Now Playing on JYB Films

Anatomy of the Comic Jihad


Movie File Host
YouTube YouTube
Putfile Putfile


Movie File Host
YouTube

The Meaning of Taqiyya







button02b
fpawbn
July 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
$1 Shipping for 4 days, only at Overstock.com!
button
Archives

Content Staff
Technical Staff
credit where due
This site is still alive and kicking thanks to the generosity and talents of Alan M. Carroll (aka Annoying Old Guy). Without him, the JYB would still be suffering with Blogger's bad code and long-term archive loss.
Powered by
Hosted By
Anti-Junk: 7719 sources banned.

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE TO LEGALIZING PEDOPHILIA

Those Catholic priests who made man-love to all those little boys made one big mistake: The committed their crimes too soon. What they did--manipulating trusting boys, lying to those boys' parents, having various forms of sex with those boys in and around the churches entrusted to them--may soon be legal if one Supreme Court Justice, the American Psychiatric Association and the odious North American Man-Boy Love Association get their way. And they may, since last month's SCOTUS decision in the Lawrence case has made it easy for them. That's the case that struck down sodomy laws, which were likely to become extinct the democratic way in a few years if the court hadn't unilaterally struck them down. As a side piece, Lawrence may have opened the door for pedophiles to claim that they're just another repressed minority with the same rights to sexual gratification as anyone else.

Critics of the US Supreme Court's logic in the Lawrence sodomy case feared that the decision would lead to legalized pedophilia, via the lowering of the age of consent. One of those critics happened to be Sen. Rick Santorum, who was roundly castigated for merely stating case law as it existed prior to Lawrence.

Well, it seems that the ink hasn't even dried up on that ruling, and we're slip-sliding down the road to our worst fears.

On its website, NAMBLA Director David Thorstad claims: "Pederasty, like homosexuality, has existed, and exists, in all societies that have ever been studied. Homoeroticism is a ubiquitous feature of human experience, as even efforts to repress it confirm. Men and youths have always been attracted to each other, and, like homosexuality in general, their love is irrepressible."


Murder has also existed as long as humans have been around--want to legalize that too? Wait--they already have--it's called "abortion!" NAMBLA probably already knows, but you may not, that it already has an ally on the Supreme Court:

Given that homosexual advocates are in a full court press to lower the age of consent as low as it can go, and pro-pedophile sitting Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's documented advocacy of lowering the age of consent to 12 years old, parents should be horrified that there are so few politicians, like Sen. Santorum, actually defending the family," Timothy Chichester, CFAA president, said April 23.

Chichester was referring to a paper authored by Ginsburg entitled "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," which was prepared for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in April 1977

The allegation was further substantiated by Robert Knight, director of CWA's Culture Institute, in "Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia," an article he co-authored with the Family Research Council's Frank York.

"When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an attorney for the ACLU, she co-authored a report recommending that the age of consent for sexual acts be lowered to 12 years of age," the article points out.

Knight and York's footnoted documentation on this is as follows: "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," Report for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, April 1977, p. 102, quoted in "Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Feminist World View," The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 26, No. 12, Section 1, p. 3. The paragraph (from the Ginsburg report) reads as follows: "'Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years" and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. ... A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. ... [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.'"

LaRue said pedophiles may co-opt language used in the Lawrence decision regarding homosexuals; that laws against their behavior are a discriminatory attempt to harm them as a persecuted minority. And they will be supported, she claimed, by academia.


Didn't that noted radical lefty, Sen. Orin Hatch, recommend President Clinton put Ginsberg on the Supreme Court? Yet another horrid SCOTUS appointment with GOP fingerprints. But while Ginsberg sits happily on the Supreme Court, the Democrats continue to block Miguel Estrada's nomination to the federal bench for....? Because he's Hispanic but not liberal, apparently.

As for academia, they're way ahead of the courts. The American Psychiatric Association may drop pedophilia as a mental illness:

During its annual convention in May, the American Psychiatric Association hosted a symposium discussing the removal of pedophilia along with other categories of mental illness (collectively known as paraphilia) from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

After much criticism following CNSNews.com coverage of the symposium, the APA issued a statement reiterating its position on pedophilia.

But in his 1999 article "Harming the Little Ones: The Effects of Pedophilia on Children," Timothy Dailey, senior analyst for cultural studies with the Family Research Council, chronicled the APA's treatment of pedophilia in the DSM and compares it to the APA evolution of homosexuality.

