FAMILY RESEARCH REPORT	Journal of the Family Research Institute Founded 1982
A REAL Child Abuse Scandal			Vol. 17 No. 6 Oct 2002

Summary: A new report from UCLA claims that “gay children are particularly vulnerable to molestation by older males because there are few acceptable ways of expressing their sexuality.” Not only are there “gay children” but, the investigators say, the traditional notion that youngsters are converted to homosexuality because they are sexually abused is probably false. They further suggest that both the boy and society (which will not allow him to “explore and validate his sexuality”) bear some of the blame for men having sex with boys. This is the latest and clearest instance, in a major main-line scientific journal, of an attempt to partially absolve homosexual predators of their actions, while paving the way for the direct homosexualization of youth.

The general public, mostly relying upon Christian tradition, typically believes that ‘homosexuals recruit.’ Older homosexuals prey upon the young, ‘converting’ them through sexual activity into homosexuals. Evidence of this belief is found as far back as the first known Christian catechism, the Didache, which stated “thou shalt not corrupt boys.” And it continues in our day.

Rees and Usill1 noted in 1956 that “the problem of male homosexuality is in essence the problem of the corruption of youth by itself [i.e., by other boys] and by its elders. [And thereby]... the creation... of new addicts ready to corrupt a still further generation of young men and boys in the future” (pp. 28-29). In 1977, Anita Bryant’s campaign to overturn gay rights in Dade County Florida was entitled “Save Our Children.”

Because of this belief, homosexuals have traditionally been excluded from teaching or any kind of supervision over children. A 1976 Gallop poll reported that 65% of Americans did not feel homosexuals should be allowed to teach. Given this context, it not surprising that James Gaylord, a social studies teacher in Tacoma, Washington was fired for publicly declaring his homosexuality (11/21/1972). The U.S. Supreme Court also concurred in his dismissal (10/3/1977).

To counter this opposition, gay activists have worked hard to get people to believe that kids are ‘born gay’ or that they ‘have a condition’ (i.e., medical or psychological) that makes them ‘gay’ at an early age. Then, homosexual adults who have sex with kids are essentially ‘off the hook.’ For if a boy is already “gay,” instead of being ‘dirty old men,’ they might be seen as helping or liberating the boys they have sex with. Indeed, according to this line of thought, society in its blinded, Christianized ignorance has given ‘gay children’ “few acceptable ways of expressing their sexuality.” Kindly men who see the boy’s need and have sex with him are just enabling the boy to “explore and validate his sexuality.”

Impossible, you say? Guess again.

A new article2 in arguably the major child abuse journal, Child Abuse and Neglect, opens the door to just this approach. Five members of the Department of Psychology at the University of California at Los Angeles [UCLA] wrote that:

Several men in our study wondered whether they were sexually attracted to other men because of their sexual abuse experiences. Some sought treatment hoping that they would no longer be attracted to men once they ‘worked through’ their sexual abuse issues. While it is theoretically possible that sexual abuse plays a formative role in the development of gay orientation for some men, what appears more likely is that gay children are particularly vulnerable to molestation by older males because there are few acceptable ways of expressing their sexuality (Doll, Joy, Bartholow, & Harrison, 1992). For example, one client reported very early awareness of being gay in the context of a chaotic, unsupportive family. His search to explore and validate his sexuality led him to place himself in dangerous situations where he was molested repeatedly by older males. He and other men in our groups appeared to be aware of a gay sexual orientation before the CSA [Childhood Sexual Abuse], suggesting that molestation by a male perpetrator is not necessarily causal in the development of a gay sexual orientation. (p. 438)

Gay Children?

Of the many things that are alarming about this article, the first and foremost is the authors’ statement that there are “gay children.” Instead of the rantings of a maverick professor, this is a substantial group of scholars, from a major psychology department in a prestigious, tax-supported, public University.

Who is a “gay” child? How would you determine that a child is “gay?” What would such a boy (since the article is only about males) do or not do to alert you to his “gayness?” According to the UCLA investigators, “one client reported very early awareness of being gay in the context of a chaotic, unsupportive family.”

Think about the implications of “being gay” “very early.” As we have pointed out recently (FRR, July 2002), “being gay” is a highly abstracted shorthand which diverts attention away from what those who have sex with their own sex actually do. The actions of these individuals define them, not their “mental state” or their sexual “loyalties.” Those who are homosexually-inclined typically engage in oral-penile sex and/or penile-anal sex, usually with dozens of strangers or near-strangers. Many also engage in sadomasochism, sex in public, drinking urine, etc.

