FAMILY RESEARCH REPORT	Journal of the Family Research Institute Founded 1982
Gay Domestic Violence Finally Measured			Vol. 16 No. 8 Dec 2001

While some homosexuals choose to remain 'in the closet,' most homosexual activists desperately want official recognition of, and legitimacy for, the gay lifestyle. As a consequence, they have been pressing the government to measure them. For rather than fearing that American public officials will persecute them, gay activists have realized that the social and political climate has swung in their favor. And what better way to cement their status as an official minority than to become a government statistic!

Of course, homosexual activists have attempted to 'measure' homosexuality before now, often with the aim of 'pumping up' the prevalence of homosexual behavior to make it appear that homosexuality was a part of 'normal human sexuality.' Kinsey ended up claiming that "39% or more of all men had had a homosexual experience to orgasm" and produced
statistics that many construed as 'proving' that 10% of the population was 'gay.' But better research efforts have produced statistics far below the Kinsey estimates.

Now, finally, the U.S. government has stepped into the fray under constant pressure from gay-rights supporters and has measured gay domestic violence. Instead of ad-hoc compilations by local gay rights organizations, the government has compiled fairly comprehensive statistics on homosexual v. non-homosexual domestic violence.
Interestingly, these statistics do not indicate that homosexuals are the 'gentle, peaceful people' they would like us to believe.

The low-down on domestic trouble comes from two primary sources. The first source was made public in late October, when the U.S. Justice Department's (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Statistics released a special report, Intimate partner violence and age of victim, 1993-99, based on its large, on-going nationwide National Criminal Victimization Survey.1

This survey randomly selects 49,000 homes consisting of approximately 100,000 individual respondents aged 12 years and over. The sampled households comprise a panel that is in place for three years, where every six months each member of the household is re-interviewed as to any crimes they have experienced. Further, to keep the sample 'fresh,' a portion of the household sample is replaced on a rolling basis with new randomly-selected households during each six month period. All in all, as random surveys go, this one is gigantic, since the DOJ report was based upon approximately 325,000 respondents!

Intimate violence was defined as reporting "rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault" committed by a "current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend" against the respondent. The findings from the National Criminal Victimization Survey were also weighted to accord with census-estimated numbers of those aged 12 years or older in the U.S. population in 1999.

Over the seven-year study period, the results of the DOJ survey projected nationally to an average of 142,290 males per year reporting themselves as "victims of domestic violence." Of these, an average of 13,740 had been in male-male relationships. Likewise, of the yearly projected average of 902,240 female victims of domestic violence, 16,900 had been in female-female relationships.

Looking at these results further, 0.24% of married women, 7.4% of separated women, and a combined 0.60% of married and separated women reported having been the victim of domestic violence by their husband or ex-husband in the past year. For all women, 33.4% of victimizations were attributed to their husband, 13.5% to their ex-husband (or one from whom she was separated), and 53.1% to a current or former girlfriend or boyfriend.

For men, 29% of victimizations were attributed to their wife, 16.5% to their ex-wife (or one from whom he was separated), 9.7% to boyfriends or ex-boyfriends, and 44.4% to girlfriends or former girlfriends.

So, overall, gays accounted for 10% of male victims (i.e., 13,740/142,290) and lesbians for 2% of female victims (i.e., 16,900/902,240). Altogether, homosexual partners accounted for 30,640 of the projected 1,044,530 annual victims, or 3% of the total.

To figure out what these results mean, we need to turn to the second primary data source: the 1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) conducted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)2. In this study, 12,381 adults aged 18-59 years were interviewed on a variety of topics, including their sexual behavior during the previous year. The NHSDA sample is the largest to date allowing national estimates of the numbers of people who engage in homosexuality.

It also had the additional benefit of not starting off as a "sex survey." The evidence is limited, but introducing a study as a 'sex survey' appears to cause the 'sexually conservative' to disproportionately refuse to cooperate. This is what happened to Kinsey, and what happened to FRI when we did our large study in the early 1980s.

So there's a good chance the NHSDA estimates are closer to the true numbers of homosexuals than those other 'sex surveys' have reported. 1.1% of women (weighted n= 828,678) and 1.3% of men (weighted n= 828,900) reported having had "oral, vaginal, or anal" sex with a person of the same sex in the prior 12 months. Now this doesn't mean that there are 'less than 2 million homosexuals in the nation.' Rather, since people who engage in homosexuality 'drop in' and 'drop out' of homosexual activity all the time, probably there are about two or three times this number who either have in the past or will at some future date participate in same-sex sexual behavior.

Still, it is clear that those actively engaged in homosexuality are a tiny portion of the non-institutionalized population certainly no more than 2% (although homosexuals may make up as much as a quarter of those in prisons and jails).

