For all of those liberals who comfort themselves at night that liberalism and the pro-gay agenda certainly aren’t connected with other sexual deviancy like pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality, here’s an article for you – Pedophiles to launch political party (in Holland).
The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether.
Hey, 12-year olds are sexually active – I mean, why judge their morality by telling them that sex before marriage is wrong? Just hand them some condoms and show them how to have "safe sex" with their local 30 year old.
More fun quotes from that article:
Right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders said he had asked the government to investigate whether a party with such "sick ideas" could really be established.
OMG, who is he to JUDGE!! "Sick?" Perverted? What a right wing fascist.
Now, I’m not saying that gays are pedophiles, but what I am saying is that pro-gay logic leads right to this place – justifying every type of sex as if it is "normal" if it seems biologically determined. I know that pro-gay logicians hate this analogy and association, and have their own reasons for opposing other types of sexual unions. I’m just saying that they get some of the credit for pushing such perversions into the mainstream, because they brought their own in with such hubris – on the coat-tails of every "my genes made me do it and so it’s OK" argument are the polygamists, pedophiles, and beatialists.
Like it or not, gays are paving the way for everyone else who wants to justify their own sexual sin. SIN. God made you straight, but your circumstances have pushed you away from normality to a the current emotional adaptation you think of as your friend. But it’s against nature. Against YOUR nature. You’re only kidding yourself, and not the truth.
Flame on.
Seeker, lately you've up-shifted gears in terms of religious dogmatism. You've almost entirely dropped the pretense of being a reasonable person.
You know that there is a fundamental difference between homosexuals and pedophiles. To suggest that the pursuit of same-sex equality has lead to an increase in pedophilia, or even in the political success of pedophilia, is a gross distortion of reality.
There are very clear points about this issue, that I believe you're willfully ignoring: Pedophilia is still very much illegal in Holland, and still seen as being a vicious act of violence against children. The fact that pedophiles have attempted to legitimize their own criminal behavior does not mean that they have been in any way successful. And more importantly, none of this reflects at all upon the legal, ethical, and consensual actions and political movements of gay rights advocates.
Only someone who was grotesquely biased would even think to draw a parallel between these two groups. By doing so you're even refuting your own arguments: You've said quite plainly, on more than one occasion, that homosexual activity should not be legislated against. So, quite obviously, you've endorsed the actions of those who've opposed sodomy laws in the past. If I used your own "slippery slope" argument, though, I could say that you're encouraging pedophiles to work towards legalizing their criminal abuse of children.
Of course, there's virtually no connection between the two. One is a completely ethical activity, between two consenting adults. And the other is an act of violence against a child. Posts like this show how fundamentally unserious you are, by showing that you actually do place homosexuality and pedophilia into the same category. You're almost a parody of yourself at this point.
I'm with Stewart. This is beyond shameful. At some point, you'd think that common sense and decency toward those that you claim to love would take over, but clearly not. I'd argue with you, but you seem to genuinely believe that because gays have had the audacity to ask for fair treatment, pedophiles are thus right in asking for theirs. Because what you're asking us to do here is say, "Well gosh, I don't like pedophilia, and gays made this happen…" which is of course so far from the truth as to defy belief.
Well said Stewart.
I didn't say gays made this happen – i said pro-gay activists (be they gay or straight) are pushing immorality on us, and paving the way for other sexual miscreants, since much of the pro-gay logic can be used to justify other types of sexual sin.
For example:
– "as long as the sex is between consenting adults" – this logic is also used to justify polygamy and polyamory
– "it is genetically predetermined"
Even though the jury is out on this, and certainly, it is not entirely genetically determined, this claim may also be made for any sexual impulse or proclivity, including pedophilia
Additionally, the liberal encouragement of teen sex and hetero and homosexual exploration means that even though they may be in opposition to pedophilia, they are certainly not opposed to consentual sex between minors – it would be "inhumane" to encourage chastity.
I think that the pro-gay lobby needs to see and admit that even though they may not intend to embolden such other sexual groups, their own willingness to push their agenda on us all emboldens the other groups. If they can't admit this, maybe I can find some nice claims from said groups that find their encouragment in the pro-gay movement.
As charles krauthammer of the Washting post wrote:
If traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as gay marriage advocates insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement — the number restriction (two and only two) — is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.
This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I'm not the one who put them there. Their argument does.
