Quote:So much for the left's "consenting adults" rhetoric on sex. Forever the consummate conservationists, our self-described "progressive" friends at the ACLU, MSNBC and elsewhere have been ramping-up efforts to downsize from "consenting adults" to merely "consenting" – a far less cumbersome qualifier in the noble struggle for unrestrained sexual license.

Tolerating "intergenerational romance" for "minor-attracted" adults is all the rage these days.

Ever hear of Kaitlyn Hunt? Over the past year or so this poor, misunderstood lesbian woman's "anti-gay persecution" has become a cause célèbre among "gay rights" activists and other left-wing purveyors of perversion.

Despite mass rallies and online petitions signed by hundreds-of-thousands of the uber-"tolerant," the clearly "homophobic" Florida criminal justice system has, nonetheless, convicted Ms. Hunt of multiple felonies for sexually assaulting – repeatedly – a 14-year-old girl.

Puritans.

Oh, sure, her minor victim allegedly "consented" to what the "Free Kate" crowd has portrayed as a harmless tryst – but, of course, by law children below the age of consent cannot consent to sex with adults. Period.

Still, the "progressive" establishment evidently felt that, for whatever reason, this was their hill to die on – this was the case that might help them realize the historical "gay rights" goal of rolling-back most, if not all, age of consent laws – statutes designed to protect children from adult sexual predators like, well, Kate.

Veteran journalist Robert Stacy McCain has covered the Hunt case extensively. In a recent piece for the American Spectator headlined "Kaitlyn Hunt is guilty and, yes, there is a movement to 'normalize pedophilia,'" McCain writes: "Kaitlyn Hunt is a criminal. We can state that as a Neutral Objective Fact, now that the 19-year-old former cheerleader has pleaded 'no contest' to multiple felonies related to her sexual affair with a minor. What remains is the question of what her plea in a Florida courtroom Thursday means for what Rush Limbaugh has called the movement to 'normalize pedophilia."'

Here's the answer: There is no question. There is categorically a movement to normalize pedophilia. I've witnessed it firsthand and, despite "progressive" protestations to the contrary, the "pedophile rights" movement is inexorably linked to the so-called "gay rights" movement.

Two years ago I – along with the venerable child advocate Dr. Judith Reisman – attended a Maryland conference hosted by the pedophile group B4U-ACT. Around 50 individuals were in attendance, including a number of admitted pedophiles (or "minor-attracted persons," as they euphemistically prefer).

Also present were a few self-described "gay activists" and several supportive mental-health professionals. World renowned "sexologist" Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins University gave the keynote address, opening with: "I want to completely support the goal of B4U-ACT."

Here are some highlights from the conference:

Pedophiles are "unfairly stigmatized and demonized" by society.

"We are not required to interfere with or inhibit our child's sexuality."

"Children are not inherently unable to consent" to sex with an adult.

An adult's desire to have sex with children is "normative."

"These things are not black and white; there are various shades of gray."

A consensus belief by both speakers and pedophiles in attendance was that, because it vilifies MAPs, pedophilia should be removed as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, in the same manner homosexuality was removed in 1973.

Dr. Fred Berlin acknowledged that it was political activism, similar to the incremental strategy witnessed at the conference, rather than a scientific calculus that successfully led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder: The reason "homosexuality was taken out of DSM is that people didn't want the government in the bedroom," he said.

The DSM ignores that pedophiles "have feelings of love and romance for children" in the same way adults love one another.

The DSM should "focus on the needs" of the pedophile, and should have "a minimal focus on social control," rather than obsessing about the "need to protect children."

Self-described "gay activist" and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be "the object of our attraction." He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn't gain consent from a child to have sex with "it" any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) "on or with" a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault. There was even laughter.

You may think that such abject evil simply represents the fringe of today's sexual "progressivism." It doesn't. It represents the honest.

Consider, for instance, that during Obama's first term, the official website for the Department of Health and Human Services linked to "parenting tips" that referenced children as "sexual beings" and suggested that they should experiment with homosexuality and masturbation.

You may also recall that Mr. Obama appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of the "Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network," or GLSEN, to the post of "safe schools czar." The position is now defunct, ostensibly due to national outrage over Jennings' appointment.

