Often, sexual abuse is characterized as occurring primarily in certain situations: blended families, families with gay members, poor households, and the like. These stereotypes are deeply hurtful. They may legitimize abuse ("Well, sure, he was abused, his uncle was gay," or "Of course, his parents had left him"). They also negate the deeply healing power a good stepfamily can have on a child. Furthermore, they make the abused children of "normal" families less likely to be believed ("Come on, your father looks like such a godly man").

Abuse happens. Period. It's not preferential of class, religion, sexual orientation, or race, and no amount of suffering and family chaos give reason to tolerate or expect abuse. As a medical student training to be an obstetrician/gynecologist, I've seen the damage of generalization at work. Well off, Christian, "normal" girls are never asked about sexual issues directly, which can victimize them again.

Ted Olsen's commentary on Kansas v. Limon in the October 27 Weblog is unfair and unwarranted. Olsen cites the case to take a shot at the aclu and homosexual rights groups who claim that pedophilia and homosexuality are not synonymous. It is not only unchristian, but also poor journalism to use anecdotal evidence to draw conclusions about an entire group.

I, too, believe that Scripture teaches against homosexuality. However, too often, evangelicals in their opposition to homosexual behavior resort to insinuations that homosexuals are predatory against children. Let us, instead, engage in debate by sticking to biblical and theological principles, with gentleness and respect.

I would have no success introducing my homosexual friends to the transforming power of Christ by associating ...