Jump to content

For Those Who Wonder How A Deviant Behavior Becomes Acceptable


Jeff K.

Recommended Posts

Now it is called "minor attracted persons".

If you have ever wondered how deviant behavior becomes normalized as being something other than wrong, especially by the American psychiatric community, you can see the process beginning right here.

If a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have their way at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s bible of mental illnesses — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), set to undergo a significant revision by 2013. Critics warn that their success could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia.
Researchers from Harvard University, the Johns Hopkins University, the University of Louisville, and the University of Illinois will be among the panelists at the conference.

B4U-ACT has been active attacking the APA’s definition of pedophilia in the run up to the conference, denouncing its description of “minor-attracted persons” as “inaccurate” and “misleading” because the current DSM links pedophilia with criminality.

In effect we have "distinguished" health professionals from Johns Hopkins University, Harvard all discussing the possibility that such a thing is perfectly "normal".

APA spokeswoman Erin Connors told The Daily Caller in an emailed statement that her organization was not participating in the conference and would not comment on its aims.

In other words she does not publically condemn it either. This bothers me more than a little.

Child advocate Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting professor at Liberty University’s School of Law, said the conference is part of a strategy to condition people into accepting pedophiles.

“The first thing they do is to get the public to divest from thinking of what the offender does criminally, to thinking of the offender’s emotional state, to think of him as thinking of his emotional state, [and] to empathize and sympathize,” Reisman said. “You don’t change the nation in one fell swoop; you have to change it by conditioning. The aim is to get them [pedophiles] out of prison.”

According to Reisman, empirical data show that pedophiles typically molest many children before finally being caught.

Several speakers at the August 17 conference, including B4U-ACT director of operations Dr. Richard Kramer and conference keynote speaker Dr. Fred Berlin, of the Johns Hopkins University, have actively opposed sex offender notification laws.

“What purpose does calling someone a ‘pervert’ or ‘predator’ serve anyway, other than to express contempt and hatred?” Kramer wrote in a March 14, 2009 blog entry on the website ReformSexOffenderLaws.org. “How is this productive? It certainly doesn’t protect children. I would urge all SO [sex offender] activists to listen to their own message: Stop buying into and promoting false stereotypes. Stop demonizing a whole class of people, and start learning the facts.”

Berlin has similarly compared society’s reaction to pedophilia to that of homosexuality prior to the landmark 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision that decriminalized sodomy.

Amazing isn't it? The next step then is "decriminalization", a NAMBLA v. Texas decision in the courts perhaps? Will we next hear of the right to such acts as being private and consensual? How slippery is that slope we are going down now?

“The scientific defense of pedophiles follows on the natural outgrowth of … [Alfred Kinsey’s] 1948 book ‘Sexual Behavior of the Human Male’ where he describes the rapes of infants and children, as would any pedophile, as ‘orgasmic,’” Reisman said.

Another study in support. Of course for those against such things, well they are just religous fanatics and bigots. Same weapons will be used.

Reisman warns that declassifying pedophilia as a mental illness could result in the repeal of child-protection statutes because the law always follows the input of psychiatry. She points to psychiatry’s normalization of sadomasochism, exhibitionism, and homosexuality as precedents.

t has been carried from the university to the law, going back to Kinsey,” Reisman said.

And other conference panelists such as Jacob Breslow, a graduate student in gender research at the London School of Economics, plan to discuss how political activists can exploit removing pedophilia from the next edition of the DSM for their own ends.

“Allowing for a form of non-diagnosable minor attraction is exciting, as it creates a sexual or political identity by which activists, scholars and clinicians can better understand Minor Attracted Persons,” Breslow writes in a summary of his upcoming August 17 presentation.

“This understanding may displace the stigma, fear and objection that is naturalized as being attached to Minor Attracted Persons and may alter the terms by which non-normative sexualities are known.

Dr. Fred Berlin could not be reached for comment.

The church teaches against it. It is against the laws of God, these things many of us know. But what if you don't hold to those laws anyway? How hard is it to accept something when there is no real base or criteria from which to judge? I mean, they have studies don't they? They have professors and psychiatrists, and heck, it could take a generation or two, but eventually pedophile rights will be established, NAMBLA will be able to take part in the parades (again as they have in the past), and it will be "normalized".

