October 31, 2014

Advertise with Stand Firm

February 12, 2013


Normalizing Pedophilia

The author of this article in National Review is entirely wrong in his thesis.  Sexual attraction for children *is* a “sexual orientation” just as is sexual attraction to the same sex, and sexual attraction to the opposite sex, and sexual attraction to dead people, and sexual attraction to animals, and sexual attraction to high-heeled shoes, and sexual attraction *and commitment* to multiple women at the same time.

Just because one has a “sexual orientation” does not mean that society must approve of it. That has been, of course, the long-time bellowing refrain of gay activists—that because they have a hard-wired “sexual orientation” they must, perforce, be allowed to force society to approve of their actions.

That is, obviously, categorically false.  And the more that society begins to examine *other* sexual orientations that are currently not faddish, but will be soon, the more the falsity of the gay activists’ rhetoric will be revealed.

The existence of a long-term, inveterate desire towards sexual activity with a certain segment of a population—however currently faddishly popular that “sexual orientation” might be right now—does not mean that society must now approve of and bless the behavior that results from that long-term, inveterate desire.

Decadence is on the march! And now, a defense of pedophilia as just another “sexual orientation” has been published in the mainstream left wing UK newspaper The Guardian.  From, “Paedophilia: Bringing Dark Desires Into the Light:”

Paedophiles may be wired differently. This is radical stuff. But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia “is a sexual orientation” and therefore “unlikely to change”.

This isn’t news. We already know that those who abuse children sexually are always dangerous. That is why they must register with the police when released from prison.

Understanding causes is one thing–I’m all for it–but the effort is definitely underway to normalize the behavior . . .


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

12 comments

I once heard a psychiatrist testify that he was “seeing” (love the use of that verb) a defendant for pedophilia. When questioned, he stated that it had no know cause and no know cure. Finally, he admitted that what he called pedophilia is what the law calls child molestation.

[1] Posted by Pb on 2-12-2013 at 11:17 AM · [top]

The real problem is that wickedness is now running wild in our society and there is nothing in the secular culture to stop it.

[2] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 2-12-2013 at 01:28 PM · [top]

Yes, society must approve of our sexual desires otherwise we are traumatized and damaged. Great injustice and pyschological harm has been heaped upon those persons of non-heterosexual orientation (Ponhso’s) by moralists and legalists over the ages. It is the duty of modern enlightened humans to right these wrongs by accepting their fellow creatures as co-equals. Laws must be passed to protect the rights of those of any sexual orientation! Call your law makers at once!
wink

[3] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 2-12-2013 at 01:47 PM · [top]

Amazing how incredibly deceived we can be.  And how twisted and evil, only caring about our own wicked desires vs. how it shatters the life of someone who is still carrying their innocence.

All I can say is this - they better stay the hell away from my kids or future grandkids.

[4] Posted by B. Hunter on 2-12-2013 at 02:33 PM · [top]

The moral relativism at the root of the author’s thinking is pretty obvious to an objective observer - but I’ll bet he can’t see it.

[5] Posted by MichaelA on 2-12-2013 at 04:23 PM · [top]

“Suffer the little children to come unto me…” Jesus protected the little ones. Pedophilia is such a misnomer! Maybe it is the unforgivable sin!

[6] Posted by helpmelord on 2-13-2013 at 12:46 AM · [top]

What difference does the name they call it make? Do they think giving it a medical or psychological term makes it any less evil, illegal, or immoral? A rose by any other name is still a rose. My husband has said for some time that pedophilia is next to be
“legitimized,” and why not bestiality, incest, etc.?

[7] Posted by Nellie on 2-13-2013 at 10:31 AM · [top]

Michael A #5,

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin interviewed hundreds of P3s: pedophile (aka minor-oriented) predator priests. 

Apb. Martin commented afterward that he had only found 2 who met the criteria for repentance.  All the rest felt entitled, were adamant they had done the children/teens no harm.  Perhaps their consciences were ‘seared’ as the Bible says, or the millstone around their necks was their own stone hard hearts so that they had lost all human affection…which the Bible says is a symptom of the last days.

Perhaps these priests had been drawn to young people out of their own woundedness, seeking what they lacked in identity, to fill their own deficits and need for love.  Many priests had shown by their psychological evaluations and actions that they were poor risks or even dangerous and should not have been in the priesthood at all.  But they were not qualified to be healthy counselors, father figures or role models for young people. 

Even today, priests with same-sex or minor-attractions are not removed unless they act on their proclivities and propensities…or even then. 

The Diocese of Miami is a prime example.  When the ‘gay’ harem of Archbishop Favalora was broken up (only because it was exposed and documented by laity) the ‘gay’ active priests were not fired, but re-assigned.  That’s like Christ rearranging the tables in the Temple courtyard rather than clearing them out.  That’s like a surgeon transplanting cancer cells to healthy organs instead of removing them.  The Catholic church has not ever enforced its 1958 ban on ‘gay’ SSA clergy at all…so they are now plentiful at every level of the hierarchy. 

SSA is, according to statistics, more often than not CSA or TSA (child or teen attraction) and it is a symptom, not a sign of a legitimate normal ‘orientation’.  It should be recognized and treated as such and would be if science and statistics, evidence and facts, not PC (punitive conformity) and political science, were the basis for policy in the church and state.

[8] Posted by St. Nikao on 2-13-2013 at 11:59 AM · [top]

Nellie, I don’t think your husband is quite right.  I think the order is polygamy (or polyamory…whatever!), incest, and then pedophilia.  I think that’s the order in which people will find them tolerable, then acceptable, and finally “legitimate.”  I remember thinking when Jerry Sandusky was convicted, “In ten years what he did will no longer be a crime.”  I would really love to be wrong here.

[9] Posted by Ann Castro on 2-13-2013 at 12:25 PM · [top]

I wasn’t thinking of any particular chronological order when I made my comment, Ann; you may be right about the order, but I don’t know if it will take as long as ten years. The unthinkable has a way of becoming not only “thinkable” but part of our culture very fast these days.

[10] Posted by Nellie on 2-13-2013 at 02:56 PM · [top]

“The unthinkable has a way of becoming not only “thinkable” but part of our culture very fast these days.”

Never a truer word…

[11] Posted by MichaelA on 2-14-2013 at 01:59 AM · [top]

Yes, Ann’s right.  Polyamory is quick to follow SSA…. I’ve been watching both movements since the 90’s and I believe it won’t be much longer now until Polyamory is a protected class as well.

[12] Posted by Free Range Anglican on 2-14-2013 at 06:49 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.