All right. There are certain stereotypes that need to be proven or disproved before we can answer some other questions on legislation regarding homosexuals. I've seen some evidence both for and against the following questions, but nothing entirely conclusive. Most recently Bikerdad posted some statistics in the BSA thread that were, unfortunately, beyond the scope of the thread.

Are homosexuals more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals?

Do homosexuals suffer from lower life expectancies and are more susceptible to STDs?

Not when you consider that so much pedophilia occurs in heterosexual households but is called incest instead. That probably categorizes it as a separate statistic.



Back in the 1980's that might have been the case; a lot of homosexuals did die as a result of unprotected sex and infected partners.

Any person who does not take proper care of him/herself runs the risk of getting sick and dying. There are also genetic factors that predispose people to dying younger, sicker.

It is promiscuity, not a specific sexual orientation that predisposes a person most to sexually transmitted diseases. Simply speaking, the more you do it, and the more you do it without taking precautions, the more likely you are going to receive any kind of sexually transmitted disease, not just AIDs.

Aside from not having sex at all, an exclusive sexual lifestyle with one person who is faithful to you as well is the best prevention to contracting or dying from a venereal disease.

According to all studies not funded by the religious right, the finding has been that pedophilia is unrelated to sexual orientation.
Groups whose agenda is protecting children, rather than spreading hate, like this one, warn that:
The biggest problem with Bikerdads cooked statistics is the willful equation of hebephilia (the attraction to post-adolescent teens) with pedophilia (the attraction to pre-adolescent children). He would have you believe that a 19 year old who has a 17 year old boyfriend is the same as someone who would molest a child.
HIV was first introduced in our community, which would certainly throw off the curve. The fact is, now it is spreading more rapidly among heterosexuals than homosexuals. As a side note, given the number of accidental pregnancies that occur it is plainly obvious that heterosexuals take safer sex far less seriously than homosexuals.

I remember hearing that exclusively gay women are actually the safest group from AIDS and STDs, which As an added bonus, they won't get pregnant unless they really want to, which can also up the life expectancy since pregnancy does have some risks (although small) for the mother's health and safety.

The reason why it is spreading so fast in the heterosexual community compared to the homosexual one is, because there are more heterosexual encounters going on. (especially if you are counting cases rather then percentages) Furthermore if you use pregnancies to determine safe sex rates then homosexuals have 100% compliance. Since homosexuals do not need to worry about pregnancies I think it would give them one less reason for them to practice safe sex.

I'm not going to touch the first question, but as far as the second question, yes homosexuals are more susceptible to STDs than heterosexuals. The reason for is that anal sex (which homosexuals engage in more frequently than heterosexuals overall) is much more likely to penetrate the skin, causing semen to be transfered into the bloodstream. This creates a much higher rate of infection than vaginal sex, which does not involve the penetration of the skin (for the most part).

Okay, even if homosexuals are more likely to contract STDs (which I haven't seen any good numbers on yet), does this necessarily decrease the life expectancy? I think not. HIV and Hep are the two major STDs that are fatal (or at least sequellae are fatal) - but even these can be successfully treated for years - and Hep will likely not cause major problems until much later in life (given appropriate treatment early).

As for the first question, I think it is a ridiculous stereotype that dates back some years - I remember seeing an old "public service" announcement for kids teaching them to avoid strangers and it showed a man and said "this man has a disease. He is unmarried because he is homosexual." Then went on to say this man was a dangerous stranger and was basically a pedophile. It is these old stereotypes that have lead to continued discirimination based on sexual orientation. But the facts do no support this! Check out myth number two. 95% of abuse is by a heterosexual. Of course, the study cited here was only among abused women, but I have seen similar studies among abused children of both sexes - maybe someone else will have better luck finding a link.

Are homosexuals more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals?

Several objective studies have proved this is not the case, the majority of pedophiles are in fact heterosexual. I think that Grendel makes the best point here.



This is called statutory rape, and I would bet that the statistics comparing homosexuals to heterosexuals in this respect are similar. Unfortunately I could not find any statistics to this effect except for some relgious sites with a clear agenda (the path to the link included things like public enemy, etc).

Do homosexuals suffer from lower life expectancies and are more susceptible to STDs?

Lower life expectancies? I do not think there are any statistics to prove that since I doubt that is even measured as a vital statistic.

More susceptible to STDs? No. Many of the STDs ran rampant in the homosexual community in the 80's and early 90's however, that community has taken serious measures to stop their spread.

