Posted on 09/23/2015 11:16:00 AM PDT by robowombat
Is Pedophilia Next?
MICHAEL BROWN
The same arguments about 'born this way' could be used to support pedophilia.
A shocking article posted on the salon.com website has many people asking, "Now that we have embraced homosexuality, is pedophilia next?"
The article, written by Todd Nickerson, was titled "I'm a pedophile, but not a monster," with the subtitle reading, "I'm attracted to children but unwilling to act on it. Before judging me harshly, would you be willing to listen?" http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/
Nickerson even points to a website called Virtuous Pedophiles which states, "The goals of our organization are to reduce the stigma attached to pedophilia by letting people know that a substantial number of pedophiles do not molest children, and to provide peer support and information about available resources to help pedophiles lead happy, productive lives. Our highest priority is to help pedophiles never abuse children. We hope you will explore our website with an open mind."
What are we to make of this? And how does this tie in with gay activism?
As I pointed out in 2011, we shouldn't be surprised with the push for the acceptance of pedophilia, meaning both sympathy for the pedophile, who would doubtless say, "I didn't choose this. I'm born this way and cannot change," and recognition that "intergenerational intimacy" can often be consensual and beneficial—as disgusting as it is even to write those words.
I pointed out then that some psychiatric leaders who were instrumental in removing homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders in 1973 have been fighting to remove pedophilia as a disorder as well, not to justify the abuse of children but rather to say that being sexually attracted to children is not a mental disorder.
Also in 2011, in my book A Queer Thing Happened to America, I documented in painstaking (and painful) detail that the principle arguments used to normalize homosexuality were virtually identical to the arguments used to normalize pedophilia. (To be totally clear, I am not comparing the rape of a child by an adult with a sexual act committed by two men or two women; I am comparing the arguments used by pederast activists and gay activists to gain social acceptance.)
Consider these eight arguments, all of which (in modified form) are commonly used in support of homosexual practice. Simply substitute the words and terms, and you'll see how real the parallels are.
Pedophilia is innate and immutable; people are born this way and cannot change.
Pederasty is richly attested in many different cultures throughout history.
The claim that adult-child sexual relationships cause harm is greatly overstated and often completely inaccurate.
Consensual adult-child sex can actually be beneficial to the child.
Pederasty should not be classified as a mental disorder, since it does not cause distress to the pederast to have these desires and since the pederast can function as a normal, contributing member of society.
Many of the illustrious homosexuals of the past were actually pedophiles.
People are against intergenerational intimacy because of antiquated social standards and puritanical sexual phobias.
This is all about love and equality and liberation.
To help flesh this out, let's picture a gay man making his case to a straight man:
My homosexuality is not a sexual preference but a sexual orientation, just as much as your heterosexuality is not a sexual preference but a sexual orientation.
My homosexuality is just as normal as your heterosexuality.
Since my behavior is genetically determined and is not a choice, it is intolerant and hateful to suggest that it is wrong. And to call my sexual behavior illegal or immoral, or to refuse to legitimize same-sex relationships, is to be a moral bigot of the highest order.
I deeply resent your attempts to identify areas of my upbringing and environment as alleged causes for my homosexuality.
I categorically reject the myth that someone can change his or her sexual orientation. Rather, such statements only add to the anguish and suffering of gays and lesbians, and attempts to change us often lead to catastrophic consequences, including depression and suicide.
Now, let's turn this around and have a pederast making his case to a gay man, substituting the words accordingly (thus, "My pederasty is not a sexual preference but a sexual orientation, just as much as your homosexuality is not a sexual preference but a sexual orientation.") The parallels are undeniable (again, not referring to the acts but to the arguments.)
To be sure, Nickerson is absolutely not arguing for the rightness of adult-child sex, calling instead for sympathy toward those who find themselves unavoidably attracted to children but refuse to act on it.
But if we accept his argument—and there is an increasing number of researchers who believe that pedophilia is innate and immutable—then the whole "born that way" argument used by gay activists goes out the window.
After all, if it's wrong to justify pedophilia because some people are allegedly born that way, then it's wrong to justify homosexuality because some people are allegedly born that way.
You might say, "That's nonsense. We're talking about two adults in a loving consensual relationship, and you can't possibly compare that to a sexual or romantic relationship between an adult and a child."
But that only proves my point, since the "born that way" argument adds nothing to the equation at all, and allegedly being born with a certain propensity does not that make propensity right.
Of course, there are famous gay activists like Larry Kramer and Allen Ginsburg who sang the praises of adult-child (or, young-teen) relationships, some of them even saying that being sexually abused as children was very positive in their own lives (again, as sickening as this is, I document it in the Queer Thing book).
In the end, though, the simple point is this: If gay activists do not want to justify pedophilia because people are allegedly born that way and can't change, then they'll have to throw out the same argument when it comes to homosexual practice, which greatly undermines one of the pillars of gay activism.
You can't have it both ways. Either "born that way" determines morality or it does not—and clearly, it does not.
Michael Brown is the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire and is the president of FIRE School of Ministry. His newest book is Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide. Connect with him on Facebook at AskDrBrown or on Twitter @drmichaellbrown.
Thats exactly why I don’t think you’ll see pedophillia legalized, ever.
