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.)

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.


Such were some of you?

Dear Mrs. McKeown,

I pray that when your race is run and the actions of life are all turned to memories, you will not be found to have been one of those women who was always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.  May the time of questioning give place -- and soon! -- to a time of action and application, for you and me and all of us who name the name of Christ. For the time is short!


(1) I appreciate  your clarification and reply. I often tend to see the little picture (prevalence of gay men sexually assaulting little boys, vs. straight men sexually assaullting little boys) rather than the overall effect of this serious problem on all of society, though.

(2) Also, this is only applicable to the RC Church, but I'm wondering if their permanent deacons, who can marry and have children, have a lower prevalence of rape/sexual assualt against little boys than do RC priests who have been shown to be gay?

(3) Finally, this is somewhat off-topic since it doesn't relate to sexual assualt on boys by gay priests, but I read about a study conducted by a psychiatrist working at a prominent academic medical center, who had performed research that showed that with highly motivated patients (most of whom were Christian or orthodox Jews) some could repair their sexual orientation. Some considered them thenselves straight, had attrraction to the opposite sex, had dated, and even married and har children. A second group didn't change their sexual orientation, but found themselves able to live celibate lives. A third group, had trouble drifting between celibacy and acting out their sexual orientation. 

The results were not what he had expected. He wrote up his results for presentation at the American Psychiatric Association national conference. The program committee - with great reluctance - gave him space for a poster session.

I sometimes wonder how many other researchers like this doctor are out there on the fringes or squelched by the mainstream (often "politically correct" ) leadership of their professional associations.

P.S. I apologize for the hodge-podge list of questions/comments in this post.

Speaking of not letting gay men near our children, and particularly boys, I recently heard encouraging news from my former school in the Cincinnati area (Cincinnati Hills Christian Academy - I attended 1st - 12th grades). They were about to hire an elementary teacher for their downtown Cincy elementary campus and had actually offered him the job. However, some of the board suspected he was gay and one board member outright asked him. Upon confirmation he was gay, they rescinded the offer. They received a firestorm from the press and I think the guy was deciding if he would press discrimination charges last I heard. I'm thankful for their stance for God's Word and the protection of the children in their school. I sent the headmaster an email thanking him and the board for standing up for God's Word and encouraging him. Pray for them as they fight for Truth and stand up for God's Word. 

Dear Sue,

Again, good questions. One of the reasons I respond to your questions publicly is that they're the questions everyone has. To respond to your latest ones above:

>>...prevalence of gay men sexually assaulting little boys, vs. straight men sexually assaullting little boys...

Once again, straight men don't assault little boys. If you have a beef with calling them "gay," then call the "sodomites" and we're fine. Jerry Sandusky is not "straight," but he most definitely is a sodomite.

>>I'm wondering if (the Roman Catholic church's) permanent deacons, who can marry and have children, have a lower prevalence of rape/sexual assault against little boys than do RC priests who have been shown to be gay?

Clearly yes. Scripture tells us one of the three purposes of marriage is to provide a godly outlet for our sexual desires, so those married are always better off than those burning. I pointed this out in the earlier post. If Scripture declares it is better to marry than to burn, then it's better to marry than to burn; and one aspect of its betterness is less vulnerability to temptations to sexual sins and crimes. But also, being a non-mainstream entry into Roman Catholic ministry, I'd expect these men to be less corrupted by mainstream Roman Catholic circles of perversion than their mainstream peers.

>>...with highly motivated patients (most of whom were Christian or orthodox Jews) some could repair their sexual orientation. Some considered them thenselves straight, had attrraction to the opposite sex, had dated, and even married and had children.

We've seen this in our congregation. This is the meaning of Scripture's "of such were some of you." Past tense.

The entire social science apparatus is corrupt today, so we must resist giving them authority in our minds and churches. This includes those who are Christian in confession and yet maintain their allegiance to their social science ideological requirements and taboos. There are Christian social scientists who refuse to bow the knee to Baal. They are few and far between and have a tough row to hoe, professionally. In that regard, on sodomy, one good voice is Armand Nicholi. But really, reading history and classical literature is a much better source for learning the nature of sodomy than the false witnesses of our day striving to please the homosexualist mafia.

>>I sometimes wonder how many other researchers like this doctor are out there on the fringes or squelched by the mainstream (often "politically correct" ) leadership of their professional associations.

Some, but more have simply abandoned the corrupt Academy for more honest and intellectually stimulating and truthful pursuits.