As Paladin pointed out, STDs are spread by promiscuity, it does not matter what your sexual orientation is. These days heterosexuals are spreading STds much faster than the homosexual community.

Without a doubt. One study published in the Journal of Child Psychiatry found that one boy is sexually abused by an adult male for every 1-4 girls. That means, 20-50% of all pedophilia cases are men abusing boys.

Bill Watkins and Arnon Bentovim, "The Sexual Abuse of Male Children and Adolescents: A Review of Current Research," Journal of Child Psychiatry 33 (1992); in Byrgen Finkelman, Sexual Abuse (New York: Garland Publishing, 1995), p. 300.

Combine that with another study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior which found that 86% of those who had sexually abused boys identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

W. D. Erickson, "Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters," Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1988): 83.

Now, combine all that with the fact that homosexual and bisexual males account for 3% of the U.S. population, and you find that a man who engages in same sex encounters is significantly more likely to be involved in pedophilia.

Milton Diamond, "Homosexuality and Bisexuality in Different Populations," Archives of Sexual Behavior 22 (1993):300.

In fact, this same publication recently concluded that, "the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles." This means that a pedophile is 6 to 20 times more likely to have same gender attraction than exclusive opposite gender attraction.

Ray Blanchard, et al., "Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles," Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (2000): 464.

DJD, thanks for providing all the sources, but without providing actual quotes from the material or actual information about how the data was collected that you are using as a basis for your assertations, it makes it a little hard to seriously engage in your argument.

Disregarding all of that, you're making a really awful assumption which clearly isn't true. That all same-sex pedophiliacs would fall into the "3%" of the homosexual population. This is absolutely ridiculous, and you are perpetuating a stereotype which has not only fueled hate towards towards the gay community, but is additionally completely unfounded in fact. Does this mean that you don't consider molestation from a married (and heterosexual) uncle, father, cousin, brother, or other male family member in your findings? If you do, then your rather ridiculous statistics become compeltely obsolete because you aren't accounting for a significant portion of molestations which actually occur.

Additionally, using the extremely controversial statistic of 3% gay men doesn't lend much-needed creedence to your argument being even remotely objective.

This may surprise a few.

I don't buy either. A pedophile is a pedophile is a pedophile. Gender and Sexual orientation has little to do with it. AND

Once STD's starts to spread in any population, only an effort to educate the population will control it.

I think Homosexuals get a bad rap, especially on the second question. It just makes "good news". (please note the quoteation marks)

Yes, I'm stunned, redliner.


And I agree that pedophiles are pedophiles (not heterosexual NOR homosexual, but a sexual category all their own).

And it's obvious to everyone that ALL humans get diseases - no one is spared or singled out by the disease because of his or her sexual orientation.

It is undeniable that a significant portion of the gay community is enchanted with man-boy love. About 10 years ago, the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) lost its status as a Non-Governmental Organization in the United Nations because of its refusal to separate itself from man-boy love groups like NAMBLA. Why does ILGA rally to the cause of groups like NAMBLA if they supposedly have nothing to do with each other?

I was just reading some statements from NAMBLA and ILGA. Here's one, "Any attempt to link NAMBLA or ILGA with child abuse is dishonest and malicious." Does that argument sound familiar?

It is very hard to deny "facts" when they exist without evidence or context. How can we argue with vague assertions with no grounding? How significant is this portion you are referring to? Start providing facts to support this claim and I will be happy to demonstrate how false it is.

NAMBLA was expelled from the ILGA in 1994.

Apparently it was only lip service as ILGA is still barred from the U.N. for its continued support for groups like NAMBLA.

In 2002 ILGA attempted to regain admittance into the U.N. and was denied because, "For more than a year, the ILGA has refused to provide documentation or allow review of its membership list to demonstrate that pedophilia groups have been expelled." This according a delegate from the U.N. Economic and Social Council speaking to the Washington Times.

George Archibald, "U.N. Group Keeps Ban on Gay Lobby," Washington Times (May 1, 2002).

And it's garbage like this that makes the following seem so... normal!

Scopes Trial County Back In News



Feel the love! I wonder if this is just a case of inbreeding?

That is absurd DJD, do you actually know any homosexuals that fall into this category or did you just make that up?

Care to comment on anything in the link Grendel posted earlier? Surely a website which gives honest facts about child abuse would include such a statistic if it is something parents should be warned off about. I see no such statistic anywhere in the text.

Perhaps it is just a hateful statement used by homophobes and bigots.

CNN archives

Certain christian fundamentalists would have you believe that AIDS is God's punishment for AIDS, or something of that sentiment.

