This tactic is cynical, selfish, immoral, and destructive. And it works:

Beware: the NOM campaign is bait-and-switch. The real agenda here is not just resistance to marriage rights, it's undermining the broader civil rights laws that ensure that we can all participate equally in society, even if other people don't like us. Though they wrap it in marriage, the opposition is actually about gay - and they are attacking the idea that civil rights laws should protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation at all.

At a time when most Americans have had their fill of years of polarization and want to see us come together to deal with the pressing problems that hurt us all, gay and non-gay, could a negative ad campaign like NOM's work? Who would buy these obvious scare-tactics?

Too many. NOM's public relations roll-out has already had some temporary traction in changing the subject from the merits of the case for marriage equality to the politics of this ongoing civil rights battle. And the agenda of the groups behind NOM is even more scary than just another cruel attack on gay couples' freedom to marry. The campaign to "defend" marriage (as if marriage needed "defense" against couples seeking to marry) and to block even partnership protections for gay families masks an effort to erode the whole idea of civil rights laws.

Consider what the actors in the NOM ad pretend to be:

A doctor who wants to discriminate against her patients, despite civil rights laws and medical ethics that the California Supreme Court upheld - in a case having nothing to do with marriage.

An officer of a New Jersey group that for years voluntarily operated a beachside pavilion with special tax-breaks that required it be open to the public - but then tried to turn down a lesbian couple. The case did not turn on marriage, since New Jersey doesn't yet allow gay couples to marry, but, rather, basic civil rights laws about open access to public accommodations.


A Massachusetts parent who sought to dictate public school curriculum about the diverse families children will need to be aware of to thrive in a diverse world, and then wanted to remove her child from classes in a way that would have disrupted class and imposed unreasonable burdens on the school and other kids.

The law in California, as elsewhere, is that doctors can't discriminatorily refuse to treat patients — Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, gay or non-gay; that has nothing to do with marriage, and yet NOM incites fear. The law in New Jersey, as elsewhere, says that organizations running public accommodations such as restaurants or rental halls cannot discriminatorily exclude people — African American, Latino, or Asian, gay or non-gay; that has nothing to do with marriage, and yet NOM says that the discriminators are somehow the victims. The law in Massachusetts, as elsewhere, of course allows parents to teach their kids whatever they want, and even to send them to private schools or do home-schooling. The law also rightly sets rules for determining public school curriculum without having every parent, or special interest with an agenda, coming in and imposing their views on everyone else's kids — yours or mine, gay or non-gay.

These have nothing to do with marriage, and yet NOM would have public schools pretend that gay people don't exist or, even worse, teach all kids that it is okay to look down on people who are different (including the parents of some of their classmates, and even other students themselves). The Human Rights Campaign issued a thorough refutation of the ad's deceptions. In a remarkable expose, HRC's EndtheLies.org website revealed the audition tapes for the NOM's attack ad, with actors stumbling through the scripts, reciting disproven claims about gay people as a threat.

All of NOM's actors are invoking as supposed arguments against the freedom to marry examples that, as HRC puts it, "involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don't want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does." But in a complicated world, where lots of people "disapprove" of other people's beliefs and lives, or race and religion, we can't allow our ability to have a job or a home, or get medical care or a marriage license, turn on whether our boss, landlord, doctor, or government clerk likes us. If we did, we'd have chaos. The point of civil rights laws is to make it possible for all of us to live together in one nation.

This past week, the Vermont legislature and the unanimous Iowa Supreme Court both offered reassurance that Americans can respect one another's religious freedom while protecting everyone's personal freedom and equality under the law.

Give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles....The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.

The millions of dollars that NOM and its backers threaten to spend fostering yet another cultural and political war against gay people and threatening civil rights protections would be better spent addressing the real problems facing all our families today. Where's the love?

Kat

I'm just jumping in again after reading most of the posts after my original post on the first page. It kind of sounded as if you don't see gay people as.. People.. From what you said "I believe in taking care of them, but they are not humans.." Refering to animals of course. I just wanted to point out that it was easy to take out of context, I'm not saying that I think you think they aren't people.. Atleast.. I hope that's not what your saying.

And, to go back to the whole "gay people weren't born that way." I respect your opinion but I NEVER woke up and said hmm.. Today.. I think I am going to like girls.. It's who I am. As it is with homosexuals. I doubt 99.9% of them woke up one day and said "today, I'm going to love a member of the same sex." I really wish it were the case that the homosexual community was a little more violent towards heterosexuals.. Maybe then there wouldn't be so much gay bashing.. Or there wouldn't be groups standing on the outside of the fence at a Pride festival. Spitting out rude, and hurtful slurs.. Because they can't except that in our declaration of independance CLEARLY states... And, I quote.. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

I know people have stood there with they're bullhorns and yelled and spoke they're mind.. No matter how closed it is. I've gone to Pride fest with gay friends, family, hell I've gone with other friends who just are supporters of the community. All I have to say is that when the STRAIGHT mayor of Grand Rapids, walked up to the group with the bullhorn. Along with police officers, and asked if they had a permit for it when they said no.. Well I'll be damned if the mayor didnt have them hand it over to the police officers.. Wasn't very long after that all of the bashers left. And, I'll be damned if there wasn't a cheer when that happened. I'm glad someone with power had the balls to seperate some church and state.. Really shows who is hurting and forcing they're opinions down who's throat.

scttrbrain

Great post

This coming from someone who starts threads based on bogus, hate-filled, rumor mongering, chain-e-mails?