Dear Rob, Good to hear it. Pray for their faithfulness in this. Love,

Clergy who perform same sex marriage might as well tie a milestone around their necks a fall into the sea, for they are condoning a grievous sin that will send these poor souls to an eternity of endless tourment.

I came across this story this morning and thought it worth mentioning here -

"S.F. gay rights advocate arrested over child porn"


You mentioned that you weren't going to include links, so let me know if this is not what you need here...  It just seemed very "fresh"....


I wonder if Sue is aware of the organization NAMBLA.  North American Man Boy Love Association.  Perhaps a visit to their website will enlighten her as to how wicked and vile such men are.  Thanks brothers for standing boldly for The Lord.

Link is fine, dear brother. I just didn't want to be the one to provide them. Love,

What is the likelihood/frequency of lesbians displaying the same sort of predatory behaviours with teenage females, that you describe for gay men?

I was wondering if you could provide some clarification on this. 

I always assume that a man who molests a boy is homosexual but that a man who is homosexual is not necessarily tempted toward boys. 

Scripture does teach the downward spiral of sin, that a man who crosses one boundary will also cross others, that he will be hard-hearted, having justified his sin intellectually and strengthened the tyranny of his flesh.

But you're not really saying that are you?  I guess I have bought the line that molestation is something like rape, primarily about violence and somehow separate from homosexuality though usually comorbid with it.

I try to be wary of anyone who's around my kids, being diligent while also trusting God.

In any case, thank you.

I'm not trying to start an argument with you, but just because I had some honest questions doesn't mean that I don't believe that any child sexual abuse, especially gay men to young boys, is a particularly heinous sin. In fact, I think I used words to that effect in my original post.


I'm probably stating the obvious, but you definitely speak the truth here. Preach it, brother.

I think this is just semantics at a certain point.  Call these men (and women) what you will, the issue we're discussing right now is the abomination of pederasty, and how it's not always who you think it is- that what looks on the outside like a man or woman in a healthy, normal marriage is by no means someone free from these twisted desires.  Just like we are all afflicted with twisted desires in one area of life or another.  I say that not to minimize the atrocity of pederasty, just to point out that at the end of the day, the words are words, the gravity of sin's the thing whether we call the perpetrator "gay" or "straight."

>>I think this is just semantics at a certain point. 

Well sort of, as long as we keep in mind that gay men pose a real and present danger to little boys, and that sodomizing young boys has been central to this sexual perversion. Read ancient history. Google 'pederasty.'

Christian fathers, pastors, elders, and mothers, guard your little daughters from heterosexual child molesters and your little sons from gay men.

To note this carefully and act on it is to love your sons. It's also to love those caught in sodomite bondage.


>>> the gravity of sin's the thing

Mr. Keane, I thought you said "the gravity of the sin's the thing" (this particular kind of sin) and I was about to agree with you.  If you are talking about sin in general (putting the degradation of these perversions on a level with every other sin) I can't go with you.

If we must speak of these things, let us do so with an increasingly sharpened, not dulled, horror toward this sin that stinks with the stench of hell and takes our children there.

Maybe that's what you were saying.

Dear "Arthur," we have a rule here that if you want to accuse people personally, you have to sign your real first and last names. I might add that you have to use a real e-mail address. Also that it helps to be rational and not simply rant. I've removed your comment because you don't use a real e-mail address, you don't identify yourself, your logic is lacking, and you rant. Please don't comment again, good sir, unless you first verify your e-mail address and real first and last name with me, beforehand. Thank you.

Dear Arthur, I'd told you not to post another comment until you proved your real name and e-mail address to me, privately. Then you went ahead and commented again, breaking the rules again. I'm not unpublishing your comments because of their substance. Substance is good.

Breaking rules. For the second time, don't comment until you've corrected things privately. Then bring all the substance you want. Sincerely,

I really hate that I'm yet again commenting about a homosexual issue, but here we are. Also, to clarify, I'm "College Jay." I figured it was time to drop the nickname, though if for consistency's sake you'd like me to keep it, I can.

I really don't know what to say to this. I was never tempted to harm a little boy. I don't know any of my homosexual friends -- former or active -- who have been, either. Professionally, I'm a K-12 certified teacher. I have a young nephew. I've been a camp counselor and worked with the youth in my church. In fact, the first Christians to really show me grace and love did so by not assuming that my struggle with same-sex attractions equated to pedophilia. Because it doesn't. Believe it or not, all my relationships were with men my age, and they actually were monogamous. This might go back to what I said a few posts ago about trusting what a persons says when he or she tells you where they're at.