Can you say deja vu?

Link to comment

Then rather than deviant, say wrong, or ungodly, or evil....

But don't try to say its normal, or make it "normalized" (I know you aren't saying that, but others will), which is exactly what the conference wishes to do. It follows a well worn pattern, and I predict that eventually they will win out. They are using the same arguments others have used, and they apparently are making inroads in academia.

Link to comment

Jeff K.:

Whether we use the words "deviant, say wrong, or ungodly, or evil....". They still don't meet the definition of mental illness. Mental illness by defintion is what is going on between your ears, not your legs. You can be perfectly sane and still do deviant, wrong, ungodly, and just plain evil things. I'm not willing to give them the excuse of a legitimate mental illness as a excuse for their behaviors

Link to comment

I wouldn't compartmentalize it so much. If you can change the definition of the act from an illness to a something less than and dangerous illness to merely a sexual orientation, you pretty much have lost any battle in regards to the question of mental illness.

Link to comment

Jeff K.:

Sure, if we change the definition of words enough they can mean anything we want. But I learned the defintion of mental illness a LONG time ago. So I'm not likely to change my mind on that one.

To give an example. A bank robber can be perfectly sane, even rational, and still rob banks. I don't turn him loose to rob more banks. I keep him locked up till old age stops him or he changes his mind about robbing banks.

Likewise, the pedophile can be perfectly sane and still prey on children. I don't turn him loose to prey on more children. I keep him locked up till old age stops him or he changes his mind about preying on children.

Link to comment

Seems to me then there is no difference between some behaviors that we deem wrong morally, but are legally engaged upon (indeed society sometimes seeks to force us to accept the behavior). Pedophilia is well on its way then to becoming one of those protected classes.

Link to comment

Jeff K.:

Sure, if we change the definition of words enough they can mean anything we want. But I learned the defintion of mental illness a LONG time ago. So I'm not likely to change my mind on that one.

To give an example. A bank robber can be perfectly sane, even rational, and still rob banks. I don't turn him loose to rob more banks. I keep him locked up till old age stops him or he changes his mind about robbing banks.

Likewise, the pedophile can be perfectly sane and still prey on children. I don't turn him loose to prey on more children. I keep him locked up till old age stops him or he changes his mind about preying on children.

I would say that's much more likely to happen in the case of the bank robber than in the case of the pedophile.

Link to comment

If you have ever wondered how deviant behavior becomes normalized as being something other than wrong, especially by the American psychiatric community, you can see the process beginning right here.

While I wouldn't agree with any conclusion of this event that would suggest that the American Psychiatric Community universally seeks to "normalize" "deviant" behavior that is wrong, I certainly find it highly disturbing if anyone in the mental health community would use their status or position to seek to normalize non-consensual behaviors (especially in terms of minors, who are yet psychologically callow when it comes to the ability to consciously defend themselves, especially when faced with an imposing and potentially-sexually-controlling adult authority figure).

In effect we have "distinguished" health professionals from Johns Hopkins University, Harvard all discussing the possibility that such a thing is perfectly "normal".

Thankfully, the article reports that the number of so-called "health professionals" that are attempting to advance this cause is small. As is the case in many psychological issues, there is often a small minority of self-identified "health professionals" who's views deviate from the professional norm and operate on the fringe (i.e. N.A.R.T.H.). While free speech allows them to share their views, I hope and pray that reason and science prevail and that such fringe groups remain just that.

In other words she does not publically condemn it either. This bothers me more than a little.

Again, one hopes and prays that the only reason this small group of fringe professionals wasn't condemned was because the spokesperson didn't have enough knowledge and therefore didn't want to speak from a position of ignorance. In stark contrast to this "small group" of professionals, the APA has consistently and strongly condemned adult-child sexual behaviors. From their website:

WHEREAS, the American Psychological Association is steadfast in its stand against the sexual abuse of children, and

WHEREAS, the welfare, appropriate treatment and protection of children is a priority of the highest order for the American Psychological Association, and

WHEREAS, the Committee on Children, Youth, and Families of the American Psychological Association was established in 1986 to "…contribute to the formulation and support of policies that facilitate the optimal development of children and youth within families…", and

WHEREAS, children who have been sexually abused often experience health problems, eating disorders, learning difficulties, behavioral problems, fearfulness, social withdrawal, anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts, and