In keeping with the thinly veiled goals of B4U-ACT, GLSEN seems to be "running interference" for pedophiles, having tacitly advocated adult-child sex through its "recommended reading list" for kids.

This of no surprise when you consider that one of Jennings' ideological heroes was Harry Hay, the "founding father" of homosexual activism. "One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay," he has said glowingly.

Was Harry Hay fringe? No, not among "gay" activists. He's an icon. Again, he was just honest. In 1983, while addressing the pedophile North American Man/Boy Love Association, or NAM/BLA, Hay said the following:

"It seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAM/BLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what 13-, 14-, and 15-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need."

If he were alive today, Harry Hay would likely have led the movement to "free Kate."

And by "free Kate," he would have meant – and they actually mean – "free us."

And by "free us," of course, what they really mean is "free children."

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/131013

This is still on the fringe of the fringe, so I don't think it's fair to call it the Left's new "crusade".

However, ~60 years ago homosexuality was just as much on the fringe as this stuff is now, and we see how social attitudes about that changed in one lifetime. So people should be careful with predictions about where "intergenerational romance" will be 60 from now.

Are these folks supporting the Catholic priests who were guilty of pedophilia? Maybe they can have a vigil for Jerry Sandusky.

Self-described "gay activist" and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be "the object of our attraction." He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn't gain consent from a child to have sex with "it" any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) "on or with" a child. [i]No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault. There was even laughter.



UN-FU*KING- BELIEVABLE

(10-14-2013 02:24 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  This is still on the fringe of the fringe, so I don't think it's fair to call it the Left's new "crusade".

However, ~60 years ago homosexuality was just as much on the fringe as this stuff is now, and we see how social attitudes about that changed in one lifetime. So people should be careful with predictions about where "intergenerational romance" will be 60 from now.

Hopefully, it'll take at least 60 years. I'll be dead by then and won't have to see it.

(10-14-2013 02:34 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  Self-described "gay activist" and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be "the object of our attraction." He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn't gain consent from a child to have sex with "it" any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) "on or with" a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault. There was even laughter.



UN-FU*KING- BELIEVABLE

I would f*cking kill that son of a b*tch.

(10-14-2013 02:37 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 02:34 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  Self-described "gay activist" and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be "the object of our attraction." He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn't gain consent from a child to have sex with "it" any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) "on or with" a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault. There was even laughter.



UN-FU*KING- BELIEVABLE

I would f*cking kill that son of a b*tch.

These people need to be castrated or put to death

(10-14-2013 02:24 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  This is still on the fringe of the fringe, so I don't think it's fair to call it the Left's new "crusade".

However, ~60 years ago homosexuality was just as much on the fringe as this stuff is now, and we see how social attitudes about that changed in one lifetime. So people should be careful with predictions about where "intergenerational romance" will be 60 from now.

That's not a fair statement, 50 years before that you could say the same thing about interracial marriage, and 150 years before that, slavery.

The belief in freedom between consenting adults is a long standing, and far more useful common thread between homosexuality and those other, acceptable social movements. Child abuse inherently does not fall under that, and in no way can you draw a comparison based on their actions or politics.

Child abusers/molesters are equally despised on each side of the aisle.

Sounds like probable cause to search everything the guy has.

(10-14-2013 02:42 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 02:37 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 02:34 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  Self-described "gay activist" and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be "the object of our attraction." He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn't gain consent from a child to have sex with "it" any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) "on or with" a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault. There was even laughter.



UN-FU*KING- BELIEVABLE

I would f*cking kill that son of a b*tch.

These people need to be castrated or put to death

Honestly, I don't think there is any reforming those that truly are pedophiles. As such, they have to be locked away for life.....no parole......and no - I'm not talking about a 21 yr old boning a 15 yr old. (While that also isn't acceptable - I don't think that quite fits the definition of pedophilia)

(10-14-2013 02:34 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  Self-described "gay activist" and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be "the object of our attraction." He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn't gain consent from a child to have sex with "it" any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) "on or with" a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault. There was even laughter.



UN-FU*KING- BELIEVABLE

I think that's a good point, I don't find it believable either.