LMAO....

Surveys of Those Convicted
Drs Freund and Heasman (9) of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two sizeable studies and calculated that 34% and 32% of the offenders against children were homosexual. In cases they had personally handled, homosexuals accounted for 36% of their 457 pedophiles.

Dr. Adrian Copeland, a psychiatrist who works with sexual offenders at the Peters Institute in Philadelphia, said (10) that, from his experience, pedophiles tend to be homosexual and “40% to 45%” of child molesters have had “significant homosexual experiences.”

Dr. C. H. McGaghy (11) estimated that “homosexual offenders probably constitute about half of molesters who work with children.” Other studies are similar:

– Of the approximately 100 child molesters in 1991 at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third bisexual and a third homosexual in orientation. (12)

– A state-wide survey of 161 Vermont adolescents who committed sex offenses in 1984 found that 35 (22%) were homosexual. (13)

– Of the 91 molesters of non-related children at Canada’s Kingston Sexual Behaviour Clinic from 1978-1984, 38 (42%) engaged in homosexuality. (14)

– Of 52 child molesters in Ottawa from 1983 to 1985, 31 (60%) were homosexual. (15)

– In England for 1973, 802 persons (8 females) were convicted of indecent assault on a male, and 3,006 (6 of them female) were convicted of indecent assault on a female (i.e., 21% were homosexual). 88% of male and about 70% of female victims were under age sixteen. (16)

Because of this pattern, Judge J. T. Rees concluded that “the male homosexual naturally seeks the company of the male adolescent, or of the young male adult, in preference to that of the fully-grown man. [In 1947] 986 persons were convicted of homosexual and unnatural offences. Of those, 257 were indictable offences involving 402 male victims…. The great majority of [whom]… were under the age of 16. Only 11%… were over 21.”

“[T]he 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.”


http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/child-molestation-and-homosexuality-2/

What Homosexuals Admit
The 1948 Kinsey survey found that 37% of the gays and 2% of the lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under-17-yr-olds, and 28% of the gays and 1% of the lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under-16-yr-olds while they themselves were aged 18 or older. (18)

In 1970 the Kinsey Institute interviewed 565 white gays in San Francisco: 25% of them admitted to having had sex with boys aged 16 or younger while they themselves were at least 21. (19)

In The Gay Report, 23% of the gays and 6% of the lesbians admitted to sexual interaction with youth less than 16 years of age. (20)

In France, 129 convicted gays (21)(average age 34 years) said they had had sexual contact with a total of 11,007 boys (an average of 85 different boys per man). Abel et al reported similarly that men who molested girls outside their family had averaged 20 victims each; those who molested boys averaged 150 victims each.

Proportionality: The Key
Study after nationwide study (3) has yielded estimates of male homosexuality that range between 1% and 3%. The proportion of lesbians in these studies is almost always lower, usually about half that of gays. So, overall, perhaps 2% of adults regularly indulge in homosexuality. Yet they account for between 20% to 40% of all molestations of children.

Child molestation is not to be taken lightly. Officials at a facility which serves about 1,500 runaway youngsters each year estimate that about half of the boys have been homosexually abused and 90% of the girls heterosexually assaulted. (27) Investigation of those suffering severe chronic mental illness implicates child molestation as a primary cause (45% of Bigras et al’s (28) patients were homosexually abused).

If 2% of the population is responsible for 20% to 40% of something as socially and personally troubling as child molestation, something must be desperately wrong with that 2%. Not every homosexual is a child molester. But enough gays do molest children so that the risk of a homosexual molesting a child is 10 to 20 times greater than that of a heterosexual.

Goals of the Gay Movement
The gay movement is forthright about seeking to legitimize child-adult homosexual sex. In 1987, The Journal of Homosexuality – the scholarly organ of the gay rights movement – published “Pedophilia and the Gay Movement.” (29) Author Theo Sandfort detailed homosexual efforts to end “oppression towards pedophilia.” In 1980 the largest Dutch gay organization (the COC) “adopted the position that the liberation of pedophilia must be viewed as a gay issue… [and that] ages of consent should therefore be abolished… by acknowledging the affinity between homosexuality and pedophilia, the COC has quite possibly made it easier for homosexual adults to become more sensitive to erotic desires of younger members of their sex, thereby broadening gay identity.”

