Increasingly, the modern perversion of “rights” leads to little but wrongs. And one of the best current examples is the movement to legitimize pedophilia. InfoWars reported on the subject just recently, writing:
Leftist media is now promoting “pedophile rights” as the next “social justice” movement….
Numerous political commentators predicted that pedophiles would try to hijack the June 26 Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriages to argue that they too are “suffering” discrimination over their “normal” sexual orientation.
“Using the same tactics used by ‘gay’ rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals [sic],” wrote Jack Minor for the Northern Colorado Gazette.
In reality, though, the pedophilia-acceptance movement greatly predates the unconstitutional Obergefell marriage ruling. As I wrote in the 2013 piece “The Slippery Slope to Pedophilia”:
On January 14 of this year, the Los Angeles Times ran an article entitled, “Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia: Pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a deep-rooted predisposition that does not change.” (Emphasis in original.) The piece starts out with a story about one Paul Christiano, who, as a young child, was fascinated by girls and loved “how their spindly bodies tumbled in gymnastics,” wrote the paper. We’re then told that while Christiano grew up, his sexual tastes didn’t: He remained tormented by an attraction to pre-pubescent girls. Christiano is the “sympathetic character,” mind you, the hapless soul meant to put a human face on pedophilia. But now consider what he said about unsuccessful court-ordered therapy he was forced to undergo after being caught with child pornography in 1999. As the Times reported, “‘These people felt they could snuff out the desire, or shame me into denying it existed,’ he said. ‘But it’s as intrinsic as the next person’s heterosexuality.’”
“As intrinsic as the next person’s heterosexuality… ” Where have we heard that before?
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
The paper then did something else that should sound familiar. Giving Christiano’s claim the imprimatur of science, it wrote, “In the laboratory, researchers are coming to the same conclusion.” Many experts now view pedophilia as “a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality…, a deep-rooted predisposition … that becomes clear during puberty and does not change…. Scientists at the Toronto center [Center for Mental Health and Addiction in Toronto] have uncovered a series of associations that suggest pedophilia has biological roots.”
The problem? If we lived in a eugenicist time (e.g., the early 20th-century), the above would be used as further justification for selective breeding. Today, mainly due to the effort to legitimize homosexuality, the notion that “it’s okay if I was born that way” has taken hold. Often articulated as “God doesn’t make mistakes,” it’s rhetorically very effective. Of course, whether an atheist who considers the world naturally flawed or a theist believing it supernaturally fallen, cleft lip, Spina bifida, Down syndrome, club foot, Tay-Sachs disease, and other abnormalities make clear that God’s perfection isn’t enjoyed by man. And is it logical to consider the brain the one organ immune from this imperfection? Note also that the same psychologists telling us homosexuality is innate also say that psychopaths are born and not made. Now, if some people were born with homicidal instincts, would it be alright for them to commit murder?
A silly question? No more so than asking “If some people are born with homosexual feelings, is it alright for them to engage in homosexual behavior?” It may or may not be alright, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with inborn status. For genetics does not determine “morality.” Saying otherwise is to eliminate morality and replace it with biological determinism, which reduces man to animal.
Also realize that discriminating among inborn-urge driven behaviors — saying some are “right” and some “wrong” — means judging them with a yardstick (be it God’s law, social codes, etc.); this means that the yardstick is being placed above biology, thus contravening the biological-determinism argument.
The problem, however, is that the above reasoning (the nerd) has trouble competing in a popularity contest with the popular kids: sound-bite slogans and emotional appeals. As to this, just as recent decades have seen a “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of [homosexual] propaganda fed to the nation via the media” — as prescribed in the homosexual-activist book After the Ball — so has entertainment already been placed in the service of pedophilia.
Just consider the film For a Lost Soldier (1993), which quite vividly and sympathetically relates the true story of a WWII-era sexual relationship between a Canadian serviceman and a 13-year-old European boy. The New York Times’ review of the movie was entitled “Treating a Delicate Story of a Soldier and a Boy Tenderly” and actually stated that the work “takes up … a romantic relationship between a grown-up and a child, and invests it with an aching tenderness.” Then there was 2001’s LIE, which featured a pederast named Big John. About it the Times wrote, compared “with Howie’s [the 15-year-old main character’s] well-meaning but clueless guidance counselor, Big John seems like a benign, common-sensical uncle.”
Of course, such films and their reviews are still rare, but the relativism justifying them — and a whole lot more — is anything but. Note that a Barna Group research study found that in 2002 already only six percent of teens (now all adults who can vote) believed in moral absolutes. And is it any surprise? We now live in a time when some of the most popular refrains are “Who is to judge?” “Everything is a matter of perspective,” “That’s your truth; someone else’s may be different,” and “If it feels good, do it.”
It may be hard to believe that pedophilia is following the well-worn path of homosexuality. But know that not only is there great historical precedent for the sexualization of minors — pederasty was widely accepted in ancient Athens and Sparta — we already see tolerance for pedophilia among our “elites.” Consider the following:
• Obama’s military brass has ordered American soldiers in Afghanistan to ignore the sexual abuse of young boys by Afghan “allies” — even on U.S. military bases — partially in deference to “cultural sensitivity.”
• The media have largely ignored child sex abuse in government schools, despite a 2004 government-sponsored study indicating that it is 100 times the magnitude of the Catholic Church sex scandal.
• Hollywood pedophiles are apparently “everywhere, like vultures,” as former child actor Cory Feldman put it, but are protected by power and privilege.
• Likewise, the powers-that-be have long protected pedophiles within the British government.
• Also in the U.K., politically correct authorities have ignored Muslim child sex-trafficking rings for fear of being called “racist.”
Of course, there’s a difference between the “elites” and the man of the street. But realize that the homosexuality agenda’s embrace also began among the former, finding a home in academia and then being mainstreamed by media and entertainment. Also realize that the “Who’s to judge?” mantra may be convenient when justifying one’s favored sins. But if the things we like are all relative, the things we dislike are relative, too. As novelist Walter Scott might agree, “What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive” — ourselves with fashionable philoso-babble.