With this in mind, how could a boy be “gay?” Boys may be curious about genitals, but without instruction almost none of them wants to have a penis in his rectum, or wants to put his penis in a man’s mouth.

Regardless of one’s family situation or biology, no young child starts out intrigued by or wanting to do these sorts of things. We defy the UCLA psychology department (or the whole university) to scour the earth and present even one little boy, who -- without having been seduced or without coaching -- expresses interest in having men put their penises in his anus or sucking their penises. The only boys who are interested in such things are exceptional -- those few boys who get seduced by a father or step-father or possibly a brother, and who then learn to view these kinds of activities as ‘pleasurable,’ ‘fun,’ or ‘interesting.’

Yet these UCLA professors are suggesting precisely the opposite. To them, it is only the exceptional child who becomes homosexual after being molested: “what appears more likely is that gay children are particularly vulnerable to molestation by older males because there are few acceptable ways of expressing their sexuality.” In other words, the children were already gay before the abuse!

The chairman of FRI served as a clinical psychologist to one rather exceptional family. The father was ignorant of what was going on, but his 2 year-old son was seduced by his older brother who was between 5 and 6. Soon, particularly with the help of neighborhood boys and men, this 2 year-old became an expert fellator. By the time he was 5, he had serviced more than a score of men and boys. And by the time his big brother first ran afoul of the law, the younger brother had been sexually involved with almost a hundred different men and teenagers. Consequently, by about age 9, the younger brother had tried just about everything on the ‘gay sex list.’

Interestingly, by his early teens, the younger brother decided the whole thing was ‘stupid,’ abandoned homosexuality entirely, according to his older brother, and married rather early in life. The older brother stayed in the gay game, and was having sex both in and out of jail and prison. Not surprisingly, the older brother had been first seduced by a farm hand when he was about 5.

So even though both boys had hundreds and hundreds of homosexual experiences, one quit while the other stayed committed to homosexuality (he also had plenty of sex with girls at school and elsewhere).

Neither one of these boys was a ‘gay boy’ searching “to explore and validate his sexuality.” These were your typical, innocent/ignorant kids before they were seduced. Both were exploited and raped by men far and wide. Both did horrendous sexual things in their youth as a consequence. What they were messing with was not socially “acceptable,” nor should it have been. Indeed, unlike the rhetoric of these UCLA professors, neither was molested because they had “few acceptable ways of expressing their sexuality.” Chances are excellent that these boys wouldn’t have become ‘sexual’ at such an age at all without initially being seduced by a homosexual predator.

In fact, the disaster could probably have been averted if either the family had known, or if the men who exploited these boys had only been imprisoned. Instead, these boys acted upon their newly created “sexuality” with one ruining his life (at least through age 17) and making serious attempts to ruin the lives of many others. The younger brother apparently escaped -- eventually.

Failing In Their Clinical Responsibilities

FRI doesn’t know any of these investigators personally, but from their publications they appear to be clinically-oriented. Nevertheless their ideology seems to have driven this study -- not their concern for their clients. After all,

“Several men in our study wondered whether they were sexually attracted to other men because of their sexual abuse experiences. Some sought treatment hoping that they would no longer be attracted to men once they ‘worked through’ their sexual abuse issues. While it is theoretically possible that sexual abuse plays a formative role in the development of gay orientation for some men, what appears more likely is that gay children are particularly vulnerable to molestation by older males because there are few acceptable ways of expressing their sexuality.”

There is no indication given that these UCLA investigators tried to help rid these men of their homosexual desires. In fact, it seems unlikely given the apparent ideology of the therapists. To them, the clients were ‘frozen into being homosexual,’ for though it was “theoretically possible” that their seduction turned them into homosexuals, it was “more likely” that they had instead been “gay children” and could not be changed! Again, though the men being studied had actually lived through their experiences, knew why they had come to the clinic, and even suggested a possible explanation, the UCLA researchers somehow KNEW that the “theoretical possibility” believed by many of the men to have led to their homosexual desires was wrong. Instead, the scholars knew that “gay children are particularly vulnerable to molestation by older males because there are few acceptable ways of expressing their sexuality.”

