I wrote this piece in October 2003, about three months after
the Lawrence v. Texas ruling, which meant Texas, among other states, needed to
strengthen, by state constitutional amendment, its protection against losing the definition of marriage, which Texas accomplished two years later. This was published,
along with the footnotes you see here (which are actually longer than the piece
itself), in online Meridian Magazine.
It can be found here. The date shown is not the date it appeared,
but rather I think when it was re-archived. As you’d expect, more research has
come out since this piece, but as far as I know nothing here is contradicted,
but only strengthened by additional knowledge.
In Defense of Marriage
By Linda
Nuttall[i]
October, 2003
It’s not often that all the world’s major religions—and
science—agree. But they agree on this:
marriage between a man and a woman is good for society. And there is
good reason, known intuitively for thousands of years, and now also known
definitively to the social sciences:
marriage is an important social good. It provides a broad array of
positive outcomes for children and adults.
Marriage improves relationships between spouses and between
parents and children.[ii] Marriage increases wealth
and helps prevent poverty, particularly for women and children, but also for
men. Marriage increases educational, financial and social success of upcoming
generations. Marriage increases health and longevity for men and women, and for
the children their union produces. Crime and delinquent behavior are
considerably lower in youth raised by their married parents. Even after
controlling for race, socioeconomic and education level factors, marriage leads
to better outcomes for children, women and men—and for the communities they
live in.
Is marriage, then, beneficial enough to society that
governmental, community and religious institutions should support it? Clearly. That is why they traditionally have.
Should the benefits—and honor—of marriage be granted to
relationships that don’t similarly contribute to society? Of course not. If any other spousal/parenting
set-up expects society to honor it, at the very least it should prove
beneficial first.
How do people in single-parent or co-habiting households
fare? Children have dramatically worse
outcomes. Such “family” situations lead to more delinquent behavior—twice as
likely for teenage boys.[iii] Co-habitation is three times more dangerous
for women than marriage,[iv] up to 40 times more
dangerous for children.[v] And an overwhelming majority of children
living in poverty are in single-parent households.[vi]
Children of divorced and single parents have difficulty forming committed
relationships well into adulthood, so the results perpetuate.[vii]
What about homosexual couples? Admittedly there are benefits to the
individuals—social comfort and sexual pleasure. But for society, their
statistics are devastating. Do they produce offspring? Never. When they raise offspring, at best
they compare in many ways with single parents—far below levels of natural
married families. In some significant ways, they are inferior to even
single-parent households.[viii]
Do their relationships lead to healthy people? No. Adult male homosexuals have a life
expectancy twenty years shorter than the total male population; those with AIDS
have even less time.[ix] They are statistically more likely to suffer
the entire gamut of mental illness than the rest of society—as much as 6 times
higher.[x]
One in almost every two gay men suffers domestic abuse that
results in hospitalization. For lesbians an astounding 55% suffer violent
domestic abuse. When emotional abuse is included, 83% of males and 84% of
females have experienced abuse.[xi] FBI statistics for 1999 showed 1,317
incidents of violence motivated by the offender’s disapproval of homosexual
behavior (hate crime). By comparison, there were 650,000 incidences of violence
committed by male homosexual partners, plus a similar number for lesbian partners.[xii]
Studies show that 17% of young men in America
At the very least, in order to be honored with marriage,
homosexuals should show that they intend to live faithfully committed to each
other. But social science has yet to produce evidence that there is such a
thing as an exclusively faithful gay couple. Monogamy among gays is a myth.
While I would not wish to impugn the reputation of a
clergyman, even though he left his wife and daughters to go live with his
lover, reason tells us that either Rev. Gene Robinson, recently elevated to
Bishop in the Episcopal Church, is lying about being in a monogamous gay
relationship, or he should get himself to a social scientist to document
himself as the first such case.
