HOMOSEXUALITY:

THE BIBLE, JESUS, HIS PEOPLE, AND SCIENCE

They're not as seperate as some would like to admit.

Homosexual Relationships In The Bible

David and Jonathan

Samuel 18:2

    "From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV)

      Very similar to the Genisis passage where it describes marriage:   "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall  cleave  unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (2:24)

Samuel 18:1

    "...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)

    "...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)

Samuel 1:26

"I   grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your   love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

In   that time period, friendships between a male and female were looked   down upon and forbidden. David's experience with a woman's love would   have been in a relationship and sexual context. Thus, it is extremely   unlikely he is talking about a platonic relationship here.


Samuel 18:3-4

      "And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as   himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to  David,  along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt."  (NIV)

    Note: They did not wear underwear at that time - essentially, Jonathan became nude in front of David, because he loved him.



    Samuel 20:41

      "After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone   and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the  ground.  Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept  the  most." (NIV)

    Note: Some translations take out  'kissing',  and put in shook hands, hugged, etc. in its place. This is  inaccurate.  The Hebrew text specifically and clearly says they kissed.



Ruth and Naomi

    Ruth 1:16-17

      "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people   will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and   there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so   severely, if anything but death separates you and me." (NIV)

      Interestingly, this passage is often read at heterosexual marriages,   thus indicating that many - if not, the majority - of Christians see it   as a quote about romantic love. It is only when pointed out that, in   context, Ruth was talking about a girl - Naomi - that they recant this.



    Ruth 1:14

    "And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law (Naomi); but Ruth clave onto her."

      The word "clave" as been translated to "cleave". We look again at the   Genisis passage: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his  mother,  and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."  (KJV)



Daniel and Ashpenaz

    Daniel 1:9  [There are numerous translations, all with the same general message]


         "Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" (NIV)

       

    "Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV)

       

    "Now God made Daniel to find favor, compassion and loving-kindness with the chief of the eunuchs" (Amplified Bible)

       

      "Now, as it happens, God had given the superintendent a special   appreciation for Daniel and sympathy for his predicament" (Living Bible)

       

    "Then God granted Daniel favor and sympathy from the chief of the eunuchs" (Modern Language)

       

    "Though God had given Daniel the favor and sympathy of the chief chamberlain..." (New American Bible)

       

    "God made Ashpenaz want to be kind and merciful to Daniel" (New Century Version)

       

    "And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs" (Revised Standard Version)

       

    "God caused the master to look on Daniel with kindness and goodwill" (Revised English Version)



    What I love about this last example is that it refers to God giving,   causing, or bringing the feelings into these men. Though it could be   interpreted as non-romantic, it is very clear their feelings ran deeper   than simple friendship, and the passages lean towards the non-platonic.



    [ SOURCES: www.religioustolerance.org, www.biblegateway.com/ ]

But The Bible Says It's Wrong!

     Many of the 'cobler' verses that  are used to speak against  homosexuality never actually say homosexuality  is wrong. They are all  debatle, up for interpreation, and many suggest a  compleatly other  pitcure. These passages - and the whole Bible,  unfortunately - has been  subjected to false translation and those  instructed with this duty  frequently add new material on to popularize  their version and furthur  their personal agenda. This is not an attack  on Your God, it is the  reality of human beings.

An example is the genocide of Sodom. From Relegious Tolerance [.org]:

"What were the sins of Sodom according to other biblical passages:

A  common procedure in biblical apologetics is to let the Bible   interpret  itself. Looking elsewhere in the Bible for references to   Sodom may help us determine which of the four above interpretations is   correct.

The interpretation of Genesis 19 as referring to a homosexual sin appears to have been created in the 11th century by the Italian ascetic St. Peter Damian. ₃ Christian theologians generally accepted this explanation until  recently. In fact, the English word sodomy, which popularly means either  homosexual or heterosexual anal intercourse,  was derived from the name  of the city.  The term "sodomy" is also used  in some ancient laws to  refer  to a variety of sexual behaviors in  addition to heterosexual  intercourse. Some of these laws are still on the books although the U.S. Supreme Court declared them  unconstitutional in 2003-JUN as part of its Lawrence v. Texas decision.