If these clinicians were licensed (and they probably were), they ought to lose their right to practice. They let their commitment to a weird sort of ‘gay ideology’ trump their obligations to their clients. FRI holds no brief for the efficacy of ‘counseling’ or ‘therapy.’ But if a man comes to get rid of his homosexual inclinations, a ‘therapist’ who takes his client’s time and money ought to try to help him get rid of those inclinations. That’s why these men came to ‘therapy.’ Not so these UCLA professors could construct a scholarly platform from which to condemn society.

Link to the Past

Another red flag in this article is that the authors link their notions about “gay children” back to a 1992 article in Child Abuse and Neglect, written by Doll, Joy, Bartholow, and Harrison3. While Doll, et al. do not use the term “gay children” explicitly, they do make suggestions of a similar thrust. For instance, in speculating about their sample of 1,001 gay patients of STD clinics, Doll, et al. claim that

“Certain characteristics and experiences of our sample in their youth may have led to a greater potential for abuse.... young gay youth often lack peer and familial support as they explore their sexuality and sexual identity. With little connection to gay communities and other gay youth, they may be confused about their right or ability to refuse any unwanted sexual contact or, perhaps, seek sexual contacts in dangerous environments that put them at risk for sexual exploitation.” (p. 861)

Note the connection. Here, as with the UCLA group, the suggestion is that the “youth” or “children” were already gay before being molested, and that it was simply a consequence of their “confusion,” their “lack” of “peer and familial support,” or their decision to “seek sexual contacts in dangerous environments.”

Maybe to balance this bold suggestion, Doll, et al. assert that “Some adult men may also seek contact with what they perceive as particularly vulnerable male youth, youth who lack secondary sexual characteristics, or youth who may exhibit stereotypical female characteristics.” So, apparently, they would not absolve predatory adult men of their responsibility for sexual abuse. But then again they do not label these predators as homosexual either. For they next cite Groth and Birnbaum’s 1978 study of male sex offenders, claiming that over three-quarters of male molesters of boys “self-labeled as heterosexual.” The problem of same-sex child abuse, in other words, is mainly a heterosexual one, not the fault of homosexuals.

One can also see in this piece early efforts to minimize the negative aspects of sexual molestation, especially in cases where physical force is not used as a coercion. Doll, et al. note that “Recent media attention about sexual abuse, as well as the availability of support groups for male survivors of sexual abuse, may also have reduced barriers to disclosure of sexual abuse... This same attention may also result in some adults redefining a childhood experience from contact between consenting individuals to one of sexual exploitation.” (pp. 861-862, emphasis added) Again, FRI suspects the attempt here is to subtly deflect blame away from the predator and back onto the victim who has ‘re-defined’ his “childhood experience.”

The ‘Facts’ of the Study

Getting back to the UCLA study, the article is based on analysis of the stories of 67 men who were referred to two mental health clinics. This is not a very large sample, and people who go to mental health clinics are not typically representative of the population as a whole (most people have never been to ‘counseling’ or ‘mental therapy’ of any sort). Furthermore, despite the well-documented connection between first being abused and then later abusing others, “Because of their differing treatment needs, men were excluded from treatment, and thus from the study, if they reported sexual interest in children or a history of CSA perpetration.” (p. 482) So what kind of a sample do we have here? How representative is it even of those who have been sexually molested? Quite possibly, not very.

In any event, 48 (72%) of these men were molested by male perpetrators only, 7 only by female perpetrators, and 12 by both male and female perpetrators. One chap “reported very early awareness of being gay in the context of a chaotic, unsupportive family. His search to explore and validate his sexuality led him to place himself in dangerous situations where he was molested repeatedly by older males.” “[O]ther men in our groups appeared to be aware of a gay sexual orientation before the CSA.”

Now, how much is one client’s opinion and the possible ‘appearance’ of being gay early-on by an unspecified number of other men really worth? Is ONE client and an unknown number of others enough to build a case? Apparently so, because to the UCLA investigators it was fairly powerful evidence that “molestation by a male perpetrator is not necessarily causal in the development of a gay sexual orientation.”

Yet consider their other findings. These seem to fit traditional notions of homosexual recruitment fairly well. For instance, what happened to the 48 men abused only by male perpetrators? 18 (38%) said they were currently heterosexual, 16 (33%) said they were currently gay, and 14 were unsure. That is, almost two-thirds of these men said that they were currently either gay or unsure about their sexuality. In the 1983-84 FRI study, 62% of men who reported that their first sexual experience was homosexual said that they were gay when they were interviewed. We don’t know for these 67 men how many had a homosexual experience as their first sexual experience. Since they were homosexually abused as children, it could easily have been the first for most of the 67. But whether it was the first sexual experience or a second or third, the fairly close match between the FRI study and the UCLA effort is noteworthy.