(10-14-2013 02:42 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 02:37 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 02:34 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  Self-described "gay activist" and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be "the object of our attraction." He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn't gain consent from a child to have sex with "it" any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) "on or with" a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault. There was even laughter.



UN-FU*KING- BELIEVABLE

I would f*cking kill that son of a b*tch.

These people need to be castrated or put to death

He needs to have a railroad spike driven through his dick (if it's big enough to do so without splitting it off) and right between his balls, then have a 2 liter bottle hammered straight into his butthole. Split it wide open. Let him see how that feels before he thinks about sticking his teedler anywhere else near a child. I'm sure the pain is about the same. Or a glass wine bottle, then punch his cheek and bust the glass inside there.

Past: "consenting adults"

Present: "consenting"

Future: (no restrictions)

(10-14-2013 02:49 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 02:42 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 02:37 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 02:34 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  Self-described "gay activist" and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be "the object of our attraction." He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn't gain consent from a child to have sex with "it" any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) "on or with" a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault. There was even laughter.



UN-FU*KING- BELIEVABLE

I would f*cking kill that son of a b*tch.

These people need to be castrated or put to death

Honestly, I don't think there is any reforming those that truly are pedophiles. As such, they have to be locked away for life.....no parole......and no - I'm not talking about a 21 yr old boning a 15 yr old. (While that also isn't acceptable - I don't think that quite fits the definition of pedophilia)

That's much different... Most 15 y/o's have already explored sex by then and normally bring it on themselves. When I was 21 I was porking a chick that I thought was 20, turns out she was 16, almost 17... But her parents knew so it's not like they were gonna do anything to me.

I think there is a legitimate argument for saying that when you deprive society of its ability to define social norms you quite literally open the door for any excuse to accept just about anything.

(10-14-2013 02:24 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  This is still on the fringe of the fringe, so I don't think it's fair to call it the Left's new "crusade".

However, ~60 years ago homosexuality was just as much on the fringe as this stuff is now, and we see how social attitudes about that changed in one lifetime. So people should be careful with predictions about where "intergenerational romance" will be 60 from now.

We aren't that far out. The age of consent is now as young as 13 in Europe.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

(10-14-2013 03:01 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think there is a legitimate argument for saying that when you deprive society of its ability to define social norms you quite literally open the door for any excuse to accept just about anything.

They're not depriving society the ability to define social norms, they're just actually applying those definitions to things society arbitrarily chooses not to. There is a very distinct and important difference there that you're not taking into account.

(10-14-2013 03:06 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 03:01 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think there is a legitimate argument for saying that when you deprive society of its ability to define social norms you quite literally open the door for any excuse to accept just about anything.

They're not depriving society the ability to define social norms, they're just actually applying those definitions to things society arbitrarily chooses not to. There is a very distinct and important difference there that you're not taking into account.

I'm placing this in the context of gay marriage, admittedly applying my own persona bias towards the subject.

That said, and placing it in the context I mentioned previously, depriving society of the ability to define 'normal' takes away the backstop in my opinion. The ability to make analogous arguments for the destruction of just about every social issue is almost limitless.

(10-14-2013 03:06 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 03:01 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think there is a legitimate argument for saying that when you deprive society of its ability to define social norms you quite literally open the door for any excuse to accept just about anything.

They're not depriving society the ability to define social norms, they're just actually applying those definitions to things society arbitrarily chooses not to. There is a very distinct and important difference there that you're not taking into account.

I thought "hands off the kiddies" was pretty much understood.

(10-14-2013 03:05 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 02:24 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  This is still on the fringe of the fringe, so I don't think it's fair to call it the Left's new "crusade".

However, ~60 years ago homosexuality was just as much on the fringe as this stuff is now, and we see how social attitudes about that changed in one lifetime. So people should be careful with predictions about where "intergenerational romance" will be 60 from now.

We aren't that far out. The age of consent is now as young as 13 in Europe.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Just looked over the wikipedia on European age of consent laws, and the lowest is 14. Which is in line with certain states marriage laws. And, there is no downward trend towards legalizing adult/children sexual acts, just decriminalizing teen/teen sex acts which had laws much like our statutory rape laws in certain states here.