Even though the jury is out on this (homosexuality being genetically predetermined), and certainly, it is not entirely genetically determined, this claim may also be made for any sexual impulse or proclivity, including pedophilia
Untrue. Can shoe fetishes be genetic? Nope.
Seeker, your polygamy argument is as tiresome as your homosexuality argument. Although Cineaste is relatively new to this discussion, Sam and I have both, repeatedly argued that there is nothing unethical about consensual polygamy. If three or four or thirty-four people want to engage in any sort of relationship that suits them, that's fine. Krauthammer's argument is devoid of meaning, because he entirely misunderstands the point, and you've clearly joined him: We are not furious about the idea of polygamists having more rights; we're furious about the idea of same-sex couples having less.
Additionally, I've regularly agreed with you that homosexuality is probably not 100% biologically determined. The cause of same-sex attraction, however, is entirely irrelevent. Whether its caused by genetics, alien implants, or voodoo magic, the only things that matter are (1) that is exists and (2) that it is ethically neutral. These facts alone, when taken without your sick, religious dogmatism, are sufficient to warrant equal treatment under the law.
Your logic on this matter is predictably missing. You're actually claiming that gay rights activists are responsible (due to our relative successes) for the imitative actions of pedophiles. And that's extra bizarre, because you're constantly pointing out how contemporary gay rights activism is patterned after the Civil Rights Movement. So, by your twisted reasoning, is Martin Luther King Jr also partially guitly of molesting children? Where does this bizarre chain of responsibility end for you?
The simple truth is that gay rights activists are not at all responsible for the actions of pedophiles, any more than an innocent man who successfully defends himself in court is responsible for a guilty man who avoids punishment by expoiting a loophole in the system. Gay rights activists are not pedophiles. Gay rights activists do not support pedophiles. In fact, we universally disapprove of pedophiles, just like the rest of the reasonable world.
Finally, this is all just a giant game of Blame-the-Gays, and this story is largely without relevance. There's virtually no possibility, even in Holland, that any group that endorses a globally-condemned crime against children will receive any political power or support whatsoever. The fact that you're even entertaining the notion is just proof that you'll stoop to basically anything to show how selfish and awful you think homosexuals are.
That's probably the most important point Stewart; that these lunatics will never win elections, will never be important, will never make any headlines other than what they've already "accomplished." And yet, Seeker, you'll go on. Any sexual issue that you take will always be the indirect result of gays. What I have to wonder is why you're so disinterested in having a fair conversation about any of these topics? Why does it bother you to restrain our conversation to gays? And more important, why gays should be second-class citizens in regard to their relationships.
Why is everyone so shocked at yet another one of seeker's anti-gay posts? He has demonstrated time and again that he will swallow any argument, as long as it defames gays, and post it here, if he can advance his anti-gay jihad. In this, he is comfortably in line with mainstream christianity in this country. Yes, there are a few "liberal" christians pushing the boulder of acceptance and toleration up the hill, but christianity has historically been anti-gay, as we see today.
Another of seeker's hobby-horses is the "ex-gay" movement, whose laughable dogma states that homosexuality is some kind of mental disease or dysfunction or sin or something. I came across this letter sent to Andrew Sullivan which he posted on his blog which is quite damning:
As a former patient of Joseph Nicolosi [ex-gay "therapist" and propagandist], my parents and I were promised that I would be a very successful candidate for becoming straight (because "I was more masculine and never had sex with other guys"). Raised as a Christian evangelical, I knew I was different from the other boys at about six. I prayed and tried everything from charismatic healings, to ex-gay groups like Desert Streams and finally ended up in reparative therapy with Nicolosi. I spent two years of hard work, determination and money to become straight with Nicolosi.(The trick according to reparative therapy is to first find out how your dad mistreated you sometime in early childhood and try to heal and make peace with dad, next develop as many same-gender non-sexual friendships as possible, then get in touch with your masculine side by working out, playing sports and going to a gym! Add lots of pray and church and bang you will be straight!)
Needless to say, neither I nor any of the other ten guys in group therapy turned straight. At the beginning I was sure I was straight and told others I was "ex-gay". Was I wrong! I finally came to the point of asking myself, "Do I want to be happy as a gay man and damned to hell or lead a horrible, depressing life on the verge of suicide, celibate and all alone but on the way to heaven?" I chose the first route and have never looked back. (Many of us call ourselves "ex-ex-gays.")