In 1990 COC achieved a significant victory: lowering of the age of consent for homosexual sex in Holland to 12 (unless the parents object, in which case it goes up to 15). (30) In the U.S. and Canada, the North American Man-Boy Love Association marches proudly in many gay pride parades with the stated goal of removing the barriers to man-boy sex. Note the phrases “oppression towards pedophilia” and “liberation of pedophilia.” It is clear that those who advocate the legalization of sex between adults and children intend to argue that such conduct is a “civil right,” deserving of the same legal protections afforded to other minorities. A large proportion of Americans regard that argument as a mere pretext to giving “sexual predators” free reign to take advantage of vulnerable children.

Conclusion
Not only is the gay rights movement upfront in its desire to legitimize sex with children, but whether indexed by population reports of molestation, pedophile convictions, or teacher-pupil assaults, there is a strong, disproportionate association between child molestation and homosexuality. Ann Landers’ claim that homosexuals molest children at no higher a rate than heterosexuals do is untrue. The assertion by gay leaders and the American Psychological Association that a homosexual is less likely than a heterosexual to molest children is patently false.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/child-molestation-and-homosexuality-2/

'A Mighty Army' Page 4


Family Research Institute*
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.
www.familyresearchinst.org
Founded in 1987 by Paul Cameron, the Family Research Institute (FRI) claims to produce "cutting-edge research" on "family policy" issues. In truth, Cameron is the longtime house psychologist of the anti-gay movement — and one of the most thoroughly discredited researchers in America.

After losing his job teaching psychology at the University of Nebraska in 1980, Cameron began to crank out "scientific" studies that bolstered the claims of Anita Bryant, Jerry Falwell and other early anti-gay crusaders that gay people were "diseased perverts" with a program to molest children and demolish America.

Cameron's first organization, the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, distributed hysterical pamphlets falsely alleging that gay people were much more likely than others to be serial murderers, child molesters and intentional disease-spreaders.

Years later, Cameron's FRI Web site was still singing the same tune: "The typical sexual practices of homosexuals are a medical horror story — imagine exchanging saliva, feces, semen and/or blood with dozens of different men each year. Imagine drinking urine, ingesting feces and experiencing rectal trauma on a regular basis."

That's only the beginning. In a 1981 debate, Cameron claimed a 4-year-old boy had been sexually mutilated in a Lincoln, Neb., mall rest room as part of a "homosexual act" — but police in Lincoln said no such crime had occurred.

He told the 1985 Conservative Political Action Committee conference that "extermination of homosexuals" might be needed in the next three to four years. He has advocated tattooing AIDS patients in the face, and banishment to a former leper colony for any patient who resisted. He has called for gay bars to be closed and gays to be registered with the government.

Cameron even has called AIDS a "godsend," and it was for him: Though he was kicked out of the American Psychological Association for ethical violations in 1983 (he was alleged to have used unsound methods and misrepresented the work of others) — and then, after pawning himself off as a sociologist, declared "not a sociologist" by the American Sociological Association — his studies alleging that homosexuals were intentionally spreading AIDS have been frequently cited by anti-gay groups and commentators like Pat Buchanan.

In the late '90s, Education Secretary William Bennett was badly embarrassed after going on national television and citing Cameron's unscientific study finding that gay men live only 43 years on average. (Cameron had based the finding on a sample of obituaries in gay newspapers.) Since then, anti-gay groups have continued to make frequent use of Cameron's findings — almost always without mentioning the source.

Incredibly, serving on Cameron's board are former U.S. Rep. Robert Dornan (R-Calif.) and former U.S. Sen. Robert Smith (R-Calif.)


Focus on the Family
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.
www.family.org

No one has spread the anti-gay gospel as widely, or with as much political impact, as James Dobson, the former child development professor and spanking enthusiast who founded Focus on the Family (FOF) in 1977.

On Focus' 47-acre campus in Colorado Springs, some 1,300 employees battle against gay rights, sex education and women's rights with an enormous annual budget of $130 million. Dobson's radio show, dispensing homespun parenting advice along with jabs at "the militant homosexual agenda," is heard daily on more than 9,000 radio stations worldwide, giving him an estimated listening audience of more than 200 million.

Focus' president from 2003 to early 2005, Don Hodel, formerly served as U.S. Secretary of the Interior and head of the Christian Coalition, and now chairs the Council for National Policy, a secretive group of America's most powerful right-wing leaders that Dobson formerly chaired.

As early as 1989, Dobson came under attack from a fellow conservative evangelical, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who accused him of "reprehensible" and "homophobic" use of false information about how AIDS is transmitted. But Focus began to really flex its anti-gay political muscles in 1992, when Dobson used his radio show to turn Colorado's anti-gay Amendment 2 (see Holy War) into a fundamentalist cause célèbre.

Among the scores of anti-gay commentaries, stories and products on FOF's Web site is a Dobson essay that strikes a typical note: "Moms and Dads, are you listening? This movement is the greatest threat to your children. It is of particular danger to your wide-eyed boys, who have no idea what demoralization is planned for them." Another article claims that "the homosexual agenda is a beast. It wants our kids."

