Accepting Pedophilia: Is it going to happen?

[SpiritDragon]

I know that some in these forums have expressed concerns in the past that by opening the gates to accepting homosexuality and legitimizing marriages to cater to this perversion that it is only a matter of time before an irreversible tide of non-traditional marriages and sexual perversions almost by default will become accepted as well.

I stumbled upon this article which outlines what the author believes to be steps being taken to help pedophilia gain mainstream acceptance. I also wanted to do a forum search to see that this hasn't been a recent discussion. I see that @Bini brought up a similar topic of discussion five years ago with this link.

Anyhow I thought I'd ask if anyone thinks that just as homosexuality has gone from being deplorable and taboo to they can do what they want... to every city in the Western world holds celebrations of this "lifestyle" that pedophilia will indeed one day be seen as simply another sexual orientation. It's a little creepy to think that a self-professed pedophile might be allowed to work with my children because we shouldn't discriminate against anyone because of sexual preference (keeping in mind that for now anyway - it is illegal to act on pedophilic urges, but not illegal to be sexually attracted to children, as long as this "preference" is always repressed and never acted on.)

[BeccaKirstyn]

What will be different about this movement, if it ever happens, is that acting on pedophilia is not accepted by society, and I hope and pray it never will be, whereas acting on homosexual feelings is 100% accepted. The bolded sentence in the article states it all, "What the pedophiles are complaining about is that they cannot go about openly professing their desire to molest children"

The argument always made by the LGBTQ community was that having a homosexual relationship wasn't affecting anyone's life, so why did it matter whether or not it was legalized. That argument cannot be made with pedophilia. It DOES affect someone else's life if we're treating it like homosexuality. So their only argument would be to have the ability to be open about saying they are a pedophile, whether they act on those feelings or not (except the latter is illegal). 

Of course as it has probably been discussed on this forum, the next change in family and marriage definitions in our society will most likely be polygamy. When will it happen, I'm not sure. But my guess will be the next 10 years at the most. 

[Just_A_Guy]

I've met some pedophiles.  It's a horrible thing to have to deal with, and I have admiration for those who control it.  I don't mind being just a bit more compassionate towards such individuals.

Re the article:  the next move isn't for pubescent children; it's for sixteen- and seventeen-year-old teenagers--especially, formerly chaste (read:  Christian) teenagers.  Our damnably promiscuous generation needs them--most of their potential partners in lust already have an STD.  Teenagers represent the last untainted store of fresh meat, and make no mistake--the secularists want them.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

6 hours ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

whereas acting on homosexual feelings is 100% accepted.

This is false.

[Jamie123]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is false.

I don't believe anything has ever been 100% accepted. (Except perhaps breathing.)

[The Folk Prophet]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I've met some pedophiles [...] and I have admiration for those who control it.

I find this statement.......odd.

All things being relative, yes, controlling it is more admirable than not controlling it. But that's only relative. I struggle with the concept that anything about corruption and perversion is "admirable" (like I said, all things being relative).

[Guest]

@SpiritDragon

It's already happening.  I can't remember which state, I believe it was California, had a required reading list including writings that were basically NAMBLA type indoctrination.  It's just a question of time before it gains mainstream acceptance.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I don't believe anything has ever been 100% accepted. (Except perhaps breathing.)

Sure. But in this case even the implication that it is by-and-large accepted isn't true. There are still a great many who find the acting upon it abhorrent, evil, wicked, and sinful. Just because the vocal left screams acceptance constantly in the media does not mean it's anywhere near 100% accepted. Of course acceptance is growing. But the day such things are 100% accepted is surely the day we are ripe for destruction (Alma 45:16), and that is pretty scary.

[Jamie123]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I find this statement.......odd.

All things being relative, yes, controlling it is more admirable than not controlling it. But that's only relative. I struggle with the concept that anything about corruption and perversion is "admirable" (like I said, all things being relative).

I find your statement even odder: do you not find it admirable to resist evil because resisting evil is "about evil"?

You might as well say that the crocodile keeper at the zoo is not to be trusted because his work is associated with crocodiles (which as everyone knows are dangerous).

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I find your statement even odder: do you not find it admirable to resist evil because resisting evil is "about evil"?

Relatively admirable, yes. Those Nazis who hated Jews but didn't actually kill any are more admirable than those who actually did kill some. Yes. Relatively.