In DSM revisions, Dailey explained that APA "adds a subjective qualification similar to that which appeared with regard to homosexuality: The individual must be 'markedly distressed' by his own pedophilic activity to be considered needful of therapy," Dailey wrote, adding that in the latest revision, pedophilia "is to be considered a paraphilia when the behavior causes 'clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.'"


The child, the victim, never gets a mention. Just the perp and his "distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning." How compassionate. It gets worse, folks. The APA published a study in 1998 on child abuse. Among other things, the study proffered renaming "consensual" acts of pedophilia simply "adult-child sex." Not only would pedophilia not be a mental illness, but it would no longer constitute child abuse either. No more jailtime for 44 year-old men who have sex with their twelve-year-old neighbor, so long as it's "consensual."

Liberals in this country are always going on about how everything they do is for The Children. Here's one thing they can do that really is for The Children--stop this pedophilia madness in their ranks right now. But they won't. The left doesn't function as a self-criticizing body--all it can do is strike out at anyone to its right.

Is this worth worrying about? Could pedophilia really get the legal stamp of approval? You bet. The APA once regarded homosexuality as a mental illness--dropping that classification made all the difference in the world, opening up the debates we're now having on gay marriage and adoption. NAMBLA already has at least one Supreme Court Justice already in their corner.
Post to del.icio.us

Posted by B. Preston on July 14, 2003 12:12 PM
Trackbacks: View (0)Ping
Comments

This was a long post so i’ll do my best to address it point by point. First of all, common sense says child molestation will never be legal in the United States. The last society I know of that condoned it was the Spartans. Acts of homosexual pedophilia obviously have almost no societal support in history, with good reason, again… obviously. I don’t understand what sodomy has to do with lowering the age of anything, but what do you expect NAMBLA to say. I’d call NAMBLA’s comments sick wishful thinking on their part nothing for you to get worried about. I also wonder why homosexuals would want to lower the legal partner age when the majority of 11/12/13 year olds child abuse would be against females. If anything that would help out the dirty step-dads of the world. My own opinion is for a 16 or so age of consent so that 18 year olds can date 16 year olds. I don’t really understand how it could be lower due to mental maturity issues.
I think that your complaints about the APA are much ado about nothing. The psychologists are very careful and systematic about making changes to the DSM. The current major edition came out in 1994 (DSM IV). DSM V is not due out until 2010. I have not read ‘harming the little ones’ that is referenced, however I think it would be a much better case to try and compare homosexuality and gender identity disorder rather than pedophilia. Out of the paraphilia category, 5 of the 9 problems involve violating the rights of another person and I can’t imagine they would significantly change the descriptions.
Now, I’m sure the quote you used was in good faith, but it was biased. You said, “The child, the victim, never gets a mention. Just the perp and his “distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.” .” Wow, sorry about the punctuation, I can’t remember the block quote html code, I’m thinking

Posted by Kyle B on July 14, 2003 7:45 PM

This was a long post so i’ll do my best to address it point by point. First of all, common sense says child molestation will never be legal in the United States. The last society I know of that condoned it was the Spartans. Acts of homosexual pedophilia obviously have almost no societal support in history, with good reason, again… obviously. I don’t understand what sodomy has to do with lowering the age of anything, but what do you expect NAMBLA to say. I’d call NAMBLA’s comments sick wishful thinking on their part nothing for you to get worried about. I also wonder why homosexuals would want to lower the legal partner age when the majority of 11/12/13 year olds child abuse would be against females. If anything that would help out the dirty step-dads of the world. My own opinion is for a 16 or so age of consent so that 18 year olds can date 16 year olds. I don’t really understand how it could be lower due to mental maturity issues.
I think that your complaints about the APA are much ado about nothing. The psychologists are very careful and systematic about making changes to the DSM. The current major edition came out in 1994 (DSM IV). DSM V is not due out until 2010. I have not read ‘harming the little ones’ that is referenced, however I think it would be a much better case to try and compare homosexuality and gender identity disorder rather than pedophilia. Out of the paraphilia category, 5 of the 9 problems involve violating the rights of another person and I can’t imagine they would significantly change the descriptions.
Now, I’m sure the quote you used was in good faith, but it was biased. You said, “The child, the victim, never gets a mention. Just the perp and his “distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.” .” Wow, sorry about the punctuation, I can’t remember the block quote html code, I’m thinking block or quote but I digress.
Now go read the actual dsm iv, kindly provided at http://www.geocities.com/morrison94/Sexual.htm#Pedo . “This causes clinically important distress or impairs work, social or personal functioning, or the patient has acted on these desires.” “The patient is 16 or older and at least 5 years older than the child.” It would seem to me that the child, the victim, is mentioned. Personally, adult-child sex is just as disgusting as pedophilia so what it is called cannot make that much difference. A molester by any other name would seem as evil.
The APA really does not affect legality. Legality is based on violation of rights. I think you are conflating (I learned the word from you guys, its a good one and thanks) mental illness and legal issues. After all premature ejaculation is a ‘mental illness’. Its a shame, but thoughts of pedophilia cannot be acted upon legally. There must be some type of action by the person.
Finally, on a totally unrelated topic, I wish you guys could make the comments field a larger box.

