Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 29, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates






The Sixth Extinction


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
A/V Booth

Christian Conservative: Gays Likelier to Molest Kids

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 5, 2006
Matthews and Perkins

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, falsely argued on “Hardball” that homosexual men are likelier to abuse children than heterosexuals.  With comments like this, one might argue conservatives are likelier to abuse gays, not to mention the truth.

  • Video & Transcript


    Transcript (from Media Matters):

    From the October 3 edition of Hardball:

      CHRIS MATTHEWS: OK, tough question: Should the Republican Party nominate gay men or gay women for public office? Is that a problem with you per se, just per se?

    Advertisement

    Square, Site wide
      TONY PERKINS: Per se? I think that this—there’s an indication, there’s clear research that shows that homosexual men are more likely to abuse children than straight men. And when it comes to government, yes, I have a concern that any type of sexual deviancy is a problem. And I think—I’m not pointing this strictly at homosexuality. I think this is a problem of dropping all sexual restraints in our society, and this is what it leads to. I mean, our kids not even being safe in the halls of government. Is that the America that moms and dads want for their children? I don’t think it is.

      MATTHEWS: Do you think this should be in the Republican platform for you to continue your allegiance to the Republican Party, that they stop nominating gay men or women for a public office? How strong are you on this?

      PERKINS: Well, you know, I mean, I think—I mean, that’s not it. I don’t think it needs to be in the platform. I think the question here is, was this action based out of fear of being—of a backlash from homosexuals as being seen as gay-bashers? I think they have every right to participate in the process, and if they get elected through their local constituents, that’s fine. But if the party is giving deference and protection and safe haven to those who are on a path of sexual deviancy and abusing children, that’s a problem, Chris.


  • New and Improved Comments

    If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

    By R. A. Earl, October 8, 2006 at 8:43 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Omar, oh Omar. If you actually believe what you submitted then I truly feel you are missing part of your brain, or at the very least, a major part of your education.

    When you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT please do us the courtesy of not wasting your time and ours by posting complete nonsense. Thank you.

    Report this

    By William, October 8, 2006 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Mad as Hell,
    Thanks for the heads up.  I’ve read about Weyrich and his fascist organization.  They are a scarey bunch.  What makes the situation even more scarey is how much influence they have on the fascists in the White House and Congress. Beyond that, add to the equation the ignorance, the hate and evil intent, and we’ll be seeing more of our rights and liberties dissapear if the wingnuts hold on to power after Nov. and in 08.
    Will

    Report this

    By Omar, October 8, 2006 at 10:45 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I hate republicans, but Tony Perkins is right. When babies are born, you either announce: “It’s a boy” or “It’s a girl”. I have never seen a card announcing “It’s a gay”. Gays go after kids to make them gays so they can have somebody to play with.

    Report this

    By Mad As Hell, October 7, 2006 at 8:32 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    “Caught the tail end (no pun intended) the other day of an inteview on NPR with a Republican congressman (don’t remember his name) that had called for Hastert to step down, then flip flopped after talking to the speaker to withdraw (no pun intented) his call for him to step down. He said (the congressman)regarding the Foley case; “as we all know, all homosexuals are preoccupied with sex…” the interviewer stated..“there are some people who will take issue with that… you are saying this is your opinion? ... he then said “no… everybody knows this… you know… all these psychologists’ and psychiatrists’ that have to deal with these kind of people (gays) say they are (preoccupied)”.
    Sorry I can’t recall or didn’t hear the name of the guy but this did transpire. It was on Wed afternoon on “All Things Considered”. Gives one some insight into the mindset of these homophobes in power. Not to mention the ignorance.
    Will “

    Will,
    It was not a congressman.  It was Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation, an ultra-right-wingnut organization.  I heard the interview and it’s amazing to think that Big Al and Hondo are not only a lot dumber than Weyrich, they are even more ignorant than he is.

    And is he ignorant!

