Gay choir sings "We're coming for your children"

[The Revolting Man]

You might notice that every one of those men was convicted of sex with a minor under 14 years of age. Clearly illegal, and just as clearly NAMBLA (@steve has the full name correct) is promoting lowering the age of consent between men and boys. They always have, and they've never really made much of an effort to avoid being in the sunshine about it. I don't support them and never did, even in the height of my liberalism, because they refuse to condemn within their ranks those who actively pursue children with ages in single digits. [As an aside, given our Judeo-Christian heritage, shouldn't we be supporting a viewpoint that allows for even marriage to occur as early as age 12?; isn't that when girls are bat mitzvah'd and become full women within the Jewish community?] The organization has never given anything but lip service to setting a firm boundary on where the practice becomes unethical, inappropriate, criminal. They are an incrementalism organization with a silent agenda that couldn't be clearer: push the limits as far as they will go. In fact, I once had a conversation with an avowed member who asserted at a large party that even some baby boys are ready for sex with adults.

So know that I see all that.

At the same time, I've shared in other threads here about my experience with Brian, the 14-year-old sexual predator Kristin and I had in our home for over a year in a structure called therapeutic foster care (basically, live-in therapy). I learned many things during that year, and one was that, no matter how the rest of us out here want to wish it away, sexual orientation isn't just a matter of straight or not -- or even a matter of a spectrum that runs from fully heterosexual through various gradations of bisexuality to fully homosexual. There are other fully-recognized sexual orientations, up to and including people who only seek or receive sexual satisfaction in the context of having sex with someone they're executing.

A sexual orientation is well known among specialized sex therapists that is shared by the vast number of NAMBLA proponents. This sexual orientation is sometimes possessed by females, but most are male. It works like this:

• When young, and by all accounts this is experienced as early as memory serves for most such people, the child has no or at most only very minor attractions to other children, whether male or female, but they have strong urges to have sex with a certain type of adult, almost always of the same gender (more on that later).
• The older they get, the stronger their sexual urges for these adult men get -- right up until puberty.
• During puberty, their sexual urges are as strong as they'll ever be, especially for boys (just like everyone else, right?), but sometime into puberty, the objects of their attraction become confused between adults and children. Most of these boys become so confused and angst-ridden during this transition that they will have sex with anyone, and many even go through a period of being prostitutes, because they find they can monetize the fact that they're propelled to be sexual but find it nearly impossible to enjoy it due to their simultaneous desire and revulsion, both toward themselves and toward others.
• Once puberty is complete, these young men now no longer have any sexual attraction to adults. They're physiologically repulsed by public hair, and the only human beings who inspire any increased libido for them are children of their same gender. But this is made more complex by the fact that they are truly only significantly attracted to members of the same gender who have the same sexual orientation they have. In other words, they are only attracted to boys who have the same sexual orientation that they have, and, in fact, the boys with this sexual orientation are only attracted to the men who have this same sexual orientation.

Effectively, this means that these men are decidedly not coming for your children, unless one of your children has this sexual orientation. These people do not indiscriminately target and groom just any children (that's social worker hooey); they instead enter into sexual relationships with people who are also seeking them. I've watched this in action, because, during one half-year cycle, the sexual predator facility to which I had to take Brian each week scheduled the 14-and-unders' group therapy session on the same day each week just prior to the 21-and-overs' group therapy session. The sexual tension getting Brian out of there each week until that was corrected was palpable. It's a magnetism beyond what most all of us have experienced in our own lives with a woman. No size of magnets has ever produced greater attraction between north and south poles.

We don't have the ethical, political or social will in our cultures to face up to such a thing, but it's worth recognizing that people like I'm describing (which includes most NAMBLA proponents) actually pose almost no threat to anyone but themselves. For whatever reason, our Creator has seen fit to include among the human panoply these sexual pole-switchers, but one of the only things that causes such people to inflict themselves on anyone but each other is the meddling of governmental social services; their attempts to 'fix' these people by mainstreaming them only causes them to seek gratification elsewhere (especially the adolescents), but otherwise they just wouldn't have to do it. Over time, I came to the conclusion that we would all be much better off if we let these pole-switchers sort themselves out. In fact, this trait does generally have a tendency to run in families; i.e., it's usually genetic. However, it's not always the case, or the heredity is something that skips multiple generations (or certain people just keep it hidden, but I think that's relatively unlikely). So, the only children of ours that these people are going to come after are children of ours who have very unfortunately been programmed by their DNA to be pole-switchers. We can pretend that we can 'protect' them from this by being vigilant to keep NAMBLA activists a mile away at every moment of their childhoods, but I can promise you that, if this is their sexual orientation, you are only delaying the inevitable. You have the power, perhaps, to prevent them from being 'exploited' by their pole-switcher counterparts, but inevitably they are going to become adults who pair up with young boys. This is exacerbated by another observed dynamic: those who aren't persuaded to go into full hiding tend to do the least harm to others; the biggest problems are men who ashamedly make every effort to pass as normal straight men; when they inevitably get caught doing it with a little boy, they don't just bring shame upon themselves -- they shatter their entire families and every individual within them. Worse yet, such individuals have a tendency to turn first toward their own children for gratification.

On the other end of the spectrum, Brian came from a small (200+ population) isolated community in north Georgia. They had been practicing this lifestyle with no disruption or other sociopsychological problems for many generations. Not all individuals were pole-switchers, but the pole-switchers were fully embraced (no pun intended), and one of the reasons was that the adult pole-switchers provided support for families with children, so no one was in poverty, and no one was on food stamps or was obtaining any kind of government support other than Social Security. It ended because a visiting relative of one family caught on and called DFCS, which initiated a snowballing process that produced every child in every family being sent into the foster care system, most children being separated from their siblings as well as their parents, and numerous adults incarcerated -- the town itself was entirely abandoned. The disruption to these people was horrific, and there is no way you can convince me that any of the children ended up better off; all that DFCS accomplished was resultant disruption in the environments where they were sent. I'm 100% convinced that we should just leave such subcultures entirely alone, because they're self-contained and are not going to pollute the mainstream culture.

And, no matter how much they may dream (or torture us with horrendous 'melodies'), neither is the San Francisco Queer Choir. I simply don't fear them in any way whatsoever. On the contrary, I very much pity them, because whoever among their ranks is a boy lover is predominantly living a sexless life (I've known many such men in my life), because so many obstacles exist to prevent such liaisons, and they simply can't find any kind of meaningful satisfaction getting it off with each other.

So, please relax about the 'threat' of NAMBLA or the SFQC. Your children are safe; in fact, all children are much more safe than our lively imaginations would indicate. The majority of registered sex offenders are men, most under 25 at the time, who had sex with a girl between 12 and 15 years of age. Adult men having sex with little girls is about as frequent as lightning striking winning mega-millions lottery tickets. I'd even guess that most of those boys the members of the Queer Choir got convicted of having sex with were 12 or 13 years old.

Sometimes we can create tempests where there are none.