Either boys really are ‘gay’ at an early age, leading them to seek out older, homosexual partners as they “explore” their sexuality -- a notion FRI rejects -- OR homosexual experience has a profound effect upon one’s sexual proclivities. Even if one wanted to argue that so many adult homosexuals were molested as boys because the adult predators already knew they were gay, are we to believe that gay predators have some sort of antenna that alerts them to boys who “are” gay (whether the boy knows it or not), and that these predators pretty-much confine their seductions to such boys?

Instead of a common sense explanation, the UCLA investigators ignored the evidence in their own data consistent with the traditional notion that ‘a child molested homosexually is apt to became homosexual as an adult.’ Instead, they concentrated on the claims of a few of their clients -- particularly one of them! All in all, their judgment was that the theoretical possibility “that sexual abuse plays a formative role in the development of gay orientation for some men” was not as likely as “that gay children are particularly vulnerable to molestation by older males because there are few acceptable ways of expressing their sexuality.”

No “Natural” Age of Consent

Historically, setting an “age of consent” in the teens or late teens is a relatively recent social decision. The Jews, one of the oldest tribes, held that a girl could wed at age 3, but that the marriage could not be consummated until she had 2 pubic hairs or was 12 years old. At the Vatican, the age of consent as of 2000 was 12. English common law held that girls could give sexual consent at age 10 and boys at 14. The 1900 U.S. Census recorded girls as young as 10 that were both married and “bread winners.” And currently, the Centers for Disease Control [CDC] considers 13 year-old boys MEN when counting HIV and AIDS infections (e.g., within the AIDS/HIV Surveillance Report).

The campaign for setting higher ages of consent for sex in America started around the turn of the last century (and a secondary push to lower them somewhat occurred during the 1970s and 1980s). More recently, the big push to label sex with children as Child Sexual Abuse [CSA] coincided almost perfectly with the passage by Congress of the Mondale act in 1974, designed to put Federal money into “child protective services.” Fortunately, during all of these changes, homosexuality between both adults and children was absolutely forbidden. It didn’t matter what the age of the child or the adult.

Nevertheless, there really is no ‘natural age’ for sexual consent. The setting of the age at which a person can ‘legally have sex’ or ‘consent to sex’ is arbitrary and -- as recent history has demonstrated -- can be changed up or down, with concerted effort. The reason this is so important is that just as homosexuality was once guarded against, it may be possible to so influence society that most believe ‘homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality.’ That is coming about now, on our watch.

The argument for lowering the age of ‘consent’ of sex between boys and men in Great Britain was that ‘homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality.’ And the Blair government agreed with this argument. So now boys 16 years old can ‘give consent’ to homosexual sex with men, just as girls of 16 can ‘give consent’ to men. It is even possible -- and this UCLA article makes it all the more likely -- that society can be changed to give ‘kindly, experienced, older gays’ a chance to ‘educate’ our boys about the possibilities of homosexual sex.

A Real Threat This Time

Many conservative groups went apoplectic over the Rind et al. article in 1999. Basically, Rind et al. argued that a considerable fraction of child sexual abuse apparently caused no lasting psychological harm. Some conservatives said that this proved that the American Psychological Association [APA] was promoting child molestation and this, in turn, led to a congressional condemnation of the APA.

FRI pointed out that the charge was overblown (see the April/June 1999 FRR). People adapt. Everyone is not “frozen into distress” because of something that happened to them in childhood. In fact, such a notion is profoundly Freudian or perhaps the consequence of ‘child sexual abuse’ hysteria. Unless one or both parents actually trains the child in homosexuality, a child is not ‘made into a homosexual’ because of something his parents did or did not do to him. And there is no evidence that a particular genetic configuration ‘causes’ homosexuality. Childhood is important, but nowhere near as important as what people make of it. No matter what happened to them as children -- good or ill -- adults are overwhelmingly able to adjust to it, ignore it, cope with it, etc. If it were otherwise, a ‘perfect childhood’ would make ‘perfect adults.’ In reality, about 10% of people with ‘perfect childhoods’ turn out poorly. Likewise, a ‘miserable childhood’ would make ‘miserable adults.’ Yet about two-thirds of those with very poor childhoods turn out OK.

