Dr. Keith Ablow has an interesting article about pedophiles and the claim that they were “born that way” and a new California law that may be coming to your state. The articles are related. Stick with as a lay out the argument.
“A recent article on Gawker.com by Cord Jefferson suggests that we could be a more just and healing society were we to consider pedophilia a sexual orientation, rather than simply a crime. He suggests that pedophiles are born with this orientation, just as men might be born with the inherent potential to develop an attraction to adult females, or vice-versa.”
Dr. Ablow takes strong exception to the claim. “The truth is that no one has ever been able to demonstrate that a person is born destined — genetically or neurologically — to want to have sex with children.”
But don’t homosexuals claim that they are genetically predisposed toward homosexuality? Why is it that homosexuals can make the genetic claim but not pedophiles? Dr. Ablow understands the problem, because he tries to dismiss the association:
“Sadly, pedophiles who won’t accept responsibility for their actions may be inappropriately seeking to ‘benefit’ from the advances won by the gay rights movement, because that movement has asserted that homosexual behavior is pre-programmed into babies, just as heterosexual behavior is. The unscientific and rote intolerance on the part of some gay rights groups for the idea that life experience can also shape sexual orientation (that sexual orientation is fluid) plants the seeds for the same insistence by those who would prey upon children.”
One could argue that the disdain our culture has for pedophiles at this point in time is where the homosexual movement was 40 years ago. Pedophiles just need time to make their case like homosexuals have done
Dr. Ablow makes another good point about how “impulses” don’t have to be acted on. “Resisting sexual impulses is a very common occurrence. It happens billions of times a day on the planet. Married people do it routinely, even though they are attracted to other partners.”
Can’t the same thing be said about people who engage in homosexual behaviors, behaviors that are physically unnatural (if I have to explain it to you, it’s back to tenth-grade biology) and immoral?
Dr. Ablow writes that people who are excited sexually by “voyeurism routinely resist acting on their desires because they understand them to be morally and legally wrong. Teachers attracted to teenage students routinely resist cavorting with them because they would lose their jobs and because it is wrong to indulge.” He also mentions prostitutes and an attraction to a friend’s girlfriend. So why not homosexuality?
Every group mentioned by Dr. Ablow is considered a moral wrong except homosexuality.
Now comes the scary part. You may have heard of a California law that prohibits counseling someone to change his or her “sexual orientation.”
California congresswoman Jackie Speier wants to federalize that California law. Here’s some of the language:
“‘Sexual orientation change efforts’ means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”
Do you see the problem? Any pedophile, contrary to Dr. Ablow’s protestations, could appeal to this law to legalize adult sex with children in the name of “gender expressions” and “romantic attractions.”
We’ve let the foxes write the rules for the way the hen house is to be run because they’re after the chicks. “This language is so broad and vague, it arguably could include all forms of sexual orientation including pedophilia,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “It’s not just the orientation that is protected, the conduct associated with the orientation is protected as well.”
The article on WND is must reading. It was never just about tolerance; they want the children.