I consider Nicolosi and the ex-gay leaders con-men and hucksters. They know the truth, but push ahead deceiving and hurting so many. This is just another example of "Quack Science," that so many Christianists are pushing on our country. From "Intelligent Design," to the denial of global warming, and refusal to allow stem-cell research, these zealots are trying to make science fit their literal interpretations of the Bible.
*****
As illustrated above, and over and over throughout the "ex-gay" movement, it is basically a christian enterprise – religion in the place of reason – and thus doomed to failure. Yet again, christianity has demonstrated its inability to accept reality (cf, evolution), and has substituted crank science in its place. This would be laughable if it weren't for the damage all this bullsh*t inflicts on its victims.
because you're constantly pointing out how contemporary gay rights activism is patterned after the Civil Rights Movement.
No, gay rights advocates claim parity, but it's a poor comparison, and doesn't justify their public stand.
You're actually claiming that gay rights activists are responsible (due to our relative successes) for the imitative actions of pedophiles.
Actually, I agree w/ you partly. Gay rights advocates aren't pushing for polygamy or pedophilia, but their logic extends entirely or partway (resp) for these groups. That's it. But that alone doesn't make the gay rights argument wrong.
So perhaps it is disingenuous to point out the unintended but real consequences of gay-rights logic – it would be like blaming the black civil rights movement for the gay rights movement.
But I think, in my mind and the conservative mind, we link gay rights with these other sexual movements, in part because they are, of course, not hetero monogamy, but also, because liberals who champion gay rights are also championing sexual promiscuity, er, exploration, among minors. Since both of these involve sexual permissiveness, one with adults and one among minors, the pedophilia spectre lurks in the background like a natural connection that no one wants to admit.
I think this question boils down to "Is sex morally neutral?" The courts are begining to take this stand, which is not going to be sustainable for the long term.
If Sex is not morally neutral, then where do we draw the line?
In my mind, this issue is not being breeched by the homosexual movement, it was breached decades ago with societal acceptance of premarital sex, no fault divorce and the like.
We can keep drawing new lines in the sand, but that will always be a losing battle. The real way to save the institution of marriage has nothing to do with what our secular government sanctions or oppresses. It has to do with Christians living real marriages of the 1 Cor 13:4-13 variety.
Josh, I agree we should get the cart ahead of the horse, and make sure we are living the life we espouse.
But we can't retreat from society and let it go to pieces because we feel there is no place for ethics or morality in public law. We have to do both.
But I agree that we should lead with our lives, not our legislation.
When we attempt to use legislation, litigation and intimidation to force people to pretend to adhere to our morality, where does that leave their hearts?
Satan's lies expose themselves in the long run. When we buy into deception it always leaves us with an empty feeling. The only thing that can rescue our souls from this darkness is God's redeeming love.
I vote my concience, and speak my concience, but am very afraid of expressing my faith in a moral code instead of expressing my faith in God's redeeming love.
Darkness cannot overcome The Light. When we get into these arguements sometimes I feel that we espouse the opposite message. Is our fear of Satan greater than our trust in the Lord?
I think it is more effective to love our enemies than to fight them.
I am sleep deprived tonight, so I may be totally off my rocker. I will have to review this after sleeping. ;-)
"perhaps it is disingenuous to point out the unintended but real consequences of gay-rights logic"
What are those "consequences", exactly? That criminal child abusers would try to imitate equal rights advocates' successes? OH NO!! Seeker, there are no notable consequences to be seen here. As I've already pointed out, pedophiles have not gained a single bit of traction, anywhere. And the reason for that is simple: In spite of your ridiculous "slippery slope" argument, people around the world are smart enough to know that pedophilia is a horrible crime against children. "Slippery slope" makes no sense, because people are not retarded monkeys, and they can see the fundamental difference between child abuse and consensual sex. Why can't you?
Maybe that's not fair of me. You have pointed out the difference between the two, after all. But you still place them in the same category, which you label "not hetero monogamy". Categorization like that would lead me to say that murder and hockey are similar, since they're both "not non-violent". By your logic I should blame Major League Hockey for how their culture-of-violence has paved the way for murderers to gain political traction.
I have no doubt that you can see the absurdity of such a connection, but your irrational religious bias prevents you from applying the same rational objectivity to your own vaccuous argument. Please–I'm pleading with you now. Stop being such a blind fundamentalist, and look at what's really happening in the world around you.
