Regarding the Colorado study, the perpetrators were identified as gay or straight through their own admission or their current relationships. 74% of them were married or in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Many were parents. Only 2 people in the study were self-identified to be gay or determined to be gay based on current or past relationships.
Even if the data is flawed in this or the APA studies, I'd be surprised to find that the numbers skew significantly. Even if they did, look at how much of a skew it would take to make a difference. Instead of 2 identified homosexuals, say there were 20. Or 100. Even at 100, that's still less than half of the group. Straight men would still make up the majority of the study.
The point is that despite these studies being somewhat less than scientific, the anecdotal evidence can't be ignored. It strongly points to supporting the idea that there is not only no greater threat from gay man than straight men, there may be less of a threat from gay men.
For those who say that this is about protecting kids from gay men, I'd like to know if you also support banning straight men from the GSA.
Announcement Announcement Module
No announcement yet.
If the Local Option happens, how will Troops deal with practical problems? Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
- Dec 1999
As I understand it, the BSA membership policy is not based on some kind of fear of molesters. That is pretty much covered by the G2SS rules and guidelines. Rather the BSA membership policy, as I understand it, was based on the claim by BSA that homosexuality does not meet the "morally straight" part of the oath. BSA claimed, convincingly enough to the Supreme Court, that it is a "religious organization" and based the moral judgment of homosexuals in religious beliefs. If I have this wrong, someone please set the record 'straight'.
The fear of molestation is something that frequently is invoked in these threads, though, for the tiny bit that it's worth.
- Jan 2012
I for one disagree with Cambridge skip and those of you that are in agreement,
And i think that AZMike brings up some potentially big issues that could be REAL problems.
Parent hang-up, boy hang-up. Whatever.... it'll be a problem.
Well written AZMike!
I'm not seeing it, Mike. You're drwaing a lot of conclusions from anecdotal evidence. Nothing you've posted says anything about the rate of homosexuality in abusers. You're just taking other stats and assuming various other things from them.
Where's the study that says simply that gay men are more likely to abuse kids than straight men? If it's just that simple, surely there is some evidence to support that idea.
I have to add, also, that your assumption that all men who abuse boys are gay is flawed. People who abuse children have obvious mental disorders, regardless of their own gender and sexual preference. Some mental health professionals go so far as to call those kinds of attractions a "third sexual orientation". I don't think I'd agree with that, I think they're just screwed up individuals, but nevertheless there is a flaw in thinking that all abusers can be defined in their sexual preference only by the gender of who they abuse.
And I'll add this question: where's the outrage over straight men in the GSA? We can't even identify most men who would be abusers in the BSA because they self-identify as straight. But straight men in the GSA are pretty easy to identify, and they would readily admit that they're attracted to females, so why aren't you pushing to get them out? Why isn't anyone doing that? They seem like the highest risk category, people who openly admit an attraction to females and are in an organization that is full of girls. One of the studies you posted above even indicates that girls are more likely to be victims of childhood sexual abuse than boys. Why are gays in the BSA perceived as a higher risk than straight men in the GSA, when statistically girls are more likely to be abused?
The issue of abuse in the BSA will not be solved by banning gays. It hasn't helped so far, while the ban has always existed. We'd do more good probably to ban married men than gays, since they're more likely to be abusers. Obviously I'm being facetious here, but the point is that a continued ban on gays doesn't help anyone when it comes to the issue of abuse.
I'll respond on all your comments at once, here.
You asked, "Why are you assuming that gay men are more likely to abuse boys than straight women?" It is not an assumption, it is supported by the evidence. Read the cites I posted. Most of the people who sexually abuse either boys or girls are men. That is a simple fact, which is supported by the NIS study. See the cite. It is also a fact that that the vast majority of the offenders who specifically sexually abuse boys are males. This is supported by the the study in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine. See the cite. Those instances of abuse are homosexual acts, by definition and common usage.
You have then shifted your argument to claim that, well, maybe straight women could be more likely to abuse boys, so we shouldn't exclude gays if we are not willing to include straight women. That is also not supported by the evidence. Again, see the cite from the AJPM study. I posted these cites in response to your request for more studies, ones that were not "religious."
Your anecdotal sense from news stories you have seen that there is a burgeoning population of female offenders against boys, or your unsupported personal belief that "the risk level has to be at the very least equal" is not supported by the research you requested.