Anyhow we're just talking words here. When I think about "admirable" as a word, yes those who resist evil fit...but then, to me, there is a certain level of evil where even the desire in the first place is despicable enough that I have a hard time seeing it as admirable. It's more like the person who dives into the crocodile pond and then makes it back to shore without getting eaten. My response would not, in said case, be admiration for the persons swimming abilities.

Yes, if someone desired to jump in with crocs and resisted I'd say, "Good on you" or the like...but I wouldn't call my overall reaction to it "admiration". Instead I'd be like...you know..."Someone who wants to swim with crocodiles is messed up...how can we deal with getting them to not even have that desire in the first place...and so resisting the temptation to dive in with the crocs isn't even an issue?"

4 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

You might as well say that the crocodile keeper at the zoo is not to be trusted because his work is associated with crocodiles (which as everyone knows are dangerous).

This makes no sense whatsoever and has no relation to the idea I'm presenting at all.

...Now if the crocodile keeper had an overwhelming urge to put his head into the crocodiles mouth...maybe the analogy might start working a bit... And then, yes, upon finding out that the keeper had said urge I would very much say that he could not be trusted around crocs. Of course that still doesn't entirely work...but....closer

[Jamie123]

20 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This makes no sense whatsoever and has no relation to the idea I'm presenting at all.

...Now if the crocodile keeper had an overwhelming urge to put his head into the crocodiles mouth...maybe the analogy might start working a bit... And then, yes, upon finding out that the keeper had said urge I would very much say that he could not be trusted around crocs. Of course that still doesn't entirely work...but....closer

It makes every bit of sense and is perfectly germane to this discussion.

A crocodile keeper is responsible for making sure his crocodiles don't eat anyone. If he does his job well and no kids end up as crocky-din-dins then we rightly give him our admiration.

Similarly a person who is afflicted with paedophilic tendencies has a responsibility to keep those tendencies in check so no one gets hurt. If he does this well then yes...I think he deserves our admiration.

OK the analogy isn't perfect because:

(i) A crocodile keeper has a responsibility also for keeping his crocodiles healthy; he could keep zoo visitors even safer by shooting all his crocs through the head, but that would only get him the sack. A "righteous" paedophile on the other hand would prefer to give up his paedophilic urges than merely to control them, but that is often not possible. (As Paul discovered with his "thorn in the flesh".)

(ii) A crocodile keeper has likely chosen his profession, while for a paedophile (good or bad) it has probably been thrust upon him by his own childhood abuse.

P.S. I'm not suggesting that Paul was a paedophile - only that what he refers to in 2 Corinthians 12 may have been something analogous to this.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Jamie123

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

It makes every bit of sense and is perfectly germane to this discussion.

A crocodile keeper is responsible for making sure his crocodiles don't eat anyone. If he does his job well and no kids end up as crocky-din-dins then we rightly give him our admiration.

Similarly a person who is afflicted with paedophilic tendencies has a responsibility to keep those tendencies in check so no one gets hurt. If he does this well then yes...I think he deserves our admiration.

OK the analogy isn't perfect because:

(i) A crocodile keeper has a responsibility also for keeping his crocodiles healthy; he could keep zoo visitors even safer by shooting all his crocs through the head, but that would only get him the sack. A "righteous" paedophile on the other hand would prefer to give up his paedophilic urges than merely to control them, but that is often not possible. (As Paul discovered with the "thorn in his flesh".)

(ii) A crocodile keeper has likely chosen his profession, while for a paedophile (good or bad) it has probably been thrust upon him by his own childhood abuse.

You say that it makes every bit of sense and then proceed to show how the analogy isn't perfect (which means it does not, after all, make every bit of sense).

Okay though... I do understand better what you mean by the analogy now. But it does fail still because the keeper of the crododiles has good reason to be keeping them as there is value to doing so (meat, entertainment, etc)...

But that is off point, and the arguments you are making that are on point have some validity that I did not consider. (Specifically, your point (ii)).

[Jamie123]

23 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

...to me, there is a certain level of evil where even the desire in the first place is despicable enough that I have a hard time seeing it as admirable.

I don't think Just a Guy was suggesting that paedophilia is admirable - but that people afflicted with it are admirable for resisting it. A person is not the same as his or her temptations. 