You said that these men mostly prey on their own children. Isn’t that a more likely vector for transmission than genetics?

 

[steve]

These people do not indiscriminately target and groom just any children (that's social worker hooey)

Absolute Bullshit, my friend.
I’m sure that it is true for some, but painting all of them with the same brush is a damned lie.
I was groomed and I know what the fxck I’m talking about.

When an older man keeps heterosexual porn to offer to young guys so that he can maneuver them into comprising situations, he is OBVIOUSLY not looking for boys who are drawn to a same sex relationship.

 

[Keith Martin]

You said that these men mostly prey on their own children. Isn’t that a more likely vector for transmission than genetics?

Actually, no; the first thing to note is that, when I said "most" of such men, I was referring only to most of a very small subset, which is pole-switching-orientation men who pretend to be regular straight men and start families. [Remember that only about 2-3% of males are gay men, the pole-switchers are a small subset of that small subset, and the pole-switchers who pretend not to be pole-switchers or who aren't fully aware of it are an even smaller subset of that smaller subset.] Especially now that gay men aren't regularly in danger of being pummeled with baseball bats, the most common path for a pole-switcher is to just blend into the LGBTQ crowd. I know this is difficult to comprehend when one has mostly been surrounded by Biblical and mainstream cultures, but the pole-switchers simply have little problem finding each other. You generally know when someone of the opposite sex has a hankering for you. Well . . . they know one another in that way, as well -- only both their drive and their radar are cranked up, on average, higher than you're accustomed to, and it's enough to compensate for the dangers related to crossing the minor/adult dividing line. They find each other, and, conversely, they keep each other 'off the street.'

The men who attempt to repress their pole-switching desires are likely very rarely successful, but they are also extremely rare in comparison to the overall population. Within that very small subset of humanity, they may if they seduce their own child somehow teach that child to be a pole-switcher, but I would still think that the possibility that it was genetics should be the more likely explanation. I only have one example in my professional life of working with a family like this, and in this case it was the less likely scenario of a father who, as a child, had been strongly attracted to fully-adult women, but as he went through adolescence he switched over to only being attracted to very young girls. He was a truck driver and began taking his daughter on long hauls, away-from-home-schooling her as it were, when she was 8 years old. Their affair began within weeks of these joint trips, and I met them when she was 12; the affair lasted 11 years before being interrupted. The girl was tremendously provocative, with her predominant attraction being toward her father, but she demonstrated strong seduction behaviors toward me and many other adult men in her life. Pennsylvania DHS workers were heavily involved in the lives of the four family members (also included the mother and a son a year older, toward whom the father had never demonstrated sexual interest). Before I met them, the father had already been convicted and sentenced to limited contact with the daughter. She was furious that adults were stopping her from having sexual intercourse with her father. He was embarrassed, ashamed, etc., but he remained smitten with his daughter during most of the course of this nearly-year-long therapy regimen. He considered himself a weak man and a failure as a father and a husband. He'd become incapable of engaging in intercourse with his wife not long after the birth of their daughter and had had further-decreasing libido in that regard for the previous several years. The marriage began when he was 19 and his wife was 15, and she was a self-labeled "late bloomer." There it is: I asked the questions, and it turned out she hadn't exhibited all her secondary sexual characteristics, including any significant presence of pubic hair, until after they were already married. Against what would normally be the preferred route, I encouraged the mousy wife to step up to the plate and become the dominant head of their family (because his sentence was relatively short, and all four wanted a family reunification). As she made progress with this, I encouraged her to consider shaving her pubic area on a near-daily basis; the week after this recommendation, the two of them came back into my office looking like teenagers in love -- that was all it took for the father to experience a return of his one-flesh desire for his wife, and that was sustained for the several months I continued to work with them. The daughter was initially, you guessed it, enraged that the lover she considered her property was now doing it with her mother. However, she was already in puberty herself (probably expedited by the sexual intercourse), and that started her into that whole hurricane of orientation confusion; the clinic where I worked became unwilling to allow her to be unsupervised in its waiting area. Some weeks into the parents being into their second honeymoon, the daughter attempted to seduce the father while the mother was out in the garden, prancing out of the shower in her birthday suit. Her strategy, though, had a 'perverse' effect: she was sprouting vegetation down there, and dad was suddenly entirely unattracted to her. Ultimately, I moved out of state before the poor girl had full resolution of this, but, once she calmed down about being snubbed by her father, she herself started losing her attraction to older men and, for example, stopped coming on to me during our sessions. Eventually, no surprise to me now but puzzling at the time, she started paying a lot of attention to young boys. DHS was considering removing her to an inpatient treatment facility in a (foolish) attempt to reorient her to boys at or slightly-above her age. That didn't happen, and I never learned what happened subsequently, but I'd like to think something good came of her life -- unlikely, though.

In that situation, I was operating almost entirely on intuition; it was half a decade before learning what I learned while Brian lived with us. I describe it, though, to emphasize that it wasn't a matter of the father recruiting his daughter into a lifestyle that would have been entirely foreign to her. I don't doubt that he had sex on his mind when he started the on-the-road adventures, but I ultimately interviewed so many people connected to this family that I had no doubt that this was a weak man/strong daughter combination and that she had been known from a very young age to be a bullheaded girl who was generally successful at getting exactly what she wanted. Such an individual is highly unlikely to just go, "Oh, OK, Daddy," when he suggests playing hide-the-sausage. In fact, I got the original story from the mother, and both daughter and husband confirmed it: the two were preparing for sleep in the bed compartment when nearly-naked daughter cozied up to dad, squirmed enough to get him aroused, he asked her to put her hand on him, which she did, and then she asked him if he'd mind her using her mouth. At 8 years old. My brain-dead sexual-abuse supervisor at the clinic wanted to pigeonhole this as surely having been caused by the girl having been exposed to porn or watching her parents have sex, but nothing had been going on between the parents for years, and they were a fundamentalist family that barely watched TV, must less renting XXX videos.

[My professional and personal life experiences have gradually changed me from leaning toward nurture into a strong supporter of nature in the nature vs. nurture debate.]

I'm comfortable with whatever interpretations we have about why such people exist in our world, but they do indeed exist, and I just want to encourage everyone here to refrain from living within the fear of these outliers having any power to turn your kids into members of the Queer Choir.

 

[Keith Martin]

When an older man keeps heterosexual porn to offer to young guys so that he can maneuver them into comprising situations, he is OBVIOUSLY not looking for boys who are drawn to a same sex relationship.