Let's assume for a second that AIDS is a biblical type of plague. A quick jaunt over to the CDCs website would seem to indicate that Lesbians, not heterosexuals are God's chosen ones. CDC brief on Lesbian AIDS transmission

I wonder if Buchannan would like to revise his original statement?
*edited for punctuation

First of all, I would like to quote my favorite contemporary American cultural icon, Mr. Big Gay Al from South Park. (drum roll plz)



Now on to the topics:



No.

A good indication is the fact that there are way more kiddy porn for the straight then for the gay on the internet, at least that was the case a few years ago.

How do I know this, you ask? Well, a friend of mine back in high school was busted by the Feds for exactly that. But then again, he was a minor at the time too, so he got off easy. Ah... the good old days of dail-up.



No.

Yes, anal sex is more likely to penetrate. But how about those lesbians whose sexual activity do not include penetration at all. They made up roughly half the homosexual community.

Again, you may be inclined to ask me how in the world would I know this. Let me just say that back in high school, we had occasional screening of fine independent films made by dedicated people at my aforementioned friend's house from time to time.



Actually, AIDS is God's punishment for bestiality and tree-hugging. Urban legends had it that AIDS got started when a tree-hugging hippy had sexual intercourse with a monkey in Africa.

Is there any validity in urban legends, you ask? Well, my friend once told his boss that he was late to work because he got drunk and went home with some "chik" and woke up in a bathtub and one of his kidneys were gone.

There, I rest my case.

No, that’s a ridiculous generalization. According to Psychology Today, “usually pedophiles are males, who may be attracted to males, females or both” and causes are still up for debate.


I don’t know about life expectancies. Anyone leading a “high-risk” lifestyle puts him or herself in danger of a shorter lifespan. And the posters that think only male couples practice anal intercourse, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that about 20% of heterosexuals have engaged in anal sex. Wikipedia And it's higher in other countries. And I don't know if anyone has heard, but an HIV outbreak has halted (straight) adult filmmaking here in California. Anyone is susceptible to the disease. I can't find the statistics, but I have heard that the highest rising population of STDs is teenagers of both sexes. There is still a higher instance of AIDS in homosexual men, as shown in the table below. I have heard that gay men are not as conscientious about condom use as they were when the modern drug "cocktails" weren't available and AIDS was a certain death sentence. That's just foolish behavior, I don't care if you're gay or straight!


For the truth without all the preconceptions and phobias, the CDC has extensive reports at CDC STD Statistics

But Jaime, I AM serious about this. Take my first point for example,



In a market economy, the amount of entertainment-oriented content in the media is directly proportional to market demand. Therefore, an examination of amount of a certain type of content in mass media can tell you the demand for that type of content.

The internet is the purest form of mass media. Anyone with a computer and a modem can put contents on the internet. It is, therefore, arguably the best indication of what people really want. An examination of heterosexual versus homosexual pedophilic contents on the internet can, therefore, be an indication of the chance of a heterosexual versus homosexual person of being a pedophilic.

I read a statistic somewhere that said that over 80% of pedophiles were old straight guys...
I suspect there are a lot more girls molested in organizations like the Catholic church than boys.

Glad you raised the issue. Did you know there is a BIG swatch of guys who are "into guys", who absolutely HATE the concept of "ANAL*sex*".

Guys in2 guys who aren't "gAy"...

Here are some figures for you from a group of men who luv men, but want little to do with gay ANAL stereotypes: http://geocities.com/g0yz/noapology.htm
Gaining some serious momentum too...

Just to set the record straight, most homosexual men are not enchanted with man boy love (since some of you were thinking that I said they were). Please take notice of my usage of the word "significant" which is a relative term in comparison to something, in this case, heterosexuals. Nevertheless, is it inaccurate then to suggest that ILGA represents the views of many among the homosexual community?

Do homosexuals suffer from lower life expectancies and are more susceptible to STDs?

My answer to these questions is no and no, and then yes and yes. Let me explain. Having same sex attraction does not increase or decrease life expectancies nor STDs. However, common high risk same sex behaviors do lower life expectancies and increase susceptibilities to STDs as well as cancer.

1. Homosexuals are more likely to engage in high risk sexual behavior than heterosexuals. A study by Edward Laumann at the University of Chicago found that approximately 25% of all heterosexual men have at least tried anal intercourse in their lifetimes. The same study found that 76% of homosexual men have at least tried it. That's a 300% increase in risk.
Edward O. Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1994), p. 107, 318.