According to a 1997 book by former FOF staffer Gil Alexander-Moegerle, Dobson once said, "Communities do not let prostitutes, pedophiles, voyeurs, adulterers and those who sexually prefer animals to publicly celebrate their lifestyle, so why should homosexuals get such privileges?" He has also recommended parents withdraw from Parent-Teacher Associations because they allegedly have a liberal social agenda.

But none of this cut into Dobson's effectiveness as he successfully spearheaded the national campaign against gay marriage in 2003 and 2004 (see Holy War).


Summit Ministries
MANITOU SPRINGS, Colo.
www.summit.org

David Noebel, once an evangelist with the late Billy Joe Hargis' scandal-plagued Anti-Communist Christian Crusade, founded Summit Ministries in 1962, holding camp-style conferences for Christian college students.

Now an unaccredited college of its own, boasting additional campuses in Ohio and Tennessee and the hearty endorsement of Focus on the Family's James Dobson, Summit graduates more than 1,300 students a year — all of them steeped in both Christian "dominionism" (generally, the idea that Christianity should dominate society and politics) and anti-gay politics.

In 1977, while still a member of the conspiracy-minded John Birch Society, Noebel was one of the first to recognize that anti-gay activism could surpass anti-communism as a winning issue for fundamentalists. The U.S. was "rotting within," Noebel warned, and "homosexuality is only an issue when a nation is rotting morally." Noebel wrote a book called The Homosexual Revolution and gave anti-gay lectures peppered with slurs like "fruits" and "fairies."

In 1986, he teamed up with Paul Cameron (see Family Research Institute) and then-Summit instructor Wayne Lutton, currently a leader in the white-supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, to write Special Report: AIDS, which became one of the most controversial anti-gay tracts ever published.

Pat Buchanan's blurb on the back cover sums up the spirit of this Special Report: "In a healthy society," Buchanan writes, homosexuality is "contained, segregated, controlled and stigmatized."

Bolstered by Cameron's studies alleging that gay people were intentionally spreading the AIDS virus, Special Report proposes a number of means to "suppress" the outbreak, concluding that it might become necessary to "exile" all "active homosexuals" from America.

Summit continues to preach anti-gay propaganda to the next generation of fundamentalist activists, with Mike Haley, an "ex-gay" campaigner who is Focus on the Family's "youth and gender specialist" and author of a book called Straight Answers: Exposing the Myths and Facts about Homosexuality, currently on the faculty.


Traditional Values Coalition
ANAHEIM, Calif.
www.traditionalvalues.org

Nobody has warned Americans about the "gay threat" longer, or louder, than former Presbyterian minister and Pat Robertson protégé Lou Sheldon, already a veteran anti-gay crusader when he founded the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) in 1981.

Sheldon, who deems homosexuality a "deathstyle," sends a steady stream of sensationalistic fundraising appeals to TVC members (he claims 43,000 churches are part of his coalition). Most center around the idea that child-molesting is the real "homosexual agenda."

"They want our preschool children. ... They want our kindergarten children. ... They want our middle school and high school children," read a recent direct-mail appeal.

In 1992, Sheldon reportedly told columnist Jimmy Breslin, "Homosexuals are dangerous. They proselytize. They come to the door, and if your son answers and nobody is there to stop it, they grab the son and run off with him. They steal him. They take him away and turn him into a homosexual."

TVC reports echo that theory: "As homosexuals continue to make inroads to the public schools, more children will be molested and indoctrinated into the world of homosexuality." Gay-Straight Alliances on high school campuses are also part of a plot to "target children for recruitment" to gay sex, cross-dressing and sex-change operations, TVC says.

Yet another TVC report claims "the deviant homosexual subculture has fueled efforts to normalize adult/child sex."

In 1985, Sheldon personally suggested putting AIDS victims into "cities of refuge." When a hate crimes bill was signed in the early 1990s in California, Sheldon told a reporter that it would "protect sex with animals and the rape of children as forms of political expression."

Sheldon and his daughter, Andrea Lafferty, are active lobbyists in Washington. In 1995, Sheldon managed to engineer a congressional hearing on gay activists' supposed infiltration of public schools in a bid to whip up support for Sen. Jesse Helms' bill to cut federal funds for schools "encouraging or supporting homosexuality."

But the hearing turned into a fiasco; the star witness was Claire Connolly, a lesbian who falsely accused gay male activists of using federal AIDS funds to hold orgies.

Still, Sheldon's hard edge has never faded. Commenting on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," Sheldon suggested the Bravo television network "consider airing a series called AIDS Hospice ... [that would] far more accurately portray the end results of homosexual sodomy."


Post came from last page of article http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=872

Article page one http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=869

The studies used were not from the family resaearc site.
The study is not theirs, but I would expect no less than the GLBT to try and defame any organization or person who has a conflicting opinion to their goal!