Posted by Kyle B on July 14, 2003 7:49 PM

Re the comments thing, we’re getting a whole new site with a new comments box. Hopefully it’ll be roomy enough for you.

Re the rest. I wouldn’t worry about any of this if SCOTUS hadn’t decided Lawrence the way it did, with the composition that voted the way it did. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, otherwise known as Darth Vader Ginsberg in my mind, obviously voted in favor of striking the Texas sodomy law down. She’s on record as favoring lowering the age of consent to 12 in her ACLU writings. How is she going to rule should a pedophilia/pederasty case make its way to her? She’s only one vote, but I don’t see any reason to think she’s the only one who might vote to lower the age of consent. Breyer and a couple others are just as left-liberal as she is. That the ACLU has written on the subject, and that academia is shifting slowly toward favoring some kind of change, says that Ginsberg is by no means alone. It also means that there’s a well-funded group with decades of experience in getting courts to legislate may be waiting in the wings to take up a test case or two when the times are more conducive.

Beyond Ginsberg, I think the entire effort to use sympathetic courts to force these wrenching changes on a largely unsuspecting society is the height of deceit and immorality, as well as extremely undemocratic. And the result is Lawrence, which by the logic of its majority decision has opened the door to a future court making some breathtaking changes to our society by fiat. This court won’t do it, even O’Connor and Kennedy still oppose some things on principle. But a future court just might, and it will have Lawrence as precedent and it may have the ACLU taking part. If the APA does drop pedophilia as a mental illness, that would just make it easier for a court to do it.

Posted by Bryan on July 14, 2003 11:54 PM

Kyle, You do not see a slippery slope, but then you ask to lower the age of consent (actually in many jurisdictions already too low). For what possible reason should a 18 year old have a right/be free to have sex with a 16 year old (for what possible reason should any 16 year old have sex). I’m not seeking to criminalize teenage sex, but lets minimize the damage and keep adults from preying on teens.

Posted by Steve Malynn on July 15, 2003 10:08 AM

First of all, common sense says child molestation will never be legal in the United States.

And this is relevant to the current state of American jurisprudence, how? In fact, there is ample evidence to suggest that common sense has long since been declared unconstitutional.

It’s been said, so I’ll keep it brief: Child Molestation (whether incestuous or otherwise) will NEVER become legal. It is clearly violative of the child, and children cannot give consent, therefore it is RAPE.

The age of consent laws are a crazy quilt of varying ages by jurisdiction, but all allow consent by age 18. Since 18 is considered majority (it is the age at which one gains the right to vote), that should serve as a guide (Perhaps allow a slight age differential, as suggested above). Anything less than that, and you are not likely to find a child mature enough to deal with the consequences of sexual activity.

For me, the “slippery slope” argument doesn’t wash here, as sodomy is (for the most part) a totally consensual activity, while child molestation is not.

Hey if you ask me, the couple should be waiting until they get engaged. I did not mean to imply at all that 16 year olds should have sex. However, I think that there should be nothing wrong with a high school senior and a high school sophomore dating, which in America these days, leads to other things. Maybe a better solution, which may very well be on the books for all I know about statutory rape laws, would be to say the age of consent is 16 and until the age of 18 the partners must be within 2 years of age. Steve, I also hate the idea of adults preying on teens.
The original discussion was about pedophilia rather than teens so maybe we are a bit off subject, maybe not. I am against capital punishment, and I like the idea of having the skin removed from pedophiliacs while they are still alive. Its tough to reconcile these two thoughts. I get some respite from the fact that in prison, the mollester is turned into the mollestee. Amoralities of prison rape aside, it does seem like some sort of cosmic justice.

Posted by Kyle B on July 16, 2003 3:27 PM
Post a comment