Boss
Take a Memo:
A few days ago, I got a great big belly laugh from a gay marriage advocate over my assertion that government sanctioning of sexuality through gay marriage would open the door to other less desirable possibilities, like pedophilia.
"Oh, you must be out of your mind-- we know better than to have sex with children!" they chortled in disbelief that I would even argue such ridiculous nonsense. "That will never happen," they said.
Well... here ya go...
'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males'
"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males, said the presentation. At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children Normal males are aroused by children.
Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.
The statement that paedophilia is natural and normal was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.
Other presentations included Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis, and Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.
Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.
Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom OCarroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. Wonderful! he wrote on his blog afterwards. It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!
Last week, after the conviction of Rolf Harris, the report into Jimmy Savile and claims of an establishment cover-up to protect a sex-offending minister in Margaret Thatchers Cabinet, Britain went into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties. But unnoticed amid the furore is a much more current threat: attempts, right now, in parts of the academic establishment to push the boundaries on the acceptability of child sex.
===================================================
Now we know from every liberal "cause" that has ever come down the pike, if academia is saying it today, it will be on the legislative docket tomorrow, if liberals have their say.
Here's yet another alarming immoral indicator:
Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo
Judge in Australia says incest may no longer be a taboo and the only reason it is criminal is potential birth abnormalities, which can be solved by abortion.
Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and "unnatural" but is now widely accepted.
He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.
"A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now 'available', not having [a] sexual partner," the judge said.
"If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you'd invariably have, they would say it's unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone."
===================================================
My argument against governmental sanctioning of gay marriage is that once you've established under the law, that sexual proclivity can be a determinate factor in marriage, all bets are off... you can essentially argue for ANY sexual proclivity to be legitimized on the basis of "equal protection" and the Constitution. This is NOT an equal rights issue, it is a MORAL issue with profound ramifications and consequences.
Now, I am not some prudish stick in the mud who hates gay people and doesn't want them to be happy in life. I happen to have some very close gay friends, one such couple who's wedding I attendended in 1986! Did I mention this was in rural Alabama? Of course it wasn't a state-sanctioned "marriage" by law, it was merely a private wedding ceremony on a hillside with a Rastafarian minister and close family and friends attending, but there was no Sheriff Bubba Billybob there to tell them they couldn't do it, nor were there any Bible-thumping protesters preventing the event. They had a cake... not sure who made it for them, but it was there. They had a photographer, went on a honeymoon, we threw rice... they've been together now for nearly 30 years. Curiously enough, neither of them support "Gay Marriage!"
Their viewpoint (and mine, which was adopted from them), is that the government should not be involved with "marriage" at all. That should be left to individuals and churches to define in society, and NOT mandated by the government. Instead, they favor comprehensive Civil Union legislation which would essentially eliminate all government recognition of "marriage" and replace it with simple partnership agreements by contract between any two consenting adults. This approach would ostensibly give all sides what they claim to want. Religious people get to maintain "sanctity of traditional marriage" while gay couples obtain a way and means to acquire the benefits and tax advantages of a couple. It also has an added bonus, in that such a contract could be used for a variety of platonic relationship arrangements, like a daughter caring for her aging mother, or two spinster sisters living together.
It's a purely sensible approach that resolves the issue once and for all.
"Oh, you must be out of your mind-- we know better than to have sex with children!" they chortled in disbelief that I would even argue such ridiculous nonsense. "That will never happen," they said.
Well... here ya go...
'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males'
"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males, said the presentation. At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children Normal males are aroused by children.
Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.
The statement that paedophilia is natural and normal was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.
Other presentations included Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis, and Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.
Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.
Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom OCarroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. Wonderful! he wrote on his blog afterwards. It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!
Last week, after the conviction of Rolf Harris, the report into Jimmy Savile and claims of an establishment cover-up to protect a sex-offending minister in Margaret Thatchers Cabinet, Britain went into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties. But unnoticed amid the furore is a much more current threat: attempts, right now, in parts of the academic establishment to push the boundaries on the acceptability of child sex.
===================================================
Now we know from every liberal "cause" that has ever come down the pike, if academia is saying it today, it will be on the legislative docket tomorrow, if liberals have their say.
Here's yet another alarming immoral indicator:
Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo
Judge in Australia says incest may no longer be a taboo and the only reason it is criminal is potential birth abnormalities, which can be solved by abortion.
Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and "unnatural" but is now widely accepted.
He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.
"A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now 'available', not having [a] sexual partner," the judge said.
"If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you'd invariably have, they would say it's unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone."
===================================================
My argument against governmental sanctioning of gay marriage is that once you've established under the law, that sexual proclivity can be a determinate factor in marriage, all bets are off... you can essentially argue for ANY sexual proclivity to be legitimized on the basis of "equal protection" and the Constitution. This is NOT an equal rights issue, it is a MORAL issue with profound ramifications and consequences.
Now, I am not some prudish stick in the mud who hates gay people and doesn't want them to be happy in life. I happen to have some very close gay friends, one such couple who's wedding I attendended in 1986! Did I mention this was in rural Alabama? Of course it wasn't a state-sanctioned "marriage" by law, it was merely a private wedding ceremony on a hillside with a Rastafarian minister and close family and friends attending, but there was no Sheriff Bubba Billybob there to tell them they couldn't do it, nor were there any Bible-thumping protesters preventing the event. They had a cake... not sure who made it for them, but it was there. They had a photographer, went on a honeymoon, we threw rice... they've been together now for nearly 30 years. Curiously enough, neither of them support "Gay Marriage!"
Their viewpoint (and mine, which was adopted from them), is that the government should not be involved with "marriage" at all. That should be left to individuals and churches to define in society, and NOT mandated by the government. Instead, they favor comprehensive Civil Union legislation which would essentially eliminate all government recognition of "marriage" and replace it with simple partnership agreements by contract between any two consenting adults. This approach would ostensibly give all sides what they claim to want. Religious people get to maintain "sanctity of traditional marriage" while gay couples obtain a way and means to acquire the benefits and tax advantages of a couple. It also has an added bonus, in that such a contract could be used for a variety of platonic relationship arrangements, like a daughter caring for her aging mother, or two spinster sisters living together.
It's a purely sensible approach that resolves the issue once and for all.