WHEREAS, psychologists as researchers, educators, service providers and policy advocates have played important roles in advancing knowledge regarding the consequences, effective treatment, and prevention of child sexual abuse, and

WHEREAS, the vast body of research studies published by the American Psychological Association over the past 20 years has advanced the field and contributed to the development of sound public policy, and

WHEREAS, the American Psychological Association repudiates and disassociates itself from any organization or publication that advocates sexual interaction between children and adults,

THEREFORE, be it resolved that the American Psychological Association reaffirms its long established position that sexual relations between children and adults, are abusive, exploitive, reprehensible and properly punishable by law.

Like Evergreen or NARTH conferences, it would be misinformed to suggest that the small group mentioned in the OP reflects the APA, its goals, or its future.

Amazing isn't it? The next step then is "decriminalization", a NAMBLA v. Texas decision in the courts perhaps? Will we next hear of the right to such acts as being private and consensual? How slippery is that slope we are going down now?

Again--fringe groups such as the one being reported on should not be conflagrated into an example of something (such as a growing professional consensus) that they are not.

Another study in support. Of course for those against such things, well they are just religous fanatics and bigots. Same weapons will be used.

If the accusastion of "bigotry" involves being adamently opposed to pedophilic behavior, I personally wouldn't at all mind being known as such.

The church teaches against it. It is against the laws of God, these things many of us know. But what if you don't hold to those laws anyway? How hard is it to accept something when there is no real base or criteria from which to judge? I mean, they have studies don't they? They have professors and psychiatrists, and heck, it could take a generation or two, but eventually pedophile rights will be established, NAMBLA will be able to take part in the parades (again as they have in the past), and it will be "normalized".

There are multiple "real bases" or "criteria" from which to judge against pedophilia that have nothing to do with the laws of your God or religious law--many of them enumerated in the APA's resolution, above, including "health problems, eating disorders, learning difficulties, behavioral problems, fearfulness, social withdrawal, anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts" resulting in children who are exposed to sexual relationships with adults. With the very real base and criteria of mental health and welfare of children firmly in mind, the merits of this victimizing behavior speak for themselves, regardless of whether or not one believes in a higher power.

I do not believe your suggestion that pedophilia or NAMBLA will ever be "normalized," even in a generation or two. However, I think it's certainly worth supporting any ongoing advocacy--including yours--against such pedophilic behaviors.

My view,

Daniel2

Link to comment

Jeff K.:

Sure, if we change the definition of words enough they can mean anything we want. But I learned the defintion of mental illness a LONG time ago. So I'm not likely to change my mind on that one.

To give an example. A bank robber can be perfectly sane, even rational, and still rob banks. I don't turn him loose to rob more banks. I keep him locked up till old age stops him or he changes his mind about robbing banks.

Likewise, the pedophile can be perfectly sane and still prey on children. I don't turn him loose to prey on more children. I keep him locked up till old age stops him or he changes his mind about preying on children.

As I read more of the literature discussing this issue, SometimeSaint, it seems to me that much of the discussion (including the group mentioned in the OP) may be referring to distinguishing between the mental health of an adult who possesses attractions towards children, but has not engaged in any of the behavior.

I presume they're suggesting that someone who's sexually attracted to children--but has not acted upon such attractions--should not be found guilty of actions and doesn't deserve to be "locked up."

That position seems to be consistent with the LDS church's view that engaging in behaviors--not holding the attractions themselves--are sinful and worthy of punishment. In other words, sexually speaking, we believe that man and woman shall be punished for his or her own sins--but not to whom he or she is attracted to.

Would you agree?

(anyone remember "Minority Report"...?)

Daniel2

Link to comment

While I wouldn't agree with any conclusion of this event that would suggest that the American Psychiatric Community universally seeks to "normalize" "deviant" behavior that is wrong, I certainly find it highly disturbing if anyone in the mental health community would use their status or position to seek to normalize non-consensual behaviors (especially in terms of minors, who are yet psychologically callow when it comes to the ability to consciously defend themselves, especially when faced with an imposing and potentially-sexually-controlling adult authority figure).