I mean, it kind of sucks when people assume you're a danger to children just because some of the other people who struggle or engage with the same sin are dangerous. Some heterosexual men rape little girls. Some homosexual men rape little boys. The thing that almost all abusers have in common is that they were abused themselves, but many of us developed homosexual desires without having been abused, and I'm not trying to play the victim here. I'm just saying that words like this hurt.

It's loving to be warned about the dangers, spiritual and earthly, of one's sin, but it's not loving to be lied about. So I just hope that when you do meet someone who struggles with same-sex attraction, you don't immediately assume that they're pedophiles. There's enough shame and guilt associated with this sin already. It's pretty unbearable to be thought of as a child molester, especially when the idea of sexual contact with a child is as nauseating to me as it is to, well, pretty much everyone. At least make a disclaimer that not all homosexual men are tempted this way, because they really aren't. Even most ex-gay ministries, who should be trusted as a source in all of this, do a lot of hard work to differentiate between someone tempted by homosexuality and someone tempted by pederasty. Historically they might indeed be linked, but that doesn't mean they are today.

I mean, just imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, and what it must be like to be thought of as a child molester when the thought has never, ever crossed your mind. Imagine what it's like for someone like me to be reading this. It's tough.

Dear Jay,

There's much in your comment that we could debate, but I'm not sure I know how to do it over the internet. There are recurrent indications throughout your post, however, of a common and devastating mistake we sinners make. I want to address that mistake for the sake of all the readers here.

Whenever we struggle with a particular sin, we're inclined to think we understand the nature of that sin better than anyone, especially better than shepherds who have never engaged in it. 

Now sometimes that's true because there are shepherds who cultivate ignorance and naiveté. But you know the Bayly Brothers aren't those kinds of shepherds. Therefore, I want to challenge you to remember that 

The heart is more deceitful than all else
         And is desperately sick;
         Who can understand it? Jeremiah 17:9 (NASB)

There are things, many things about your heart that you don't know yet, and many things about my heart that I don't know yet. We are not the perfect keepers of our hearts or their temptations. For that reason, it's better at times like this, to quietly let the kinds of warnings we read in this post soak in instead of worrying that people might get the wrong idea about us.

Most sincerely,

Adam Spaetti, 

Ruling Elder

Dear Jay,

You're made some good objections and I'll be free to respond to them later today.


Dear Jay,

Reading Tim's response, I realize I should have acknowledged that I too found some of your points valid. I also disagreed with some. But as I said earlier, I'm not great at dealing with a deeply personal comment like yours over the internet. It doesn't mean you shouldn't have written it, by any means; I'm just not that good at blogging.

My main point was to warn us all (not just you) to not let the "yeah, but" qualifications cause us to miss a warning we didn't even know we needed.


Adam Spaetti

After thinking about it, I should have cooled off a bit before I commented. Mr. Spaetti, you're absolutely right about the fact that qualifications can cause us to miss warnings. I was responding mostly with my feelings, and while I do think I brought up some valid points, most of what I said could have been summed up with: "This hurts" or, more accurately, "This reminds me of ways in which I've been hurt by so-called Christians in the past." That's not anyone's fault.

I totally understand that protection of children takes absolute precedence over anything else, especially over something as flimsy as hurt feelings. I also understand that this could lead to situations or attitudes that could be considered "unfair." The unfairness is worth the extra security for children, I suppose. I understand that.

I just hope that moderation, love, grace, and individual understanding is used here. I don't claim to be an expert on the sin of homosexuality, but I do know about myself.

>>After thinking about it...

Excellent, Jay. More later. Your questions are everyone's questions and I will respond to them. Likely many will be disappointed by my responses at some points, but do pray for me all the time that I will be teachable and bold in God's love.


Dear Jay,

You addressed everything I was about to try to address. God love you. The struggle against sin is hard, and lifelong. Fight on, brother.

Please, will you consider coming to the ClearNote Fellowship conference next Friday and Saturday in Bloomington?  Meeting in person would be such a help I think in the shared work here on the blog. Thanks for contributing here, I hope you continue to do so.

That's a very kind offer. I'd love to one day, but I think at this point finances and work commitments don't allow for it.

And I think I learn far more here than I contribute. I have an extreme amount of respect for the Bayly brothers and the way they speak simple truths so boldly and lovingly. If my questions or comments ever got in the way of that truth, I'd stop immediately.

I'll be honored to pay your registration fee, and we'll find a church family for you to stay with. If you're within driving distance, please do come. Let me know if you will and I'll get the ball rolling.


I'm just not within driving distance. Still, I'm humbled by your generosity.

Add new comment