Posted on 02/01/2015 2:42:52 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
“Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality ... a deep-rooted predisposition ... that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.”
The above idea was expressed with respect to homosexuality decades ago and since has become left-wing dogma. The thinking is that if someone was “born that way,” if the behavior is “natural” for him and he didn’t choose his feelings, how could it be wrong?
Yet the opening quoted line wasn’t penned decades ago — it’s only two years old. And homosexuality wasn’t the focus.
It was about pedophilia.
Here is the complete quotation, as published by the Los Angeles Times on Jan. 14, 2013:
Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.
Should we view this as just a clinical analysis, without considering what may be implied and certainly will be inferred? After all, if the “inborn” argument is valid, then it’s silly to think it doesn’t apply to other “innate” urges and inclinations. If it’s not valid, however, then it’s equally silly to accept it with respect to any supposedly innate inclination, such as homosexuality. Let’s delve into it.
The same social scientists telling us homosexuality is innate also claim that psychopaths are born and not made. Does this make psychopathy a legitimate state of being? And what if it’s found that some people are born with homicidal instincts? Would it be okay for them to commit murder?
Some may now say that murder is different because it hurts another person. (Of course, others contend that indulging in deviant sexual behavior with another also hurts the person.) But this is a change in yardstick that renders the inborn argument irrelevant. After all, whether or not an action reflects inborn urges tells us nothing about whether or not it hurts another.
Stating the obvious, the inborn argument could be applied to anything inborn. Logically translated it says: If a feeling is innate, the actions associated with it are okay. This eliminates morality completely and replaces it with biological determinism (BD). This is why accepting the BD argument means accepting everything that can be proven to be inborn — even if it’s pedophilia, bestiality, or murder. It’s just a slightly more sophisticated way of saying “If it feels good, do it.” But biology does not determine morality.
Of course, left-wing activists also rely on “if it feels good, do it” to formulate argumentation, which is why they never do apply the BD argument consistently. While they’re perfectly content to utilize it to advance their pet behavior, they then turn around and scoff at the notion that, despite BD having been lent credibility as a guiding principle, it could be used by others to promote pedophilia or bestiality.
This emotion-based modus operandi is why left-wing activists continually contradict themselves. The theological version of the BD argument, frequently uttered by homosexual activists, is “God doesn’t make mistakes.” Yet those taking this tack don’t dispute that man’s many inborn abnormalities, such as cleft lip, Spina bifida, Down syndrome, club foot, and Tay-Sachs disease, are defects. Nor do they claim, as some believers did in ages past, that these abnormalities are divine punishment for sin.
Even more to the point, if activists say that homosexual behavior is okay because “God doesn’t make mistakes,” how do they explain their advocacy of so-called “gender-reassignment surgery”? Shouldn’t they then conclude that if God wanted a person to be a member of the opposite sex, He would have created him that way?
Then there’s this study indicating that racial bias is innate. Will the Left now move to rescind anti-discrimination law?
If leftists actually believed in God (as opposed to just using Him for a ploy), they might realize there’s much He doesn’t ordain and that our fallen nature has corrupted our minds as well as our bodies. In reality, though, what they “realize” is dictated by the political imperatives of the moment.
As another example of shape-shifting judgments, consider the reportage on NYC mayor Bolshevik Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray. She’s universally and frequently described, as ABC does here, as a “former lesbian.” But according to leftist dogma, isn’t at issue an inborn orientation that “does not change”? Shouldn’t she be characterized as a “lesbian living a lie in marriage” or a “woman denying her true feelings”?
Of course, history tells us that man’s sexuality is quite malleable and that it certainly can change. Homosexuality was institutionalized in ancient Spartan military camps, and it was common for Athenian men to chase after adolescent boys. Are we to conclude that most all ancient Greeks had a “gay gene”?
Also note that science has discovered no such genetic link. In fact, this 2001 Columbia University study found that among identical twins (who share identical genetics), the same-sex attraction experienced by one was shared by the other only 10 percent of the time.
Despite this, California and New Jersey have seen fit to ban homosexual conversion therapy for minors. Perhaps voters in those states may want to consider that, as with sexual feelings, politicians can be changed.
And since minds and hearts can as well, we should be careful what arguments we legitimize. To abide by the principle of biological determinism — the force governing animals — would beget an animalistic society. Remember that acceptance of BD implies there’s nothing better — namely morality — to govern our behavior. And a people embracing the notion “It if feels good, do it,” one day just may decide that it feels better to kill homosexuals than to tolerate them.