To link the DOJ study on intimate partner abuse and the NHSDA estimates of sexual behavior, we need some idea of the number of homosexual adults who are in current or recent partnerships that is, those persons a respondent would call a current or former boyfriend or girlfriend.

Respondents in the NHSDA were asked "are you currently involved in an on-going sexual relationship with anyone; that is, is there anyone with whom you regularly have vaginal, oral, or anal sex? This may include your husband or wife, or anyone else with whom you are in an on-going relationship." They were also asked about similar relationships that they might have had within the past year (i.e., former, recent lovers).

Somewhere between 523,359 and 682,956 of male homosexuals in the NHSDA said they had a recent or current same-sex steady relationship that is, between 63% and 82% all the estimated active male homosexuals. Between 655,108 (79%) and 762,099 (92%) of active lesbians said the same thing. The upper bounds on these estimates come from adding in those individuals who said they had sex both with men and women in the past year we don't know which sex accounted for their steady partner(s).

In any event, it seems likely that many of the "bisexuals" did have steady homosexual partners. Consider for instance that about 2% of males and 44% of females who engaged in homosexuality, and also said that they had an "on-going sexual relationship" in the last year, were married! None of these married homosexuals reported having had sex with their spouse! Some of these are probably in 'shell marriages,' where two homosexuals marry for social cover but voluntarily do not have sex with each other. Others probably have mystified or troubled spouses (e.g., 'is there something wrong with me?').

The bottom line is that we can now show that relative to their numbers the amount of violence in homosexual relationships is very high.

If we assume that the "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" violence reported by homosexuals occurred with their "on-going sex partner," then between 2.0% and 2.6% of male-male on-going relationships had a violent incident (noting that the DOJ study estimated about 13,740 such events per year). Similarly, between 2.2% and 2.6% of female-female relationships (based on 16,900 annual events from the DOJ survey) had a violent incident.

How does this compare to non-homosexual relationships? The most common heterosexual relationship is marriage. Violence occurs in marriage, but the rate is fairly low. For married women, 0.24% experience a violent attack from their husband each year (that is, about 1 of every 400 married women). Even if separated women are included in the estimate for married women, the rate only rises to 0.60% (that is, about 1 of every 167 married women). By contrast, for women, the rate of intimate violence within homosexual on-going relationships appears to be approximately 4 to 10 times higher than for married women.

So for a woman, living with a man in marriage is close to 10 times less dangerous than having an on-going sexual relationship with a woman.

For men, the figures are even more stark. On average, intimate violence strikes about 142,000 men per year. Of this number, 46.1% of the attacks are by their wife or ex-wife, 44.4% by a girlfriend or former girlfriend, and 9.6% by a boyfriend or former boyfriend. Dividing by the total number of married, separated, or divorced men, we find that 0.075% of men are attacked by their wives and 7.9% by their ex-wives (or wives from whom they are separated). A combined 0.11% of married and separated husbands are attacked each year by their spouses or ex-spouses.

Compared to male homosexual 'on-going partnerships,' of which at least 2.0% experienced violent abuse from an intimate in the past year, married men who are not separated are at least 25 times less apt to be domestically attacked than a homosexual male in an 'on-going relationship.' Even if we include all married and separated husbands, the risk of domestic violence in a male-male homosexual relationship is still at least 18 times greater.

These are pretty 'hard figures.' The statistics are based on two very large government studies. Of course, no one knows whether 'single' homosexuals are more or less frequently victimized by other homosexuals as those in steady relationships. It is possible that 'coupled homosexuals' less frequently experience assault and battery than 'single homosexuals.' But we know that gays are considerably more apt to get HIV in 'committed relationships.' Given that and their higher rates of domestic violence compared to heterosexuals, why would any society want to bless homosexual 'marriage?'

References:
1. Rennison, C. M. (2001) Intimate partner violence and age of victim, 1993-99. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report, NCJ 187635. (www.ncjrs.org)
2. www.icpsr.umich.edu/samhda

Major outbreaks of gonorrhea hit Sweden in the 1910s, 1940s, and late 1960s. In 1970 the incidence of gonorrhea was 487 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. By 1996, the incidence of gonorrhea reached an all-time low of 2.4 cases per 100,000, but now appears to be rising (e.g., the rate was 3.9/100,000 in 1998).1
What's going on?

First, as near as we can tell, Sweden has about the same proportion of men who have sex with men (MSM) as in the United States or Great Britain. But there are two kinds of cases: those who got gonorrhea in Sweden, and Swedes who got gonorrhea from foreigners as part of their international travels.

