Posted on 08/02/2013 9:11:28 PM PDT by coldphoenix
Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.
Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits. “Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at greeleygazette.com ...
Next will be the beastialists, if there is such a word. Cue Donny Osmond “Puppy Love”.
One could take Elvis’ version of ‘Your Teddy Bear’ and change it to ‘Your Pedo Bear’. That would ruin it forever.
If this ever comes about I predict a 6/day bag limit with minimum caliber required to be either 9mm,.223, or 00 buck.
The majority of the Supreme Court, for starters.
Pedophiles want to marry each other????
Well, it’s not too much a stretch for a pedophile to want to marry a child. Certain liberals want to get rid of age of consent laws, or lower such ages to low limits such as 12 years of age. Not too much of a stretch for a pedophile to marry a 12 year old girl if it was legal. And then, by definition, legally he can do whatever he wants to her.
Who could have thought!
did you see the story of the Pakistan TV Cleric giving away baby girls as prizes to viewers?? (I think we know they are brides)
They want to marry each other?
I am all for this. Pedophiles should be treated the same as gays. They are self determining individuals. Right? Right.
But as soon as they touch a child, who, by all accounts both professional and anecdotal, are physically, emotionally, and mentally incapable of making this type of decision we get to run over said pedophiles with our lawn mowers. Repeat. Rinse. Right? Right.
Those of use lacking the requisite attitude of enlightened acceptance and affirmation will be shunned as social outcasts; labeled as bigots and pedophobes.
Justice is the balancing of rights.
How to balance the newly proclaimed “rights” of pedophiles and the rights of the parents of the children with which the pedophiles want to establish a relationship the parents do not want to occur?
Traditionally, the parents and a few friends paid a visit to Mr. Pedophile and when Mr. could walk again he left town. Often, the ‘tenderized’ Mr. Pedophile was placed on a vehicle leaving town.
With the advent of an over-reaching judiciary, and a host of trough feeders, the situation is now so out of control that the insane have not just taken over the asylum, they are presented as respected minorities according to Lame Stream Media and of course the academented.
Bah, Humbuggery!
Oh, by the way, who or what follows the long list of sexual perverts? What’s further down the slope?
Isn’t that speaaaachal.
Could anyone honestly say...they never seen this coming.
Phil Donahue (TV talk show) was introducing America to NAMBLA spokemen in the second half of the 1980s.
It was a an introduction to mainstreaming them.
“On February 5, 1987, Bernard appeared as a guest on the Phil Donahue show and advocated pedophile activism, accompanied by a 23-year-old male who had allegedly been involved in a sexual relationship with an adult as a child.”
Libertarians are aware of the issue as well.
Time magazine May 21, 2008
“”The fracas started with Mary J. Ruwart, the candidate with perhaps the deepest, purest libertarian roots (her rejection of government is so complete that some party moderates have begun warning of the anarchical dangers of “Ruwarchy”). In April, a rival called her out for her thoughts in a 1999 book called Short Answers to the Tough Questions. “Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally,” Ruwart wrote. “When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”
Ruwart’s is a classic libertarian take — a defense of free will (even for “child performers”) and an attack on government prohibitions of any kind. It’s also political poison. As libertarian blogger Steve Newton put it, Ruwart and her allies run the risk of turning the party into “the poster child for NAMBLA and the aluminum hat brigade.”
The party’s executive director, Shane Cory, saw the danger as well, and rushed out a press release titled, “Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography.” Cory was attacked by hardliners who saw the release as an endorsement of increased federal prosecuting power. The party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws. Cory resigned in protest, depriving a party in the midst of what may be its most promising election season of one of its most able organizers and fund raisers. But for many libertarian faithful, adherence to the most rigid of principles always trumps practical considerations about how those principles might be more broadly observed.””
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.