You'll get no disagreement with me on that, @steve. Someone who does that is clearly manipulating children to coerce them into being his victims. It's the classic definition of a predator. You're not reading me saying that such people don't exist. Of course they do. They just aren't nearly as prevalent as our media or our religious leaders promote them as being. Most gay men are not predators. In fact, a great deal of research has gone into this, and the men who are predators of children are more highly likely to be heterosexuals than the percentage of heterosexuals in the population would predict. Gay men are demonstrably less likely to target children, manipulate them into compromising sexual situations, then threaten those children or their parents with bodily harm if they speak up. Therefore, when we watch the video @rockfox shared that unmasks a significant but still minor portion of a large gay choir as having been convicted of unexplained sex with minors and conclude that that means that some kind of large-scale agenda is being enacted to convert our children to homosexuality or whatever, we are mistaken if we think not only that something like that exists but that it could possibly be successful. I don't doubt that being preyed upon translates into future life difficulties, but in the end the actual sexual orientation which God has given those victims will prevail, even in these relatively rare awful instances of sexual predation.

Again, I'm not denying that any manner of perversion or abuse of fellow human beings exists in this world. The Adversary uses people in any manner of vile way he can use them. I am, though, denying that these are large-scale operations; if they were, we'd be hearing about how George Soros was funding them, and they'd probably be much more obvious about what they're up to. The Adversary is certainly no longer content to operate only in the shadows.

Your admonition about not painting everyone with the same brush works both ways. Just as I'm not saying that no gay men ever grooms or preys on straight boys, you shouldn't assume that what you experienced is generalizable to all gay men, flaming or otherwise. Don't let what one demented predator did to you control you this many years later. He didn't succeed, and you have nothing to be ashamed of for having been susceptible to his misleading manipulations.

 

[steve]

but in the end the actual sexual orientation which God has given those victims will prevail,

I love you, brother, but you are too steeped in the wisdom of men.
Spiritual forces are real, you are not comprehending the broader picture. Some of what you know just ain’t so.

At the end of the day, my advice to anyone that is drawn to experience sex outside of a heterosexual marriage bed, abstinence solves a lot of problems.
It is something that we all practice daily. Giving into our impulses is not defendable, because that ultimately would end in rape.
“But I just cannot control how I feel!” Funny how 99.9% of your waking hours, you actually do manage to control it.

 

[steve]

So, the only children of ours that these people are going to come after are children of ours who have very unfortunately been programmed by their DNA to be pole-switchers.

You reassure us with this blanket statement, but your statement only applies to a certain segment.
So your reassurance is pretty damned useless.

You have come a fer piece in your journey, but you haven’t arrived at perfect truth yet. Not that I claim to have arrived either, but I believe that I’m a tad bit closer than what you are putting out.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You'll get no disagreement with me on that, @steve. Someone who does that is clearly manipulating children to coerce them into being his victims. It's the classic definition of a predator. You're not reading me saying that such people don't exist. Of course they do. They just aren't nearly as prevalent as our media or our religious leaders promote them as being. Most gay men are not predators. In fact, a great deal of research has gone into this, and the men who are predators of children are more highly likely to be heterosexuals than the percentage of heterosexuals in the population would predict. Gay men are demonstrably less likely to target children, manipulate them into compromising sexual situations, then threaten those children or their parents with bodily harm if they speak up. Therefore, when we watch the video @rockfox shared that unmasks a significant but still minor portion of a large gay choir as having been convicted of unexplained sex with minors and conclude that that means that some kind of large-scale agenda is being enacted to convert our children to homosexuality or whatever, we are mistaken if we think not only that something like that exists but that it could possibly be successful. I don't doubt that being preyed upon translates into future life difficulties, but in the end the actual sexual orientation which God has given those victims will prevail, even in these relatively rare awful instances of sexual predation.

Again, I'm not denying that any manner of perversion or abuse of fellow human beings exists in this world. The Adversary uses people in any manner of vile way he can use them. I am, though, denying that these are large-scale operations; if they were, we'd be hearing about how George Soros was funding them, and they'd probably be much more obvious about what they're up to. The Adversary is certainly no longer content to operate only in the shadows.

Your admonition about not painting everyone with the same brush works both ways. Just as I'm not saying that no gay men ever grooms or preys on straight boys, you shouldn't assume that what you experienced is generalizable to all gay men, flaming or otherwise. Don't let what one demented predator did to you control you this many years later. He didn't succeed, and you have nothing to be ashamed of for having been susceptible to his misleading manipulations.

No one is programmed gay, least of all children.

 

[Keith Martin]

I love you, brother, but you are too steeped in the wisdom of men.
Spiritual forces are real, you are not comprehending the broader picture. Some of what you know just ain’t so.

At the end of the day, my advice to anyone that is drawn to experience sex outside of a heterosexual marriage bed, abstinence solves a lot of problems.
It is something that we all practice daily. Giving into our impulses is not defendable, because that ultimately would end in rape.
“But I just cannot control how I feel!” Funny how 99.9% of your waking hours, you actually do manage to control it.

You reassure us with this blanket statement, but your statement only applies to a certain segment.
So your reassurance is pretty damned useless.

You have come a fer piece in your journey, but you haven’t arrived at perfect truth yet. Not that I claim to have arrived either, but I believe that I’m a tad bit closer than what you are putting out.

We've been here before, my revered brother. I am probably guilty of handing you a loaded gun by making the comment to you about not letting one demented predator live rent-free in your brain this many years later, but nothing about that comment was intended to be said in argumentative competition; it was truly spoken from compassion, because I hate to see people suffer needlessly.

And I am willing to concede right here and now, with every witness available among us, that you are not only a tad bit closer but probably quite considerably closer to perfect truth than am I.

I will once again, however, advise caution re: asserting that another person is too steeped in the wisdom of men when one is only offering the wisdom of oneself. We can each be certain of what we believe, but in the end each of us is just a man, so our wisdom comes down to just being an anecdotal example of the wisdom of men. Even the quoting of Scripture by individual men tends toward being mere wisdom of men, because one can pick phrases out of context to buttress any point one wants to make. What justifies taking serious notice is when one can discover a biblical passage that not only sounds like it may have something to do with the discussion of the moment but includes within the passage the application of wisdom to a situation that was for all intents and purposes nearly identical to the current conundrum. I haven't observed that occurring in this discussion, and I suspect that it could very well be possible that what we're discussing in particular falls into the realm of those things that, in His Wisdom, Yah chose not to directly address. I would also advise caution about assuming that this falls under the rubric of end times, because it's helpful to remember that antichrist will first fool everyone in a manner in which trust will be the initial reaction; that simply isn't operative in a discussion about gay men recruiting straight children -- I don't think anyone can point to a time in present or past history during which that would have been good P.R.