Nevertheless, there is an association between being homosexually molested as a child and practicing homosexuality as an adult. Apparently in some circumstances, and particularly for boys in their first sexual encounters, the homosexual experience trains or teaches them to regard homosexuality as possible and/or pleasurable. It ‘sticks’ with them, often to their later detriment.

FRI is highly concerned about this UCLA article. It, in conjunction with the Doll, et al. article before it, truly opens a Pandora’s box to modifying society so that “gay children” are provided “acceptable ways of expressing their sexuality.” Further, by placing some of the blame for man-boy sex on the molested boys, gay predators are given a partial pass.

Frankly, these UCLA professors ought to be brought to account. Their attack on the traditional belief about what causes homosexuality will only foster the drive to ‘open boys up to gay predators.’ Of course, it will not be called that. Rather, it will be labeled an effort to ‘help gay children explore their sexuality in an acceptable way’ or some such. But the effects will be profound.

If boys particularly are not protected from homosexual seduction, the empirical evidence assembled to date suggests that homosexuality will grow -- possibly exponentially.

Watch out for these UCLA professors and their notions. Be extremely wary. This article is published in the very journal dedicated to CSA, the journal whose profession was essentially created and funded by the 1974 Mondale act. With that comes professional respectability, federal support, and the like. Your children and grandchildren are endangered by these investigators, their perverse ideas, the reviewers that ‘signed off on it,’ the editor of the journal that let this into the scientific mainstream, and the profession that reflects on these ‘scientific musings.’

References:
1. Rees, JT & Usill, HV. They Stand Apart, 1956, NY: Macmillan.
2. Kelly Robert J., Wood Jeffry J, Gonzalez Lauren S, MacDonald Virginia, Waterman Jill. Effects of mother-son incest and positive perceptions of sexual abuse experiences on the psychosocial adjustment of clinic-referred men. Child Abuse & Neglect 2002;26:425-441.
3. Doll LS, Joy D, Bartholow BN, Harrison JS, Bolan G, Douglas JM, Saltzman LE, Moss PM, & Delgado W. Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual and adult men. Child Abuse & Neglect 1992;16:855-864.

The latest government report on the ‘health of the nation’ is out — and it isn’t all good news.

The good news is that the expected lifespan of children continues to slowly grow. This is a plus. But two contradictory trends also appear: the fraction of the population that smokes tobacco is edging downward, while the fraction of the population that is ‘overweight’ is slowly going up. Since both smoking and obesity are health risks, it is not clear which one is having a greater impact on life expectancy. Of course, as a rule, smoking makes you slimmer, while ‘kicking the habit’ usually means you will gain weight!

Oh, well, guess you can’t win them all.

For young people, those aged between 1 and 24, death from accidents has dropped from 1950 through 2000. Likewise, death from any form of cancer or heart disease. But, as a rule, deaths from homicide or suicide have drifted upward. So, while in 1950 after accidents, cancer killed the most youngsters and heart disease the next-most, now murder is involved in killing the most and suicide the next-most. Altogether, for these four ways to die, rates of death per 100,000 population have stayed roughly ‘the same’ from 1950 through 2000.

Some of these trends can be explained by the continual growth in the proportion of kids who are born to unwed mothers. In 1970, about 11% of kids didn’t have a legal daddy. In 2000, 33.2% didn’t. That’s triple. The growth of the ‘fatherless child’ has been greatest among whites. They have gone from a 6% rate in 1970 to a 27% rate in 2000. But Blacks are still giving their babies the hardest lives. While 38% of Black babies in 1970 didn’t have a legal daddy, by 2000 it was up to 69%.

At least these babies — though fatherless — were alive. According to the government compilers (and they are almost certainly underestimates), one Black unborn baby was killed for every 2 live births in 2000. For whites, one white unborn baby was killed for every 5 live births. So not only is fatherlessness particularly common among Blacks, so is abortion. Hispanics tend to fall in-between the other two groups. Among Hispanics the ratio is about one abortion for every 3 live births.

And the problem is not ‘lack of contraception.’ While white women are a tad more apt to use contraceptives, about 60% of Blacks, whites and Hispanics employ them. The problem is a lack of respect for life and a rejection of Christian morality when it comes to marriage and sex.

Reference: National Center for Health Statistics Health, United States, 2002. Hyattsville, MD.

The yearly Advocate magazine sex survey results for 2002 were recently published, involving 1,438 gays, 375 lesbians and a few ‘transgendered’ individuals. It’s the ‘same old, same old’ in most respects. But there are a few bits of interest.