Josh's comments, though not your own, are a perfect example of how not to do this: He's actually framing the problems in the world as being a fight between God and the Devil. The Devil! Stop this nonsense before it goes any further. There is no devil; he doesn't exist. The fact that you believe there is a fundamentally evil being that exists, and whose sole purpose in life is to trick you into doing bad things, is just mind-boggling to me.
What sense does it make? What would the Devil's motivation be, anyway? He sounds like a two-dimensional Captain Planet villian. Why do you seem to know what he doesn't, namely that he's going to lose this 'ultimate battle'? The Christian idea of Satan presents him as being cunningly intelligent, but at the same time being supremely stupid.
This has wandered outside the scope of my original point, but I'm asking you to stop what you're doing–this crusade against a non-existant immorality–and start looking at what's actually happening in the world, instead. Homosexuals have enough problems in life without people like yourself making their lives harder by grouping them with pedophiles. Why is that so hard for you to see?
Seeker, you're a liar. Nobody is "promoting" sexual exploration. Teaching kids about safe sex isn't encouraging kids to go out and screw. Your view of the world is so damned frustrating. Anything that doesn't agree with your regressive Christianity is evil, evil, evil, and there's no talking to you about it.
Stewart,
If you are not a believer, as I assume you are not, my message was not so much intended for you.
However the point remains. If you replace "Satan" and "The Lord" with Good and Evil, No matter how much falsehood there is, it will not change the essence of what is true. I assume that you agree that there is truth and falsehood, good and evil, as you seem to agree that pedephilia is truely wrong.
Sometimes our outrage at the falsehood makes us lose focus on what is true. If I say "Your wrong! wrong, wrong, wrong" it is not nearly as effective as peacefully and conscisely showing you the truth.
The subtitle indicates that It is a Christian Perspectives blog. I am proposing an alternate Christian perspective to the dominant thinking. I used language that is clear to the intended audience, people who have a Christian perspective. Considering your view on the subject, It is rather humorous to me that you would criticize my effort to persuade Christians to lighten up.
Still Sleep deprived, and still likely off my rocker.. ;-)
Josh, I appreciate the inclusive parallels you draw between belief systems, but they're really not comparable. I don't believe that there is, objectively, something called "good" or "evil", such that they would hold some sway over people, or even exist abstractly. I believe that actions can be ethical and unethical, but even those seemingly-absolute labels rely deeply on the subjective experience of an individual. And the idea of Satan being a real, malevolent being is entirely out of the question.
Still, I agree with you insofar as I think that positive messages are, ultimately, the most effective means by which we can persuade others. I didn't mean to say that your message was wrong, just that I think its presuppositions (that of Satan, and "Good" versus "Evil") are abused, and basically what cause people like Seeker to get so up-in-arms in the first place.
Seeker, you're a liar. Nobody is "promoting" sexual exploration.
Never attribute to malice what can be accounted for by ignorance.
This is my impression of liberal sex-ed approaches, but maybe I shouldn't just take Jim Dobson's word for it. I'll have to go look for curriculums that teach this way. http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0040045.c…
Also, see http://www.family.org/welcome/press/a0020316.cfm
While many of the federally promoted courses are billed as "abstinence plus" programs, their material gives little or no mention of sexual abstinence. Instead, it actively encourages sexual activity by offering experimental sex tips to teens, using graphic sexual terminology and recommending condom exercises such as "Hide them on your body and ask your partner to find it."
But my impression also comes from liberals who support condom use and resist any teaching of abstinence.
I have no doubt that you can see the absurdity of such a connection, but your irrational religious bias prevents you from applying the same rational objectivity to your own vaccuous argument.
I do see the differences between the two. But you are refusing to see the connection. Unfortunately for those pushing gay rights, there are connections between the seemier, promiscuous side of the gay life and man/boy love.
But the real connection here is not one of association or similar motives, but one of shared logic in justifying one's sexual preference. While gays don't support pedophilia, their "my genes made me do it" approach is shared by those trying to justify their own perversions.
Seeker,
A. Teaching somebody about sex isn't the same as leading them into the damned bedroom! What is so complicated about this?
B. Nobody resists "teaching abstinence." What any thinking person objects too is teaching only abstinence because we realize that there are some teenagers who will always engage in sexual activities, and those are the ones who need to be reached. Teaching abstinence to Christian kids who weren't going to screw anyway (except so many of them seem to, but why fix your own house when you can throw rocks at everybody else's?) is a waste of time and resources. You don't gear education toward the people who already know the lesson. You gear it toward those who don't.
