Conversations with Christians over pedophilia and homosexuality

[Dekusta]

Debating christians over the issue of homosexuality is sort of a pre-requisite for living a secular life in Brazil. While most of them have weak arguments, recently I was impressed by an evangelical psychologist who argued for heterosexual superiority.

Although I am unsure if his conclusion that "heterosexuality is better than homosexuality" is even relevant, or if any sense can be made of it, he presents two reasons under which heterosexuality is "better" than homosexuality.

Both of these reasons are based on a 1992 study by Dr. Kurt Freund and Dr. R.J Watson called "The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children". Their study found out that the proportion of pedophiles who are more attracted to boys than to girls is larger than the proportion of teleiophiles (people attracted to adults) who are more attracted to men than to women. In other words, "[...]among men with a sexual preference for children, there was an over-representation of men with a same-sex preference. To reiterate, among men with a sexual preference for children, as diagnosed using Dr. Freund's phallometric test, there was a higher relative incidence of homosexuality.".

And then they concluded that "a homosexual development notably often does not result in androphilia [sexual desire for men] but in homosexual pedophilia [desire for boys]. … This, of course, should not be understood as saying that androphiles may have a greater propensity to offend against children than do gynephiles [men interested in sex with women]". They estimate that a homosexual development resulting in pedophilia is twice as likely than a heterosexual one.

Both me and my opponent agree that this does not show that homosexual teleiophiles are more likely to molest children, in fact some studies conducted by Dr. Ray Blanchart show quite the opposite, but he says that heterosexuality is superior because (1) homosexual development is twice as likely to result in pedophilia and (2) if we equated the number of homosexuals and heterosexuals on our society, most pedophiles would be homosexuals. He means "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" as including pedophile and teleiophile individuals.

On another instance, he told me that "Suppose there are two genes, gene A and gene B. Now suppose that gene B has twice as likely the chance of turning into a cancer than gene A. Aren't we accurate when saying that gene A is better than gene B?".

I agree with (1) and (2) but I don't think they show that one orientation is superior than the other. Actually, (2) looks like an "if everybody was gay no one would reproduce" argument.

Do you guys have any thoughts?

 

[dystopian]

Debating christians over the issue of homosexuality is sort of a pre-requisite for living a secular life in Brazil. While most of them have weak arguments, recently I was impressed by an evangelical psychologist who argued for heterosexual superiority.

Although I am unsure if his conclusion that "heterosexuality is better than homosexuality" is even relevant, or if any sense can be made of it, he presents two reasons under which heterosexuality is "better" than homosexuality.

Both of these reasons are based on a 1992 study by Dr. Kurt Freund and Dr. R.J Watson called "The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children". Their study found out that the proportion of pedophiles who are more attracted to boys than to girls is larger than the proportion of teleiophiles (people attracted to adults) who are more attracted to men than to women. In other words, "[...]among men with a sexual preference for children, there was an over-representation of men with a same-sex preference. To reiterate, among men with a sexual preference for children, as diagnosed using Dr. Freund's phallometric test, there was a higher relative incidence of homosexuality.".

And then they concluded that "a homosexual development notably often does not result in androphilia [sexual desire for men] but in homosexual pedophilia [desire for boys]. … This, of course, should not be understood as saying that androphiles may have a greater propensity to offend against children than do gynephiles [men interested in sex with women]". They estimate that a homosexual development resulting in pedophilia is twice as likely than a heterosexual one.

Both me and my opponent agree that this does not show that homosexual teleiophiles are more likely to molest children, in fact some studies conducted by Dr. Ray Blanchart show quite the opposite, but he says that heterosexuality is superior because (1) homosexual development is twice as likely to result in pedophilia and (2) if we equated the number of homosexuals and heterosexuals on our society, most pedophiles would be homosexuals. He means "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" as including pedophile and teleiophile individuals.

On another instance, he told me that "Suppose there are two genes, gene A and gene B. Now suppose that gene B has twice as likely the chance of turning into a cancer than gene A. Aren't we accurate when saying that gene A is better than gene B?".