What about Kinsey Institute, Drs Freund and Heasman of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto, the English study, the dutch study, etc, etc.
You have a lot of debunking and defaming to do to neutralize this study.

Well first for Kinsey. If I feel like it maybe more later.

Kinsey, Sex and Fraud pulls together a mountain of documentation that the image in Kinsey's mirror was a deliberate distortion. Here's a profile of Kinsey and team's male sample used to picture normal sexual behaviour in American men: 25% were prisoners or ex-cons; a further abnormal percentage were sex offenders (Kinsey had the histories of over 1400); many were recruited from sex lectures, where they had gone to get the answer to sex problems, some were obtained through paid contact men, including underworld figures and leaders of homosexual groups; the group was wholly unrepresentative in terms of marital status, church attendance and educational level. In addition, Kinsey had a minimum of 200 male prostitutes among his histories. That could have been, at the very least, 7% of the total (2,719) in his sample's occupational classes!1(pp618,622) Kinsey's readers and the media got a different explanation of what was happening. An advertising circular for this survey said it was conducted "with full regard for the latest refinements in public opinion polling methods" and Kinsey's own text presented it as "a carefully planned population survey."1(pp618,622) (There is not space to discuss the female sample, it, too, was wholly unconventional.)

Already we have a description of fraud (using the intention-to-deceive definition). But it gets worse. In a 1941 paper Kinsey told the readers of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology that attempts to determine the prevalence of homosexuality in society were compromised by the use of prison populations. His own study would avoid that pitfall and provide the first credible statistics on the subject! His article was submitted in November 1940. Several months before, according to biographer Christenson,9(p115) Kinsey had already begun to recruit what became a large prisoner group in his survey sample.

Kinsey's homosexuality statistics were clearly inflated Thus, epidemiologist David Forman, after a careful survey of a much more representative population, was forced to say in his 1989, British Medical Journal article that "frequently cited figures such as [Kinsey's] 10% of men being more or less exclusively homosexual cannot be regarded as applicable to the general population." Other surveys support this view (eg, Tom Smith's 1989 study for the National Opinion Research Center11). But today, in the United States, Kinsey's original figures have become ingrained givens. You will read in Time magazine (July 10, 1989, p. 56 [U.S. edition]), for example, that "about 25 million Americans are gay." It has become politically correct so to believe.

The Kinsey team's statistical manipulations of their homosexual data, when examined in some detail, can have had only one purpose: to achieve as high an apparent prevalence figure as possible. For example, the Kinsey tearn claimed that 37% of the male population had some homosexual experience "between adolescence, and old age."1(p650) What they omitted to point out was that 32% had occurred by age 16 and the full 37% by age 19 (see Table 139, p.624 of the Male Report). And the statistic they misleadingly represent as adult homosexuality was, in fact, principally homosexual play among heterosexual preadolescents and adolescents. Moreover, the Kinsey authors represent this activity, which may have occurred only once in adolescence, as occurring throughout adult life.

Other hallmarks of fraud abound in the Kinsey team's human sexuality research. Kinsey chose his research staff for their bias - his coauthor Pomeroy noted he was hired, in part, because of his freedom from the "taboos," "inhibitions" and "guilts" that his colleagues had (panel discussion, Eastern Regional Conference, Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, Philadelphia, April 17, 1983). A candidate for the research staff, Pomeroy also tells us, was rejected for believing "extramarital intercourse harmful to marriage, homosexuality abnormal, and animal contacts ludicrous."12 In the midst of his project Kinsey rejected valid criticism that his methods favoured overrepresentation of the sexually unconventional. When given expert advice to this effect, he simply ignored the expert(Abraham Maslow), refused to deal with him further and lied about the information in his published work.7(p181)

Sweeping generalizations characterise Kinsey's work. Important statements of fact, without supporting data (in some cases contrary to the data), are common. Another fraudulent act was Kinsey's deception of Indiana University authorities about his filming of human sexual activities.4(p174) And Kinsey coauthors Gebhard and Pomeroy compound their credibility problems by subsequently describing Kinsey's samples as "random" and a "cross section of the population" - patently false descriptions (Penthouse, December 1977, p. 118; Variations, 1977, p. 84). Other examples of deception, such as obfuscation of research methods and inaccurate claims of statistical validations, would take too long to describe and are, in any case, redundant, given what we know already.

Frivolity with facts was a Kinsey modus operandi, as exemplified by one long-standing Kinsey invention recently laid to rest by Fidelity (U.S. catholic magazine) editor Michael Jones: that the Vatican had one of the three biggest pornography collections in the world - the others being Kinsey's and the British Museum's (Fidelity, April 1989, p. 22). This myth is treated as fact throughout Pomeroy's biography of Kinsey.4

From this point on, the story content becomes somewhat sordid and a suspension of disbelief has to be practised to get to the end of our review. Kinsey and team provided a body of experimental evidence demonstrating that children are "orgasmic" and capable of sexual pleasure - not just affection - from infancy. Apart from fuelling the aspirations of the growing paedophile movement, this finding now is taught as "scientific" fact in academic sexology.

