It was just a matter of time. Now that same-sex marriage is the law of the land in the US, the progressives can get to work on their real objective—making sex with little boys legal.
It sounds so outrageous that most of us will refuse to believe it and therefore do nothing to oppose it. That is exactly what the progressives want. They want us to be in disbelief until the campaign is in full swing. At that point, it will be too late.
The time to put an end to this campaign is now.
What evidence is there that the campaign has started?
It started, not surprisingly, with a New York Times article back in October 2014. The article by Rutgers University professor Margo Kaplan, entitled Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime, argues that being sexually attracted to children is not a choice.
By some estimates, 1 percent of the male population continues, long after puberty, to find themselves attracted to prepubescent children.
Kaplan says the disorder has a neurological cause:
Recent research, while often limited to sex offenders — because of the stigma of pedophilia — suggests that the disorder may have neurological origins. Pedophilia could result from a failure in the brain to identify which environmental stimuli should provoke a sexual response. M.R.I.s of sex offenders with pedophilia show fewer of the neural pathways known as white matter in their brains. Men with pedophilia are three times more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous, a finding that strongly suggests a neurological cause. Some findings also suggest that disturbances in neurodevelopment in utero or early childhood increase the risk of pedophilia. Studies have also shown that men with pedophilia have, on average, lower scores on tests of visual-spatial ability and verbal memory.
Born that way
One might say, according to this article, that pedophiles are either “born that way” or something happens very early in their development to cause them to have this attraction. Does any of this sound familiar?
It should. This was exactly the type of reasoning used to mainstream homosexuality. Gay activists made the case that their same-sex attraction was not something that could be helped. They argued that they were “born that way.”
The article goes on to goes on to bemoan the fact that pedophiles do not feel safe in expressing their inclination to others for fear of being stigmatized. But there is a big difference between a man who feels an attraction for another adult male, and a man who feels attraction to a little boy or a little girl. In one case we are talking about consenting adults. In the other we are talking about minor children.
The law treats children differently
In the law, children under the age of 18 are treated very differently than adults. Any crimes they commit while juveniles are sealed once they reach the age of 18. Juveniles also cannot be held to any contracts that they sign. The reason is because we recognize that children under 18 do not have the full use of their reasoning faculties. They are emotionally immature so they are easily led to do things that an emotionally mature person would not do.
The statutory rape laws also recognize this fact. If an adult male has “consensual” sex with a minor girl, the law recognizes that the girl does not have the faculties to truly consent. Therefore, saying the girl was willing is no defense.
What is the initial push?
The pedophilia activists are first asking for their perversion to be recognized as a disability:
The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibit discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals with mental disabilities, in areas such as employment, education and medical care. Congress, however, explicitly excluded pedophilia from protection under these two crucial laws.
It’s time to revisit these categorical exclusions.
Make no mistake. Categorizing pedophilia as a disability is the first step in making it go mainstream.
Escalating the campaign
This September, the campaign to mainstream pedophilia took another step forward. The first article was a dispassionate piece by an academic. The next article, entitled I’m a pedophile, not a monster, is by “Todd Nickerson” who claims to be a pedophile.
Nickerson uses the familiar language of sexual orientation to legitimize his attraction. He is also a highly virtuous person because he says that he does not actually molest children or view child pornography:
I’ve been stuck with the most unfortunate of sexual orientations, a preference for a group of people who are legally, morally and psychologically unable to reciprocate my feelings and desires. It’s a curse of the first order, a completely unworkable sexuality, and it’s mine. Who am I? Nice to meet you. My name is Todd Nickerson, and I’m a pedophile. Does that surprise you? Yeah, not many of us are willing to share our story, for good reason. To confess a sexual attraction to children is to lay claim to the most reviled status on the planet, one that effectively ends any chance you have of living a normal life. Yet, I’m not the monster you think me to be. I’ve never touched a child sexually in my life and never will, nor do I use child pornography.
The Salon article begins to tap into our sympathy. Why can’t we just be adults and allow Mr. Nickerson to “come out” with his feelings?