I agree with (1) and (2) but I don't think they show that one orientation is superior than the other. Actually, (2) looks like an "if everybody was gay no one would reproduce" argument.

Do you guys have any thoughts?

"And then they concluded that "a homosexual development notably often does not result in androphilia [sexual desire for men] but in homosexual pedophilia [desire for boys]. …"

This is a pretty dishonest use of language here. What exactly does 'notably often' mean?

in regards to 1); Twice as likely as among heterosexuals, as he claims? Even if that is true, and I have no reason to believe that it is, pedophilia would still represent an absolutely tiny minority of *either* heterosexual or homosexual individuals. 2 out of a million homosexual adults compared to only 1 out of a million heterosexual adults does NOT provide an argument for the "superiority" of heterosexuality.

in regards to 2); Not only are (if these figures are accurate) most pedophiles homosexuals... but in fact ALL of them are mammallian humans. Therefore, lizards are superior. Most criminals in Brazil are Brazilian... therefore, Brazilians are inferior. It's the same logic at play; which should make it clear that the argument he's making is completely ridiculous.

In regards to the gene argument; he clearly doesn't understand genetics. You're generally not going to get a gene that does nothing but make you twice as likely to get cancer. In all likelihood, that gene will have benefits and drawbacks. It might make you twice as likely to get cancer, and half as likely to not get some other disease, or provide you with some sort of other advantage. There's lots of things we can do or have that make us more likely to fall victim to bad things, but which doesn't make those things something you want to not do or have. For instance, what if I told you there was an activity that made you almost *certain* to develop lower back pain later in life? Would you want to cut that activity out of your life? Well, good luck never walking anywhere then.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Based on the logic stated in the OP, being non-religious would be preferable in those having contact with children.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's a very weak argument.

Even if he's correct and there is a relationship between what causes one to be a homosexual and what causes one to be a pedophile, that's no reason to link the two in this manner. It's like saying that eating healthy and exercising causes you to lose weight and being anorexic causes you to lose weight, so therefore eating healthy and exercising is as bad for you as being anorexic. If a greater proportion of healthy-eating people end up becoming anorexic in relation to the number of obese people who do, that's not a reason to flag healthy eating as a problem in and of itself.

 

[Bronzeage]

When I was in grades 8 through 12, the incidence of female teachers having sex with male students was zero. I do not recall a single incidence reported in the news, or even suspected by rumor.

As an adult, I know these things are fairly common. At least one or more a month is exposed. Does this mean it's a new phenomena or just a newly revealed phenomena?

It's been said many times, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. A statement such as

The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children". Their study found out that the proportion of pedophiles who are more attracted to boys than to girls is larger than the proportion of teleiophiles (people attracted to adults) who are more attracted to men than to women. In other words,...

means nothing because the statistics upon which it rests are not reliable, either in percentage, or absolute numbers.

 

[Dekusta]

Well, I don't know how capable I am to do justice to Dr. Freund's study, but here is the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

"Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children."

I am not an expert on genetics either, but I think he would tell you to imagine a gene and then a mutated version of that gene. The point is not that "there is a gente that does nothing but make you twice as likely to get cancer". I think he's trying to say that there is a mutated gene that does everything the 'normal' gene does, but it makes you twice as likely to get cancer, so that gene is inferior.

 

[TSwizzle]

I think it's daft for an evangelical christian to cite studies to "prove" that being heterosexual is superior to not being heterosexual. I think the study on its own is an interesting topic in so much as trying to figure out or demonstrate how we humans work.

 

[Dekusta]

I forgot to add he also thinks that the results of this study count as evidence for his hypothesis that homosexuality is a twisted, sort of "mutation" that arose from heterosexuals somehow.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I'll say more later in the thread, but briefly, that does not seem to say anything about bisexual or homosexual women. What's his rationale for considering female bisexuality or female homosexuality inferior?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And then they concluded that "a homosexual development notably often does not result in androphilia [sexual desire for men] but in homosexual pedophilia [desire for boys]. … This, of course, should not be understood as saying that androphiles may have a greater propensity to offend against children than do gynephiles [men interested in sex with women]". They estimate that a homosexual development resulting in pedophilia is twice as likely than a heterosexual one.