Opinion   among most liberal and mainline Christian and Jewish  theologians has  now  reverted to the original Christian belief that  Genesis 19 refers  to a lack of charity and to ill treatment of  strangers.   Consider:

Though it does go on to  name passages  that could hint to homosexuality being the main sin,  neither of these  two passages, when put under a skeptic's maginifying  glass, holds little  ground. (From:   www.religioustolerance.org/homglance.htm)

Furthur Reading:

    www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-...

    www.devilthinking.com/bible.html

    www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-...

    www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section01.h...

...And The Bible Says These Are OK!

Though  we do not have Bible passages that  clearly tell us homosexuality is  wrong, we do have passages that clearly  allow other forms of marrige we  now consider sinful. These include  polygamous, arranged, and  child-to-adult marriges. Most horifying, is  the rule that a raped woman  must marry her attacker.

"

1. The standard nuclear family: Genesis 2:24 describes how a  man  leaves his family of  origin, joins with a woman, consummates the   marriage and lives as a couple. There were quite a few differences   between the  customs and laws of contemporary North Americans and of   ancient  Israelites. In ancient Israel:    

   Inter-faith marriages were  theoretically forbidden. However, they were sometimes formed. Children of inter-faith marriages were considered illegitimate. Marriages were generally arranged by family or friends; they did    not result from a gradually evolving, loving relationship that  developed  during a  period of courtship. A bride who had been presented as a virgin and who could not be   proven to be one was stoned to death by  the men of her village.   (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) There appears to have been no similar penalty  for  men who  engaged in consensual pre-marital sexual activity.

2. Polygynous marriage: A man  would leave   his family of origin and join with his first wife. Then, as  finances   allowed, he would marry as many additional women as he desired.  The  new  wives would join the man and his other wives in an already   established  household. Polygyny was practiced by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the  Mormons, until the practice was suspended, a least temporarily, in the  late 19^th century. It is still practiced by separated  fundamentalist Mormon   groups which have left and been  excommunicated from the main Mormon   church.
   
   There are  many references to polygynous marriages in the Bible:    

   Lamech, in Genesis 4:19, became the first known polygynist. He had two wives. Subsequent men in polygynous relationships included:       Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon had 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had  multiple wives. From the historical record, it is known that Herod the Great (73 to 4 BCE) had nine wives. We have been unable to find references to polyandrous  marriages in  the Bible -- unions involving one woman and more  than one  man. It is  unlikely that many existed because of the distinctly  inferior status  given to women; they were often treated as property in the Hebrew Scriptures.

3. Levirate Marriage:  The name of this type of marriage is derived from the Latin word "levir," which means "brother-in-law."   This  involved a woman who was widowed without having borne a son. She   would  be required to leave her home, marry her brother-in-law, live   with him, and engage in sexual relations. If there were feelings    of attraction and love between the woman and her new  husband, this   arrangement could be quite agreeable to both. Otherwise,  the woman   would have to endure what was essentially serial  rapes with her former   brother-in-law as perpetrator. Their first-born  son was considered to   be sired by the deceased husband. Before the  details of conception  were  determined, such a belief made a lot of  sense. It lives on in  some  version of Sharia law among Muslims which  state that a woman can   conceive any time up to seven years after  engaging in intercourse.
   
   In Genesis  38:6-10, Tamar's husband Er was killed by God for   unspecified sinful  behavior. Er's brother, Onan, was then required by   custom to  marry Tamar. Not wanting to have a child who would not be   considered  his, he engaged in an elementary (and quite unreliable)   method  of birth control: coitus interruptus. God appears to have given  a  very  high priority to the levirate marriage obligation. Being very    displeased with Onan's behavior, God killed him as well. Ruth 4  reveals   that a man would be required to enter into a levirate   marriage not  only with his late brother's widow, but with a widow to   whom he was the  closest living relative.
   