[Jamie123]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You say that it makes every bit of sense and then proceed to show how the analogy isn't perfect (which means it does not, after all, make every bit of sense).

Ha ha - OK my first sentence was hyperbole!

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I don't think Just a Guy was suggesting that paedophilia is admirable - but that people afflicted with it are admirable for resisting it. A person is not the same as his or her temptations. 

I understand that. I'm saying that the idea of associating any level of admiration with certain types of evil doesn't resound with me.

There is a broader discussion to be had here, of course, and it is decidedly complex. And the current morale mores of our society throw a huge wrench into the mix (we are, after all, all nothing but victims, right? )

If I take it a bit closer to home I might say the same of those who have overcome pornography (something both JaG and I have had past trials with). I do not feel there is anything admirable about my overcoming those things. I admire those who have never gotten entrenched in the first place.

It's a semantic issue...and that can go on for days without going anywhere, so I suspect it's not worth pursuing.

There is only one admirable way, imo, and that is Christ's. Any other is naught but mercy. I know...semantics. What is "admirable"? It's just a word. I guess I use it contextually differently than others. (I do the same with words like "shame" apparently too.)

[Jamie123]

33 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If I take it a bit closer to home I might say the same of those who have overcome pornography (something both JaG and I have had past trials with). I do not feel there is anything admirable about my overcoming those things. I admire those who have never gotten entrenched in the first place.

...

There is only one admirable way, imo, and that is Christ's...

You are starting to make some sense to me now...

I've never been very interested in pornography per se, but I have had my own severe trials with the flesh. (And I'm not gay either - the thorn in my own flesh is something you're not likely to guess at, and I'm not going to tell you what it is.) And like you, I've never thought it right to "admire myself" for resisting - in fact if experience is anything to go by, self-admiration is the quickest path to being sucked back into your sins. And...more's the pity...it has happened. Like you, I'm more comfortable admiring Christ for answering my prayers and giving me the strength to resist.

But admiration for others...that's a sticky point. I posted a thread a while back about how heroes let you down, but is it never right to admire other people? Or should admiration only ever be given to Christ? Perhaps we should admire others but not for their own glory - rather for what Christ has made them.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Jamie123

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

the thorn in my own flesh is something you're not likely to guess at,

I'm gonna take a shot at.... something with crocodiles.... 

[Vort]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I find this statement.......odd.

All things being relative, yes, controlling it is more admirable than not controlling it. But that's only relative. I struggle with the concept that anything about corruption and perversion is "admirable" (like I said, all things being relative).

Not sure why you find it odd. If a person has a certain weakness and yet controls that weakness, is that not admirable? In fact, is that not exactly the condition we all find ourselves in, struggling to control our failings?

I find it rank hypocrisy to revile the pedophile while championing the cause of the homosexual. All of those so-called Latter-day "Saints" who take such delight in taking their fellow Saints to task over homosexual "marriage" and other elements of the so-called "gay rights" movement had darn well better be equally passionate about the oppressed, downtrodden pedophile. Otherwise, they are stinking hypocrites.

(Care to guess how many of these self-professed "enlightened" and "progressive" Mormons openly champion the cause of the pedophile? I'll give you a hint: It's a non-positive and non-negative integer. Another hint: It's one syllable, starts with a "z", and rhymes with "zero".)

[The Folk Prophet]

27 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not sure why you find it odd. If a person has a certain weakness and yet controls that weakness, is that not admirable? In fact, is that not exactly the condition we all find ourselves in, struggling to control our failings?

Yeah...no. To me it's like saying, "I hate everybody but I've kept myself from actually murdering them," and then there being an expectation that not murdering someone is admirable.

Or like the quote in Guardians of the Galaxy.  "...Like it's some great thing, not eating me. Normal people don't even think about eating someone else, much less, that person having to be grateful for it."

Not eating someone is not admirable.

27 minutes ago, Vort said:

I find it rank hypocrisy to revile the pedophile while championing the cause of the homosexual. All of those so-called Latter-day "Saints" who take such delight in taking their fellow Saints to task over homosexual "marriage" and other elements of the so-called "gay rights" movement had darn well better be equally passionate about the oppressed, downtrodden pedophile. Otherwise, they are stinking hypocrites.

I know you are well aware, but just to be clear for any others reading, I am not one of the ones championing anything related to gay rights. Just so we're clear.