Looking at the proportion of gonorrhea cases attributed to gays, 13% of all Swedish gonorrhea cases were from homosexuals who 'imported' their disease from outside Sweden, while gays contracting 'domestic gonorrhea' accounted for 32% of all the infections. Both of these figures are considerably higher than the proportion of men who have sex with men in Sweden which is probably between 2% and 3%.

Unlike the excuses given for African or other third world nations, MSM in Sweden have been 'educated about safer sex' that is, to use condoms. Yet their 'contribution' to the gonorrhea rate in society far outweighs their numbers.

Which brings us to the question, who gets repeated infections with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)? Who are the 'incorrigibles' who just keep getting infected, treated, infected, treated, etc. in a word, the recidivists?

It's one thing to get an STD, but quite another to keep getting STDs. Perhaps getting your first STD might be considered a 'learning experience,' but then you are supposed to 'learn.' STDs are costly to society, causing short-term treatment expense as well as the risk of cancer and long-term treatment costs for certain STDs. And, of course, recidivists help to perpetuate the cycle of infection.

Investigators in England decided to track patients who attended three STD clinics from 1994 through 1998.2 All three clinics were in large cities (two in London). 52,908 patients attended the clinics, of whom 51% were male, and 32% were under the age of 24. 14% of the male patients engaged in sex with men. Altogether, a total of 17,466 patients (33% of all patients) arrived at the clinics with an acute STD at least once during the study period. Of these, 14% showed up at least once more with another STD.

This 14% constitutes the 'key group' the spreaders, the recalcitrant, the recidivists. In the liberal paradigm of sex education, these individuals are the 'dumb ones,' those who don't seem to learn from their sex-ed lessons.

After controlling for other factors, men who have sex with men (MSM) topped the list of recidivists. 22% of them were 'back again' within the year with an STD. Men who have sex with women (MSW) were next; 15% of them turned up again within a year. Women who have sex with men (WSM) and women who have sex with women (WSW) logged in at 10.6%. So women were 'better learners' than men, and heterosexual men 'learned' better than gays.

For both men and women, those aged 1215 were the 'dumbest' 21% were back with an STD within the year. By the same standard, blacks were about twice as 'dumb' as whites, with 25.9% back with an STD v. 9.6% of whites (U.S. blacks account for over 80% of the common STDs).

And those who had ever gotten an STD were twice as dumb as those who had never gotten one before, with 20.9% v. 9.9% returning within the year with another STD. Of considerable interest, those who had a history of injecting drugs (only 1.5% of the total) were no more apt to be repeat offenders (12.1% v 13.9%).

The authors noted that "These data suggest that there are core groups of individuals who do not respond to safer sex counseling at STD clinics, and who continue to place themselves at risk...." (p. 384). Indeed! As FRI's nationwide sex survey also documented3, homosexuals, drug users, and prostitutes are also the most apt to engage in deliberate infection of their sex partners.

The Massachusetts Psychological and American Psychological Associations very recently assured the Massachusetts Supreme Court that homosexual contacts are no more dangerous and medically contraindicated than heterosexual contacts. Why? To get the Massachusetts anti-sodomy law declared unconstitutional. On what planet are these psychologists living? Or is it just more convenient to lie?

References:
1. Berglund T, et al. Epidemiology of the reemergence of gonorrhea in Sweden. Sexually Transmitted Disease, 2001, 28, 111-114.
2. Hughes G, et al. Characteristics of those who repeatedly acquire sexually transmitted infections. Sexually Transmitted Disease, 2001, 28, 379-386.
3. Cameron, P. et al. Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease. Nebraska Medical Journal, 1985, 70, 292-299.

Slowly but surely, more and more people are either not having children or are having only one child. What is the impact of not having siblings? Is the old saw true that 'children need a brother or sister?'

The good things about being an only child are obvious. Only children typically get lots more adult attention, they often speak and read earlier, and they have lots more stuff.

But how about the bad things? Are there bad things about being "in the cat bird seat" as a child?

In the first study of its kind, a team of researchers from Finland tracked all those born in 1966. 96% of all births were successfully tracked and compared with all registered crimes by males in that birth cohort (females were omitted because so few had committed crimes). Crimes were divided into violent (e.g., homicide, assault, robbery, arson, rape, and violation of domestic peace) and 'non-violent' (everything else, including property crimes). By the age of 32, 3.8% of men had committed at least one violent crime and 7.1% had committed at least one nonviolent crime.

Here is what they found.

First, singleton sons were more apt to have committed a violent crime about 1.8 times more so than non-singleton sons. But they were not more apt to have committed non-violent crimes; in fact, they tended ever so slightly toward fewer such crimes.