Please excuse me for coming across as cavalier in the midst of a discussion topic that you consider to be a matter of the highest priority, but I do believe you have made a mountain out of a molehill. You're not satisfied to condemn an individual for nefarious behavior or be critical of a particular behavioral trait; you instead seem compelled to create a bogeyman. I'm always going to challenge something like that, because I don't think we have to invent bogeymen when so much blatantly obvious evil is being openly exhibited in front of us. I will go so far as to say that I consider it obvious that the Adversary and those human beings who mean to purposefully destroy our world in pursuit of their evil ends are behind promoting the bogeymen distractions you sometimes assert are such tremendous threats. Instead of being real threats . . . they are the shiny object meant to distract us from those real threats. It simply isn't enough to qualify something as a major threat to be able to point to anecdotal evidence. You have confronted others with accusations that they must be woman haters because they generalize their own negative experiences with women out onto the whole gender, but you are doing the same thing in this instance by claiming that these gay men are devoted to destroying civilization by enticing all our children into sodomic debauchery. You could never get me to say that such things don't happen. All manner of terrible things happen in this world, but those who commit heinous acts do not represent everyone in every group to which they belong. If you see a major spiritual conspiracy behind every inhuman act, and you condemn everyone within the groups within which those inhuman actors have associations, who will be left for you to associate with? The same logic could easily be used by mainstream America or mainstream Christianity to label everyone in Biblical Families as being unworthy of association based on our support of or participation in a way of life that the mainstream believes is proof of unAmericanism or directed by Satan himself.

In a parallel sense, I challenge your assertion that my guidance is useless. You base that on the fact that it isn't airtight, alluding to it only applying to a 'segment' but failing to reflect that I'm asserting that it applies to a segment so large as to encompass the vast majority of any of the groups in question. You have every right to make your own choices about painting any particular group with a broad brush -- and then so thoroughly shunning such people that you feel like you have sufficiently walled off yourself and those you love to avoid that particular threat. But, if you're going to do that because of one statistically-highly-unlikely possibility, why aren't you doing it when it comes to every other potential threat, no matter how miniscule? We've seen this being implemented writ large when it comes to Wuhan Flu, and I know you aren't running scared from that, but maybe you should be, right? After all, lots of Experts say it's a bogeyman, and almost 2% of those who've supposedly gotten a serious case of it have died, and isn't a 1 in 50 chance of death worth battening up the hatches? Seasonal flu has a longstanding record of 1+% death rate, and 1/100 isn't all that good of odds, either. Actually, the existence of cars might be a plot on the part of the Adversary, given how many people succumb to car wrecks every year, not to mention the fact that being run over in one's own driveway by one's own parents is the leading cause of death in America for children between the ages of 12 months and 12 years. Does this mean General Motors is coming for our children? Is McDonald's a plot to exterminate its customers? Worse yet, are the oceans in existence because, well, Whoever put them there perpetrated a plot to suck us into undertows or expose people to the dangers of shark attacks?

I agree that negative spiritual forces are real, and I find it odd that you would write something about that without remembering the numerous times I've made statements in these 'pages' in support of you bringing our attention to the spiritual forces that are not intended to enrich us. I further agree with you about nonsense statements like, "I just can't control how I feel," and I agree with you for the same reason -- and have counseled many a fellow human to distinguish the difference between feelings/urges and behavior. I also agree with you about abstinence; I always loved Rush Limbaugh's saying about how it's the best form of birth control, because it works every time it's tried. We are all called to self-control throughout each and every one of our days, not just in regard to sexual impulses but to other impulses as well: covetous ones; destructive ones; even murderous ones. But I think one who is heterosexual is far too cavalier when advising homosexual abstinence to anyone who isn't heterosexual. For one who is straight, giving up gay sex is trivial, but, even though I know you are absolutely certain Yah couldn't have designed Earth this way, just imagine if you lived in a world in which Scripture asserted that heterosexuality was an abomination; how cavalier would you be about being told that all you have to do is abstain from the sex you profoundly desire and not only abstain from it but abstain from it not only every minute of one day but every day and week and month and year of the rest of your life? I'm not asking you to condone homosexuality; I'm just asking you to apply your humanity and Yeshua's Second Commandment to the equation, because I suspect that if you could give yourself room to do that you would be far less likely to see the Queer Choir as the tip of a spear intended to impale you and everyone you love.

 

[steve]

We agree on many things, I think that I am just going to leave it there for now.
Shalom

 

[Keith Martin]

I'm always comfortable being on pause with you, Mr. T.
Shalom right back at ya!

 

[FollowingHim]

You might notice that every one of those men was convicted of sex with a minor under 14 years of age. Clearly illegal, and just as clearly NAMBLA (@steve has the full name correct) is promoting lowering the age of consent between men and boys. They always have, and they've never really made much of an effort to avoid being in the sunshine about it. I don't support them and never did, even in the height of my liberalism, because they refuse to condemn within their ranks those who actively pursue children with ages in single digits. [As an aside, given our Judeo-Christian heritage, shouldn't we be supporting a viewpoint that allows for even marriage to occur as early as age 12?; isn't that when girls are bat mitzvah'd and become full women within the Jewish community?] The organization has never given anything but lip service to setting a firm boundary on where the practice becomes unethical, inappropriate, criminal. They are an incrementalism organization with a silent agenda that couldn't be clearer: push the limits as far as they will go. In fact, I once had a conversation with an avowed member who asserted at a large party that even some baby boys are ready for sex with adults.

So know that I see all that.

At the same time, I've shared in other threads here about my experience with Brian, the 14-year-old sexual predator Kristin and I had in our home for over a year in a structure called therapeutic foster care (basically, live-in therapy). I learned many things during that year, and one was that, no matter how the rest of us out here want to wish it away, sexual orientation isn't just a matter of straight or not -- or even a matter of a spectrum that runs from fully heterosexual through various gradations of bisexuality to fully homosexual. There are other fully-recognized sexual orientations, up to and including people who only seek or receive sexual satisfaction in the context of having sex with someone they're executing.

A sexual orientation is well known among specialized sex therapists that is shared by the vast number of NAMBLA proponents. This sexual orientation is sometimes possessed by females, but most are male. It works like this:

• When young, and by all accounts this is experienced as early as memory serves for most such people, the child has no or at most only very minor attractions to other children, whether male or female, but they have strong urges to have sex with a certain type of adult, almost always of the same gender (more on that later).
• The older they get, the stronger their sexual urges for these adult men get -- right up until puberty.
• During puberty, their sexual urges are as strong as they'll ever be, especially for boys (just like everyone else, right?), but sometime into puberty, the objects of their attraction become confused between adults and children. Most of these boys become so confused and angst-ridden during this transition that they will have sex with anyone, and many even go through a period of being prostitutes, because they find they can monetize the fact that they're propelled to be sexual but find it nearly impossible to enjoy it due to their simultaneous desire and revulsion, both toward themselves and toward others.
• Once puberty is complete, these young men now no longer have any sexual attraction to adults. They're physiologically repulsed by public hair, and the only human beings who inspire any increased libido for them are children of their same gender. But this is made more complex by the fact that they are truly only significantly attracted to members of the same gender who have the same sexual orientation they have. In other words, they are only attracted to boys who have the same sexual orientation that they have, and, in fact, the boys with this sexual orientation are only attracted to the men who have this same sexual orientation.

