The label really doesn't matter to me. They are, and always will be, a hate group.

Good post - great work. Well done.

CC should inform itself before rushing to judgment. It accuses these groups of a lack of "informed discussion" but then falls into exactly the same trap. The charge is junk science, but the article links to SPLC's own article on the matter - allowing it to be judge and jury simultaneously.

Worse, that very article more or less substantiates the claim that gay men are more likely to molest children, when read closely. Molesters are categorized into two groups, of which the first group is excluded from being characterized as either homosexual or heterosexual; the second group are called "regressed offenders." And the only statistically significant information about this group is here: "Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships." Notice the word is "majority" and not "vast majority." But homosexuals form only a tiny minority of the population, with the vast majority being heterosexual. Therefore, though heterosexuals form the majority of molestors, it is much more likely for any given homosexual person to be a molestor than any given heterosexual.

I know from at least one of the Groth studies that the above characterization - along with that of the SLPC - are rather poor ways to describe the study's findings. The study also had a very limited test sample - 175 subjects. This study was from 1978, 34 years ago. Groth may have published more since then. Nonetheless - it is highly suspicious that the SLPC refers to merely a single study (and likely a very old one), and refrains from posting any reference, and it's simply prejudicial that CC would take this prove that the claim is "junk science" and warrant labelling these groups as "hate groups." The lack of discretion here would almost make one consider labeling the SLPC and those citing it as hate groups themselves - since obviously, calling a group of people a "hate group" also fertilizes seeds of hate and violence. One would think that a better means could be found than labeling groups as "hate groups" with claims which are so obviously problematic.

I do not claim to be an "expert" in the matter of homosexuality and pedophilia, but I do know that it is a complicated matter from the very beginning with nomenclature and classifications. The literature tends to use the term "MSM" (men who have sex with men) in order to bypass ideological disputes regarding orientation / identity / etc.; this way people who associate with the group "gay" or "homosexual" are not directly targeted.

Compared to the attention this issue receives in the media, there is comparatively little good research taking place, and probably not enough to make absolutist type claims either way. There most certainly is a good deal of evidence that MSM are more likely to engage in the molestation of children than those who are not MSM. That said, these MSM persons most certainly could not all be called "homosexual" (many will be bi, or self-identify as heterosexual) and there certainly are logical reasons for refraining from categorizing a good number of MSM as "gay" or "homosexual."

Given the delicacy of the matter, it is very easy for most studies to be discredited in some way as deficient or as "junk science." For example, one of the scholarly articles commonly cited by the APA and various gay rights organizations on the dangers of therapy for minimizing same-sex attractions began its selection process of individuals for the study by publishing an advertisement in the gay magazine The Advocate, asking people who felt they had been hurt by this type of therapy to write in and share their experiences. Later, this pool of individuals was added to by other, more responsible means. It could easily be argued that this article was from the very beginning "junk science" since this is not a responsible manner of gathering a pool of test subjects. However, the study did reveal at least that: a number of people consider themselves to have been harmed by this therapy, and ascribe e.g. suicidal tendencies to effects of this therapy.

Unfortunately, studies done so far tend to have various weaknesses: small pools of test subjects, lack of adequately objective random test pools; lack of other types of control which enhance objectivity. However, simply labeling all such studies as "junk science" is not helpful; as by the same token, we would need to level the same accusations at the APA and numerous gay rights organizations.

If a group is to be labeled as a "hate group," there should at least be a fair case made, which is also adequately documented. We need to know: the claims made; the evidence used to make such claims; what the competing claims are; what evidence is being ignored, etc. etc.. This is simply the most rudimentary request for justice. The organizations in question rightly complain that they are being "demonized," and if making claims regarding homosexuality in itself is enough to be labeled a "hate group" by means of inaccurate citing of a study of 175 subjects which happens to be 34 years old when many other studies have been published since then - it is quite obvious that our policy decision making will not be informed. For we could similarly call for GLAAD, HRC, and even the APA to go wearing disparaging labels. And scientists will be wary of publishing anything challenging this "conventional wisdom" for fear of losing their careers.

I do not, in principle, object to SLPC claim that groups are "hate groups." However, let's ask them to actually make the case, instead of simply granting them this power unquestionably. Let them do it in a manner which also vouchsafes future, objective scientific work in this field, so scientists are not dissuaded from engaging in research in this area, and do not have to fear pejorative labels if they do their work honestly.

In this way, we are also less likely to polarize debate. Stigmatizing and demonizing one which one sees as one's opponent in a debate might bring what seems a short-term victory; but it damages the very fabric of social discourse upon which we depend as a society. It is better to encourage all parties to the debate to engage in honest and faithful tactics of engagement.

Imagine also the harm done to society if, after a few years, a few researchers are able to gather the funds for a truly wide-scale, objective survey with rigorous control methods, and it is discovered that amongst those groups we tend to call "gay" and "homosexual," there is a significantly larger percentage than those we classify as "heterosexual" who engage in child molestation. We will have set the example of unfair treatment, demonization, and stigmatization without proof - and it will be the gay and homosexual communities which suffer the most.