While I wouldn't agree with any conclusion of this event that would suggest that the American Psychiatric Community universally seeks to "normalize" "deviant" behavior that is wrong, I certainly find it highly disturbing if anyone in the mental health community would use their status or position to seek to normalize non-consensual behaviors (especially in terms of minors, who are yet psychologically callow when it comes to the ability to consciously defend themselves, especially when faced with an imposing and potentially-sexually-controlling adult authority figure).

The American Psychiatric community can change, and has as well you know. Sadomasochism is now ok, the psychiatric community doesn't see it as a problem or leading to other problems. But then what about pederasts? The argument that teens can make their own sexual decisions? After all they do it all the time, so its "ok". The fringe groups push more of the fringe mentality into the mainstream. It is a well worn path followed by several groups who now enjoy themselves at the expense of society.

Quote

In effect we have "distinguished" health professionals from Johns Hopkins University, Harvard all discussing the possibility that such a thing is perfectly "normal".

Thankfully, the article reports that the number of so-called "health professionals" that are attempting to advance this cause is small. As is the case in many psychological issues, there is often a small minority of self-identified "health professionals" who's views deviate from the professional norm and operate on the fringe (i.e. N.A.R.T.H.). While free speech allows them to share their views, I hope and pray that reason and science prevail and that such fringe groups remain just that

.

They always start off small, again, the same well worn path.

Quote

In other words she does not publically condemn it either. This bothers me more than a little.

Again, one hopes and prays that the only reason this small group of fringe professionals wasn't condemned was because the spokesperson didn't have enough knowledge and therefore didn't want to speak from a position of ignorance. In stark contrast to this "small group" of professionals, the APA has consistently condemned adult-child sexual behaviors:
Quote

APA Resolution Opposing Child Sexual Abuse

WHEREAS, the American Psychological Association is steadfast in its stand against the sexual abuse of children, and

WHEREAS, the welfare, appropriate treatment and protection of children is a priority of the highest order for the American Psychological Association, and

WHEREAS, the Committee on Children, Youth, and Families of the American Psychological Association was established in 1986 to "…contribute to the formulation and support of policies that facilitate the optimal development of children and youth within families…", and

WHEREAS, children who have been sexually abused often experience health problems, eating disorders, learning difficulties, behavioral problems, fearfulness, social withdrawal, anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts, and

WHEREAS, psychologists as researchers, educators, service providers and policy advocates have played important roles in advancing knowledge regarding the consequences, effective treatment, and prevention of child sexual abuse, and

WHEREAS, the vast body of research studies published by the American Psychological Association over the past 20 years has advanced the field and contributed to the development of sound public policy, and

WHEREAS, the American Psychological Association repudiates and disassociates itself from any organization or publication that advocates sexual interaction between children and adults,

THEREFORE, be it resolved that the American Psychological Association reaffirms its long established position that sexual relations between children and adults, are abusive, exploitive, reprehensible and properly punishable by law.

Like Evergreen or NARTH conferences, it would be misinformed to suggest that the small group mentioend in the OP reflects the APA, its goals, or its future.

I have heard this argument before, years ago. It goes along with "Don't look at what is going on, just listen to what I tell you". I don't find it very convincing.

With a stroke of a pen that resolution would be gone, just as it was with other unacceptable behaviors. You may pray and hope, but when society has no standard what is there to pray and hope to? The APA?

Quote

Amazing isn't it? The next step then is "decriminalization", a NAMBLA v. Texas decision in the courts perhaps? Will we next hear of the right to such acts as being private and consensual? How slippery is that slope we are going down now?

Again--fringe groups such as the one being reported on should not be conflagrated into an example of something (such as a growing professional consensus) that they are not.

Again--- there are many fringe groups. They start out, just leave us alone, let us do our thing, then its, if you don't accept us you are bigots, and finally, you must learn and accept that we are as normal and wholesome as you, to say otherwise makes you a bigot.

One wonders when it does suddenly become acceptable in steps, how willingly the people will go along with, much as they have other groups that have done the exact same thing.

Quote

Another study in support. Of course for those against such things, well they are just religous fanatics and bigots. Same weapons will be used.

If the accusastion of "bigotry" involves being adamently opposed to pedophilic behavior, I personally wouldn't at all mind being known as such.

Yeah, right. And you fail to understand how that cudgel is being used by groups that disagree with other groups. Sorry it just doesn't quite wash, especially given the number of times your group uses it on others.