For a decade studies tried—and failed—to document committed
gay relationships. The studies are mainly intended to show that gay
relationships are stable and therefore worthy of adopting children. Homosexual
proponents, with an agenda, funded the studies. Yet they have failed to show
evidence of a single long-term monogamous couple. Most studies are terminated
after about ten months when none of the couples (who self-identified as
committed couples) were still together. The longest study found one couple that
reached five years before splitting. That was apparently an anomaly.[xvii] Of course there are some who stay together
longer, often much longer. But the studies tried to show monogamy, not simply
sharing an address. Until it can be proven otherwise, it is safe to assume that
no long-term gay relationship is sexually exclusive. The issue is avoided by
claiming they are “emotionally faithful,” whatever that means.
A study showing number of sexual partners for gays found the
average number at 308.[xviii] The high in that study was 18,000. Some
suggest that the promiscuity results from homophobia in society. But studies in
The Netherlands, where there is gay marriage and an open acceptance of
homosexuality, have found promiscuity to be the rule. Married gays have on
average eight casual sexual partners a year.[xix]
In heterosexual relationships, serial infidelity is grounds
for divorce; the gay community insists it is grounds for marriage.
Much of the sympathy for gays lies in the suggestion that
homosexuality is not deviant; it is just another natural way to be, and gays
have no choice. Thirty years ago, no one believed that. It is activists,
repeating the untruth often enough and loud enough, that has changed minds, not
scientific discovery.
While the direct causes of homosexuality are not known,
there is much evidence that it is not genetic.[xx] Identical twins are not identically likely to
be gay, for example. While social science has not detected a singular cause, it
has discovered common factors, life experiences that are shared by a high
number of the demographic. For example, a homosexual male is most likely to
have had his first sexual experience at age 12-14 with someone 11 years older. A
high percentage have suffered sexual abuse. It is likely that sexual abuse is a
causative factor.[xxi]
Homosexuality is not immutable.[xxii] About 30% of those who enter treatment
because they want to leave the lifestyle are successful in doing so.[xxiii] For those who combine spiritual and
psychological treatment, success is higher than for those employing only
psychological treatment.[xxiv]
I would like to know if the information I’m including here,
which can all be documented, will be provided in the “gay club” at Klein High
School[xxv] (in northwest Houston
area) and other schools, where they plan to “educate” people about being gay
and “dispel the myths.” Do they really
mean educate, or do they mean propagandize and recruit?
Any way you look at it, participating in the gay lifestyle
is neither good for the individual nor for society. That doesn’t mean we should
hate them or scorn these individuals. They suffer enough from their own
behavior; we should have no desire to add to their difficulties.
What we must do is tell the truth—and now. Already it is
considered politically incorrect to give the facts I’ve given here (after all,
why am I interested enough to learn these facts if I’m not obsessively
prejudiced?) In Canada, because of
“vilification” laws (avoiding an act or statement that exposes to hatred,
ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class
of persons), it is essentially illegal to say what I’ve said, because gays
might be offended by it.[xxvi] It is making it difficult for opponents of
gay marriage to present their arguments without being subject to prosecution. Vilification
legislation has already been proposed in the US
People bending over backward to avoid appearing homophobic
(having an unreasonable fear of homosexuals, a psychological disorder
apparently so widespread as to afflict a solid majority of the US
Thirty years ago the American Psychiatric Association
dropped homosexuality from the list of deviant sexual behavior. Today
homosexuality is believed by large numbers to be normal and acceptable, and we
are on the verge of being forced to teach this to our children.[xxviii] Right now the APA is discussing whether to
remove pedophilia from its list of deviant behavior.[xxix] What will we be forced to teach our children
about that in the next generation?
What harm will it do to give in to same-sex marriage? It will degrade marriage and deplete it of
its meaning. It will equate the most beneficial relationship for society with a
mere physical urge that has no way to reproduce nor provide for posterity and
causes real harm to individuals and society. Real marriage, on the other hand,
has the proven potential to sustain civilization. Quite a difference.
[i]
The opinions in this piece are mine. But I must thank Richard Wilkins,
Professor of Law at J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young
University World
Family Policy
Center
[ii]
The assertions in this
paragraph concerning the benefits of marriage can be found, along with
additional details and references to specific studies, in “Why Marriage
Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social Sciences,” 2002, Institute for
American Values, available at www.americanvalues.org .
