Now and then people claim that there’s a moral slippery slope, that if we accept one thing then we have to accept another. And if we accept gay marriage then next up it’s polygamy and then pedophilia. And clearly that’s not the case.
Gawker, the favorite smear blog of the left in general and NBC evening news anchor Brian Williams specifically, put up an item using the same arguments in defense of pedophilia from Cord Jefferson who also writes for The Root. It tries to prove that pedophilia is a biological disorder, but ends up making the same argument for progressivism.
“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.”
And if they’re “born this way”, then they have no choice. And if they have no choice, then it would be cruel to criminal their genetic programming. It would be downright bigoted for hating them for who they are.
That’s the thrust of this argument and it goes to all the expected “Sympathy for the Devil” places.
Something that might help mitigate Lemay’s fright is that viewing pedophilia as a sexual orientation might help us rationally deal with it.
Rational. Rationalizing. Who can tell the difference anymore?
Every expert with whom I spoke wanted to get one thing straight: Being a pedophile is different from being a child molester.
Yes, much like the difference between the aspiring serial killer and the actual serial killer.
There are among us men who live their whole lives wanting to have sex with children but never doing it. America might have more of these men if we eased our taboos on anyone even admitting an attraction to kids.
If there’s anything that’s bound to lower the rate of child abuse, it’s easing our taboos on abusing children. And we can also lower rapes if we just lower our taboos on rapists.
But no victimhood essay is complete without comparing the new victim group to black people.
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.
It seems to me as if the weakest among us are the children. Not the people who sexually molest children. But then I’m not a progressive.
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.
As a self-professed hater of progressives , this essay reinforces everything I find absolutely insane, evil and destructive about the breed.
Why must Cord Jefferson aspire to want to be okay with a man who dreams of molesting his kids moving in next door? Why must the left aspire to be okay with Muslim terrorists moving next door? What does it say about an ideology that their moral imperative is to find the most evil people around and then welcome them in as a test of their own moral superiority, even if it harms their own children?