   
4. A man, a woman and her property -- a female slave: As   described in Genesis 16, Sarah and Abram were infertile. Sarah owned    Hagar, a female slave who apparently had been purchased  earlier in   Egypt. Because Hagar was Sarah's property, she could dispose  of her as   she wished. Sarah gave Hagar to Abram as  a type of wife, so that  Abram  could have an heir. Presumably, the  arrangement to marry and  engage in  sexual activity was done without  the consent of Hagar, who  had such a  low status in the society of the  day that she was required  to submit to  what she probably felt  were serial rapes by Abram. Hagar  conceived and  bore a son, Ishmael.  This type of marriage had some  points of  similarity to  polygamous marriage, as described above.   However, Hagar's status as a human slave in a plural marriage with   two  free individuals makes it sufficiently different to warrant  separate  treatment here.
   
   
5. A man, one or more wives, and some concubines: A man could keep numerous concubines, in addition to one or more wives. These  women held an even lower status than a wife.  As implied in Genesis 21:10, a concubine could be  dismissed when no longer wanted. According to Smith's Bible Dictionary, "A    concubine would generally be either (1) a Hebrew  girl  bought...[from]  her father; (2) a Gentile captive taken in war; (3)  a  foreign slave  bought; or (4) a Canaanitish woman, bond or  free." ₁ They would probably be brought into an already-established household.   Abraham had two  concubines; Gideon: at least 1; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1;   Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least   10;  Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300!; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.
   
   
6. A male soldier and a female prisoner of war: Numbers 31:1-18    describes how the army of the ancient Israelites killed  every adult   Midianite male in battle. Moses then ordered the slaughter  in cold   blood of most of the captives, including all of the  male children who   numbered about 32,000. Only the lives of 32,000 women -  all virgins --   were spared. Some of the latter  were given to the priests as slaves.   Most were taken by the Israeli  soldiers as captives of war.  Deuteronomy  21:11-14 describes how each  captive woman would shave her  head, pare  her nails, be left alone to  mourn the loss of  her  families, friends,  and freedom. After  a full month had passed, they  would be required to  submit to their  owners sexually, as a wife. It is  conceivable that in a  few cases,  a love bond might have formed  between the soldier and his  captive(s).  However, in most cases we can  assume that the woman had to  submit  sexually against her will; that  is, she was raped.
   
   
7. A male rapist and his victim: According to the New International Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female virgin who  is   not engaged to be married and who  has been raped must marry her   attacker, no matter what her feelings were  towards the rapist. A man   could then become married by simply  sexually attacking a woman that   appealed to him, and paying his  father-in-law 50 shekels of silver.   There is one disadvantage of this  approach: he was not allowed to   subsequently divorce her. However, the King James Version and American Standard Version translate the same passages as having the man "lay hold on her" which    seems to imply some sort of force was used that might be interpreted  as    rape. Youngs Literal Translation refers to the man catching her which also seems to involve force. Finally, the New Living Translation simply refers to the couple having intercourse. The original Hebrew seems to be ambiguous.
   
   
8. A male and female slave: Exodus 21:4 indicates that a slave    owner could assign one of his female slaves to one of his male  slaves   as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted  during  this  type of transaction. The arrangement would probably  involve rape  in  most cases. In the times of the Hebrew Scriptures,  Israelite women  who  were sold into slavery by their fathers were  slaves forever. Men,  and  women who became slaves by another route, were limited to serving as slaves for  seven years.   When a male slave left his owner, the marriage would normally be   terminated; his wife would stay behind, with any  children that she  had.  He could elect to stay a slave if he wished."

    www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl0.htm

    www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl3.htm

    www.godrules.net/articles/polygamy.htm

    unreasonablefaith.com/2009/04/29/the-var...

    www.devilthinking.com/marriages.html

www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/31673/...

www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Biblic...