Creating an awareness of this knowledge also has become one of the principal educational goals of SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S. - a leading force in the field of sex education in the United States), according to SIECUS co-founder and former Planned Parenthood medical director Mary Calderone. Known as the "High Priestess" of sex education, Calderone wrote in a SIECUS publication in 1983 that children's sexual capacities should be "developed in the same way as the child's inborn human capacity to talk or to walk and that [the parents'] role should relate only to teaching the child the appropriateness of privacy, place, and person - in a word socialization" (SIECUS Report, May-July 1983, p. 9). In the same vein and a little more explicit - if the previous quote seemed a bit ambiguous - Calderone's SIECUS colleague Dr. Lester Kirkendall (emeritus professor in the Department of Family Life(yes family life) at Oregon State University) has written in a 1985 issue of the Journal of Sex Education and Therapy " that sex education programmes of the future will probe sexual expression across generational lines, particularly as our sense of guilt about these things diminishes.

Extending the Kinsey findings even further - to their logical long-term conclusion - James Ramey, visiting professor in a medical school psychiatry department, in an unusually candid piece in the May 1979 SIECUS Report, wrote, "We are in roughly the same position today with regard to incest as we were a hundred years ago with respect to our fear of masturbation" (p. 1). In a series of remarkable experiments, the Kinsey team provided the scientific base for these progressive developments.

Several hundred children, 2 months and older, were manually and orally masturbated by "partners" in "orgasm" experiments, in some cases over periods of 24 hours. The performance of at least 188 children was timed with a stopwatch (see tables). Particulars of physiological reactions, such as the presence of anal contractions, were carefully recorded. Kinsey has assured us that "technically trained" individuals were involved in this experimentation and that some of the children were followed over a period of years to make sure that true orgasms were occurring.1(p177) These data are unique in the scientific literature, but no satisfactory explanation has ever been given of how they were obtained.

Kinsey disingenuously has maintained that in the course of interviewing people about their sex lives he just happened to come across a technically trained few (who trained them?) with identical stopwatch measurements on hand from which to piece together the most remarkable and precise tables on infant and childhood sexual (orgasmic) response ever obtained. No other surveys before or since have been able to achieve this feat - for obvious reasons. Pressed by Fidelity's Michael Jones to explain the precise measurements in so many children (Fidelity, April 1989, p. 32), Kinsey associate Paul Gebhard naively replied, "One parent used a stopwatch"! (The implication is that some of the information came from parents!) Kinsey photographer C.A. Tripp, apparently oblivious to the enormity of what he was saying, told one of us (JGM) after a television show that the experiments did indeed take place (we have speculated the data may have been invention), that they were harmless, that the children enjoyed the activity and there was no need for parental consent!

Maybe the children benefited. Here are Kinsey and colleagues' descriptions of the orgasm-inducing experiments: 1(p161) "Extreme tension with violent convulsion"... "mouth distorted ....... tongue protruding" ... "eyes staring"... "violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children)". . . "extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting of subject" . . . "excruciating pain and may scream if movement is continued" . . . "will fight away from the partner." Use of the neutral term ‘partner’ is interesting in this context.

This is the only example in Western scientific literature where data from the sexual abuse of infants and children are used to substantiate currently taught theories of human development - in this case normal sexual development. A further remarkable fact is that data from these experiments were actually published as valid "science" shortly after the trial of 20 Third Reich doctors at Nuremberg for, in some cases, lesser degrees of human abuse. And the book in which these results were tabulated was hailed in the American media as a great work of science, sweeping away embedded myths and delusions. In the December 1947 Harper's, for example, the "methods goals and findings" were said to have been "checked and rechecked by outstanding investigators" (p. 490). Nota wordappeared anywhere about the illegality and abusiveness of the child sex experiments. The public, getting its information second hand from the press, believed a great scientific and cultural milestone had been passed. This was to be the enlightenment whereby society would be educated away from its burden of Judeo-Christian superstition. Regarding sex education, Kinsey wrote to a colleague: "I shall aim to distinguish the scientific data in this field from the moralistic claptrap which has invaded our schoolroom."9(p118)