46% of the gays and 63% of lesbians who responded said that they were in a ‘long-term relationship’ (it is not clear how many lived together). How long was the ‘long term relationship?’ 18% of men and 13% of women said that they had been in a partnership for 10 or more years, while 22% of men and 20% of women said that it had lasted a “year or less.” 40% of gays and 46% of lesbians said that the relationship had lasted “between one and 5 years.” So the median duration of both gay and lesbian relationships was “between 1-5 years.”

“Monogamy” was a bit ‘fuzzy’ to many homosexuals. 32% of the gays and 9% of the lesbians allowed a certain amount of ‘cheating’ by their partner or themselves. Yet they were still ‘partnered.’

During the past year, 39% of the gays and 67% of the lesbians said that they had only one sexual partner, compared with 23% of the gays and 2% of the lesbians who claimed 6 partners or more. All in all, while lesbians who responded tended to be more sexually ‘loyal’ in relationships, on-average, the gays and lesbians in the Advocate survey had relationships that lasted only about 3 years.

On the other side of the coin, 10% of the gays and 14% of the lesbians said that they hadn’t had a sex partner in the past year. Apparently, in any given year, a sizable minority of homosexuals do not engage in any sex.

Since only 37% of the lesbians and 34% of the gays said that they had never had ‘sex in public,’ about two-thirds of both gays and lesbians apparently would admit to having at least some sex ‘in public.’ And then there is the issue of ‘sex toys’ (e.g., dildos, mechanical sex aids, dolls, etc.). 78% of the lesbians and 60% of the gays said that they had used them. Furthermore, in line with most sex surveys that indicate a correlation between homosexuality and prostitution, about 2% of the lesbians and 15% of the gays said that they had paid for or been paid for sex.

So much for homosexuals being ‘just like you and me.’

Reference: Advocate 8/20/02

Corner

Dade County Reverses Itself

Votes by ‘the people’ against gay rights first began June 7, 1977. Led by Anita Bryant, Dade County, Florida residents overturned a county gay rights law 2:1. Since then, with fairly rare exception, votes by a large, diverse segment of the general public have gone against gay rights. The ‘high water mark’ of municipal votes was that of Houston in 1985, where gay rights lost 4:1. And the culmination of citizen-driven anti-gay rights campaigns occurred in Colorado in 1992. For the first time, not a city or county, but a state — in this case a state with an electorate fairly representative of all America and the most educated of all the states — got to vote on gay rights.

The debate was held, both sides were heard, and gay rights lost 54% to 46%. Unfortunately, just as it had rejected the votes of the people’s representatives in 1973 regarding abortion, the U.S. Supreme Court also rejected this vote of the people and in 1996 essentially declared those who engage in same-sex sexual activity to be a protected, special class of individuals.

Since 1992, a great deal has changed. Academia, professional organizations, and the media have campaigned heavily to ‘change the mind’ of the electorate. Probably more importantly, the once-solid Traditionalist vote against gay rights has been eaten into by clever-sounding arguments that homosexuals are really ‘suffering from a condition’ over which they have no or limited control. After all, if these people are ‘sick’ or ‘have a condition’ and ‘can’t help themselves,’ how can you not feel sorry for them? Sick people deserve compassion, not censure. Or so the argument has been.
Regrettably, instead of simply the assertions of gay activists, this latest rhetorical thrust has been trumpeted by none other than Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, with his whole-hearted support of the ex-gay movement and its Freudian approach to homosexuality. It has also been led by Joseph Nicolosi, head of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality [NARTH]. These two have been prime movers, by our view, in causing traditionalists, and their votes, to ‘waver’ on the issue.

This confused traditionalist vote was one of the reasons that on September 10, 2002, Dade County residents voted to accept the gay rights law enacted by its council, 53% to 47%. Now the transformation is just about complete. From a 2:1 traditionalist victory in 1977 to a clear defeat in 2002.

Is it over? Is gay rights ‘a done deal’ no matter what happens from now on out? No, there is still hope, the fat lady has yet to sing. But it is no longer an ‘easy call,’ as it seemed in 1977.

From now on, traditionalists not only have to assemble scientific evidence to counter the arguments of the sexual revolutionaries, but they also have to counter the errosion in their own ranks brought about by the touting of Freudianism.

As Jesus noted, a house divided against itself cannot stand. We certainly live in ‘interesting times.’

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)

©2002

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