You are of course free to ignore the research and believe whatever you desire, but if you want to engage with the argument, you should at least read the research you requested.
Instead, you have posted a reference to a 1993 study (the original of which I have read), which you presumably read about in the first reference you found when you Googled the subject. That is, however, a testament to the original poster's knowledge of search engine optimization rather than the relevance of a 20-year old research study which is fundamentally flawed in its premises. It is flawed because it is examining a group of victims that skew toward those much younger than our victim population; because the study was done by examining medical charts for physical signs of molestation (such as inflammation or tearing of the anus or vaginal tissues, or signs of an STD), which may identify sexual offenses against the very young, but which is inadequate to detect sexual offenses against more physically mature minors, and which can include acts such as fondling and fellatio, which will not usually be physically detected in the victim. A properly conducted juvenile forensic interview, performed using court-accepted protocols, will be able to effectively identify both such homosexual and heterosexual child sexual assaults, but these protocols were still in their infancy at the time when this study was conducted and were not used. It also relies on a perpetrator identifying himself or herself as gay or bisexual to the clinician, which is unlikely in an individual who is already looking at criminal charges and would be likely to see this as supporting evidence against his own interest, especially back in 1993.
In short, the 20 year-old study you cited, which is frequently used by those advocating for gay adoption and gay access to youths, is quite simply junk science.
You further state in reference to the study on childhood sexual assault against homosexual men, "Not seeing anything here that talks about the sexual orientation of the men these boys had relationships with. I am seeing some indications that some of these men were relatives, some fathers, men who would self-identify as straight."
Let's try it again. If you are a male who has sex with another male, that is a homosexual act. It is not a heterosexual act. If you are homosexual or bisexual and claim you are exclusively heterosexual, that is not a self-identification, that is not your "sexual orientation," that is simply a lie. "Sexual orientation" is not based on what you say, it is based on what you do. Behavior is the truth. If we are looking at homosexuals as being the (overwhelmingly) greatest risk to sexually molest a boy (which the medical research cited above, as well as numerous other studies, clearly supports), simply declaring yourself as homosexual does not reduce your risk potential. It just means you are more honest about being in the group that has the greatest risk potential. That really shouldn't be a hard thing to understand.
"How exactly would the BSA policy have kept these men out?"
It would have kept out the portion of men who have self-identified as being in the greatest risk group. Other means should be used to protect against homosexual men and bisexual men who are concealing their sexual orientation, who are also dangerous. These means include effective background checks and reference interviews. They will not, unfortunately, be effective at reducing all risk, but nothing is.
You also ask, "Where's the study that says simply that gay men are more likely to abuse kids than straight men? If it's just that simple, surely there is some evidence to support that idea."
You are pursuing a strawman here, as that is not relevant to what we are discussing. We are concerned in this instance with whether homosexual men represent a threat to juvenile males. Clearly, they do. I can cite some studies that show what percentage of self-identified gay males have stated that they have had sex with minors, but let me ask you first - what would you consider a level of sexual contact with minors within the gay population that you would consider sufficient to deny such a population access to a youth organization which conducts activities like the Boy Scouts?
You opine, "I have to add, also, that your assumption that all men who abuse boys are gay is flawed. People who abuse children have obvious mental disorders, regardless of their own gender and sexual preference. Some mental health professionals go so far as to call those kinds of attractions a "third sexual orientation". I don't think I'd agree with that..."
I agree with you, that is a stupid concept and clearly politically motivated. But if so, why bring it up as an argument?
"I think they're just screwed up individuals, but nevertheless there is a flaw in thinking that all abusers can be defined in their sexual preference only by the gender of who they abuse."
- 1 Like
Gents, again, the reason for the BSA policy on homosexual members has absolutely nothing to do with safety. It has to do with self-perceived morality.
Statistically, they found that the vast majority of those sexually abusing young males, ages 6 through 17 were right-handed. Therefore, I propose banning all self-proclaimed "righties" from the BSA! Protect our youth!
- Feb 2012
"Lemons are yellow. Lemons are fruit. Therefore all fruit is yellow." ... is equivalent to ...
"Homosexual sex is practiced by homosexuals. Homosexual sex is practiced by pedophiles. Therefore all homosexuals are pedophiles." This latter statement summarizes your position, correct?