That's misleading, because the expression "results" suggests that there is a certain psychological phenomenon "homosexual development" that then results in either androphilia, or pedophilia.
However, there is no indication that the development of sexual attraction to adult human males (in human males) is part of the same psychological phenomenon as the development of attraction to prepubescent human males (i.e., that the event begins with the development of "homosexual behavior" and ends up going towards either pedophilia or androphilia).

He means "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" as including pedophile and teleiophile individuals.

And I can define "orapple" as including apples and oranges, but that does not warrant conflating apples and oranges in other contexts, e.g., when doing research on the matter. If it turns out that, say, watermelons are nutritionally better than apples (let's say they're better in all regards that makes sense to consider, etc., it's not true, but that's not the point) but roughly equal to oranges , saying that watermelons are overall better than orapples may be true, but a silly point to make: placing oranges and apples under the same "orapple" label seems to be useless as a classificatory scheme.

In the case of male homosexuality (as usually defined) and male pedophilia, conflating the two under the label "homosexuality" may be worse than useless - it may be misleading because there already is a common concept of homosexuality that doesn't include pedophilia.
If he claims that the two phenomena are indeed so similar that the classificatory scheme is justified in this context, it would be up to him to present the evidence that supports his claim (not that having good evidence of that would establish his claim that homosexual orientation is worse in any of the senses he might want to establish that).

From a slightly different perspective: the study provides no support whatsoever in support of the claim that predominant or exclusive attraction to adult males in males (which is what is usually known as homosexual orientation in men (or predominantly homosexual)) is in any way worse than predominant or exclusive attraction to adult females.

On another instance, he told me that "Suppose there are two genes, gene A and gene B. Now suppose that gene B has twice as likely the chance of turning into a cancer than gene A. Aren't we accurate when saying that gene A is better than gene B?".

Here, he's just assuming a single cause or phenomenon that sometimes turns into what's usually understood as male homosexuality, and sometimes into attraction towards boys.
I might as well say "Suppose there are genes A1, A2, B1, and B2. Now suppose that B1 is twice as likely to give you cancer as B2. Aren't we accurate in saying A2 is better than A1?"
Based on the available info, of course there is no means of telling whether A2 is in any way better than A1.
Why does he think he's dealing with the same underlying phenomenon (which he calls "homosexuality"), rather than conflating apples and oranges?

 

[Dekusta]

I'm not sure I get it. He puts "same-sex attraction to adults" and "same-sex attraction to children" under the same label, "same-sex" attraction. Why is that incoherent?

There is plenty of literature discussing the link between homosexuality and pedophilia, but suppose there is a link (in the sense that they have a similar cause or a phenomenon that results on attraction to either children or adults ). Would his argument be sound?

 

[Bronzeage]

I forgot to add he also thinks that the results of this study count as evidence for his hypothesis that homosexuality is a twisted, sort of "mutation" that arose from heterosexuals somehow.

The idea of a genetic cause for homosexuality runs counter to and undermines any hypothesis that homosexuality is a choice and can be corrected through introspection and therapy.

If it is shown that the elements of psychology which make a person a homosexual are present at conception, then such a person is God's intentional creation, not a corruption of God's creation. This presents a theological and philosophical dilemma for those who claim to base their homophobia on Scripture.

 

[dystopian]

I'm not sure I get it. He puts "same-sex attraction to adults" and "same-sex attraction to children" under the same label, "same-sex" attraction. Why is that incoherent?

Because it's poisoning the well. It reeks of a deliberate attempt to equate being gay with being a pedophile. The latter is almost universally recognized as a very bad thing to be, and equating or even just associating it with homosexuality gives rise to the idea that being gay is a bad thing because of the association. This is similar to what happens with pretty much any other form of bigotry/discrimination. For instance, look at black people in the west. There's a link that's often drawn between black criminals, and black people as a group. If you start talking about the issue as explicitly *black* crime, as opposed to just crime, you run the very real risk that you or people who listen to you start thinking negatively about black people as a whole.