[iii] Cynthia Harper and Sara McLanahan, 1998.
“Father Absence and Youth Incarceration.”
(paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
Association) (San Francisco) (August)
[iv] Linda J. Waite’s tabulations from
the 1987-1988 waves of the National Survey of Families and Households. See
Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, 2000. The
Case for Marriage: Why Married People
are Happier, Healthier, and Better-Off Financially (New York: Doubleday): 155-156.
[v] Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, 1985. “Child
Abuse and Other Risks of Not Living with Both Parents,” Ethology and Sociobiology 6: 197-210.
[vi] See, e.g., Mark R. Rank and Thomas
A. Hirschi, 1999. “The Economic Risk of Childhood in America US
[vii] See “Why Marriage Matters,” page 8,
and associated notes: “Children whose
parents divorce or fail to marry are more likely to become young unwed parents,
to divorce themselves, and to have unhappy marriages and/or relationships. Daughters
raised outside of intact marriages are approximately three times more likely to
end up young, unwed mothers than are children whose parents married and stayed
married. Parental divorce approximately doubles the odds that adult children
will also divorce. Divorce is apparently most likely to be transmitted across the
generations when parents in relatively low-conflict marriages divorced.
[viii] Studies comparing homosexual to
heterosexual parenting never compare to heterosexual married biological
parents; rather, they compare them with single or co-habiting heterosexual parents.
And while it has long been claimed that there are “no differences” in
behavioral outcomes for children raised by homosexual (as compared to
heterosexual) parents, a recent re-analysis of prior studies challenges this
conclusion. Two researchers sympathetic to the cause of homosexual households
have now concluded that the “[e]vidence … does not support the “no differences’
claim.” Judith Stacy & Timothy J.
Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American
Sociological Review 159, 176 (April 20011). These researchers conclude that
“[c]hildren with lesbigay parents appear less traditionally gender-typed and
more likely to be open to homoerotic relationship. In addition, evidence
suggests that parental gender and sexual identities interact to create
distinctive family processes whose consequences for children have yet to be
studied.”
[ix]
Hogg, R. S., S. A. Strathdee, K. J.
Craib, M. V O’Shaughnessy, J. S. Montaner, and M. T. Schechter, “Modeling the
Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International
Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 26, 657-662, 1997. “In a major Canadian centre,
life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less
than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we
estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will
not reach their 65th birthday.”
[x] Homosexual conduct has consequences
for mental health. There is a well-documented correlation between homosexuality
and suicide and mental illness. See, e.g., Theo B. M. Sandfort, De Graaqf,
Bilj, and Schable, “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health
Survey and Incidence Study,” 85 (Archives of General Psychiatry 85 (January
2001) (“The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex behavior
are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders”); Richard Herrell, et al.,
“Sexual Orientation and Suicidality,” Archives of General Psychiatry 867
(October 1999) (“Same-gender sexual orientation is significantly associated
with each of the suicidality measures” and “is unlikely to be due solely to
substance abuse or other psychiatric co-morbidity”); David M. Fergusson, et
al., “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality
in Young People?” Archives of General
Psychiatry 876 (October 1999) (“Findings support recent evidence suggesting
that gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people are at increased risk of mental
health problems, with these associates being particularly evident for measures
of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder.”)