If it gets legalized it strips away the belief that the system works to protect the innocent. People will start taking matters into their own hands and a lot of pedophiles will end up taking dirt naps. Those that put them there will have the benefit of a little thing called “jury nullification.”
So the anti-pedophile laws have the impact of protecting (relatively speaking) pedophiles. Right now if someone gets busted for pedophilia they go to jail. Not a heck of a lot of fun, but they don’t end up, you know, dead. And in the situation where they get the snot kicked out of them by fellow prisoners they end up in the peace and quiet and safety of protective custody.
Yeah, that’s cool, because when the rules come down, I have some scores to settle.
You are right on.
A pedophile is no more sick than a homosexual.
The problem is he is no more well either.
They are both deviants, they are both partly or wholly broken, they are given to-—and give in to-—desires that are inimical to personal health and to a healthy community.
Practicing homosexuals should be tolerated at best and regarded as just what they are, sexually perverted human beings.
Faggots being “gay,” being “married,” being no less normal than the rest of us AND probably more sensitive and caring than the rest of us....these kind of rigidly enforced attitudes are but a prelude to the freak show to come.
I am required by state law to receive regular training in child abuse reporting, and undergo mandatory background checks, due to the past sins of pedophile Priests.
Aren’t we all so glad that the seminaries actively recruited homos, according to the Spirit of Vatican II...?
The post consiliar fruits taste so sweet, don’t they...?
Next!?
It's now. The place is already crawling with boy-raping queers.
They are effing sick, and should be put down like rabid dogs!
Oh please, please, please make it legal!!!
I want to be in on this massacre so badly, all we need is for them to step out of the dark for just a second and this disgusting crap will be cured!
After the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, I see no possible way to avoid the inevitable legalization of polygamous marriage between consenting adults, and with minors under 18 whose parents have given legal consent to a polygamous marriage.
Parental consent to underage marriages has been allowed for a very long time, probably for as long as we have had marriage licenses. Back in the 1800s when many males left school after eighth grade and a 16-year-old may have had a good income from farming or a trade, that wasn't a bad thing if the parents agreed a 16-year-old was ready for marriage.
Today, however, the longstanding precedents allowing underage marriages and the common practice in polygamist circles of second “marriages” to much younger women seem guaranteed to lead to acceptance of these relationships once polygamy is legalized.
Once polygamy is legalized, which it probably has to be, and once male-female marriages between older adult men and adolescent girls are allowed, which they probably have to be, I can see no possible legal argument for saying unmarried man-boy relationships are forbidden when the same relationship between an older man and teenage girl could result in a legal marriage. Maybe for a while parental consent will be the key for unmarried relationships. But it's only a matter of time until some 16-year-old boy gets manipulated into suing for his “right” to a relationship with an older man.
Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am.
But I don't see any legal way to avoid this as a logical conclusion of what the Supreme Court has decided.
Nope. It’s simple...act line a demon from hell, get treated like a demon from hell. Enough said.
Jerry Sandusky wasn’t wrong. He was just early. /sarc
It has backfired.
I’m afraid if the starving of Venezuela endorse more socialism, the Americans could do likewise with their fascination for kinky sex.
Milo engaged in a bit of misdirection in his press conference yesterday when asked about the link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
He dismissed the link by saying that there reportedly were only a slightly more pedophiles reportedly attracted to boys than to girls. However, with approximately 20x the number of heterosexuals to homosexuals, that means that gays are more than 20x as likely to have that leaning.
Even though Moynihan defined “deviancy” this way, he voted for all liberal programs to my knowledge and proposed one Hillary Rodham Clinton as his senatorial successor. Got his wish on nearly everything! And hapless New Yorkers who can still remember him adore him.
Actually, I haven’t heard very many American “citizens” at all complaining about the undermining of the Boy Scouts. Did many take their boys out of the organization? The secretary of state now is a big Boy Scout gay booster.
***The primary tactic is to erode age of consent laws an inch at a time. It’s an agrees I’ve agenda driven by lust.***
The autocorrect feature was very aggressive on your post, wasn’t it? ;)
I just now realized that someone has resurrected this years old thread and put it into the sidebar. Interesting that it is more current than ever.
LGBTQP. Yet another letter added to the perverted sexual degenerate soup?
Autocorrect gets worse as the years go by. You used to see what it mangled your typing into before you started typing the next word. Now it retroactivity mangles entire previous phrases.
Nah. Couldn't happen. We're gonna add a "conservative" to the Supreme Court!
Right?
...Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch? He belongs to a far-left church that embraces marriage redefinition, gun control, and the theory of man-caused global warming.
He belongs to St. John's Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colo., the Episcopal diocese of Colorado confirmed on Wednesday. Church bulletins show that the judge has been an usher three times in recent months. His wife Louise frequently leads the intercessory prayer and reads the weekly Scripture at Sunday services, and his daughters assist in ceremonial duties during church services as acolytes.
The first word that St. John's uses to describe itself on its website and Facebook page is "inclusive," and the church is led by a female rector. On its website, the church encourages members to write letters to Congress asking for actions addressing climate change.
That's not all. Its website also calls for members to lobby their congressmen for more gun control.
Rev. Susan Springer has said she is pro-gay marriage and offers blessings to same-sex couples
The church's Rev. Ted Howard also signed a letter slamming the 'disrespectful rhetoric' directed at Islam as Trump floated a ban on Muslim immigrants[.] ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.