2. In 2000, Between the Lines, a gay and lesbian newspaper in Michigan reported that the risk of anal cancer "soars" by nearly 4,000% for people who engage in anal sex.
(Between the Lines: Michigan News, "Anal Cancer and You," Sept. 29, 2000)

3. WebMD reports that "Gay and bisexual men are at significant risk for developing anal cancer."

4. This increase of behavioral risk has led to the conclusions found in the following study: The International Journal of Epidemiology by Oxford University reported in 1997 that "life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continues, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 will not reach their 65th birthday."
Here is a link to the study.

I would say I'm mostly in concurrence with DaffyGrl on this issue.

Are homosexuals more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals?
Nope. I think a sexuality is a sexuality whatever way your genes may have paired up in the womb. You end up attracted to whomever you get attracted to. Hell, I'd go a step further in saying that pedophilia is its own sexuality, not necessarily a branch of either the homosexual or heterosexual tree. Same thing with bisexuality; it's its own avenue. From what I have read about people who are arrested for sex with children they do seem to be involved more frequently in a hetero relationship. Perhaps these people are truly pedophiles and just trying to cover themselves? Basically put, it's not who you are having sex with that makes your sexuality, but rather who you are wanting to be having sex with.

Do homosexuals suffer from lower life expectancies and are more susceptible to STDs?
I see this as a three-part question.
1. This depends on if one believes that a lower life expectancy is really suffering. I know I have days when I wake up and I wish I hadn't. Everyone dies, but not everyone lives.
2. Also, if there is a significant presence of lower life expectancies I don't know how much can truly correlate with STDs. It's documented (forgive me for being lazy and not going on slate.com to find the article) that homosexuals smoke more than heterosexuals. Now, not ever homo smokes, and not every breeder refrains. We all know that smoking will lower life expectancy. But I suppose that having more disposable income might make one more likely to take up smoking, and thus assume the risks of doing so.
3. Homosexuals may be more susceptible to STDs, though I really think it's if you are sexually active with multiple partners that makes you more susceptible to STDs.

I would say so. I know several homosexual males (my g/f's group of friends from college), and none ascribe to a following of ILGA (which I've never heard of before) or GLAAD and the sort.

The same group of friends include two couples that have been together 15-20 years, and one (out of 8) that I would term promiscuous. One of the members of the college clique died of AIDS in his mid-late 20s.


I think it's incorrect to link pedophiles to homosexuals - pedophilia is a completely separate sexual preference, and I imagine as many homosexuals are opposed to it as heterosexuals.

And, can you share what the numbers of heterosexual males and homosexual males having anal cancer are? I know males in my family are at risk of colon cancer, but I've never heard of a case of anal cancer.

And, heterosexual women, without proper screening, are at risk for cervical cancer. As the report (#3) that you mentioned notes:

Anal cancer in gay men is as common as cervical cancer was in women before the use of the Pap smear, the test used to screen for precancerous spots on the cervix. Both types of cancer are caused by the human papilloma virus, or HPV, which also causes genital warts.

It seems to me that a healthy monogomous homosexual couple would be at no greater risk of getting STDs than a healthy monogomous heterosexual couple.

No. While homossexuality is a sexual orientation, pedophilia is a paraphilia (or perversion). Pedophiles can be women and men (generally they're men) who have fantasies about children and/or engage in sexual actions with children.




I wouldn't think so, with all the medicine available nowadays. In terms of HIV, using a condom protects the people engaged in the sexual act. And we have witnessed a decrease in HIV cases when it comes to homossexuals. As for other DST's... I truly don't know.

I would submit that the original premise is flawed. Even if we were to stipulate that gay people are both more likely to be pedophiles and more suscetpible to STDs-- I am not stipulating that, but let's go with it for a second-- those facts would have nothing to do with whether gay people should be accorded their full rights as US citizens.

If we turn it on its head and say that more heterosexual people possess the above traits (per capita), would we therefore say that we must then discriminate against them in hiring, public accommodation, marriage, adoption, etc.? I think not.

Much as some would like to, you cannot morally base the application of individual rights on a trend line that describes persons that may or may not be somewhat similar to the individual at hand.

When pedophiles get caught doing what they do, they are arrested. When people get STDs, they get sick; when they knowingly, recklessly spread STDs, they get arrested too. To try to predict who is going to end up in either group is a job for law enforcement, epidemiologists and perhaps sociologists, but lawfully the prediction has no bearing upon a person's rights until AFTER they've committed a crime.

Putting aside some antiquated state laws against acting upon it, BEING gay is not a crime; nor is it a legitimate pretext to deny rights.