While some may argue that these findings are “caused by society
oppression” (J Michael Bailey, “Homosexuality and Mental Illness,” Archives of
General Psychiatry 883 and 884 October 1999), this is not the only possible
explanation. The survey of findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey
and Incidence Study found a significant greater risk for psychiatric disorders
among homosexuals, even though “the Dutch social climate toward homosexuality
has long been and remains considerably more tolerant” than most of the world. Sandfort,
et al, above, at 89. Other possible explanations include hypotheses that
“homosexuality represents a deviation from normal development and is associated
with other such deviations that may lead to mental illness,” and that
“increased psychopathology among homosexual people is a consequence of
lifestyle differences associated with sexual orientation.” J. Michael Bailey, above, at 884. Also,
Sandfort et al., above, at 85-91. (Youth
are four times more likely to suffer major depression, also three times as
likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to
experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times
as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple
disorders, and over six times as likely to have attempted suicide. Additionally,
this research originates in the Netherlands
[xi] Susan C. Turnell, A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex
Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample,
13 Journal of Family
Violence, 281 (2000) (finding that 44% of gay men report having experienced
physical violence in their relationships, including 14% reporting sexual
violence, with 83% reporting emotional abuse. Among lesbians: 55% acknowledge having experienced physical
violence, 14% report sexual abuse and 84% report emotional abuse); See also,
U.S. Department of Justice Study, Citizen
Magazine, (January 2000) (reporting that the U.S. Justice Study found an
epidemic of violence between homosexuals:
an annual average of 13,740 male victims of violence by homosexual
partners and 16,900 victims by lesbian partners. By contrast, the most recent
numbers—1999--for “hate crimes” based on sexual orientation totaled a
relatively low 1,558 victims). See also New York Times article “Alleged Murder
Is Further Proof of Domestic Violence as Major Health Risk of Homosexuals,
Traditional Values Group Says,” available at http://www.afaanwpa.org, quoting Diane Gramley, president of
the American Family Association of Northwestern Pennsylvania: “The truth is
that acts of outside aggression against individual involved in homosexual
behavior, while always highly publicized, are rare. The far greater threat of
violence to individuals involved in homosexual relationships—a staggering
50,000 percent higher risk, according to research by homosexual activists
themselves—is the epidemic of domestic violence such individuals commit against
each other.” See also David Island
[xiii] Holmes, William C., MD, MSCE; Gail
B. Slap, MD, MS, “Sexual Abuse of Boys Definition, Prevalence, Correlates,
Sequelae, and Management,” Journal of the
American Medical Association, abrstract December 2, 1998 . “We identified 166 studies
representing 149 sexual abuse samples. Studies were methodologically limited
and definitions of sexual abuse varied widely. Prevalence estimates varied widely
(by definition used and population studies), ranging from 4% to 76%. . . . The
AMA concluded that sexual abuse of boys appears to be common, underreported,
underrecognized, and undertreated. Boys at highest risk were younger than 13
years, nonwhite, of low socioeconomic status, and not living with their fathers.
Perpetrators tended to be known but unrelated males. Abuse frequently occurred
outside the home, involved penetration, and occurred more than once. Sequelae
included psychological distress, substance abuse, and sexually related
problems.
[xiv] The best documented figures are 1 to
1.2%. However, there are several studies now suggesting the rate is 3%. No one
is sure, and the research with higher numbers has the advocacy of gay activists
behind it, so I opt for the more conservative estimate.
[xv]
See Baldwin, Steve, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” and
associated notes, available at http://www.defendmarriage.org/background/baldwin.html
. “Homosexuals account for between 25% and 40% of all child molestation. Sex
researchers Freund, Heasman, Racansky, and Glancy, for example, in a 1984
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, put the number at 36%. Erickson,
Walbek, Sely, in a 1988 Archives of Sexual Behavior article, places it at 86%
when the children being molested are male (citing W. D. Erickson et al,
Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, 17 Archives of Sexual Behavior 1, 83
(1988), supra note 1 at 83). …It should be noted that homosexuals account for
only 2% of the population which statistically means that a child molester is
ten to twenty times more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual.” See also K. Jay et al, The Gay Report: Lesbians and
Gays Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles 275 (1979) (This
study by homosexual activists and researchers revealed that 73% of homosexuals
surveyed had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger); Eugene
Abel et al., “Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Nonincarcerated Pedophiliacs, 2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 3,5
(19877) “Child molestation, by comparison, was a relatively infrequent crime
occurring from an average of 23.2 times by a pedophile (nonincest) with female
targets to an average of 281.7 times by a pedophile (nonincest) whose targets
were males”; R. Blanchard et al, “Fraternal Order and Sexual Orientation in
Pedophiles,” 29 Archives Sexual Behav.
