If you are surprised at all by this Gawker article defending Pedophilia….

Readability

If you are surprised at all by this Gawker article defending Pedophilia....

Then you have not been pay­ing atten­tion for the last 30 years:

Van Gjiseghem says what he and his col­leagues mean by sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion is a person’s inborn and unal­ter­able sex­ual pref­er­ence, irre­spec­tive of whether that pref­er­ence is harm­ful to oth­ers or not. Cur­rently, there is no sig­nif­i­cant lon­gi­tu­di­nal evi­dence that pedophiles can be made to not be attracted to chil­dren, and thus it can be defined as their ori­en­ta­tion. And if pedophilia is a sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion, that also means it’s futile to send pedophiles to prison in an effort to alter their attrac­tions. Doing so is akin to send­ing a homo­sex­ual child off to a religious-​based insti­tu­tion that claims it can “pray the gay away.”

No you are not imag­in­ing that you read that para­graph, you actu­ally saw it, the last para­graph of the arti­cle is even more inter­est­ing (empha­sis mine)

The old adage is that the true mark of a soci­ety is how it treats the weak­est in its ranks. Blacks, women, Lati­nos, gays and les­bians, and oth­ers are still in no way on wholly equal foot­ing in Amer­ica. But they’re also not nearly as lowly and cursed as men attracted to chil­dren. One imag­ines that if Jesus ever came to Earth, he’d embrace the poor, the blind, the lep­ers, and, yes, the pedophiles. As a self-​professed “pro­gres­sive,” when I think of the world I’d like to live in, I like to imag­ine that one day I’d be OK with a man like Terry mov­ing next door to me and my chil­dren. I like to think that I could wel­come him in for din­ner, break bread with him, and offer him the same bless­ings he’s offered me time and again. And what hurts to admit, even know­ing all I know now, is that I’m not pos­i­tive I could do that.

Lis­ten to that argu­ment read the com­ments and con­sider this from Clay­ton Cram­mer

The arti­cle itself starts off with a bit too graphic of an account by one of these unfor­tu­nate ones – no, not the vic­tim, but the poor mis­un­der­stood child moles­ter. Unsur­pris­ingly, aca­d­e­mics in Canada are work­ing hard to make us sym­pa­thize with pedophiles, and the “born this way” and “can’t really change” themes appear.

If the author’s argu­ment sounds famil­iar it’s because you have heard some­thing sim­i­lar from a lady named Gaga

Or was it weird Al?

To my knowl­edge there is no evi­dence of any dif­fer­ence in pedophilia rates between Gay or Straight peo­ple and other than extremes on either side (Nam­bla or those who equate all gay peo­ple with them) nobody is sug­gest­ing the goal of Gay Mar­riage is legal­ized pedophilia.

Yet there are those who DO wish to advance the cause of legal­ized pedophilia. Such peo­ple are con­scious of the his­tory of the last 50 years, they know the path to accep­tance of Homo­sex­u­al­ity fol­lowed by legal pro­tec­tions began with the same clin­i­cal dis­cus­sions in the arti­cle above. They are tak­ing this path not because it’s the same thing but because it’s a proven winner.

As you know I’m an oppo­nent of Gay Mar­riage and would sup­port a con­sti­tu­tional amend­ment to define mar­riage as one man one woman, but I’ll tell you this, if I was a sup­porter of Gay Mar­riage with even the slight­est knowl­edge of the his­tory of the Gay Move­ment and I read the argu­ments in the Gawker arti­cle (you can almost hear the cry of “Bigot” to those would dis­agree with the author) I wouldn’t just be insulted, I’d be furi­ous.

You can be sure, unlike the Atlantic my take that one could call “Con­cern Trolling”.

A vague rape apolo­gia runs through this piece – the impli­ca­tion of “men who have sex with chil­dren” as an oppressed group, the equa­tion of pedophilia with other sex­ual ori­en­ta­tions, and lit­tle to no con­sid­er­a­tion of vic­tims. What bugs me is this is a topic that could use some mature jour­nal­ism and think­ing that goes beyond “hang them all.” (The tal­ented Jen­nifer Gonner­man does it here.) But this isn’t it. It’s poor jour­nal­ism, and an insen­si­tive attempt at being edgy.

Per­haps all they need is a union.

This has to be nipped in the bud, NOW! Both the Reli­gious com­mu­nity and the Gay com­mu­nity should be able to unite on this sub­ject and stop this dead in its tracks before it even gets started.