Quote

The church teaches against it. It is against the laws of God, these things many of us know. But what if you don't hold to those laws anyway? How hard is it to accept something when there is no real base or criteria from which to judge? I mean, they have studies don't they? They have professors and psychiatrists, and heck, it could take a generation or two, but eventually pedophile rights will be established, NAMBLA will be able to take part in the parades (again as they have in the past), and it will be "normalized".

There are multiple "real bases" or "criteria" from which to judge against pedophilia that have nothing to do with the laws of your God or religious law--many of them enumerated in the APA's resolution, above, including "health problems, eating disorders, learning difficulties, behavioral problems, fearfulness, social withdrawal, anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts" resulting in children who are exposed to sexual relationships with adults. The merits of this victimizing behavior speak for themselves, regardless of whether or not one believes in a higher power.

I do not believe your suggestion that pedophilia or NAMBLA will ever be "normalized," even in a generation or two. However, I think it's certainly worth supporting any ongoing advocacy--including yours--against such pedophilic behaviors

.

Lets look at what you put your faith in.

The APA, a changeable organization that itself has a history of changing to go with the political winds. Masochism, APA says its a healthy outlet, sadism? same.. We know the APA has gone from being against those criteria to accepting them. Oh they might deal mitigate the symptoms a bit, help with the disorders, behavoral difficulties. But they certainly won't condemn the acts that cause the symptoms. After all, they will tell you it can be a number of other things. Guilt from society's imposition of morals that makes pedophiles and their prey suffer, and so on.... heard all before. All they have to do is "shift" the focus.

At one time, NAMBLA had an integral part of the gay pride parade. They were "accepted", even as everyone knew what it was they sought to do. Seems to me there are communities that would accept them. And what we are seeing is basically the same basic steps other such groups have used to gain acceptance within society, and that have made their place a "special minority".

There is no standard beyond the hope and pray that the APA doesn't change its mind again regarding this thing, as it has so many other things. Seems you build your house on a very weak foundation. But you are an accepting fellow, I am sure the APA will guide you well.

Link to comment

As I read more of the literature discussing this issue, SometimeSaint, it seems to me that much of the discussion (including the group mentioned in the OP) may be referring to distinguishing between the mental health of an adult who possesses attractions towards children, but has not engaged in any of the behavior.

I presume they're suggesting that someone who's sexually attracted to children--but has not acted upon such attractions--should not be found guilty of actions and doesn't deserve to be "locked up."

That position seems to be consistent with the LDS church's view that engaging in behaviors--not holding the attractions themselves--are sinful and worthy of punishment. In other words, sexually speaking, we believe that man and woman shall be punished for his or her own sins--but not to whom he or she is attracted to.

Would you agree?

(anyone remember "Minority Report"...?)

Daniel2

You ignore how levels of acceptance lead to more people carrying out those acts. Must we accept the attraction as a good thing and only condemn natural action that comes from it? Are certain acts wrong and known to be wrong. The church only takes action for deed, which is true. But that does not mean it accepts the attraction as being something beneficial. While you may hold on to the compartmentalizing of thought from action, it is a false position to presume that acceptance of the thought or dwelling upon the thought should be allowed or encouraged.

I suggest you read Minority Report and review the movie. It did not arrest people based on their thoughts, it arrested people who were about to commit murder, it saw the future actions of individuals, it did not read their minds. The book deals with computer manipulation. If you are going to use a quick turn of the phrase, be accurate with your symbols.

I suppose my question in regard to minority report would be ... "If you knew your children would be molested, how far would you go to prevent it?" What if the percentages increased that your child would be molested? And if an agency told you not to worry, would you still worry?

That is what Minority Report deals with. Not thoughts.

Link to comment

The American Psychiatric community can change, and has as well you know. Sadomasochism is now ok, the psychiatric community doesn't see it as a problem or leading to other problems. But then what about pederasts? The argument that teens can make their own sexual decisions? After all they do it all the time, so its "ok". The fringe groups push more of the fringe mentality into the mainstream. It is a well worn path followed by several groups who now enjoy themselves at the expense of society.