    “I haven’t lost any rights!”  Oh yeah?  You don’t even know what you have lost….yet.

    But you will.

    Report this

    By William, October 7, 2006 at 11:39 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Caught the tail end (no pun intended) the other day of an inteview on NPR with a Republican congressman (don’t remember his name) that had called for Hastert to step down, then flip flopped after talking to the speaker to withdraw (no pun intented) his call for him to step down. He said (the congressman)regarding the Foley case; “as we all know, all homosexuals are preoccupied with sex…” the interviewer stated..“there are some people who will take issue with that… you are saying this is your opinion? ... he then said “no… everybody knows this… you know… all these psychologists’ and psychiatrists’ that have to deal with these kind of people (gays) say they are (preoccupied)”.
    Sorry I can’t recall or didn’t hear the name of the guy but this did transpire. It was on Wed afternoon on “All Things Considered”. Gives one some insight into the mindset of these homophobes in power. Not to mention the ignorance.
    Will

    Report this

    By R. A. Earl, October 7, 2006 at 10:48 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Molesting a child, sexually or otherwise, is an abhorrent thing to do. It doesn’t matter a damn whether the perpetrator is gay, straight or polka-dotted… CHILDREN MUST BE LEFT ALONE TO DISCOVER THEIR SEXUALITY AS A MATTER OF COURSE! I think most sane adults agree.

    Where we have a problem is answering the question “When is a child ready to participate in sexual activity?” The answers we get obviously range all over the map. It seems clear that some “children” have sex, enjoy it and suffer no obvious psychosocial harm in the process at a very early age… say around puberty (11-14). But I also know some adults at age 50 who are still not able to engage in a sexual relationship with any satisfaction or “success.” They’ve absorbed the brainwashing from their religion and/or peer group about how it’s “dirty” or “sick” or “perverted” or… or… or… (you fill in the blanks with whatever bullshit you find familiar.)

    So… because society can’t deal with “grey” and must have everything in black & white, it just picks an age for consent… say 18. This doesn’t really work, of course. Many tens of thousands, who are clearly ready and able, “break the law” and suffer the guilt and maybe other consequences for doing so earlier than age 18. So in our attempt to protect the innocent, we damn and damage the not-so-innocent. Not too bright, folks.

    My answer is to ensure ALL OUR YOUNG ARE FULLY INFORMED ABOUT HUMAN SEXUALITY… FROM ABSTINENCE to ADDICTION, GAY to STRAIGHT to BI to TRANS, and about ALL THE DISEASES AND DYSFUNCTIONS and RESPONSIBILITIES OF REPRODUCTION, AS WELL AS TO MAKE IT CLEAR THEY ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO “PERFORM” WITH ANYONE, INCLUDING “AUTHORITY FIGURES.”

    Isn’t that plenty to deal with without now applying A LOAD OF MORALIZING CRAP (religion) into the equation?

    But where do we find adults with enough of their shit together to do the teaching, let alone a judicial system with enough intelligence to deal with A PERSON and the SITUATION as INDIVIDUAL and UNIQUE rather than some statistical “average” or artifical “norm?”

    From the little bit of the alleged “transcript” of a Foley email that I’ve read, that teenager was clearly a willing participant in the “intercourse.” But with the laws as they are, and the sexual immaturity of our society as it is, Foley should have hit his “delete” button before it all started.

    But then, if he had done so, we all wouldn’t be having this fun, would we?

    Report this

    By kevin99999, October 6, 2006 at 10:58 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Conservatives claims to family values is bunch of hogwash. When was the last time they voted for a bill that actually families. Commentators like Mathews simply repeat conservatives talking points when he claimed that the GOP is supposed to be party of family values. There is collusion between the corporate media and rightwing to disinform the public because they need a wider base to advance their corporate agenda.

    Report this

    By K, October 6, 2006 at 5:30 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I have some FACTS to backup RA Earl and Mad As Hell (please pay attention Aladinoo and Big Al):

    “98% of molested males and 99.6% of molested girls are VICTIMS OF HETEROSEXUALS.”

