We should not at all be surprised to find that the same organization that in a fit of political lunacy declared homosexuality not a mental illness, has now begun to work on reclassifying pedophilia. Unbeknownst to many people, male-to-male pedophilia (truly pedophilia in general) is already much accepted in this country because the philosophy supporting it is already much accepted. Because of this significantly accepted but faulty philosophy, one is able today to argue for the legal acceptance of pedophilia and there would not be a thing anyone of us could say against it. Even were a study to determine that most children are wounded in sexual relationships with adults, one might by the same standards used in the study be able to claim an adult is wounded. A study showing that most children are wounded by adult-child sex may also show that most women are wounded by sex. Psychology is not an exact science, and its practitioners do not rely on reason supported by natural law to arrive at its conclusions. As a result objectively quantifying the things in which it deals is necessarily illusive. So when we see the APA implying that adult-child sex is no great issue, we should not at all be surprised.
But we should beware. The APA helped usher into our society the faulty philosophy allowing legal pedophilia. This is the same faulty philosophy currently supporting the recognizing of sexual unions that remain outside fundamental human organic identity. I of course speak here of homosexuality. Even if a study proves a genetic cause of homosexuality, it should make no difference at all to our judgement of the nature of this mental illness. Homosexuality is a commentary on sexuality and sexuality is a commentary on fundamental organic identity. Once society supports sexual commentaries that deny the objective fact of its own organic nature, then very many self-destructive possibilities emerge.
Society can only judge the presence of homosexuality by behavior, and therefore must ascribe protective rights to homosexuals purely on this basis. Should our society decide to ascribe rights to people on the basis of behavior, it would set the stage for a forfeiture of its right to discriminate against many other kinds of behavior.
Homosexual pedophiles have already benefited from advances of the homosexual agenda. Today, they merely need work against the already arbitrary age limits our society has placed upon consenting sexual participants. As you have seen there are powerful forces in our country doing precisely this. If homosexuality is acceptable, then there is nothing wrong with a 40 year old man having sex with an 18 year old boy. And if nothing is innately wrong with a 40 year old man having sex with an 18 year old boy, then nothing is innately wrong with his having sex with a 17.5 year old boy, or a 16 year old boy, or a 15 year old boy. Here, notions of age and power are arbitrary, as in these cases it is not at all evident either that harm will occur, or that the 16 year old is less powerful than the 40 year old. If one must maintain a disparity in power exists between a 16-year-old and a 40-year-old, then one must do the same for circumstances between 40 year olds and 18 year olds. Power judgements are arbitrary, and this allows the homosexual pedophile to benefit from the attribution of rights based upon sexual preference. The 40 year old man and the 18,17,16 year old boy logically must be allowed to adopt children (should they claim themselves a "family") and to have any other right now held by heterosexual couples.
We have seen this logic at work right here on SI. In a brief dialogue with Michelle I effectively took the role of a pedophile, taking the philosophical gun of the homosexual and firing it into Michelle's head. Though I was arguing for maintaining the integrity of the law, we shall see in our dialogue how arbitrary age limits are.
Michelle - 3598>Hydes defense of this guy has actually crossed the line with me. An affair with a 17 year old is pretty despicable.<
Johannes - 3603> Why do you think it so reprehensible to have an affair with a 17 year old? Is it because it is illegal? If the affair had occurred with a 17.5 year-old or an 18 year-old, would the circumstances be any different for you? If so, why?
Michelle - 3605> The problem I have is that a 17 year old is not a legal adult…the underage aspect... no way to defend that.
Johannes - 3629> If the legal age were 17 years, then you would claim all is well-- correct?
Michelle - 3632> Yes.
Johannes - 3657> So then since you claim it would be alright to have sex with a 17 year-old only because it is legal, it is then strictly because of a breaking of the law and not because of the inherent act that you condemn this man...
Of course where Clinton is concerned the ramifications of Michelle's position is that the breaking of the law is unacceptable period, even if it concerns perjury about sex. But notice how easily she gave ground on the sexual age limit. All one need do is successfully argue for a change of law and Michelle will be compelled by her own illogic to accept sex between a man of 40 and a boy of 17. On this basis she must accept sex between a man of 40 and a boy of 16, or a boy of 15 or a boy of 14 or a boy of 13 or 12 or 11 or 9 or 7… There is simply no logic limiting the age of sexual activity between adults and children. Even should one argue that an infant is too small to engage in intercourse with an adult, our current illogic forces us to accept that an adult may give oral sex to an infant. The APA and other perverted organizations are even now laying the foundations that will drive the momentum to lower or completely abolish age limits. And because Michelle is the norm in this country, then when the APA and homosexuals are fully successful, this country will by "reason" be compelled to support pure deviancy.
The homosexual polygamist also benefits from this sort of illogic (as do polygamists in general). If heterosexuality (which by biological definition involves a man and a woman) is not upheld as the universal norm for society, then should 10 consenting lesbian women consider themselves a "family", society must logically protect them as such, giving to all of them the same public access to resources as the heterosexual couple, this, not on the basis of their individual citizenship, but as a component of their communal relationship. The same would apply to 10 homosexual men. Without upholding the biological one male/one female basis for marriage (which is the true organic identity of all humans), there exists none but an arbitrary restriction if society embraces homosexuality as a norm. Here, there is no basis for requiring marriage to be restricted merely to two people. Therefore polygamy in general is supported by the homosexual agenda, and we as a society are bound to support the polygamist and the homosexual polygamist just as well as the heterosexual couple.
Those oriented toward bestiality will also benefit with each advance of the homosexual agenda. No one can prove that an animal's having sex with a human is harmful to the animal. If one maintains that such is the case, the same logic can be used to lobby against the neutering or spaying of an animal, or even against the ownership of animals itself. If heterosexuality is not upheld as the universal norm of human sexual relations, then no real basis exists allowing society to discriminate against an orientation toward bestiality. Those possessing this orientation would logically have access to every outlet to which heterosexuals have access, including the adoption of children. On this basis, they cannot be banned from renting our homes, or displaying their publications in our public libraries. For them, as with the homosexual pedophile, and polygamist it becomes merely a public relations battle just as was the case for homosexuals a mere 25 years ago.
Now of course this does not necessarily mean individuals should have no freedom to participate in homosexual activity. It does mean that society's laws should by no means support the homosexual condition as fit and good. It means that any decent parent who cherishes his fundamental heritage and legacy should reject the acceptance of homosexuality since doing so implies the destruction of human legacy. It means that the decent citizen should reject it because it implies the destruction of society and the acceptance of all manner of perversity.
Only by following the path of natural principle and integrity set before us by our own fundamental human identity, can we lobby against the acceptance of homosexual perversion and a host of other mental illnesses. To accept and support something other than our fundamental identity lacks integrity and is ultimately self-destructive. Does this support discrimination on the basis of race or religion? Absolutely not, because ultimately religion and even race are not fundamental organic identifiers. They are identifiers and in the case of race even organic. But they do not make any commentary whatever upon fundamental human identity and existence. Sex does because it reflects the very union by which every human, whatever their race or religion, exists. Whenever one gazes upon society, one does not fundamentally see whites, blacks, Jews and gentiles. One fundamentally sees beings who consist of the archetypal human male/female union. We call them humans. Homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality and other perversions have no part in this identity. |