There is plenty of literature discussing the link between homosexuality and pedophilia,

Much of which operates from a position of prejudice.

but suppose there is a link (in the sense that they have a similar cause or a phenomenon that results on attraction to either children or adults ). Would his argument be sound?

No; because they are fundamentally two different things on the basis of mutual consent. A child can not provide informed consent; an adult can. Whether or nor the two forms of attraction have a similar cause is completely irrelevant. For instance, getting an electric shock can cause one person to die, while it can save another person's life... does the fact that the person who got shocked to death because of the same cause that restarted someone else's heart mean that being saved from cardiac arrest is a bad thing? Of course not.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm not sure I get it. He puts "same-sex attraction to adults" and "same-sex attraction to children" under the same label, "same-sex" attraction. Why is that incoherent?

There is plenty of literature discussing the link between homosexuality and pedophilia, but suppose there is a link (in the sense that they have a similar cause or a phenomenon that results on attraction to either children or adults ). Would his argument be sound?

No, it would not.

Even if this link exists and pedophiles are simply further along the "scale of abnormality" than homosexuals and they simply have more of whatever causative factor leads to both, that would be not reason to associate the negatives of pedophilia with homosexuality.

It would be like saying that self-confidence is bad because too much of it turns you into a narcissist or saying that valuing the quality of your work is bad because when you overdo that you never complete tasks because they're not totally perfect or saying that it's bad to be open to new experiences because too much of that can lead to suicidal risk taking which endangers yourself and others.

If some trait leads to "abnormal" sexuality by having more of that trait, then each point along that scale would need to be judged in and of itself and there's no justification for linking homosexuals with pedophiles instead of linking them with heterosexuals who like to have sex with the lights on. If the level of the trait which causes homosexuality isn't a bad level of the trait then it doesn't matter what problems greater levels of the trait would lead to.

 

[Dekusta]

I'm not sure I get it. He puts "same-sex attraction to adults" and "same-sex attraction to children" under the same label, "same-sex" attraction. Why is that incoherent?

There is plenty of literature discussing the link between homosexuality and pedophilia, but suppose there is a link (in the sense that they have a similar cause or a phenomenon that results on attraction to either children or adults ). Would his argument be sound?

No, it would not.

Even if this link exists and pedophiles are simply further along the "scale of abnormality" than homosexuals and they simply have more of whatever causative factor leads to both, that would be not reason to associate the negatives of pedophilia with homosexuality.

It would be like saying that self-confidence is bad because too much of it turns you into a narcissist or saying that valuing the quality of your work is bad because when you overdo that you never complete tasks because they're not totally perfect or saying that it's bad to be open to new experiences because too much of that can lead to suicidal risk taking which endangers yourself and others.

If some trait leads to "abnormal" sexuality by having more of that trait, then each point along that scale would need to be judged in and of itself and there's no justification for linking homosexuals with pedophiles instead of linking them with heterosexuals who like to have sex with the lights on. If the level of the trait which causes homosexuality isn't a bad level of the trait then it doesn't matter what problems greater levels of the trait would lead to.

Surely, but the argument is not that homosexuality is bad. It says that heterosexuality is better than homosexuality because it's development leads to pedophiles less often than homosexuality's development.

 

[Bronzeage]

No, it would not.

Even if this link exists and pedophiles are simply further along the "scale of abnormality" than homosexuals and they simply have more of whatever causative factor leads to both, that would be not reason to associate the negatives of pedophilia with homosexuality.

It would be like saying that self-confidence is bad because too much of it turns you into a narcissist or saying that valuing the quality of your work is bad because when you overdo that you never complete tasks because they're not totally perfect or saying that it's bad to be open to new experiences because too much of that can lead to suicidal risk taking which endangers yourself and others.