And for those of you who say “don’t worry it’s impos­si­ble” con­sider, at the time of JFK’s elec­tion did any­one ANY­ONE believe homo­sex­u­al­ity would be as accepted pub­licly as it is today? At the time of Reagan’s elec­tion did ANY­ONE imag­ine there would even be a debate on the legal­ity of gay marriage?

If we don’t unite on this as a soci­ety I sus­pect the only thing that will keep the des­ig­na­tion of pedophilia as a “sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion” (with all the legal pro­tec­tions the law now rec­og­nizes) from hap­pen­ing in my life­time, is my weight and the his­tory of heart issues in my family.

Then you have not been paying attention for the last 30 years:

Van Gjiseghem says what he and his colleagues mean by sexual orientation is a person’s inborn and unalterable sexual preference, irrespective of whether that preference is harmful to others or not. Currently, there is no significant longitudinal evidence that pedophiles can be made to not be attracted to children, and thus it can be defined as their orientation. And if pedophilia is a sexual orientation, that also means it’s futile to send pedophiles to prison in an effort to alter their attractions. Doing so is akin to sending a homosexual child off to a religious-based institution that claims it can “pray the gay away.”

No you are not imagining that you read that paragraph, you actually saw it, the last paragraph of the article is even more interesting (emphasis mine)

The old adage is that the true mark of a society is how it treats the weakest in its ranks. Blacks, women, Latinos, gays and lesbians, and others are still in no way on wholly equal footing in America. But they’re also not nearly as lowly and cursed as men attracted to children. One imagines that if Jesus ever came to Earth, he’d embrace the poor, the blind, the lepers, and, yes, the pedophiles. As a self-professed “progressive,” when I think of the world I’d like to live in, I like to imagine that one day I’d be OK with a man like Terry moving next door to me and my children. I like to think that I could welcome him in for dinner, break bread with him, and offer him the same blessings he’s offered me time and again. And what hurts to admit, even knowing all I know now, is that I’m not positive I could do that.

Listen to that argument read the comments and consider this from Clayton Crammer

The article itself starts off with a bit too graphic of an account by one of these unfortunate ones–no, not the victim, but the poor misunderstood child molester. Unsurprisingly, academics in Canada are working hard to make us sympathize with pedophiles, and the “born this way” and “can’t really change” themes appear.

If the author’s argument sounds familiar it’s because you have heard something similar from a lady named Gaga

Or was it weird Al?

To my knowledge there is no evidence of any difference in pedophilia rates between Gay or Straight people and other than extremes on either side (Nambla or those who equate all gay people with them) nobody is suggesting the goal of Gay Marriage is legalized pedophilia.

Yet there are those who DO wish to advance the cause of legalized pedophilia. Such people are conscious of the history of the last 50 years, they know the path to acceptance of Homosexuality followed by legal protections began with the same clinical discussions in the article above. They are taking this path not because it’s the same thing but because it’s a proven winner.

As you know I’m an opponent of Gay Marriage and would support a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man one woman, but I’ll tell you this, if I was a supporter of Gay Marriage with even the slightest knowledge of the history of the Gay Movement and I read the arguments in the Gawker article (you can almost hear the cry of “Bigot” to those would disagree with the author) I wouldn’t just be insulted, I’d be furious.

You can be sure, unlike the Atlantic my take that one could call “Concern Trolling“.

A vague rape apologia runs through this piece–the implication of “men who have sex with children” as an oppressed group, the equation of pedophilia with other sexual orientations, and little to no consideration of victims. What bugs me is this is a topic that could use some mature journalism and thinking that goes beyond “hang them all.” (The talented Jennifer Gonnerman does it here.) But this isn’t it. It’s poor journalism, and an insensitive attempt at being edgy.

Perhaps all they need is a union.

This has to be nipped in the bud, NOW! Both the Religious community and the Gay community should be able to unite on this subject and stop this dead in its tracks before it even gets started.

And for those of you who say “don’t worry it’s impossible” consider, at the time of JFK’s election did anyone ANYONE believe homosexuality would be as accepted publicly as it is today? At the time of Reagan’s election did ANYONE imagine there would even be a debate on the legality of gay marriage?

If we don’t unite on this as a society I suspect the only thing that will keep the designation of pedophilia as a “sexual orientation” (with all the legal protections the law now recognizes) from happening in my lifetime, is my weight and the history of heart issues in my family.