Homosexuality, pederasty, and pedophilia...

In an earlier post I noted that "gay men rape little boys." To which a reader responded:

I have no doubt that there is truth to this. But don't straight men also rape little boys, and not all gay men rape little boys? Of course, any child rape whether done by a gay or straight man to a little boy or girl is an abomination from the pit of hell and grievous sin.

But I'm wondering what evidence exists that gay men rape boys at a higher rate than straight men do?

To which I respond:

First, there are no straight men raping little boys. "Straight" means naturally ordered sexuality where the object of desire is the opposite sex. To rape young minors of one's own sex is the opposite of "straight." Romans 1 declares sodomy to be against nature which is the opposite of straight. It's true some gay men are married and have had children by their wives, but this doesn't make them straight.

Second, if what we're looking for is evidence from so-called "social science" for gay men having a propensity toward the rape of young boys (pederasty), I could provide some, but it wouldn't matter. Social science is not science, really. Or I should say science is not objective, really--particularly the "social sciences." Social scientists are like preachers: churches hire pastors who tell us what our itching ears want to hear and society hires experts who tell it what it wants to hear. Society wants to hear that sodomy is normal...

and sodomites ("Gay men") pose no threat to us or our children. So of course the Academy is pleased to provide teachers of social science who are delighted to produce all kinds of studies proving gay is normal and gay men and lesbians pose no threat to our children. Our tax dollars fund their studies providing lots of stats that show it does no harm to a child for him to be the product of a gay man donating sperm through a turkey baster to a lesbian couple, and children of such moral crimes are no worse off than children of a husband and wife who make fruitful love. They also obligingly provide us stats proving it does no harm for a child to be raised by two lesbians or two gay men rather than a father and mother.

There's no end to social scienctists scratching our ears.

There has been a sea-change in our public policy and laws based on the evidence of social scientists and their stats has paved the way and justified that sea-change. Their studies prove to us that there's no damage to society or its citizens caused by mothers hiring doctors to murder their babies. There's no associative emotional or spiritual trauma. Their studies assure us it's fine for single men or women to adopt a child. The lack of a father or mother has no associative trauma. They promise us it's fine for children to have people come into their public school classroom and demonstrate how to put condoms on penises using bananas as props. There's no associative trauma. It's fine to change language so that the male inclusive is removed from common usage. There's no truth lost. It's fine for judges to decline to declare fault in divorce. There's no associative damage to father, mother, or children. It's necessary to remove corporal punishment from our schools and homes. There's no associative damage to our children or society.

I could continue, but what's the point?

Actually, the point is that I find it heart-rending how faithlessly timid and fearful Christians are. If we'd approach so-called objective social science through the Word of God instead of the Word of God through subjective, ideological, propagandistic lying social science, we'd not spend our lives feeling insecure and denying the truths we know from the Word of God. It's time for the people of God, let alone men of God, to witness to the Gospel of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and His coming Judgment to our beloved nation and culture lost in its bondage to lies. It's time for the people of God to love our neighbors.

And if we love our neighbors, we'll care enough about their children to tell them that throughout history the main manifestation of homosexuality has been older man/young boy called "pederasty," and we will warn them not to allow gay men access to their young sons. Never in history has there been a society that has men of the same age living monogamously as husband and wife. For centuries young boys have been streetwalking in metropolitan areas and their johns haven't been straight women, let alone straight men. Gay men have paid them for the privilege of raping them. Gay men have raped little boys in my churches. Gay men want very young men and boys. Their perversion has always been closely associated with pederasty and Christians who think it's kind to gay men not to know anything about the history of pederasty and not to warn others against it have no love for gay men or their potential victims.

Whether or not they are living with one man or one woman and claiming monogamy, gay men are horribly promiscuous. Really, how could anyone be surprised? Remove woman from any of man's sexuality and you have the nightmare of the gay deathstyle, which is to say disease and drugs and alcohol and unprotected sex and sexual partners in multiples that are mind-boggling and an average life expectancy radically less than heterosexual men.

You also have rampant predatory crimes against adolescent and pre-adolescent boys. Those who refuse to see the real and present threat gay men pose to little boys are partly responsible when those little boys are raped. Refusing to recognize the danger, they took no steps to warn and guard against it.

Yes, of course there are crimes against little girls by straight men that must be guarded against, also. But the rape of young girls is not intrinsic to the sexuality of straight men as pederasty (the rape of young boys) is to sexuality of mature gay men in bondage to their homosexual perversion.

* * *

(Note: I could have provided endless links on this subject but it's so very obvious and reading such links only lowers our God-given inhibitions.)