Feelings don’t always inform about facts. And biology never determines morality.
I believe it’s been done. Paedophilia will be a hard sell until the left’s enchantment by NAMBLA becomes serious. NAMBLA doesn’t have enough money yet. Perhaps Epstein will help.
Not everyone who is abused becomes a pedophile - I didn’t mean that.
But many pedophiles were themselves, abused as children. And men are much more likely to become pedophiles than women.
God bless your friend for being able to take such a bad experience and make something positive come out of it. And to help others do the same!
Absolutely not. Children do not have the capacity to make informed decisions and therefor cannot consent with an adult. Homosexual relations between adults is different and socieites softening stance on homosexuality should not be an excuse to soften taboos on pedophilia.
“I was born a lesbian and have no control over my impulses.
Thankfully I don’t have to sit every time I go the bathroom.”
in pondering your condition, i was wondering if you were afflicted by a “Y” chromosome?
No.
Well, I have a Y chromosome, shave my face and have an adams apple...could he a goiter though...
There is a HUGE difference between ‘tolerance’ and ‘permissiveness’. The left has kidnapped and changed the meaning of ‘tolerance’, just like they abducted and changed the word ‘gay’ from something nice to something unnatural. ‘Tolerance’ means ‘putting up with’ something that is irritating or wrong, while ‘permissiveness’ means allowing ‘anything goes’, but the left has changed the meaning, once again.
But can they consent with other children? That's the window that has opened for adults: our society accepts - promotes - fornication among ever-younger adolescents.
This means we posit that they can "make informed decisions and consent" - otherwise, we'd be obliged to attempt to stop them by various reasonable means. The camel then has his nose in the tent. If you accept 14-with-14, then objecting to 45-with-14 is just a matter of taste.
The United States of Thailand. Next we can justify it economically, what with all the wealthy EuroTrash Pedos coming here to leave their money in exchange for buggering little children.
When my daughter was 17 she backpacked through SE Asia. She commented on seeing middle aged European men walking around with minor Thai children. I thought at the time, there go any illusions you might have about the world.
It also means that Hitler and Stalin were as moral as any other man who has ever existed - including Jesus - because "morality" does not exist.
Do we really believe in a world like that? Would we want to live in a world like that?
Communists would. Atheists would. Are there any other takers?
Is queer bashing okay if You’re “Born That Way”?
Is bank robbing okay if You’re “Born That Way”?
Is bestiality okay if You’re “Born That Way”?
Is racism okay if You’re “Born That Way”?
Uh, no. I find everything about it disgusting. But everyone is not me.
After decades of justifying things “for the children”, it would be the height of hypocrisy. But that has never slowed ‘em down much before.
Why do you suppose the left is so concerned with saving the children? Saving them for what? NAMBLA? NAMBLA has had demonstrations for lowering the age of consent and gone to court for it, so far unsuccessfully, but the only outrage expressed has been from the Christians/conservatives. The liberals just mumble or change the subject. To Liberals paedophiles are another oppressed minority who can’t help the way they were born. They are still a tad uncomfortable with it all but they are slowly coming to the logic of their principle of Tolerance for Wierdos. Once upon a time when premarital sex was still generally frowned upon by the sane people of the country many liberal parents spoke out for guided sex- and letting their daughters bring their boyfriends home to “sleep” together in the safety of their own bedrooms.
I was ‘born that way.’ Specifically, I was born autistic. Or with Aspergers Syndrome, or whatever they’re calling it these days. Whatever the case, it’s a mental disorder that alienates me from society.
And guess what. Society isn’t bending over backwards to make me feel normal. In fact, society is all but forcing medication, therapy, and job training on me to make me not be an Aspie.
It seems that the ‘born that way’ argument is permitted only when it involves genitalia.
not only that, they define any disagreement as a phobia
Exactly. Just like anyone disagreeing with Obama about any topic is now defined as “racist.”
Is stealing OK if you’re born a kleptomaniac?
Is torturing OK if you’re born a sadist?
Is racism OK if you’re born a racist?
The idea that if one is born with some undesirable trait it then becomes OK is utter nonsense.
Well if you are a Mideast Muslim its sort of mandatory isn’t it?
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.