– The study was non-representative, even of child molesters in the state in which it was conducted, much less nationally

–The study was not random (i.e.: no analysis of selection bias, primarily because the study was never intended to be random or representative).

–The study did not specify criteria for determining and/or confirming sexual orientation; it could have been done by asking participants how they would describe their sexual orientation, but it could also have been something entirely different (i.e.: “Are you sexually aroused by males?” might very well receive a higher affirmative response than “Are you gay?”).

–The study found that 86% of men who molested boys “self identified as gay or bisexual.” Not 86% of child molesters, as (if I recall correctly) Perkins said; in fact, out of the 229 participants, only 63 involved cases against males. 86% of 63 is 54, which is just under 24% of the total number of cases. So, if Perkins was being honest, he would have highlighted extremely small sample size of individuals who identify as homosexual or bisexual in the study and pointed out that only 24% of the cases in the study involved individuals who identify as homosexual or bisexual.

But 24% isn’t nearly as shocking a statistic, and a total of 54 individuals isn’t shocking at all on a state level, much less a national level, particularly coming from a 22 year old study. So Perkins picked a statistic that sounded shocking to support his point, without bothering to mention how very little it actually meant.

But remember, IOKIYR, because you’re acting for a higher good.

As a gay man, I have to disagree with you. Many LGBT people struggle with their sexual orientation, but why should we, the gay community who suffer from homophobic rhetoric and violence every day, express sympathy and kindness to someone like Rekers?

Does Rekers struggle with his sexuality? Probably, and maybe his struggle to reconcile his desires with his worldview will lead to self harm, but that is no reason to ignore Rekers own activism, or to believe that his self victimhood justifies his actions. Lots of gay men and women try to live in a straight world, they closet themselves and weave lies to block out the hatred. Maybe some of them find some happiness, but either way, you’re right that they’re worthy of pity. Rekers could have easily been one of these men. Had that been the case, I wouldn’t know to pity him, I wouldn’t have heard of him at all.

Why? Because Rekers didn’t choose to live in silence or in the closet, he chose to make a career attacking the reputations, psychological health, and civil rights of gay men and lesbians who didn’t share his revulsion with their own sexuality. He chose the spotlight, he chose to testify to remove children from same sex households and to fight to deny committed couples the right to validate their love. How many did Rekers harm, while all the while enjoying the moral righteousness of the ‘straight’ identity he wore to cloak his use of male prostitutes?

There’s an old saying about living by the sword, and it applies as well here as anywhere else. I can have some pity for Rekers the gay man destroyed by his fear. But for Rekers the anti-gay crusader? Rekers made his own choice between politics and humanity, and ridding the world of his ‘expertise’ is a triumph for those that would have otherwise been his brothers and sisters. If he wants our pity and support, he’ll need to earn it by more than hypocrisy and hate.

Let’s take the George Reker hypocrisy. You infer here that Reker is a closet homosexual yet you condemn him for his anti-gay activism. You could just as easily defend his difficulty as a gay man trying to fit into a straight world. Aren’t gay people the subjects of your sympathy and activism? But you don’t do that because Reker is on the wrong side politically.

If you had any humanity, Mark you would be kind to this misguided gay man. What if he reads what you write about him and harms himself because of it? What would be your role in that? Would you be responsible for the bullying of another gay man, a tragedy; or would you take credit for ridding the world of another hated conservative, a triumph?

Religion is the problem.

per the USCCB NAB
‘They called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intimacies with them.”‘

I just read their report on DADT that ‘proves’ 63% of the people they surveyed believe that DADT should not be repealed. Their total abuse of statistics would fail any college course with a flaming F. The fact they think the phone survey they did with people who were active duty/retired/veterans/family members of someone who had once been in or was currently serving is a total joke. At least the DoD actually asked the question of people who are currently serving (or National Guard/Reservists) or their families… you know the people this policy actually has an effect on, not some 80 year old vet who served 60 years ago.

OK Tony; it is out. Looks like the Pentagon study doesn’t agree with you either.

Thanks for being there SPLC!

Thank you for going after the FRC. Keep up the good work.