Many people state these passages are not to be taken seriously for one of two common reasons:

        1.  Jesus recanted it.  Technically, Jesus never spoke against  homosexuality or homosexual  marriage.  It was Paul who forbade it (in  addition to pre-marital sex,  and a woman talking or having any skin  show in Church - if you follow  this teaching of Paul, you must also  then force all women to follow by  those rules).  What he did say: love all; judge none; all are equal under God.

       2. It was a reflection of the times - things change. Anti-homosexuality was also a reflection of the times. Things are changing. 

But They Can't Have Kids Naturally, So It's Not Proper Marrige!

By  this logic, couples with fertility  problems, testicular and ovarian  cancer, paralysis, those with intersex  disorders (a physical problem),  and the elderly should not be allowed to  marry. None of these groups  can concieve naturally, and yet stopping  them from getting married  would be considered discrimination. The party  stopping it from ocurring  would be sued, charged, hated, stripped of his  lisence, and most  importantly, the goverment would support this. Just  like homosexual  couples, people with these disorders and disabilities  would have to use  adoption or artificial insemination.

Actually,  there are Bible Passages that, if  interpreted a certain way, could be  seen as Jesus advocating a life of  celibacy for those with these  complications (it also speaks against  marrige in general).

""His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it  is not good to marry."

"But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to  whom it is given."

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's   womb:  and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and   there be  eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom  of  heaven's  sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." "  - www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl2.htm 

It's Bad For The Kids Though, Right?

Not  one study has proved that  the children raised by homosexual parents  are worse off and not one  Bible verse states this either. In fact, one study even suggests that the kids raised by two lesbian moms might possibly fare better.   I hear this argument a lot by those opposing both gay marrige and gay   adoption. The myths range from that the kid will grow up to be gay   him/herself to that homosexuals are usually pedophiles and will harm  the  children. None of these are based in fact - not one.

About children raised with one homosexual parent:

"But   most studies have found that outcomes for children of gay  and lesbian   parents are no better -- and no worse -- than for other  children,   whether the measures involve peer group relationships,  self-esteem,   behavioral difficulties, academic achievement, or warmth  and quality  of  family relationships."

About children raised with two homosexuals parent:

"

• 
  
  

  There is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents. 

• 
  
  

  Home  environments with lesbian and gay parents are as likely  to  successfully  support a child's development as those with  heterosexual  parents. 

• 
  
  

  Good  parenting is not influenced by sexual orientation.  Rather, it  is  influenced most profoundly by a parent's ability to  create a loving  and  nurturing home -- an ability that does not depend  on whether a  parent is  gay or straight. 

• 
  
  

  There is no evidence to suggest that  the children of lesbian  and gay  parents are less intelligent, suffer  from more problems, are  less  popular, or have lower self-esteem than  children of heterosexual   parents. 

• 
  
  

  The children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as the children of heterosexual parents.

"

"Myth: Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are more likely to grow up gay themselves. 

Fact: All   of the available evidence demonstrates that the  sexual orientation of   parents has no impact on the sexual orientation  of their children and   that children of lesbian and gay parents are no  more likely than any   other child to grow up to be gay.⁹ There  is some evidence   that children of gays and lesbians are more tolerant  of diversity, but   this is certainly not a disadvantage. Of course, some  children of   lesbians and gay men will grow up to be gay, as will some  children of   heterosexual parents. These children will have the added  advantage of   being raised by parents who are supportive and accepting  in a world  that  can sometimes be hostile."

- www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/overvi...