The authors and editors of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud are calling for an investigation into the entire Kinsey research effort and the full scope of its effects. It would seem appropriate to gain access to original material (if it is not destroyed) to help understand even the motivation behind what has been done. In the case of the child sex studies, who were the children, who were the experimenters, who gave them their scientific training, who wrote the protocols (there is a remarkable consistency of method) and, most importantly, what happened to the children in later life? Many would now be in their 40s and 50s and should be privately evaluated for possible damage and treatment. A Lancet reviewer, looking at the evidence now assembled in Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, has concluded that it "demolishes the foundations of the two [Kinsey] reports" and leaves "his former co-workers some explaining to do"14 That would be a start. But even a passing concern for integrity in science would make an investigation and accounting of the Kinsey team's research obligatory. (It is noteworthy that Kinsey's co-workers remain silent.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Kinsey team's work, as is evident from the deliberate effort to manufacture statistics showing a high rate of homosexuality in the male population, was designed with certain goals in mind. Gershon Legman, former bibliographer of Kinsey's erotica collection at the Kinsey Institute, was dismissed as disgruntled when he wrote in The Horn Book that the Kinsey studies were "statistical hokum" designed to "disguise" his "propagandistic" purpose of respectabilizing homosexuality and certain sexual perversions."16 Legman added, "[Kinsey] did not hesitate to extrapolate his utterly inadequate and inconclusive samplings .. . to the whole population of the United States, not to say the world." It turns out Legman was correct. Stanford University historian Paul Robinson, in his 1976 book The Modernization of Sex observed that Kinsey's statistics were designed "to undermine the traditional sexual order."17 Especially threatened was the long-standing societal prohibition on adult-child sexual contact, which helps explain a common tie binding Kinsey's prime defenders.

In the current controversy, Kinsey's few apologists risk self exposure through the connection of their own agendas with the worst elements of Kinsey's. The first defender - in New York's Village Voice (December 11, 1990, pp., 39-41) - was Philip Nobile, a former editorial director of Forum magazine, who is noted for his 1977 article in the well-known science publication Penthouse (December 1977) on the subject of "positive incest." The following year, Nobile was featuring the views of a pro-incest physician in the San Francisco Chronicle (May 15, 1978, p. 21) with the commendation that "despite the utter amorality of her prescription, I believe she has an argument that should be heard. For she wants to save the children too." Nobile's review of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud was principally a personal attack on one of the authors.

Another true believer to surface is Vem Bullough, whose review of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud in the journal Free Inquiry (Spring 1991, pp. 50-1) artlessly mocks the writers for getting upset about Kinsey's findings on the harmlessness of adult-child sex. The Kinsey view is "probably true," says Bullough of the case of men with young girls, that "if penetration is excluded" the result of societal overreaction. Bullough has written in a foreword to Dutch paedophile Edward Brongersma's book Loving Boys: A Multidisciplinary Study of Sexual Relations Between Adult and Minor Males (Volume 1) that paedophilia is "a subject that too often has been ignored or subject to hysterical statements."18 He recently has been quoted in a NAMBLA Bulletin advertisement (March 1991) recommending the Dutch Journal of paedophilia. (NAMBLA is the acronym for the North American Man/Boy Love Association).

A fascinating review by former Kinsey Institute staffer Dr William Simon has just appeared in the February 1992 issue of Archives of Sexual Behaviour.19 For the first time ever (as far as we can determine) a Kinsey disciple agonizes about the ethical dilemma of using data from the illegal experiments described above. However, Simon will only admit that the experiments were "possibly abusive." He assumes, moreover, that data from children can illustrate normal sexual development, and expresses concern that we "must ... be alert to tendencies to overidentify with the subjects of our research." We're not making this up! Simon believes our allegations are politically motivated and ideologically driven paranoia. This reaction might have been expected. In 1970, Simon and former Kinsey Institute colleague John Gagnon authored a SIECUS Study Guide (No. 11) declaring that in cases of adult-child sexual contact "the scarring is more likely to come from various adult reactions to the event itself" (p. 23). Interestingly, it was John Gagnon who, knowing the prisoner and sex offender bias among Kinsey's male interviewees,20 misrepresented the sample problems in a 1989 Science article as too many people from groups such as college faculties and Parent Teachers Asssciations and too heavily drawn from the Mid- West!"

One would have expected some official reaction from the Kinsey Institute to the allegations in Kinsey, Sex and Fraud. The response has been silence and repeated refusal to debate the issue in public forums on the grounds that to do so would dignify the baseless charges. One clue to the sensitivity of these charges, however, has been the attempt by Kinsey Institute director Dr. June Reinisch to prevent public discussion of the book on radio talk shows. In the case of radio station WNDE, Indianapolis (Kinsey home turf, this was successfully achieved by implied threat of a law-suit. Another clue is Dr. Reinisch's response to National Institutes of Health scientist Walter Stewart's call (on the jacket of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud) for the scientific community to thoroughly and openly debate "disturbing questions" about the Kinsey research. (Stewart is well-known in the United States, and abroad, as perhaps the leading expert on science fraud. He was intimately involved in the Baltimore and Benveniste cases.) Reinisch wrote to the National Institutes of Health that "If such a scientist [Stewart] does exist and is on the staff of NIH, I thought you would like to know that he is making these kind of statements" (letter to Dr. Wyngaarden, November 8, 1990). We, like Stewart, interpret this as a crude attempt to discourage his interest.