    This is according to ‘Pediatrics: The Offical Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics’.

    Report this

    By R. A. Earl, October 6, 2006 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Hey, “big Al”... you claim that it “is unnatural for a man to penetrate another man.”

    But this just isn’t so… ESPECIALLY FOR THE TWO MEN INVOLVED.

    If this doesn’t come naturally to YOU, then SAY SO. Don’t claim to know what’s natural for everyone else… you’re just not that well informed! (You might also actually READ UP on human sexualities and LEARN SOMETHING instead of just AIRING YOUR BORING IGNORANCE.)

    I was going to write more, but I see “Mad As Hell” is flogging you, so I’ll just take a break.

    Report this

    By Mad as Hell, October 6, 2006 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    “it is amazing to me how you libs twist EVERYTHING.it IS unnatural for a man to penetrate another man.it must be painful to the man getting it,and the man giving it must enjoy administering pain.does that seem “natural”?it is also a stretch to imagine that these 2 deviants would maybelater on in life evolve to greater and more deviant behavior?of course it stands to reason.gay men are also PROVEN to be much more promiscous than their hetero conterparts.does it stand to reason that they would be more willing to hurt a child for their sexual satisfaction.please give it some serious thought libs,even though i know youre not used to it. “

    Big Al:
    Your ignorance is only surpassed by your illogic.
    1) Lots of Gay AND Straight couples enjoy “back door”—and not just the penetrator.  As long as they both happily consent, and are both adults, when did it become anyone else’s business, much less yours?

    Since lots of gay men and hetero women are happy and EAGER for this “unnatural act”, maybe it doesn’t have to hurt, eh?

    2) This means that your inference that anyone engaging in sodomy must be a sadist is patently false and not a valid conclusion. If the “recipient” is enjoying it, then your argument falls apart.

    3)While a small percentage of gay men are promiscuous, studies show that most prefer, like straights, to be in stable monogamous relations—that’s why so damn many of them WANT to get married!  You’ve been listening the phony “Christian” christo-fascists too long, who make up any damn lie they want and can count on ignoramouses like YOU to believe them without question.

    4) Various police studies show that child molestation is no more prevalent among gays than straights—since straights outnumber gays 10:1, 9 out of 10 child molesters is a man molesting a GIRL, not a boy.

    It doesn’t “stand to reaaon” at all. You don’t know what you are talking about and are just tossing at the usual Christo-fascist talking points.  That maniac in Lancaster was a “christian” who dreamed of molesting girls and murdered 5 of them.  He wasn’t the product of the Gay Life, just the opposite. In fact, it is the sexually repressed who are FAR more likely to explode and hurt and kill innocent victims.

    Wait, wait—it’s all Bill Clinton’s fault—that’s what you’ll say next.

    You see, you can’t use the same logic that “Gays are promiscuous” and therefore willing to use anyone for their solice, and then turn around and oppose monogamous Gay marriage on the same grounds.  But I’ll bet you do!

    BTW, what my wife and I do in our own bedroom, as happily consenting adults, is none of your damn business, either!

    Report this

    By John C. Bonser, October 6, 2006 at 11:29 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I was unaware that “you shall not bear false witness” had provisions for exceptions. Someone needs to esplain that to Mr. Perkins.

    Report this

    By big AL, October 6, 2006 at 7:55 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    it is amazing to me how you libs twist EVERYTHING.it IS unnatural for a man to penetrate another man.it must be painful to the man getting it,and the man giving it must enjoy administering pain.does that seem “natural”?it is also a stretch to imagine that these 2 deviants would maybelater on in life evolve to greater and more deviant behavior?of course it stands to reason.gay men are also PROVEN to be much more promiscous than their hetero conterparts.does it stand to reason that they would be more willing to hurt a child for their sexual satisfaction.please give it some serious thought libs,even though i know youre not used to it.