Edited June 27, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[SpiritDragon]

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

@SpiritDragon

It's already happening.  I can't remember which state, I believe it was California, had a required reading list including writings that were basically NAMBLA type indoctrination.  It's just a question of time before it gains mainstream acceptance.

I'd never heard of NAMBLA before (shudder ) what a disturbing movement. I understand that pedophilia is thought to afflict 1% of the population while the LBGT makes up 2-4%. So perhaps pedophilia is half as common - perhaps more common as well though because there just isn't much incentive to come out as a pedophile.

This is really disturbing - another reason to homeschool?

[SpiritDragon]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

Not sure why you find it odd. If a person has a certain weakness and yet controls that weakness, is that not admirable? In fact, is that not exactly the condition we all find ourselves in, struggling to control our failings?

I find it rank hypocrisy to revile the pedophile while championing the cause of the homosexual. All of those so-called Latter-day "Saints" who take such delight in taking their fellow Saints to task over homosexual "marriage" and other elements of the so-called "gay rights" movement had darn well better be equally passionate about the oppressed, downtrodden pedophile. Otherwise, they are stinking hypocrites.

(Care to guess how many of these self-professed "enlightened" and "progressive" Mormons openly champion the cause of the pedophile? I'll give you a hint: It's a non-positive and non-negative integer. Another hint: It's one syllable, starts with a "z", and rhymes with "zero".)

This has always been my thought on the whole different sexual preference thing in the first place - I don't think very many people at all can act out all of there lustful desires to begin with, and I'm fairly confident that no one can and still walk with God. I mean I have urges to mate with many a female I encounter, but I have covenanted to only have that kind of relationship with my wife. Before marriage - nothing. So I don't understand the need to make it acceptable for others to indulge in their lusts.

I agree completely though that this is the whole plight of man (the species, not the sex) to choose to follow God over our own carnal desires. Thus I too have admiration for the pedophile who never acts out on this urge. I can also agree that I find it admirable not to have wrongful desires in the first place, it seems safe to say that we all do have them. Weaknesses to keep us humble and lead to strength? i don't envy the person attracted to children - or the tobacco addict and so on. 

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

Thus I too have admiration for the pedophile who never acts out on this urge. 

I know I'm being a bit pig-headed on this...but it's because I can't get my brain around the idea...

I just can't get there. Some dude is changing a baby's diaper and thinking "...(editing because it's disgusting)..." but doesn't do anything about it and I'm supposed to admire that?

[Just_A_Guy]

I guess my thought, @The Folk Prophet, is that--yeah, it's easy not to murder; and we don't generally fawn all over people who resist any urge they may have for violence.  And I agree with you that it's not really a hard thing to avoid sexually violating a child--at least directly.  On the other hand, child porn is sufficiently ubiquitous that I think it does take some substantial willpower for a person who is inclined towards that sort of material, to stay away from it. 

And while typical porn users, to some degree, create their own issues by having chosen at some point to start down a particular road--pedophiles, generally speaking, haven't done that; they are typically victims of genetics or trauma or whatever it is that creates pedophiles.  Obviously, the fact that they were "born that way" could never excuse acting out on those proclivities--but IMHO it makes them a bit more deserving of compassion, and makes their choice to control their urges somewhat more laudable.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

they are typically victims

This point requires a much broader discussion. I'm not sure I have the mettle for it at this point.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I guess my thought, @The Folk Prophet, is that--yeah, it's easy not to murder; and we don't generally fawn all over people who resist any urge they may have for violence.  And I agree with you that it's not really a hard thing to avoid sexually violating a child--at least directly.  On the other hand, child porn is sufficiently ubiquitous that I think it does take some substantial willpower for a person who is inclined towards that sort of material, to stay away from it. 

And while typical porn users, to some degree, create their own issues by having chosen at some point to start down a particular road--pedophiles, generally speaking, haven't done that; they are typically victims of genetics or trauma or whatever it is that creates pedophiles.  Obviously, the fact that they were "born that way" could never excuse acting out on those proclivities--but IMHO it makes them a bit more deserving of compassion, and makes their choice to control their urges somewhat more laudable.

Fair enough. If a person was raised in a cannibal culture and then, upon learning that eating people was, indeed, wrong, and thereafter, even though sometimes tempted, refrained from eating others, then I suppose that deserves some laud.