Speech [*]

• [* condemning the Rind report]

by Hon. Dave Weldon Of Florida, In The House Of Representatives, Thursday, July 29, 1999

Mr. Speaker,

I come to the floor to comment on the remarks of my colleague from the other side of the aisle, who criticized Members for support of H. Con. Res. 107. This resolution rejected the conclusions of a recent article published by the American Psychological Association that suggests sexual relationships between adults and children might be positive for children. We passed that resolution 355–0 with 13 Members voting present.

My colleague stated,

• ‘‘I wonder how many of us read the study before we were willing to vote to say that the methodology was flawed. I wonder how many of us were technically competent to make that decision.’’

I am a medical doctor and I read the meta-analysis in question. This study is based on bad data, as well as, outdated and irrelevant information. The authors cast aside studies by highly respected child-abuse researchers and instead relied heavily on non published, non peer reviewed studies. Sixty percent of the article relies on one study conducted in 1950 which did not even focus on physical sexual abuse.

Two of the authors have advanced pro pedophilia arguments in other forums.

• One author published an article titled, ‘‘Male Intergenerational Intimacy’’ [*] which questioned the taboo against man-boy love.
  
  [* No: 'Male Intergenerational Intimacy' is the title of an issue of the Journal of Homosexuality, Vol 20, # 1&2, 1990, in which Robert Bauserman wrote: "Objectivity and Ideology - Criticism of Theo Sandfort’s Research on Man-Boy Sexual Relations". - Ipce]
  
• Another article [*] by the author was published in Paidika— The Journal of Pedophilia which advocates the legalization of sex with ‘‘willing’’ children.
  
  [* Not found - Ipce]

There is nothing untrue or unsubstantiated about these facts.

Yes, the APA does a lot of good work with regard to child abuse. To their credit, the APA now recognizes the problem with publishing this article and they are making changes in the peer review process to ensure that future articles consider the social policy implications of articles on controversial topics.

It is an interesting argument that my colleague makes about Members not having the technical expertise to vote on the legislative proposal. Using this reasoning, each Member of Congress would have to recuse themselves for 95 percent of all votes because they deal with matters outside their expertise. That is a ludicrous argument and I would suggest to my colleague that a Member does not need to be trained as a psychologist to understand that pedophilia is wrong.

Pedophiles know that if society cannot demonstrate harm to victims of childhood sexual abuse they will be well on their way to ‘‘normalizing’’ pedophilia.

Hear what one pedophile wrote about the APA study.

• ‘‘For several years now studies have been slowly chipping away at the harm myth. But this study is a major hammer-blow. It represents what is really known about sex with boys, and the conclusion couldn’t be clearer: When a boy and a man consent to make love with one another, the experience is positive, or at the very least, neutral. There is, simply, no harm. . . . The genie is absolutely out of the bottle now and nothing in the world will be able to stuff it back in.’’ [*]
  
  [* Found on website "Safe Haven"; link no more active - Ipce]

Frankly, I am surprised that anyone would defend this study. My colleague even quoted scripture and implied that those who condemned the article on pedophilia were guilty of lying.

I think it is appropriate to remember what the Bible said about people who harm children.