    Report this

    By BoDo, October 6, 2006 at 4:31 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Actually, it looks like - just from reading the news - Christian Republicans are more likely to molest kids.  And straight Christians tend to invade schools and massacre them.

    Report this

    By Mad As Hell, October 6, 2006 at 3:59 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    For once R.A. Earl and I completely agree!

    Pedophilia is just as prevalent among straights as among gays.  Since straights out-number gays by something like 10:1, 90% of all pedophiles are STRAIGHT! In other words, your daughter is at 10x the risk as you son.

    Furthermore, THE most common form is Father/Stepfather/Mother’s Boyfriend preying on the daughter.

    One excommunicated branch of the Mormons that still believes in polygamy has several members on trial, NOT for bigamy, but for rape.  The older, more powerful men of the community kept all the young women for themselves, using their power and “religious” authority to justify why they got all the women (especially the younger ones), and the younger men had to live celibate.
    Sure, having 14 young wives so you can have a different “piece” every night, and then JUSTIFY it by your dogma is really nice—if you have no heart, no ethics and are one of the top dogs.  And they claim the mantle of “christians”.

    Wait, that’s an insult to dogs.

    In fact, in religious societies, since ignorance is bliss, and the leadership ACTIVELY works to keep the laity in ignorance, predation is far, far easier: it’s harder to take advantage of kids with “street smarts”.

    Report this

    By TomChicago, October 6, 2006 at 3:25 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    One ugly spin from the whole Foley mess will always feature this thread:  conflating “gay” with “sexual abuse”, a recurring theme in the right wing’s war of terror.  Fear of queers has worked so well in the past, one wonders how Falwell and Robertson could have thus far avoided blaming gays for this scandal and threatening fire and brimstone if the base does not come to the aid of their reeling Republican friends in November.  Of course, they will be forced to issue their routine, standard apology for this lie, this blood libel, but they will have already lit the fire.

    Report this

    By congressive, October 5, 2006 at 10:51 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Statistically, pedophiles are more likely to be Christian, and seek “forgiveness” for their crimes from God, rather than their victims.  Beware people who have trouble distinguishing homosexual from pedophile.  They are probably the latter with tendencies toward the former.  Clearly, if you don’t understand the difference between consenting adults and horrific crimes against children, YOU ARE the problem.  Really, since heterosexual men are more likely to molest young girls, all heterosexual male teachers should be fired, and only homosexual men should be allowed to teach grammar school girls, right?

    Morons.

    Report this

    By saul, October 5, 2006 at 5:46 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Pedophiles don’t bother the Christian wrong as long as they prevent gay marriage.
    While Jesus didn’t say a word about gays he did say people like Rush & Newt who shed wives are evil doers- you would never know this from the religious wrong

    Report this

    By R. A. Earl, October 5, 2006 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    The Family Research Council must be very proud to have as their President a man who is an OUT AND OUT LIAR.

    There is ABSOLUTELY NO LEGITIMATE, PEER-REVIEWED REFERENCE in the recognized literature to “show that homosexual men are more likely to abuse children than straight men.” In fact, all research I’ve read on the subject has CLEARLY found that CHILDREN ARE AT FAR GREATER RISK OF SEXUAL ABUSE, BY HETEROSEXUAL MALE RELATIVES… FATHERS, GRANDFATHERS, BROTHERS, UNCLES…, and that such abuse is most likely to occur behind closed doors IN THE “safety” of THEIR HOMES.

    Why does the media even allow such garbage to be aired or reported?

