anyone, unlike what Fred Phelps, the “God Hates Fags” preacher teaches. Let’s remember that gay people come from families too, families that do care about them and their safety. It’s time for the Religious Right to put an end to this nonsense and realize that they are causing more harm than good and that their view of a “moral” world in not going to happen because people are different and gay people are never going to go away. Honesty is a good family value, too bad the Religious Right can’t teach that.

Best Wishes,
Valerie