If some trait leads to "abnormal" sexuality by having more of that trait, then each point along that scale would need to be judged in and of itself and there's no justification for linking homosexuals with pedophiles instead of linking them with heterosexuals who like to have sex with the lights on. If the level of the trait which causes homosexuality isn't a bad level of the trait then it doesn't matter what problems greater levels of the trait would lead to.

Surely, but the argument is not that homosexuality is bad. It says that heterosexuality is better than homosexuality because it's development leads to pedophiles less often than homosexuality's development.

Let's assume this is a valid argument. How does this affect policy? What are we supposed to do with this information.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Surely, but the argument is not that homosexuality is bad. It says that heterosexuality is better than homosexuality because it's development leads to pedophiles less often than homosexuality's development.

It still wouldn't make one better than the other. Say that Trait A governs sexual attraction. People with a low level of the trait are heterosexual, those with a medium level of the trait are homosexual and those with a high level of the trait are pedophiles, so there's a linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia since they both have higher levels of Trait A than "normal". The fact that the levels of this trait in homosexuals are closer to the levels in pedophiles than with heterosexuals doesn't mean that there's a substantive difference between those with low of medium levels of the trait.

It's like saying that people who abstain from alcohol are better than those who drink moderately because sometimes people chug a gallon of moonshine and die of alcohol poisoning.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm not sure I get it. He puts "same-sex attraction to adults" and "same-sex attraction to children" under the same label, "same-sex" attraction. Why is that incoherent?

It's not incoherent. If I put oranges and apples under the same label "orapples", that is not incoherent, either.
I'm not sure how to clarify my previous posts without making them excessively long, and that would take considerable time. What part of the reasoning in my previous post you don't understand?

There is plenty of literature discussing the link between homosexuality and pedophilia, but suppose there is a link (in the sense that they have a similar cause or a phenomenon that results on attraction to either children or adults ). Would his argument be sound?

No, but he still has not presented the evidence in question, and that's enough of an objection.

Still, the answer is no: Suppose there are two genes, A and B. A gives you blue yes, and 5% of the times, it gives you nearsightedness. B gives you brown eyes, and 1% of the times, it gives you nearsightedness (I'm matching his argument; genes wouldn't be like that). In the rest of the cases, sight is fine. Are brown eyes better than blue eyes? No, even if gene B is better (suppose no other genes give you blue eyes, etc.), blue eyes are not per se worse. You could still say blue eyes are overall worse in the sense that a greater percentage of people with blue eyes have nearsightedness, but that "overall worse" is just shorthand for "a greater percentage of people with blue eyes have nearsightedness", and would not say anything about the trait about blue-eyed people without nearsightedness.

Moreover, even in that case, there would be no good reason to discriminate against people with nearsightedness.

Let me put it in a different way. Do you know of a trait that is strongly associated with child molestation? Maleness.
Indeed, males are grossly overrepresented among child molesters - and among rapists in general, bank robbers, spouse beaters, serial killers, assassins for hire, and so on.
Suppose there is at least one common cause: say, having XY chromosomes.
Would then maleness be inferior?
If so, what kind of discrimination against males would that afford?

Incidentally, and regardless of the cause, you could ask the Christian: Two couples want to adopt a baby: a man and his wife, and a woman and his wife. Let's consider the odds of child molestation. Who should have a preference for adoption?

 

[Random Person]

Surely, but the argument is not that homosexuality is bad. It says that heterosexuality is better than homosexuality because it's development leads to pedophiles less often than homosexuality's development.

Let's assume this is a valid argument. How does this affect policy? What are we supposed to do with this information.

That's what I was thinking. Maybe research ethics should include something about not labelling something as a valid question until a valid conclusion has been determined.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I forgot to add he also thinks that the results of this study count as evidence for his hypothesis that homosexuality is a twisted, sort of "mutation" that arose from heterosexuals somehow.

And again, that's part of what's wrong. He has no good reason to believe that based on a study about pedophilia. Or does he have any good reason to think he's not mixing apples and oranges, even in the case of men? But even that wouldn't work, because he's just ignoring female homosexuality, and of course for several other reasons.