Breaking these results down further, if the singleton son did not have a father present in childhood, his risk of engaging in a violent crime went up 8.4 times and his risk of engaging in a non-violent crime rose by 2.5 times.

If the singleton son had perinatal risk factors (e.g., mother smoked during pregnancy; he was pre-term, had brain damage, or low birth weight), his odds of committing violent crime increased by 4.4 times (though his chances of committing a non-violent crime decreased somewhat).

If the singleton's mother had risk factors (e.g., she was at or under 20 years old at birth and/or did not want the pregnancy), his risk increased 5.9 times for violent crimes.

Overall, though singleton sons exhibited increased odds of committing violent crime compared to non-singletons, certain risk factors appear to be even more influential in explaining crime rates.

This can be seen in non-singleton sons with none of the three kinds of risk factors (e.g., paternal, maternal, or perinatal), a group constituting about 40% of the sample. These sons had the lowest rate of violent and non-violent crime of any of the birth cohort. Where 3.8% of all boys born in 1966 had been caught for a violent crime, only 2.2% of these 'favored' boys had. Likewise, while 7.1% of all boys had been caught in a non-violent crime, only 4.9% of these favorably situated boys had.

Even with 'all the breaks,' a fair number of boys (about 1 of every 50) committed violent crimes. About 1 in 20 committed non-violent offenses. Further, the vast majority (between 85% and 95%) of boys born with 'none of the breaks' as defined in this study were law abiding, whether or not they were singletons. But there was a difference.

The difference was small in some respects even 8 times more apt to commit violent crime (14.8% v. 2.2%) translates into 84.2% v. 97.8% who were never caught for a violent crime. But given that society runs better when violent crime is lower, the difference is noteworthy and worth guarding against.

Corner

Salvation Army Does About-Face

In a dramatic turn about in November, the Salvation Army agreed to accept employees who were unmarried domestic partners as being equivalent to the married. On one hand, Jesus said "if you love me you will keep my commandments." On the other as the Salvation Army noted Jesus also said that it was blessed to aid the poor. San Francisco set the anti-marriage standard with its passage of a requirement that anyone doing business with the city had to give the same benefits to 'domestic partners' as given to the married. Many other municipalities have enacted similar requirements. So the Salvation Army saw itself in a quandary. Either forego out of moral principle city and county money to help the poor, or go along with the 'domestic partners' rule so the poor could be served (and, probably not coincidentally, its staff paid). It chose the latter.

Under the Salvation Army decision, any employee who claimed a sexual partner, whether homosexual or heterosexual, would have been eligible for the same benefits as the married. Major Bruce Bailey argued that "government grants help us with providing food and shelter and clothing to people in need.... we want to... make sure that there are medical benefits for everybody who's eligible or should have [them].... I want to provide medical benefits to people whether they're gay people, whether they're heterosexual living in a sinful lifestyle, I can't make that judgment. I want to provide medical benefits to people and I also want to present the gospel of Christ to them."

On November 12, after being heavily criticized by its conservative allies, the Army backed off, and resumed its stance against offering domestic partner benefits.

At this writing, it is not clear how many employees would have been affected by the new standard. The Salvation Army has become increasingly dependent upon taxpayer money for its services. Threatened with a loss of such monies, it appears its 'social work' function trumped its 'religious beliefs' until it saw the Army's hard-core base running out the door. Actually, the Salvation Army took a little longer to do the same thing that social work as a profession has done over the last hundred years 'keeping the serving wheels rolling' regardless of other considerations including those of morality.

'Christian psychologists' often belong to, and 'Christian schools' often seek accreditation by, the American Psychological Association, thus paying dues to an organization dedicated to destroying traditional morality. Likewise for 'Christian social workers' relative to the National Association of Social Workers. Seems you have to 'overlook a bit of evil so that good can be done' if you are going to be a fully-accredited member of the 'professional serving class.'

Now the Salvation Army is 'back in the fold' and standing against gay rights, but for how long? Clearly, its moorings have been shaken, and what it did in early November with 'perfect justification within its Christian thinking' it could do again. While the Army's brief cave-in was apparently due to the pursuit of taxpayer dollars, how much of their reasoning also stemmed from the foolish belief that homosexuals are "born that way" or that they have an "unchangeable condition?"

Family Research Report critically examines empirical data on families, sexual social policy, AIDS, drug addiction, and homosexuality, digging behind the 'headlines' and breaking new scientific ground.

FRR is published 8 times/year by the Family Research Institute.

Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher

Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor

Subscriptions: $25/yr ($40 foreign)

©2001

Family Research Institute

P.O. Box 62640

Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2640

(303) 681-3113

Return to top

Return to the FAMILY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Web site