464 (2000); K. Freund & R
I.
[xvi] Jeffery Curley, age 10, was raped
and murdered Oct. 1 1997 .
The perpetrators had in their possession NAMBLA materials, as well as a book,
“Rape and Escape,” published by NAMBLA. They used an idea from the NAMBLA
materials to lure the boy. The family is suing NAMBLA for its contribution to
the murder of their son; the ACLU is defending NAMBLA pro bono, claiming NAMBLA
has 1st amendment rights to free speech; ironically, the ACLU is
requesting a gag order against the prosecution and is asking for witnesses who
testified in the Curley case concerning the NAMBLA information to be
disallowed.
[xvii] McWhirter, David P., and Andrew M.
Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
1984), pp. 252, 3. They reported that in a study of 156 males in homosexual
relationships lasting from one to 37 years, only 7 couples have a totally
exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less
than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting
more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual
activity in their relationships. No “monogamous” relationship among men longer
than the ones set out in this book have been documented.
[xviii] Meyer-Balburg et. al., “Sexual Risk
Behavior, Sexual Functioning and HIV-Disease Progression in Gay Men,” 28 Journal of Sex Research, 1, 3-27 (1991).
[xix] See e.g., Xiridou, Maria, et al,
“The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV
infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam May 2,
2003 . “Those with a steady partner and those without reported
having an average of 8 and 22 casual partners per year, respectively.”
[xx]
See, e.g. N.E. Whitehead, “The Importance of Twin Studies” available at www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html.
For additional articles, see www.narth.com/menus/born.html.
[xxi]
Nicolosi, Joseph, A. Dean Byrd, Richard W. Potts, “Retrospective Self-Reports
of Changes in Homosexual Orientation: A
Consumer Survey of Conversion Therapy Clients,” 86 Psychological Reports 1071, 1083 (June 2000). Also Diane Shrier, M.D., Robert L. Johnson,
M.D. “Sexual Victimization of Boys: An
Ongoing Study of an Adolescent Medicine Clinic Population.” Journal
of the National Medical Association, Vol. 80, No. 11, 1988, pp. 1189-1193. Robert
L. Johnson, M.D., and Kiane K. Shrier, M. D. “Sexual Victimization of Boys,
Experience at an Adolescent Medicine Clinic.”
Journal of Adolescent Health Care,
Vol 6, No. 5, p. 372-376. (Homosexually-assaulted males identified themselves
as subsequently homosexual seven times as often as the non-assaulted control
group. In half the molestations, physical force was used. The mean age at which
the molestation was reported was 18.2 with a range of 15-24. The age at the
time of molestation was from 4 to 16 with a mean age of 10. Of this extension
group, “… one half the victims currently identified themselves as homosexual
and often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization
experiences”). Also Richard C. Friedman and Jennifer I. Downey (1994). “Homosexuality,”
New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 331, No. 14,
pp. 923-929. “Gay males are more likely than heterosexual males to become
sexually active at a younger age (12.7 v. 15.7). And more recently, Marie E.
Tomeo,, Donald L. Templer, Susan Anderson, and Debra Kotler “Comparative Data
of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual
Persons,” Archives of Sexual Behavior,
Vol. 30, No. 5. pp 535-541, 2001. (In research with 942 nonclinical adult
participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of
childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. 46% of the
homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual
molestation. 22% of the lesbian women in contrast to 1% of the heterosexual
women reported homosexual molestation.)
The sample was especially useful for research purposes because it did
not focus on dissatisfied homosexuals in therapy; in fact, 97% of the men were
participating in a gay pride celebration at the time they participated in the
survey interview. 68% of the male study subjects and 38% of the females did not
identify as homosexual until after the molestation.