If we do let pedophiles come out of the closet, the next step will be to have some pedophile characters on TV sit-coms. Remember Will and Grace?
“Conservative” journals will pose no defense
But the conservative journals like National Review will be on this immediately. They will see it for what it really is: a campaign to mainstream perversion. Right?
Wrong. National Review has already published an article defending the Salon article as being completely reasonable. The article, by Charles C.W. Cooke argues that we need to accept non practicing pedophiles. He even includes an appeal to Christian guilt:
I am not a practicing Christian, but, as far as I can recall from my instruction as a child, the author is taking precisely the approach that Christians are supposed to take when they find themselves tempted toward sin. I suppose that it is possible that I am seriously mis-remembering the core tenets of the faith, but don’t followers of Jesus believe that everybody is born with impulses that lead them toward unacceptable behavior? And don’t they also believe that they are called to act chastely — that is, to avoid indulging those impulses and instead to seek a way to be freed from them? It was a while ago, I accept, but I cannot recollect any caveats being attached to these rules. Are we now to suppose that it does not apply when the propensity in question is sufficiently egregious? Is there a new-fangled carve-out for instincts that turn our stomach? If there is not, we might think twice before condemning a man for admitting he has a terrible, terrible problem.
We tend to think of pedophiles as poor, shifty-looking men in raincoats who stand in corners and cough a lot—the stereotypical pervert from Monty Python.
However, there is no doubt that there are many pedophiles who have a significant amount of money. These men will be willing to donate money to make sure their message gets out, and even the “bastions” of conservatism can fall prey to towing the line if the donation is big enough.
The Christian Attitude
Of course, nobody is proposing that we imprison men who are attracted to children if they are not acting on that attraction. But that does not mean that we have to accept it as a disability. It is also something that does not need to be out in the open. There is no requirement that everyone accept every lust or temptation that a person is inclined to.
One thing is certain: If we are going to be successful in fighting this, we are going to have to (1) Admit that is happening, and (2) Argue against it now, before it picks up steam. This is a time for vigilance.
Update:
National Review has published an editorial that walks back the Charles C.W. Cooke piece. While I welcome Jonah Goldberg’s article, I still think that Cooke’s original op-ed was a trial ballon. The first piece is met with loud protests. The next attempt will be met with less opposition. It is a process of desensitization. It is part of a plan.
It is pretty apparent that some people don’t understand what is implied by making pedophilia a protected disability. It means that schools, daycare centers, scouting troops, and youth sports teams would be required to hire people who have openly expressed themselves as having a sexual attraction to children—as long as they met the other job criteria.
It also means that if a pedophile school teacher was fired from his job, he would automatically have a greater recourse to suing his employer, even if the employer did not fire him for his pedophilia.
There are reasons that the government, in what little wisdom it has, limits the things that are characterized as disabilities.
People have a whole host of weird issues. There are men who are attracted to feet. Does that mean that people with a foot fetish should be characterized as being disabled?
Is kleptomania a disability?
There are men who can’t stop masturbating to internet porn. Is this a disability?
What the pedophiles are complaining about is that they cannot go about openly professing their desire to molest children. If they feel this disordered urge and they don’t act on the urge, I commend them. But I don’t think our children or society as a whole will be better off by opening this Pandora’s box.
The Campaign To Mainstream Pedophilia Has Begun
This is the problem is accepting the premise that there are sexualities. There is attraction to sexually mature members of the opposite sex, and there is broken. When 96+% of a population of a species behaves a certain way, the 4-ish percent that behaves differently is an aberration.
Yes, once we argue on their terms, we’ve already lost. I even feel like the language of “orientation” concedes ground. It is binary: either you have healthy sexual attractions or you don’t.
Yes. And now the term “cisgendered” meaning people who are not transgendered. No need for that word. Having a history which included drugs and fornication, I believe that all deviant kinds of sex are much more related than our culture is willing to admit, even conservative culture.