From The American Psychological Associantion's paper on Gay Parenting [ www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.... ]:

"As   this summary will show, the results of existing research comparing    lesbian and gay parents to heterosexual parents and children of  lesbian   and gay parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite  clear:   Common stereotypes are not supported by the data." (Page 3)

"Some   nonscientific organizations have attempted to convince courts that    there is an actual scientific dispute in this area by citing research    performed by Paul Cameron as supporting the existence of deficits in  gay   and lesbian parents or their children compared to heterosexual  parents   or their children. In fact, there is no scientific evidence of  such   deficits. Cameron's research is methodologically suspect. His  key   findings in this area have not been replicated and are  contradicted by   the reputable published research. Unlike research that  makes a   contribution to science, his key findings and conclusions  have rarely   been cited by subsequent scientific studies published in  peer-reviewed   journals as informing their scientific inquiry. For a  detailed critique   of the research project on which Cameron has based  many of his  published  papers, see Herek (1998)." (Page 3)

"The  psychiatric,  psychological, and social work professions do not   consider homosexual  orientation to be a mental disorder. Many years  ago,  the American  Psychiatric Association removed "homosexuality" from  its  list of mental  disorders, stating that "homosexuality per se  implies no  impairment in  judgment, stability, reliability, or general  social or  vocational  capabilities" (American Psychiatric Association,  1974). In  1975, the  American Psychological Association took the same  position and  urged all  mental health professionals to help dispel the  stigma of  mental  illness that had long been associated with homosexual  orientation   (American Psychological Association, 1975). The National  Association of   Social Workers has a similar policy (National  Association of Social   Workers, 1994).

The decision to remove homosexual orientation from  the list of mental disorders reflects   extensive research conducted over  three decades showing that   homosexual orientation is not a  psychological maladjustment (Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler,  Weitz, Walston, & McKee,   1978; Reiss, 1980). There is no reliable  evidence that homosexual   orientation per se impairs psychological  functioning, although the   social and other circumstances in which  lesbians and gay men live,   including exposure to widespread prejudice  and discrimination, often   cause acute distress (Cochran, 2001; Freedman,  1971; Gonsiorek, 1991;   Hart et al., 1978; Hooker, 1957; Meyer, 2003;  Reiss, 1980)" (Page 4)

"Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no  empirical foundation (Anderssen, Amlie, & Ytteroy, 2002; Brewaeys  & van Hall,  1997;  Parks, 1998; Patterson, 2000; Patterson &  Chan, 1996;  Perrin,  2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999;  Victor &  Fish,  1995). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been  found to  differ  markedly either in their overall mental health or in  their  approaches  to child rearing (Bos et al., 2004; Kweskin & Cook,   1982; Lyons,  1983; Miller, Jacobsen, & Bigner, 1981; Mucklow &   Phelan, 1979;  Pagelow, 1980; Parks, 1998; Patterson, 2001; Rand,  Graham,  &  Rawlings, 1982; Siegenthaler & Bigner, 2000;  Thompson,  McCandless,  & Strickland, 1971)." (Page 4)

"Lesbian  couples who are  parenting together have most often been found to   divide household and  family labor relatively evenly and to report   satisfaction with their  couple relationships (Bos et al., 2004;  Brewaeys  et al., 1997; Chan, et  al., 1998a; Ciano-Boyce &  Shelley-Sireci,  2002; Hand, 1991;  Johnson & O'Connor, 2002;  Koepke, Hare, &  Moran, 1992;  Osterweil, 1991; Patterson, 1995a;  Sullivan, 1996; Tasker  &  Golombok, 1998; Vanfraussen,  Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, &  Brewaeys,  2003). Research on gay fathers  likewise suggests that they are  likely  to divide the work involved in  child care relatively evenly and  that  they are happy with their  couple relationships (Johnson &  O'Connor,  2002; McPherson, 1993)."  (Page 4)