Yes. As I well know, like every other group involving human beings (whether government, social, or religious in scope), the American Psychiatric community can change. And groups that were once on "the fringe" have, over time, become more and more accepted by society (women, former non-citizen slaves, asians, blacks, non-Catholics, non-Protestants, Latter-day Saints, Jews, gays and lesbians, polygamists, etc). Surely, it is a challenge to draw a definitive line in the sand--even when "unchangeableness" is ascribed to a firm religious foundation (given that every religion has altered at least some of their long-standing practices/exclusions/inclusions, including the Latter-day Saints). As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice."

They always start off small, again, the same well worn path.

Also true.

I have heard this argument before, years ago. It goes along with "Don't look at what is going on, just listen to what I tell you". I don't find it very convincing.

Hmmm. I don't recall anyone suggesting that one should avoid "looking at what is going on." Unless, of course, you're referring to the recommendation to avoid R-rated movies, pornography, loud laughter, or other unwholesome, unholy, or impure practices. ;)

With a stroke of a pen that resolution would be gone, just as it was with other unacceptable behaviors. You may pray and hope, but when society has no standard what is there to pray and hope to? The APA?

I don't believe society or the APA is "standard"-less, as you appear to be suggesting. Would you mind clarifying? Are you suggesting our society depends, rests upon, or requires religion for "standards"?

To use their words, the hundreds of thousands of members of the APA themselves have consistently "advocated sound public policy" based on decreasing behaviors which are "abusive, exploitive, reprehensible and properly punishable by law." Do you find these words describing their standard nebulous, non-consistent, or challenging to interpret or understand?

Again--- there are many fringe groups. They start out, just leave us alone, let us do our thing, then its, if you don't accept us you are bigots, and finally, you must learn and accept that we are as normal and wholesome as you, to say otherwise makes you a bigot.

Will you please enumerate ten or so of the "many" fringe groups you're referring to, above?

One wonders when it does suddenly become acceptable in steps, how willingly the people will go along with, much as they have other groups that have done the exact same thing.

It's certainly important to be vigilent to ensure that behaviors that are abusive, exploitive, reprehensible and properly punishable by law don't become commonly accepted.

Yeah, right. And you fail to understand how that cudgel is being used by groups that disagree with other groups. Sorry it just doesn't quite wash, especially given the number of times your group uses it on others.

When faced with those that use derrogatory language as a means to attempt to bully, I try to aspire to the phrase often taught during my childhood: sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Obviously, as adults we may agree that words are often intentionally (and frequently successfully) used in attempts to hurt others. When faced in the moment by such tauntings, we may still do well to remember to strive to be guided by that childhood lesson that words can only hurt us if we let them; and the more adult concept that words often say more about those that bully than they do about ourselves.

Lets look at what you put your faith in.

The APA, a changeable organization that itself has a history of changing to go with the political winds. Masochism, APA says its a healthy outlet, sadism? same.. We know the APA has gone from being against those criteria to accepting them. Oh they might deal mitigate the symptoms a bit, help with the disorders, behavoral difficulties. But they certainly won't condemn the acts that cause the symptoms. After all, they will tell you it can be a number of other things. Guilt from society's imposition of morals that makes pedophiles and their prey suffer, and so on.... heard all before. All they have to do is "shift" the focus.

I am content to stand behind the APA (who, it's worth repeating, do NOT represent the view of the subject of this thread). I read a lot of huffing and puffing in the paragraph above, but find little of substance by way of examples to back up your claims of any shocking or unjustified change.

It's also worth noting, in my perspective, that I find the organization that you put your faith in (the Mormon church) to be just as changeable--if not moreso--than the APA (the most obvious examples being the church's treatment of and historical changes and/or revelations regarding women, blacks, and polygamy, among others).

At one time, NAMBLA had an integral part of the gay pride parade. They were "accepted", even as everyone knew what it was they sought to do. Seems to me there are communities that would accept them. And what we are seeing is basically the same basic steps other such groups have used to gain acceptance within society, and that have made their place a "special minority".

I'm interested to see the evidence that you provide to back up your assertion that "NAMBLA had an integral part of the gay pride parade" and that they were "accepted"--especially since that is not the case now (and, depending on the evidence you provide, the fact that NAMBLA is not affiliated with gay pride parades or other national or widely-supported LGBT civil rights organizations would actually demonstrate that the trend towards pedophiles is increasing in rejection, not acceptance--the exact opposite of what you're implying).