When you elevate sex beyond its (deservedly high) place, especially the sensations, the variety/creativity , the disconnect from relationship, the focus on personal experience and no responsibility, I can imagine myself in those days easily slipping from heterosexual deviant behavior into homo or orgies or pedo. It’s all part of the dark spiral I believe. But having a culture which praises and coddles perversion means you are not inclined to exercise your will to overcome. Plus the loss of the fear of final judgment and hell, which is a great motivator and I understand to be literally true.
Matt, you make a good point that sexuality is not as cut & dried as the progressives would have us believe. For example, we are led to believe that “gayness” is a fixed characteristic, but in modern day Islamic societies (say Afghanistan) there are straight men who also sodomize boys or young men on the side.
The natural law guides us on the path that will make us the most happy, and taboos are in place for a reason. We should keep the taboo against pedophiles in place.
BTW, I can’t believe I am even writing about this topic. It is outrageous.
“For example, we are led to believe that “gayness” is a fixed characteristic, but in modern day Islamic societies (say Afghanistan) there are straight men who also sodomize boys or young men on the side.”
While not the majority, it certainly is not uncommon in sex-segregated cultures where marriages are arranged. Usually it stops once they have a regular adult opposite sex partner.
Its also not uncommon in same-sex boarding schools (aka British buggering), and prisons. Really, anywhere where there is not access to the opposite sex.
From one Matt to another – I agree!
The emphasis on anal sex is another thing that turned me off from the Manosphere. So many of them think women should be obliged to provide anal sex to them. Its bad enough to oblige someone to perform oral sex on you (its pleasant for the receiver but there is no obligation), but anal sex too?!
And when you point out to them that this is an influence from gay porn (and a possible sign of closeted homosexuality), they ban you!
What are you railing against? Pedophiles are literally disabled – dis-abled to act on their sexual desires. Whether that should be legally recognized under Disability act is an open question but I don’t see why they should be discriminated against in “employment, education and medical care” (other than not allowing them to work with children just to be on the safe side). Recognition of pedophilia as disability nicely aligns with your view of it as abnormal/deviant (I share this assessment).
Nobody wants to “normalize” pedophilia as in allow pedophiles to act on their desires. The guy who wrote the salon piece simply wants others to recognize his humanity. He has a horrible affliction, struggles with it and wants to be seen as he is.
Of course I accept pedophiles as humans. They are created in the image of God just like everyone else.
They are asking for their attraction to be legally recognized as a disability. I updated the blog post to elaborate a little on that.
The other thing they are asking for is the ability to openly proclaim that they would like to sexually molest children, and for society to accept that.
Do you want to live in a world where everyone requires that you hear about their particular deviance and then require you to embrace them in spite of it?
I don’t know enough about pedophiles who don’t act on their desires to
What kind of a public statement/article/piece from a non-offending pedophile would you like to see instead?
Something that did not ask for the disordered inclination to be publicly accepted.
This man said he has the desire to rape children, but he does not act on it. Good. Thank God.
But he wants to be able to come to me as his employer and say, “I would like to rape children. I don’t actually do it, but I’d like to. Now, let’s continue in our professional relationship like nothing happened.”
As his employer, I don’t need to know.
The NYT article is asking for special protection for people who want to molest children. The Salon piece is asking for the ability to go public. I find both unacceptable.
I think the ability to go public is so they can get professional help (I hope!). I mean, if I had a pedophile in my family, on my block, in my social or professional circle, I would want to know so I can not only keep my kids away from them, but also help them to stay away from temptation by encouraging them in willpower, morals, etc.
Soon there will be a Pedos Anonymous and there should be! They should not nurse these feelings alone until it all festers and then blows up like a pressure cooker and some kid gets molested!
Let them come out. Let them get help in the form of counseling and hopefully someday soon – drugs.
I also think that this secrecy may contribute to why some pedos not only molest kids, but violently hurt them as well, sometimes even murder them. They know what they are doing is wrong, not accepted by society, so they turn all that shame outward onto the child and hurt him/her because in their minds the child is their source of shame, the reason they can’t be normal.