Teaching abstinence only to kids who are going to have sex is cruel, and once again evidence of the backdoor in which Christian want sex to exist. They want kids to be uninformed, because then those kids who do engage in sexual activity will face negative consequences. (Some) Christians don't care about pregnant teenage girls. They're happy that those girls are pregnant, their childhood potentially ruined for the "sin" of choosing to have sex. That's the objectionable part. Stop acting like those of us who support comprehensive sex education are out there forcing kids to have sex.
C. Have you no shame? There connection between pedophilia and homosexuality is precisely the same as the connection between pedophilia and heterosexuality. Stop cruelly suggesting that all of those gays that you claim to "love" are indirectly responsible for pedophilia. It has always been around, and it needs to be dealt with, but suggesting that gays are in anyway responsible is just shameful.
Teaching somebody about sex isn't the same as leading them into the damned bedroom!
Agreed, but there is a fine line between educating and endorsing. I think that we are not careful enough about doing the former while being clear about NOT doing the latter. We should discourage sexual activity in teens, in many ways, I believe. That includes discussing the risks, and encouraging virtue.
But my impression is that most sex ed teaching is something akin to that parodied in Monty Python's Meaning of life, where the teacher brings in his wife and has sex in front of his class as part of their instruction.
Teaching abstinence only to kids who are going to have sex is cruel
OK, stop right there. We agree. (looking around) We all agree.
connection between pedophilia and homosexuality is precisely the same as the connection between pedophilia and heterosexuality.
Possibly. But the politically incorrect nature of that question makes inquiry into this question difficult. I have a post coming up on that later today.
I think this aspect is why the arguement for causation is seperate from morality. There are likely many genetic or prenatally influenced aspects of humanity that we would not desire to encourage. The positive and negative effects of behavior are what should be weighed, not their ultimate source. Personally, I do not see the gay rights issue as being that different from religious freedom, as seeker demonstrates in his concluding paragraph which ties what is natural to religious rather than scientific arguements.
Religion is chosen, and can be easily forgotten and ignored. Sexuality cannot. Suggesting otherwise is absolutely absurd. Somebody can stop going to church; somebody can't stop who they're attracted to (unless you believe in reparitive therapy, which I don't, owing to the fact that it is totally bogus hogwash).
the arguement for causation is seperate from morality.
I don't think they are totally independent, and neither do gay-rights advocates. This is in part because part of how we determine "moral" seems to be whether or not something is "natural" or "intended by nature", which is closely related to morbidity and mortality.
In other words, if it makes you die early, it's probably bad, and therefore a "malady" or sickness. And in general, behaviors that lead to early death are considered immoral. Gluttony, sexual promiscuity, etc.
Gay advocates base a lot of their argument on the genetic origin of their orientation because that argues that it is "natural" and immutable. They may be right, but studies indicate that less than 50% of same sex attraction can be attributed to genetics, so their argument from genetic determination doesn't wash.
I do not know what studies you are talking about, though I suspect any genetic causation or prenatal hormone would be beyond what our current research can tell us. Perhaps newer brain imaging technology combined with animal experimentation could help in this regard.
If we observe homosexual behavior in nature, then I would think it is natural. However, I do not think this demonstrates it is moral any more than natural rape shows morality. The harm arguement is better, but again I see no reason to believe that homosexuality causes harm if properly practiced.
IE, that's exactly right. There are countless examples of things that are 'natural' which we consider immoral (rape and cannibalism being obvious examples), and plenty of things that are 'unnatural' which we consider the height of civility (agriculture, formal-wear, conversational manners, etc).
Seeker is correct in saying that many gay rights advocates lean on the idea of genetics. Whether it's true or not–the data's too murky to suggest an answer either way–it's meaningless, for exactly the reasons you stated.
What's important are two issues: First, and most importantly, homosexual behavior is fundamentally neutral in it's morality. You can have unethical gay sex the same way you can have unethical straight sex, but at it's base, homosexual behavior is neither good nor bad. It just is. And second, even if Seeker and his fellow disapprovers are correct in thinking that reparative therapy can change a person's sexual orientation, there's unquestionable mountains of evidence suggesting that it's difficult, if not essentially impossible.
So regardless of why it came to be this way, it is this way, and it's very unlikely that it's ever going to go away. Frankly–outside of religious groups–most people are fine with that, and the arguments that oppose gay rights fall over as soon as you take away their rickety theological crutches.