[xxii] See, e.g., I. Bieber, Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of
Male Homosexuality 319 (Basic Books 1962); J. Clippinger, “Homosexuality Can
Be Cured,” 21 Corrective and Social
Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy, 22 (1987);
A. Ellis, “The Effectiveness of Psychotherapy with Individuals Who Have Severe Homosexual
Problems,” 20 Journal of Consulting
Psychology 194 (1956); R. Fine, Male
and Female Homosexuality: Psychological
Approaches 85-86 (Hemisphere Publishing 1987); H. Kaye, et al., “Homosexuality
in Women,” 17 Archives of General
Psychiatry 634 (1967); H. MacIntosh, “Attitudes and Experiences of Psychoanalysts,”
42 Journal of the American Psychoanalytic
Association 1183 (1994); J. Nicolosi, “Belief and Practices of Therapists Who
Practice Sexual Reorientation Psychotherapy,” 86 Psychological Reports 689-702 (2000); J. Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Baker 1996); C. Tripp & L. Hatterer, Can
Homosexuals Change with Psychotherapy?” 1 }scaps Sexual Behavior 24-29 (1971).
[xxiii]
See, e.g., Joseph Nicolosi, A. Dean Byrd, Richard W. Potts, “Retrospective
Self-Reports of Changes in Homosexual Orientation: A Consumer Survey of Conversion Therapy
Clients,” 86 Psychological Reports
1071, 1083 (June 2000). Study concludes that “20%-30% of the participants [in
voluntary conversion therapy] said they shifted from a homosexual orientation
to an exclusively or almost exclusively heterosexual orientation,” belying any
assertion that homosexual orientation is “immutable.”
[xxiv]
Fitzgibbons, Richard P., M.D.; Peter Rudegeair, M.A.; Eugene F. Diamond, M. D.
“What Could Bring On Same-Sex Attraction in Boys: Catholic Psychiatrists Look
at Roots of U.S. June 27, 2002
(Zenit.org). “There is no verifiable evidence that same-sex attraction is
genetically determined….There are numerous studies documenting change in sexual
attraction pattern (see “Homosexuality and Hope,” available at http://www.cathmed.org/ )” “There has been a massive campaign to hide
this information from the general public and from those who sincerely wish to
be free from same-sex attraction. In 2000, Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University
[xxv]
The school gave in to pressure from the ACLU to allow the club. Other high
schools in Houston Houston 9/17/03 ,
p. A-24, the 3 STAR edition.
[xxvi] See Canadian case indexed as: Owens v. Saskatchewan
[xxvii]
U.S. Senate Bill 966, 7/9/03 ,
by Senator Kennedy; 42 democrats, 1 independent, and 7 republicans are
cosponsors. The bill is designed to punish hate crimes, which means punishments
greater for criminals having certain motivations than for criminals having less
evil motivations (motivations that must be proven either by confession or by
words they may have spoken during the crime or prior to it.) Sexual orientation is placed on the same
level as race, religion, and gender. It doesn’t at this time target the
publishing of opinions that could be construed to encourage “hate crimes,” as
current Canadian law, but it does essentially vilify certain opinions, such as
those I have expressed in this article. If I were ever to commit a crime
against a homosexual, this article could be used against me, even if the
homosexuality of the victim was not indeed a motivator. This legislation, then,
would make it riskier to express certain opinions, despite our guarantee of
free speech rights.
[xxviii]
In the U.S. America
[xxix] Homosexual psychological literature
already touts the purported benefits of “intergenerational sexual
intimacy.” See, e.g., Edward Brongersman,
JD, Boy-Lovers and Their Influence on
Boys: Distorted Resesarch and Anecdotal
Observations, Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 20, Nos. ½ 1990, at 145,
160: Rossman (1976) gives several examples
of social workers achieving miracles with apparently incorrigible young
delinquents—not by preaching to them but by sleeping with them. Affection
demonstrated by sexual arousal upon contact with the boy’s body, by obvious
pleasure taken in giving pleasure to the boy, did far more good than years in
reformatories. (Referring to P. Rossman (1976) Sexual Experience between Men and Boys. New York: Association Press.) Baldwin, cited above, with associated notes,
shows that homosexuals “target children both for their own sexual pleasure and
to enlarge the homosexual movement.”
No comments:
Post a Comment