If this is recognized as a neurological condition then they will feel less stigma in seeking help.
> Therefore, saying the girl was willing is no defense.
Not only that. The Pedos are turning it around and blame there victims to defend themselves.
They say:
“That girl/boy seduced me”.
The Salon article implied that the writer really didn’t mind when he was molested as a child. The implication is that other children wouldn’t mind either. This is just pure evil.
There’s a famous mens’ rights activist who wrote a book saying the same exact thing in the ’70s, that in most cases where the child is not hurt and the adult is not violent but kind, the kids grow up unscathed. When feminists pointed this out recently and boycotted one of his speeches at a university, Paul Elam and A Voice for Men jumped to his defense.
Again, this, the cries for lowering the age of consent, and other things turned me off from the Manosphere for a very long time.
It’s not the law! It is only a sick judgement of five justices at the supreme court, which is contrary to the law.
It’s a bad law, but it is still the law. This dialog between Thomas More and his son-in-law William Roper in the play “A Man for All Seasons” is instructive here:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
Michael, I love that quote from “A Man for All Seasons,” but I think the context requires that you give it a more nuanced application. I don’t think St. Thomas More really believed that, by law, the King was in fact the supreme head of the Church in England: otherwise, he would have taken the oath of supremacy.
As another St. Thomas said: Lex est quaedam ordinatio rationis ad bonum commune ab eo qui curam communitatis habet promulgatus.
I have serious doubts as to whether the Obergefell ruling is an “rationis ordinatio,” whether it is “ad bonum commune,” and even whether it is in fact “promulgatus” (although this last point is more related to my general confusion about the status of Anglo “common law”).
Law that does not accord with reason, and likewise law that is not oriented toward the common good, is not truly law. There can be no per se obligation to follow such laws (although following certain unjust laws may be necessary to prevent scandal). Kim Davis seems to be an example, albeit a wretchedly imperfect one, of the proper response to such an ordinance.
David, you raise some outstanding points. I will investigate and post a response soon.
Same-sex marriage is definitely considered law that has been promulgated after the Supreme Court decision. As soon as the decision was handed down, courts in every state were obliged to follow the law.
From my understanding of the Summa, Thomas would say that this is not a law, but the perversion of the law because it goes against natural law. If I understand this correctly, Catholics are obliged to not follow this law, but then we will have to face the penalties involved with disobedience. I am sure we are going to see cases that deal with religious freedom and same-sex marriage over the next few years. I have little hope that the law will be overturned anytime soon.
The CCC 2242-2243 is on point: “The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”48 “We must obey God rather than men”
When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.
2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.’
Michael, thanks for your response. I was away from the Internet for a little while, but I wanted to let you know I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I think you’re right: Christians (and other men of good will) must be prepared to face the consequences of refusing to comply with this law.
Given how hard it is simply to cooperate with grace in one’s personal life, the thought of taking a costly public stand is frightening indeed. Oremus pro invicem.
You may be interested in a relatively new online endeavor, http://www.thejosias.com. Its contributors aim “to articulate an authentically Catholic political stance from which to approach the present order of society.” That is, it is traditionalist and integralist, and certain to irritate ideologues of the left and the right.
That’s what turned me off to the Manosphere at first, so many were arguing to lower the age of consent. Age of consent is already as low as 15 in some states as it is. I mean, how low do they want to go?
As far as pedophilia being neurological, there have been cases where brain damaged people started acting out sexually aggressively with much, much younger people, kids in their teens and fighting off feelings for even younger kids, and then when their brain damage was fixed, those urges went away. There have also been cases where some people were given drugs that brought on those feelings and once those drugs stopped, the feelings stopped.
I do believe it is neurological and if approached this way, in a medical way, those who suffer from this condition can be helped. But keep in mind that not all those who molest kids are even pedophiles. I know of cases where non-pedophiles molested kids.
My God. The fact you even have to write about this…..wtf? Things are getting beyond ridiculous.