On the FRC webpage is an original "study" entitled Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse. This piece of "work" was published by former FRC employee Timothy Dailey.
It puts forth the theory that:
Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.
Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).
The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.
Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.
Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.
Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote "intergenerational intimacy."
These points are junk. More credible sources, i.e. the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America, all say that gay men are not more likely to molest children than heterosexual men.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center:
Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.
My mention of Groth's work was deliberate for a reason. In Dailey's piece mentions Groth's work:
According to the Journal of Child Psychiatry: "It was commonly believed fifteen years ago that girls were abused in excess of boys in a ratio of about 9 to 1, but contemporary studies now indicate that the ratio of girls to boys abused has narrowed remarkably. . . . The majority of community studies suggest a . . . ratio . . . in the order of 2 to 4 girls to 1 boy." Another study found that "some authors now believe that boys may be sexually abused as commonly as girls (Groth, 1978; O'Brien, 1980)."
And the fact that Dailey cited Groth is significant, not only because Groth's work refutes one of the premises of Dailey's study, but also because in 2002, Groth wrote a letter demanding that his work be removed from Dailey's paper:
June 10, 2002
Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D.
FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL
801 G Street N.W.
Washington, DC 2001
Dear Dr. Dailey:
On the web site www.frc.org you reference my work in your article on “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse”. I am writing you to object to my name and research being associated in any way, shape, or form to lend legitimacy to the views proposed in your paper.
If you are, in fact, familiar with my research, you must realize that my studies have indicated that homosexual males pose less risk of sexual harm to children (both male and female)—from both an absolute and a percentage incidence rate—than heterosexual males. Your statement that “the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners” appears to come from the assumption that if an adult male is attracted to a male child, this adult male’s sexual orientation is ipso facto homosexual.
Since your report, in my view, misrepresents the facts of what we know about this matter from scientific investigation, and does not indicate that my studies on this topic reach conclusions diametrically opposed to yours; I would appreciate your removing any reference to my work in your paper lest it appear to the reader that my research supports your views.
A. Nicholas Groth, Ph.D.
What does it say about FRC's credibility when it continues to inaccurately use a researcher's work even after he demands a retraction? More than that, what does it say about the Family Research Council's supposed Christian ethics?