    Report this

    By James V, October 5, 2006 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    ...any type of sexual deviancy…

    What does that mean exactly? Does that include oral sex? Roll playing? A little S&M? How about a racy little video to get things rolling? Do we now need a Department of Proper Sexual Activities to outline what is considered OK sexual activity and what jobs you should and shouldn’t be allowed to perform based on that? Let’s leave sex were it belongs… In our bedrooms or perhaps in the back seat of our cars! ^^

    Sexual contact with minors is an entirely different matter, and shame on the Republicans for attacking homosexuals in order to stop the last vestiges of the Christian Right from heading for the exits. The Republicans are using homophobia to direct peoples attention away from the fact that this yet another Republican scandal. One in which the “family values” party showed it’s true colors: maintain power at all costs. And for those men that knew about this and chose to cover it up, it is just as despicable as if they themselves were taking advantage of those pages… Actually in a sense they were…

    This is yet another example of the pervasiveness of Republican ignorance and bigotry. Using the same logic as these Republican geniuses: Why is the Catholic church allowed in this country? According to “research” if you are a Catholic priest you are FAR more likely to abuse children than a straight OR homosexual man. Try chewing on that little morsel all you God fearing Republicans out there.


    :::Oh and on a side note from FOX “news”:::

    If there’s one thing you need to remember about all of this before you head to the polls: Foley was not only a drunken, lying, gay, pedophile…he was also a Democrat…

    They should be taken off the air for that repeated little “accident”...

    Report this

    By kevin99999, October 5, 2006 at 12:12 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    The GOP spin meisters at MSNBC, headed by Mathews, and at other corporate spin outlets, are busy at work in shifting the blame to the democrats. I wonder how they would thy run these shows had it been a democrat instead of Foley and had democrats been the majority party. Well, we all remember Monica Lewisnky affairs when Mathews was relentless in his attacks. I wonder if he got a bonus for that performance from his bosses or from the GOP.

    Report this

    By Aladinoo, October 5, 2006 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I am really pissed off when i saw the website’s commentary questioning the credibility of the research saying homos are “more likely” than hetero counterparts….
    Hey dude ... he said more likely nothing more ..
    i do believe in that research coz homosexuality aginst the norms of nature .....a plain vanilla fact….....so there’s no problem in molestation or having sex with animals….

    Report this

    By johnnyfarout, October 5, 2006 at 11:32 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Watching this it sounds like the GOP is being likened to the Catholic Church, who, as we know, protected priests from discovery when sexually molesting parish children. I was sent to Catholic schools in my youth and although I knew of no sexual abuse, I certainly, as did my fellow pupils, feared the abuse we daily witnessed, or suffered personally, by the Nuns, and sometimes sociopathic priests who took the notion of obedience into the realms of torture. The Inquisition was feared centuries after the last stake burning, and we children suspected it was just in hiatus. Do I think gays AND straights can be abusive? You betchya’; and this doesn’t mean just sexually. Do I think it’s more likely if one is gay? No. Of course I see it as an equal opportunity evil perversion: man, woman, gay, straight, bi, whatever. If the restraints society has against sexual expression are removed, will we descend even further into nightmares of abuse? Will we start marrying animals…or worse yet Congressmen, or priests, or Nuns!?! I once asked the very attractive bartender at the local tavern what she thought about this idea that if gays were allowed to marry, that suddenly any of us would be getting the notion to marry farm animals or worse, our pets. She looked at me with some serious eyeing and said, “You know I married twice and I’m divorced twice. The first time it was with a snake, and the second time was with a dog!” That about holds all the wisdom needed in the marriage issue for me. So if there’s found a way to discover this pathos, it won’t involve whether one is gay, or not, but more about how repressed and angry one is after having been socialized out of one’s wild childhood. Humans in unassailable and powerful positions above all others are the ones to scrutinize for evil intentions and black hearts. As Hunter Thompson said, “As your attorney I advise you to start drinking heavily.”

    Report this

    By CB, October 5, 2006 at 8:17 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Oh Mr. Perkins, isn’t it terribly dark and lonely in the closet? 

    Studies have shown that political action groups with the word “family” in their name are completely neo-bonkers.  My studies.

    Report this
     
    Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
     
    Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
     
    Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
     
     
     
    Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
     
    Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
     

    A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
    © 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.