Monday, February 21, 2005

Homosexual Advocates, Pedophiles and the Emancipated Child

The link between homosexuality and pedophilia is not an imaginary line. As the same-sex marriage bill works its way through Parliament, it is worth considering trends that have developed in some European countries.

In the Netherlands, the official age of consent for sexual activity is 16. But as the Holland Sentinel has reported, Holland’s age-of-consent law "permits sex between an adult and a young person between 12 and 16 if the young person consents. Under Dutch law, parents have no clearly defined power to prevent or terminate consensual sexual relations between a 12-year-old child and an adult — much to the delight of that nation’s homosexual lobby.

Not surprisingly, the Dutch Association for the Integration of Homosexuality played a key role in lowering that nation’s age of consent. A brochure produced by the group explains that between age 12 and 16, sexual contacts are punishable only when a complaint is lodged. Only the child itself, his or her parents and the Council for the Protection of Children may bring in charges.

But what if the child — say, a 12-year-old boy lured into a homosexual relationship — does not want to end the relationship? The brochure points out that "the Council assumes authority in case the situation within the family has got out of hand or when children and parents see no way of coping with the situation. Usually the Council will first try and find a solution with the help of social workers and therapists. Should the Council fail to see any feasible solutions, it may decide to contact the Justice Department."

Under Dutch law, concludes the pamphlet, "nobody is allowed to interfere" with adult-child homosexual contacts "as long as the situation is mutually agreeable, but should problems arise, then the sexual relation is certainly punishable." In other words, it’s open season for Dutch homosexuals to prey upon 12-year-olds, as long as they’re careful.

The mainstream media’s campaign of normalizing adult-child sexual relationships has already begun in North America. Two high profile cases have shown pedophiles in their best possible terms. The first case involves Pamela Turner, a 27-year-old school teacher from Tennessee. She was accused of raping a 13-year-old boy over a three month period. The second involves Debra Lafave, a 24-year-old school teacher from Florida who raped a 14-year-old boy. In both cases the women were sexy blonde beauties and the victims were portrayed as having had positive sexual experiences.

If the media can condition people to beautiful blonde women romancing even younger boys, why are older men seducing younger women not viewed equally? What can be said of older women seducing younger women? How about older men seducing younger boys?

If the Liberals are determined to push same-sex marriage rights today, can the rights of pedophiles be far behind?


At 4:44 p.m., Blogger A Hermit said...

The argument here is that we should punish all homosexuals because some of them might be pedophiles.

Even if one accepts the idea that homosexuals are more prone to pedophilia than heterosexuals (a debatable proposition at best) this is simply an unacceptable basis for denying anyone's rights.

You are, in effect, convicting people likemy uncle, one of the finest, most honourable men I know, of being a pedophile, with out knowing anything about the man. I find that to be very offensive.

At 11:57 a.m., Blogger Flanstein said...

Conservatives don't care about denying rights to people who don't look like them.

At 2:34 p.m., Blogger A Hermit said...

Apparently so, Flanstein. They don't seem to realize that rights for all means "for all". Not just "for all who conform to a narrow set of requirements".

This post is an example of everything that's wrong with the Right. Not only is the premise (homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles) demonstrably false but the argument that is based on that premise is antithetical to any reasonable understanding of individual liberty.

You don't deny rights to individuals based on the alleged behaviour of other individuals. Like I said in my last comment (and , yes I'm gonna keep saying it) I have an Uncle who is gay. He is one of the finest, most honourable, decent and admirable people I have ever had the priveledge to know in my life. To see him smeared with this kind of evil in a guilt by association argument makes me more angry than I can politely express.

At 3:00 a.m., Blogger PR said...

I'm not sure that I can agree with you here, Michael. The threat of polygamy, beastiality, etc etc following gay marriage is, to me, clearly a legal issue. Once you stop discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation, I don't see how the state can continue discriminating against these other groups for their sexual orientations. But this says very little about gays.

I think that we get a fairly biased picture of the gay community in Canada from watching the news. The only homosexuals we see here are the losers who couldn't get a real job, so they went and joined lobby or social groups. Gays in Canada make, on average, more money than do straights, and I think that these more mainstream gays are slightly embarrassed by their lobbying and parading buddies.

At 4:08 p.m., Blogger A Hermit said...

"Once you stop discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation, I don't see how the state can continue discriminating against these other groups for their sexual orientations. But this says very little about gays."There is a very good reason why the State can maintain laws against pedophilia and bestiality while recognizing the rights of homosexuals. It's called "informed consent".

Children can't give free, informed, consent to having sex with adults. Period, end of subject.

Michaels whole argument here is simply a baseless attempt to convict all homosexuals of pedophilia. It's a sickening attack on the rights of individuals by falsely associating them with someone else's bad behaviour.

A real conservative would never do that.

At 5:04 p.m., Blogger Hector said...


But let's draw a different comparison. What do alcoholics need? A steady supply of cheap booze. What do pedophiles need? A steady supply of vulnerable children.

If Canada is serious about tackling the problem, it can't just take one approach. It has to attack the problem on a number of fronts.

One is cracking down on offenders.

Two is protecting kids. Raising the age of minimum consent is one approach, but what about providing government funded day-care? If Canada could provide safe stable care to Canada's poorest children, might that reduce the number of vulnerable children that pedophiles might victimize?

Just a thought...


Post a Comment

<< Home