"Sexual Orientation. A number of  investigators have also  studied a third component of  sexual identity,  sexual orientation  (Bailey, Bobrow, Wolfe, &  Mickach, 1995;  Bozett, 1980, 1987, 1989;  Gottman, 1990; Golombok &  Tasker, 1996;  Green, 1978; Huggins, 1989;  Miller, 1979; Paul, 1986;  Rees, 1979;  Tasker & Golombok, 1997). In  all studies, the great  majority of  offspring of both lesbian mothers and  gay fathers described  themselves  as heterosexual. Taken together, the  data do not suggest  elevated  rates of homosexuality among the offspring  of lesbian or gay  parents.  For instance, Huggins (1989) interviewed 36  adolescents, half  of whom  had lesbian mothers and half of whom had  heterosexual mothers.  No  children of lesbian mothers identified  themselves as lesbian or gay,   but one child of a heterosexual mother  did; this difference was not   statistically significant. In another  study, Bailey and his colleagues   (1995) studied adult sons of gay  fathers and found more than 90% of  the  sons to be heterosexual." (Page 5)

The report is seven pages long, plus references and resources. This is its conclusion:

"In   summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay   men  are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among    children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that    among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found    children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any    significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.    Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided  by   lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by   heterosexual  parents to support and enable children's psychosocial   growth.

It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and  gay parents and   their children, though no longer new, is still  limited in extent.   Although studies of gay fathers and their children  have been conducted   (Patterson, 2004), less is known about children of  gay fathers than   about children of lesbian mothers. Although studies  of adolescent and   young adult offspring of lesbian and gay parents are  available (e.g.,   Gershon et al., 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997;  Wainright et al.,   2004), relatively few studies have focused on the  offspring of lesbian   or gay parents during adolescence or adulthood.  Although more diverse   samples have been included in recent studies  (e.g., Golombok et al.,   2003; Wainright et al., 2004), many sources of  heterogeneity have yet to   be systematically investigated. Although  two longitudinal studies have   been reported (Gartrell et al., 1996,  1999, 2000; Tasker &  Golombok,  1997), longitudinal studies that  follow lesbian and gay  parent families  over time are still needed.  Thus, although a  considerable amount of  information is available,  additional research  would further our  understanding of lesbian and gay  parents and their  children."

But Gays Are Pedophiles and Will Molest Their Kids!

Once again, nowhere is there proof of it in the Bible, and Jesus did not forbid homosexuals from having kids.

"Concerns  that children of lesbian or gay parents are more likely  than  children  of heterosexual parents to be sexually abused have also  been   addressed. Results of work in this area reveal that the great  majority   of adults who perpetrate sexual abuse are male; sexual abuse  of  children  by adult women is extremely rare (Finkelhor & Russell,   1984; Jones  & McFarlane, 1980; Sarafino, 1979). Moreover, the   overwhelming  majority of child sexual abuse cases involve an adult  male  abusing a  young female (Jenny, Roesler, & Poyer, 1994; Jones  &  McFarlane,  1980). Available evidence reveals that gay men are no  more  likely than  heterosexual men to perpetrate child sexual abuse  (Groth  & Birnbaum,  1978; Jenny et al., 1994; Sarafino, 1979).  There are  few published  reports relevant to the issue of sexual abuse  of children  living in  custody of lesbian or gay parents. A recent  study did,  however, find  that none of the lesbian mothers  participating in a  longitudinal study  had abused their children  (Gartrell et al., 2005).  Fears that children  in custody of lesbian or  gay parents might be at  heightened risk for  sexual abuse are without  basis in the research  literature." (Page 5, same study as above)

"Studies  on who commits  child sexual abuse vary in their findings, but  the  most common finding  is that the majority of sexual offenders are   family members or are  otherwise known to the child. Sexual abuse by   strangers is not nearly  as common as sexual abuse by family members.   Research further shows  that men perpetrate most instances of sexual   abuse, but there are cases  in which women are the offenders. Despite a  common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse  children than heterosexual men are."(Page 3, : www.apa.org/pubs/info/brochures/sex-abus...)

With Love;

Erika