Effectively, this means that these men are decidedly not coming for your children, unless one of your children has this sexual orientation. These people do not indiscriminately target and groom just any children (that's social worker hooey); they instead enter into sexual relationships with people who are also seeking them. I've watched this in action, because, during one half-year cycle, the sexual predator facility to which I had to take Brian each week scheduled the 14-and-unders' group therapy session on the same day each week just prior to the 21-and-overs' group therapy session. The sexual tension getting Brian out of there each week until that was corrected was palpable. It's a magnetism beyond what most all of us have experienced in our own lives with a woman. No size of magnets has ever produced greater attraction between north and south poles.

We don't have the ethical, political or social will in our cultures to face up to such a thing, but it's worth recognizing that people like I'm describing (which includes most NAMBLA proponents) actually pose almost no threat to anyone but themselves. For whatever reason, our Creator has seen fit to include among the human panoply these sexual pole-switchers, but one of the only things that causes such people to inflict themselves on anyone but each other is the meddling of governmental social services; their attempts to 'fix' these people by mainstreaming them only causes them to seek gratification elsewhere (especially the adolescents), but otherwise they just wouldn't have to do it. Over time, I came to the conclusion that we would all be much better off if we let these pole-switchers sort themselves out. In fact, this trait does generally have a tendency to run in families; i.e., it's usually genetic. However, it's not always the case, or the heredity is something that skips multiple generations (or certain people just keep it hidden, but I think that's relatively unlikely). So, the only children of ours that these people are going to come after are children of ours who have very unfortunately been programmed by their DNA to be pole-switchers. We can pretend that we can 'protect' them from this by being vigilant to keep NAMBLA activists a mile away at every moment of their childhoods, but I can promise you that, if this is their sexual orientation, you are only delaying the inevitable. You have the power, perhaps, to prevent them from being 'exploited' by their pole-switcher counterparts, but inevitably they are going to become adults who pair up with young boys. This is exacerbated by another observed dynamic: those who aren't persuaded to go into full hiding tend to do the least harm to others; the biggest problems are men who ashamedly make every effort to pass as normal straight men; when they inevitably get caught doing it with a little boy, they don't just bring shame upon themselves -- they shatter their entire families and every individual within them. Worse yet, such individuals have a tendency to turn first toward their own children for gratification.

On the other end of the spectrum, Brian came from a small (200+ population) isolated community in north Georgia. They had been practicing this lifestyle with no disruption or other sociopsychological problems for many generations. Not all individuals were pole-switchers, but the pole-switchers were fully embraced (no pun intended), and one of the reasons was that the adult pole-switchers provided support for families with children, so no one was in poverty, and no one was on food stamps or was obtaining any kind of government support other than Social Security. It ended because a visiting relative of one family caught on and called DFCS, which initiated a snowballing process that produced every child in every family being sent into the foster care system, most children being separated from their siblings as well as their parents, and numerous adults incarcerated -- the town itself was entirely abandoned. The disruption to these people was horrific, and there is no way you can convince me that any of the children ended up better off; all that DFCS accomplished was resultant disruption in the environments where they were sent. I'm 100% convinced that we should just leave such subcultures entirely alone, because they're self-contained and are not going to pollute the mainstream culture.

And, no matter how much they may dream (or torture us with horrendous 'melodies'), neither is the San Francisco Queer Choir. I simply don't fear them in any way whatsoever. On the contrary, I very much pity them, because whoever among their ranks is a boy lover is predominantly living a sexless life (I've known many such men in my life), because so many obstacles exist to prevent such liaisons, and they simply can't find any kind of meaningful satisfaction getting it off with each other.

So, please relax about the 'threat' of NAMBLA or the SFQC. Your children are safe; in fact, all children are much more safe than our lively imaginations would indicate. The majority of registered sex offenders are men, most under 25 at the time, who had sex with a girl between 12 and 15 years of age. Adult men having sex with little girls is about as frequent as lightning striking winning mega-millions lottery tickets. I'd even guess that most of those boys the members of the Queer Choir got convicted of having sex with were 12 or 13 years old.

Sometimes we can create tempests where there are none.

I am very skeptical of this view of things @Keith Martin. It is very common for gay men to have been abused as children. That could be explained away as being that the children asked for it (which is what I feel you are doing here), but makes far more sense when understood that the children are victims and have been messed up psychologically by the abuse they experienced. I understand you are not concerned about them, but that doesn't mean there is nothing to be concerned about. Just that you personally don't see anything to be concerned about.

 

[Keith Martin]

I am very skeptical of this view of things @Keith Martin. It is very common for gay men to have been abused as children. That could be explained away as being that the children asked for it (which is what I feel you are doing here), but makes far more sense when understood that the children are victims and have been messed up psychologically by the abuse they experienced. I understand you are not concerned about them, but that doesn't mean there is nothing to be concerned about. Just that you personally don't see anything to be concerned about.

I can't remember saying I wasn't concerned, and if I did that then I misspoke, because I certainly am concerned about these people, but I'm simply introducing another level of concern.

I'd be interested in knowing where you acquired your information that it is "very common for gay men to have been abused as children." What is very common is for church organizations and social services agency organizations to make such claims, but if we're to believe them as sources, then we also have to accept their oft-repeated canard that one in every four children is sexually abused -- and most commonly by their own parents. I worked in that field, specifically as a specialist in childhood sexual abuse, and I was surrounded by people who quoted that statistic, some even asserting that one could almost count on at least one child in any family with four or more children being a victim of childhood sexual abuse (could explain why you get funny looks from such people), but none of them could ever point to any research other than that done pertaining to children placed in foster homes (coincidentally? one out of four placements ends due to sexual or significant physical abuse on the part of the foster parent; the average child placed in the foster care system has three placements, so all you have to do to figure out how likely a child is to be sexually or physically abused in foster care is put them together: 75% chance on average for any individual child -- BUT, foster care children are not a representative sample, and clearly neither are foster parents, who aren't paid enough to attract great parents, so it's just ludicrous to accept some of the statistics that are thrown around); the only real 'studies' about incidence of childhood sexual abuse are based on personally-completed questionnaires, which are notoriously unreliable.

Please, though, don't make negative assumptions about me and then extrapolate on your incorrect assumptions in an attempt to believe that you've invalidated what I'm sharing.

At least, get someone who has something at least somewhat equivalent to the experience I have in the gay community (which includes volunteer work at Pittsburgh's agency for what they termed alternative sexuality) before comforting yourselves with statements that supposedly invalidate real-life information I'm providing. Just because something confirms what we already believe doesn't mean it's authoritative, and, believe me, I recognize that that applies to me as well as to everyone else.

I'm personally very concerned that the gay 'rights' movement has escalated to the point of having become absurd -- and, when I was involved in it, I seriously cautioned against agitating for anything beyond acceptance (which was an advance on tolerance). The now-mostly-successful effort to coerce society into celebrating homosexuality benefits neither straights nor gays, because gays fare best in systems in which normal family structures dominate without persecuting them for being gay. Already, we're seeing the gay rights movement considering being celebrated as insufficient, and they're moving strongly into asserting that being gay is somehow superior to being straight. It just is not, and it's self-absorbed as a gay person to wish for everyone else that they would be gay. We can debate whether being gay is a matter of nature versus nurture, but no one has ever presented a good argument for concluding that we could ever produce a world in which most people were born gay -- and even if that fantasy on their part were achieved, the birth rate would drop so low that, within a generation, straights would be back in the majority, because they'd produce so many more children. Some would be gay, of course, but the vast majority would not.