A particularly benighted review of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud in the October 15, 1991 Canadian Medical Association Journal 22 considered the pointing out of the above (and other) facts about the Kinsey team and their research a "diatribe." However, we wish to thank this reviewer for incorrectly accusing one of us (in a letter exchange) of quoting Walter Stewart out of context.23 A response to the journal from Stewart calls for an investigation of the Kinsey research.24

Since the American media of the 1940s and 50s created Kinsey, how do their successors handle his fraud exposure? Columnist Patrick Buchanan, now running a presidential campaign, got the point right away and fearlessly ran a syndicated column titled "Sex, Lies and Dr. Kinsey" (New York Post, October 20,1990, p. 13) and radio talk shows tackled the subject head on, but print journalists have difficulty with this scandal. Unlike Britain, the "mainstream" press in the U.S. is liberal-left, and, of course, Kinsey has been a God in that group's pantheon. One of the greatest journalistic fears (and perhaps dangers) is to be too far out of politically correct orbit. Nationally respected columnist John Leo of U.S. News and World Report, recounted (in a conversation with JGM) a sticky situation in a previous life at Time magazine when he mocked the pro adult-child sex coterie of academics, including Mary Calderone (q.v.) (Time, April 14, 1982, p. 72). "A complaint came in," said Leo. "I believe Henry Grunwald [then editor-in-chief] made an apology behind my back." Leo said he thought hisjob was at risk. Now he is uncharacteristically silent about the shocking exposé of the related research his new publication thinks is a "cornerstone" of sexual knowledge. Print journalists might get on board when it's politically safer.

In the meantime, an awareness of the Kinsey research scandal is gradually spreading through the mainstream scientific (as opposed to sexology) community. An investigation of some kind may be inevitable.- in October 1991 a past president of the American Association of Sex Educators, Counsellors and Therapists wrote in the society's newsletter (Contemporary Sexuality, October 1991, p1): "Look how we've used the Kinsey data. We've used it for everything from assessing the stability of marriage to raising children to trying to understand human growth and development - not just sexual but also psychological growth and changes over time." And all this from a pathological model of human behaviour!
J. Gordon Muir, a contributing author and editor of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, is a pharmaceutical company executive and former research physician based at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
John H. Court, an editor of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, is Professor of Psychology, Fuller Graduate School of Psychology, Pasadena, California.
Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Gordon Muir, Lochinvar Inc, Suite 123, 1381, Kildane Farm Road, North Carolina 27511, USA.

Our goal?
Actually I would have expected more of you Fanta, I should not have been suprised that you would feel this way. Makes me feel sad, but that is probably a waste emotion too. You'd have to care.

interesting

How hypocritical of you Lynann!

Your article comes from,
http://www.catholicdoctors.org.uk/CMQ/May_1992/kinsey_sex_fraud.htm

The Catholics?
And that's the only place a search takes me too in which they try to debunk the Kinsey Inst.

They jumped on the kinsey inst for a totally different reason.
The defense of Homosexuality was not the reason. Trust me.

How bad can they be if the GLBT often uses them to back up their philosophy!


Try again and this time try to leave a url link to your post!

I do not practice propaganda and my thoughts are mine.

Friendship has never played a part in my opinions!

I'm definately not into propaganda, infact I would not have searched out any organization to back my opinion of the gay community, but since you did, I felt the need to show you that there are opposing views.

If you do not practice propaganda then why post the views of people that have nothing at all good to say about one segment of society? And is it not your intention to leave such an impression?

I never said anything about friendship. I was never under any impression that you liked gays, I just though you smarter than that.

You know, Fanta, would it really matter where the article came from if it backed Gays? I don't think so, anyone that backs gays is of course wrong, correct?

Who in the world would you respect the views of when it came to the gay community?

And you blame the gay community for fighting back? I hope the hell you never ever have to experience anyone making you out to be less than human, Fanta.

Boo,

No offense, but both you and Fanta are the kinds of people who just want an advantage over others.* For this reason, the only way you both can find yourself in actual agreement with each other, is if you unite to achieve an advantage over someone else. But even that will only last until your two groups are the only two left in power.

I suggest you two find a common enemy.





* you can see this from his posts here. And you remember our own discussions, and how you stated that you want gays to have an advantage over others, that married couples have, not to remove the injustice, but only to insert one more group into a privileged status.

Where I support gays, is that they should have the same rights as others. Not advantages. No one should have any advantage over others by law. This is my position.

Because of this, I support gays as long as they support anyone marrying anything. But if gays only fight to get themselves into a privileged status of married couples, then this is not my fight.

Being Homosexual is a choice. There is nothing scientific to say otherwise.
While accepted in women more it is still an unnatural act.
Legalizing gay marriage gains nothing for the gay community that can not be gained by other legal means such as a power of attorney or a will.

What it does is bring the acceptance of an unnatural act into our schools and communities against the popular majority opinion!
There is proof that children are susceptible to this unnatural influence.

If Homosexuals wish to live that way then they should accept that others disagree with their choice of life style. They should respect wishes that others do not want the additional influence brought upon their attempt of raising their children according to their values, and seek out the other legal means to accomplish what they claim to be their goal.