I'm not promoting anything I'm providing information about. I'm just asserting that there's nothing that can be done to prevent such individuals like pole-switchers from being among us, and asserting that the mainstream culture would be much better off if we just let them operate in isolated ways in their own separate subcultures.

 

[frederick]

I'm just asserting that there's nothing that can be done to prevent such individuals like pole-switchers from being among us, and asserting that the mainstream culture would be much better off if we just let them operate in isolated ways in their own separate subcultures.

While we cannot prevent being among the sinners of this world, we must love them by preaching the gospel to them so that they might believe and be saved. The most unloving thing we can do to anyone is to leave them in their mistaken belief that they are okay in their sin - whatever that sin might be. It is written; Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Shalom

 

[Keith Martin]

Ah, yes, and then there is context.

In Chapter 5 of I Corinthians, Paul begins to list the type of people one should either refrain from associating with or confront them for their behavior: paramours (those who have sex with someone married to someone else), the greedy, extortioners, idolaters, revilers (a person who uses words to damage, control, or insult someone's character or reputation by the use of slander, angry outbursts or foul language) and drunkards (those habitually under the influence), but his end point is that it is inappropriate to judge those outside of one's circles if one isn't judging those in one's midst.

I Corinthians 6 expands the point by warning that judging others, even one's fellow saints, should inspire one to recognize that one is subject to being judged oneself, warning against injudicious efforts to sue one another, because while one may consider oneself injured by another, it is just as likely that one is injuring others as well.

I Cor. 6:9-10, per the Concordant Literal New Testament: "Or are you not aware that the unjust shall not be enjoying the allotment of God's kingdom? Be not deceived. Neither paramours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers (those who are married who have sex with someone other than one's spouse, etc.), nor catamites (young boys who have sex with older men), nor sodomites (in recent decades this has been limited to bestiality and all forms of anal sex, but just as recently as 25 years ago also included all forms of oral sex, and working backward through history to the context of this passage included those things plus a wide range of what was considered degrading and perverted -- and can most certainly be applied to homosexuals), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, not revilers, not extortioners shall be enjoying the allotment of God's kingdom." Setting aside any discussion of the varying interpretations of what "God's kingdom" refers to (Heaven? Earthly government run according to God's dictates? Etc?), as far as 9-10 are concerned, @frederick, you are 100% spot on: whatever God's Kingdom is, those who fall within those categories will not "enjoy the allotment of" it.

But Paul wasn't done with this topic. 6:11: "And some of you were these, but you are bathed off, but you are hallowed, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by spirit of our God." [CLNT] His audience, he declared, included paramours, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers and extortioners. And how were they "bathed off" and "hallowed" from those characteristics? By being "justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by spirit of our God." And how were they justified? By their faith in Christ as their Messiah. They received justification; in other words, they were justified, made just, through their faith -- and were no longer defined by their previous behavior (note that Paul's text doesn't say, "You were justified by stopping your bad behavior as well as by being justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by spirit of our God." I don't want to devolve into an argument about works vs. faith or Torah-keeping versus non-Torah-keeping, but Paul is clearly here placing the impetus on faith in our Messiah, even if (contrary to my own belief), by "God's Kingdom," Paul meant "Heaven" and thus salvation.

He continues in 6:12: "All is allowed me, but not all is expedient. All is allowed me, but I will not be put under its authority(ied) by anything." [CLNT] We "will not be authoritied by anything," not the judgments of others, not by our misbehavior, not even, as in 6:13, by food. Our behavior no longer has dominion over us. Which leads me to this point: when we focus on the mote in the eyes of others, we are hubristically elevating ourselves to God's level, as if we have some authority over those people to declare them unworthy. What they're doing is in all likelihood quite unexpedient -- I'll certainly stipulate that -- but not only are we mistaken if we think we have any authority to determine their worth or their salvation status, we are also significantly less likely to be coming across as "loving them" "so that they might believe and be saved." Communication is a two-way street, and when one obviously comes from a position of assumed moral and spiritual superiority, one is highly unlikely to accomplish anything beyond virtue signaling, because one is failing to speak into the listening of that other child of God. In what I've written about the pole-switchers or the Queer Choir, what you won't find is me asserting that what they're engaging in is preferable to heterosexuality or absolutely, outstandingly wonderful in any way. I think it's sad and presents a tremendous challenge for them to live in this world. My assertion is that church and state attempts to force them to stop behaving the way they do have been and will continue to be doomed for failure -- and only ensure that, if anything, those people are more likely to transmit destruction and/or chaos into the majority culture when the majority culture makes its attempts to force those people to behave normally.

In our hearts, we are free to condemn all we want and engage in what I consider to be smug assumptions of moral and spiritual superiority, as well as to imagine that the objects of our derision are in fact out to destroy us, but when we begin to shift from private assumptions to public declarations, we only put ourselves at risk of forgetting that we too are sinners. Period. Not one among us has not sinned. Not one among us will completely avoid sinning throughout the rest of our lives, no matter how strong our faith. We are freed from sin by the Grace of Yah through the propitiation of His Son Yeshua. Instead of being defined by sin, we continue to sin but are no longer dominated by sin (we sin but are no longer sin). We will consequently and simply by nature of what now dwells in our hearts demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit within us, but "[a]ll is allowed [us]," even though "not all is expedient." Taking all of that into account, I remain convinced that we should continue to display the fruits of the Spirit, and we should continue to witness our faith in Christ, but we should also leave people alone who don't meet our standards, even the standards we choose to follow because they are articulated in His Scripture -- because, through our devotion to Yah, and through our demonstration of our love for everyone with whom we associate, we are far, far more likely to bring outliers into the fold than we are by condemning them or walling themselves off as some supposed threat to us that is too large for our Sovereign Creator to protect us from.

[Edit above: a brother brought something to my attention that made me realize I had left out a word ('previous') I had meant to include in the body of my message, so I've highlighted it in red above.]

 

[FollowingHim]

It is very common for gay men to have been abused as children.

I say this based on the simple fact that every detailed account of the early life of a gay man that I have ever heard has involved an element of abuse as a child. I have heard this so commonly that I know it is very common. I have no statistics on it.

The information you have given @Keith Martin on pole-switchers is very interesting, and I am not disputing it, just accepting it as fact on your word at this stage. I take it to mean that some boys are tempted at a young age into sex with older men (I see what the world calls "orientation" as simply "susceptibility to temptation" - some people are susceptible to a temptation to be homosexual, while others are naturally susceptible to a tendency to gamble for instance, both are harmful behaviours though and the temptation to either does not justify either). I find it fascinating that such a temptation could switch as you have stated, and interesting that there is a pattern of many people with such an unexpected but similar psychological tendency. This parallel is explained by the spiritual side of things - there will be a demonic entity or class of demons who create this same behaviour in those whom they influence, and this explains why it occurs in multiple people in a predictable fashion. This is very interesting.

But even if this tendency begins in some before they are abused, that does not change the fact that other boys are turned to homosexuality as a result of abuse. This is another clear pattern - a slightly different pattern, but equally real.

The only way homosexuals can "reproduce" is by recruiting more people to their ranks. We must be careful of any way that this might be able to be accomplished, either intentionally or unintentionally.

What you have shared adds interesting detail and complexity to the picture, and is useful to understand people in the world around us - provided we view it through a scriptural lens, recognising the reality of sin and the reality of demonic influences, and do not just accept the limited secular explanation for such things as the secular medical world is only looking at one side of the picture so fail to appreciate the whole.

 

[FollowingHim]

Milo Yiannopoulos gave a very detailed account of his own history, particularly why he first became homosexual then later why he abandoned homosexuality, in the interview at the below link. His story is fascinating as it actually has elements of what both of us have been saying.

He was initially influenced towards homosexuality because of a screwed-up family environment, including both lack of a father and abuse from men - which aligns with what @steve and I have been saying.

However, he also talks about having sexual contact with a Catholic priest - but does not blame the priest for this, rather says that this was something he sought out and sees the priest as the victim! This is similar to what you have described @Keith Martin. I was very surprised at this when I first watched this interview, but what you have shared starts to make some sense of it.

This is a complex problem.
https://www.trunews.com/stream/milo-yiannapoulos-reveals-who-and-what-made-him-choose-homosexuality

 

[Keith Martin]

It is indeed a complex problem, one that it is essential to unravel without significant reliance on anecdotal evidence.

I just did a Duck Duck Go search. The first six results for "gay men sexually abused as children?" were links to heavily-politicized sources, four of which were religion-based organizations intent on proving that being gay can't be genetic, two of which were gay activist organizations intent on proving that being gay is almost entirely determined by the time of birth. Then I came to this: http://www.brainblogger.com/2016/11...ild-sex-abuse-confirmed-gender-nonconformity/, which is a much more reasonable review of actual recent research that goes against the previously-prevalent body of research that had always indicated that gay men were not significantly likely to have been sexually abused as children (no children are, but the highest incidence is among lesbian women who report having been sexually assaulted by adult males). What has emerged in meta-analysis (some of this referenced in the first six sites) is that, yes, gay or bisexual men were 59% more likely than straight men to have been sexually assaulted as children. And that sounds highly significant: fifty-nine percent higher? But research doesn't come close to confirming the common myth that 1 in 4 boys are sexually assaulted. In fact, less than 2% of either gay men or straight men were sexually assaulted as boys; for straights it's just above 1%, for gays closer to 2%. To be sure, this means that boys who grow up to be gay are 60% more likely to be sexually assaulted than are boys who grow up to be straight, but it defies logic to conclude, as many have, either that sexual abuse is common or that sexual abuses changes one's sexual orientation. It would, in fact, be just as rational to conclude that 1.2% of straight men would have been gay if they hadn't been sexually abused as it is to conclude that 1.9% of gay men would have been straight if they hadn't been sexually abused. Making either claim is much more likely to be related to bias than it is to common sense, much less empirical science.

What also has to be considered along with this is that 98.1% of gay men were not sexually abused as children.

The researchers, despite the lack of reporting about it from our polarized media (in this case, church vs. woke), have been able to draw some much more reasonable conclusions from what they're learning -- conclusions with demonstrable correlations: in short, boys who grow up to be gay are more likely to be sexually abused as children than are boys who grow up to be straight because they exhibit various things that come under the heading of gender nonconformity, much of which comes down to appearing to be more feminine than the average boy. Research, I'm sure, will continue on this track, for the purpose of determining which came first, the chicken or the egg, but what isn't in question is that their appearance is what correlates with their likelihood to be abused: one link in the brainblogger article even goes to a journal article that further asserts that even the boys who were abused but grew up to be straight exhibited higher gender nonconformity than their non-abused straight-boy peers.

I went on to browse numerous entries past the first seven, as well as to follow links within articles. Unfortunately most were repeats of the ones in the first 6. One (shazam, shazam, from a religious site with the unsurprising name of Christians for Truth about Homosexuality) claims that only 26% of bisexual men didn't report that they'd been sexually abused as children, but the link they provide to back that up goes nowhere; fortunately, I found the same information elsewhere, and it turns out the 74% abuse rate among bisexual men was related to a sum total of 39 men interviewed -- and interviewed as part of a religious-based anti-homosexuality program whose purpose is help errant men turn themselves straight. In other words, on top of too small a sample, nothing close to empirical research; instead, just biased anecdotal evidence from a group of men who've been encouraged to believe that they have to become straight to get right with their Creator. The fact that, in less than an hour, I found two sources peddling the same fraudulent claim indicates to me that it's probably widely disseminated and responsible for a great deal of misunderstanding and misinformation in the Christian world. People will believe experts who tell them what they already want to believe. On the one side of this, people are freaked out and want to believe that the only possibility for new gays to enter the world is through recruitment, and, on the other side of this, people are freaked out and fear that the straight world may still be trying to exterminate them.

The sensible, rational, pragmatic and loving approach would be to find a posture somewhere between those two extremes.

On our side of this chasm, it appears that male homosexual behavior is considered an abomination by pretty much every English translation of Scripture, which only naturally leads Christians (including more than a few Christian homosexual men I know of) to refrain from homosexual behavior. Why, though, do so many among us find it necessary to thoroughly demonize all male homosexuals? We don't do the same thing for the greedy, the adulterers, the paramours or the revilers (reviling surely isn't entirely unknown right here on this web site) -- or if we do spread our condemnation that widely, we're bound to be very lonely in our self-righteous piety.

Or, we're going to find ourselves at the same end of the sword we have grown so accustomed to wielding.

There is a darkness inherent in the hearts of men that is to be resisted, a darkness cemented by pride and fear of the unknown, and that is the darkness created by certainty that one has already reached a place where condemnation is now part of one's job description. I have felt that darkness myself at times, and it's hard for me to resist it when I let myself get caught up in despising the smugness of certain people who believe they have the right to control us all and slap duct tape over our mouths in order to silence us, but that's why I made myself pray daily for Barack Obama toward the end of his presidency, because not only is it wrong for me to hate him or anyone else but it's misguided on my part not to acknowledge that Yah is in charge even down to the detail of who is permitted to run our country. If the Plan is good enough for Him, then, even if some of it involves evil, the Plan should therefore be good enough for my piss-ant self. The same goes for the presence of mosquitos or disease or the difficulty growing crops in red clay . . . or . . . even the existence of homosexuals. Our LORD determined how our world would shake out; we have some freedom of choice, but the Master Plan is His, right down to putting the Adversary in charge of turning the world against Him, and he's a perfect God Who doesn't make mistakes, so who am I to question Him?

 

[FollowingHim]

On our side of this chasm, it appears that male homosexual behavior is considered an abomination by pretty much every English translation of Scripture, which only naturally leads Christians (including more than a few Christian homosexual men I know of) to refrain from homosexual behavior.

What do you mean by the bolded words? Do you consider this to be a correct interpretation, or not?

 

[frederick]

and were no longer defined by their previous behavior

Precisely my point. That's what they were previously but weren't any longer; they had been saved. How were they saved? Good question! They were saved because someone preached the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Change/santification/fruit follows salvation and that is the need all sinners have, otherwise they won't enter the kingdom of God.

 

[The Revolting Man]

It is indeed a complex problem, one that it is essential to unravel without significant reliance on anecdotal evidence.

I just did a Duck Duck Go search. The first six results for "gay men sexually abused as children?" were links to heavily-politicized sources, four of which were religion-based organizations intent on proving that being gay can't be genetic, two of which were gay activist organizations intent on proving that being gay is almost entirely determined by the time of birth. Then I came to this: http://www.brainblogger.com/2016/11...ild-sex-abuse-confirmed-gender-nonconformity/, which is a much more reasonable review of actual recent research that goes against the previously-prevalent body of research that had always indicated that gay men were not significantly likely to have been sexually abused as children (no children are, but the highest incidence is among lesbian women who report having been sexually assaulted by adult males). What has emerged in meta-analysis (some of this referenced in the first six sites) is that, yes, gay or bisexual men were 59% more likely than straight men to have been sexually assaulted as children. And that sounds highly significant: fifty-nine percent higher? But research doesn't come close to confirming the common myth that 1 in 4 boys are sexually assaulted. In fact, less than 2% of either gay men or straight men were sexually assaulted as boys; for straights it's just above 1%, for gays closer to 2%. To be sure, this means that boys who grow up to be gay are 60% more likely to be sexually assaulted than are boys who grow up to be straight, but it defies logic to conclude, as many have, either that sexual abuse is common or that sexual abuses changes one's sexual orientation. It would, in fact, be just as rational to conclude that 1.2% of straight men would have been gay if they hadn't been sexually abused as it is to conclude that 1.9% of gay men would have been straight if they hadn't been sexually abused. Making either claim is much more likely to be related to bias than it is to common sense, much less empirical science.

What also has to be considered along with this is that 98.1% of gay men were not sexually abused as children.

The researchers, despite the lack of reporting about it from our polarized media (in this case, church vs. woke), have been able to draw some much more reasonable conclusions from what they're learning -- conclusions with demonstrable correlations: in short, boys who grow up to be gay are more likely to be sexually abused as children than are boys who grow up to be straight because they exhibit various things that come under the heading of gender nonconformity, much of which comes down to appearing to be more feminine than the average boy. Research, I'm sure, will continue on this track, for the purpose of determining which came first, the chicken or the egg, but what isn't in question is that their appearance is what correlates with their likelihood to be abused: one link in the brainblogger article even goes to a journal article that further asserts that even the boys who were abused but grew up to be straight exhibited higher gender nonconformity than their non-abused straight-boy peers.

I went on to browse numerous entries past the first seven, as well as to follow links within articles. Unfortunately most were repeats of the ones in the first 6. One (shazam, shazam, from a religious site with the unsurprising name of Christians for Truth about Homosexuality) claims that only 26% of bisexual men didn't report that they'd been sexually abused as children, but the link they provide to back that up goes nowhere; fortunately, I found the same information elsewhere, and it turns out the 74% abuse rate among bisexual men was related to a sum total of 39 men interviewed -- and interviewed as part of a religious-based anti-homosexuality program whose purpose is help errant men turn themselves straight. In other words, on top of too small a sample, nothing close to empirical research; instead, just biased anecdotal evidence from a group of men who've been encouraged to believe that they have to become straight to get right with their Creator. The fact that, in less than an hour, I found two sources peddling the same fraudulent claim indicates to me that it's probably widely disseminated and responsible for a great deal of misunderstanding and misinformation in the Christian world. People will believe experts who tell them what they already want to believe. On the one side of this, people are freaked out and want to believe that the only possibility for new gays to enter the world is through recruitment, and, on the other side of this, people are freaked out and fear that the straight world may still be trying to exterminate them.

The sensible, rational, pragmatic and loving approach would be to find a posture somewhere between those two extremes.

On our side of this chasm, it appears that male homosexual behavior is considered an abomination by pretty much every English translation of Scripture, which only naturally leads Christians (including more than a few Christian homosexual men I know of) to refrain from homosexual behavior. Why, though, do so many among us find it necessary to thoroughly demonize all male homosexuals? We don't do the same thing for the greedy, the adulterers, the paramours or the revilers (reviling surely isn't entirely unknown right here on this web site) -- or if we do spread our condemnation that widely, we're bound to be very lonely in our self-righteous piety.

Or, we're going to find ourselves at the same end of the sword we have grown so accustomed to wielding.

There is a darkness inherent in the hearts of men that is to be resisted, a darkness cemented by pride and fear of the unknown, and that is the darkness created by certainty that one has already reached a place where condemnation is now part of one's job description. I have felt that darkness myself at times, and it's hard for me to resist it when I let myself get caught up in despising the smugness of certain people who believe they have the right to control us all and slap duct tape over our mouths in order to silence us, but that's why I made myself pray daily for Barack Obama toward the end of his presidency, because not only is it wrong for me to hate him or anyone else but it's misguided on my part not to acknowledge that Yah is in charge even down to the detail of who is permitted to run our country. If the Plan is good enough for Him, then, even if some of it involves evil, the Plan should therefore be good enough for my piss-ant self. The same goes for the presence of mosquitos or disease or the difficulty growing crops in red clay . . . or . . . even the existence of homosexuals. Our LORD determined how our world would shake out; we have some freedom of choice, but the Master Plan is His, right down to putting the Adversary in charge of turning the world against Him, and he's a perfect God Who doesn't make mistakes, so who am I to question Him?

The reasons why gay men are so worrisome to many are simple. Sex/marriage is a metaphor. In that metaphor the man represents God. In a homosexual relationship there are two Gods being represented. This of course contraverts the most fundamental Law of Creation. The Lord your God is One God.

Furthermore the consequences of being a gay man seem to be very dire. They have very heightened risks more mental health issues, suicide, substance abuse and some pretty dire health concerns .

Gay men don’t pair bond very easily or often. And of course from the outside looking in have a strong tendency towards unhappiness.

On top of all that sex is so powerful and the propaganda around the issue so intense that once a young man has engaged in a gay encounter it becomes very likely he’ll continue in it the lifestyle.

I know men who have come out of it and are happily married believers. But they lost a lot of years getting there and have a lot of regrets about. One by the way was brought in to homosexuality by abuse he suffered as an older child. Because he ended up participating in the abuse he believed for many years that he must be genetically gay.