There is no standard beyond the hope and pray that the APA doesn't change its mind again regarding this thing, as it has so many other things. Seems you build your house on a very weak foundation. But you are an accepting fellow, I am sure the APA will guide you well.

Indeed, just as Josesh Smith's words may continue to guide you well, when, speaking of the importance of modern revelation and his endorsement of plural marriage (not to mention endorsing Biblical genocide), he said:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.”

“God said, “Thou shalt not kill;” at another time He said “Thou shalt utterly destroy.” This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.”

“A parent may whip a child, and justly, too, because he stole an apple; whereas if the child had asked for the apple, and the parent had given it, the child would have eaten it with a better appetite; there would have been no stripes; all the pleasure of the apple would have been secured, all the misery of stealing lost.”

“This principle will justly apply to all of God’s dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant; the proffered good returns to the giver; the blessing is bestowed on those who will receive and occupy; for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but unto him that hath not or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, or might have had.”

Or, if you prefer to read from the Standard Works, from Doctrine & Covenants 132:

Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

No, I don't "put my faith" in the words or religious foundation of any "prophet" such as those quoted above, whether from previous generations or currently self-proclaimed prophets of other, non-LDS Faiths, such as Warren Jeffs:

Now I reveal to you what the Lord has required of me and this family: that the fullness of the law of Sarah is for Quorums of wives to be with me; to assist me; to be a comfort, yes, even physically. For more than one woman is with me at a time. When Sarah administered unto Abraham the fullness of the law, she was with Abraham and Hagar sexually together. And that is the fullness of the law of Sarah

This is the Lord establishing the fullness of the Celestial Law on earth; in my family. Because no other man is the Lord’s servant... For other men to do this, with the Lord not appointing it, they would lose Priesthood. Their wives would lose their place. For you to do any of this without my direct appointment, you could lose your place. And that is Celestial morals—to do all you do with a prayer and the spirit of God, being directed to do it.

Given the changeability of the LDS Faith (as well as all religions), I'm content to side with any ongoing progress resulting from reason, science, and the APA (along with many other professional mental health organizations), including their ongoing and consistent condemnation of pedophilic behaviors.

Daniel2

Link to comment

The American Psychiatric community can change, and has as well you know. Sadomasochism is now ok, the psychiatric community doesn't see it as a problem or leading to other problems. But then what about pederasts? The argument that teens can make their own sexual decisions? After all they do it all the time, so its "ok".

I would be interested in what you think God’s unchangeable views are regarding teenagers making their own sexual decisions, in the context of the fact that Brigham Young married several teenagers between the ages of 15 and 17.

Link to comment
Jeff K., on 15 August 2011 - 05:01 PM, said:

The American Psychiatric community can change, and has as well you know. Sadomasochism is now ok, the psychiatric community doesn't see it as a problem or leading to other problems. But then what about pederasts? The argument that teens can make their own sexual decisions? After all they do it all the time, so its "ok". The fringe groups push more of the fringe mentality into the mainstream. It is a well worn path followed by several groups who now enjoy themselves at the expense of society.

Yes. As I well know, like every other group involving human beings (whether government, social, or religious in scope), the American Psychiatric community can change. And groups that were once on "the fringe" have, over time, become more and more accepted by society (women, former non-citizen slaves, asians, blacks, non-Catholics, non-Protestants, Latter-day Saints, Jews, gays and lesbians, polygamists, etc). Surely, it is a challenge to draw a definitive line in the sand--even when "unchangeableness" is ascribed to a firm religious foundation (given that every religion has altered at least some of their long-standing practices/exclusions/inclusions, including the Latter-day Saints). As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice."

It isn't a challenge to draw a definitive line in the sand. Unless of course you have no standard for that line. I would suggest to you that the arch of history does not bend towards justice, but often has bent towards the chaos and degredation of society. Whether it be Greek, Roman, or others. I am sure that these groups now pushing for the normalization of pedophilia and pederasts do much to support your view that "the arch of history is long but it bends towards justice". I unfortunately see what is going on and must disagree. I cannot abide by the argument... I"Don't look at what is going on, just listen to what I tell you". I don't find it very convincing. Even as you make it now.

Quote

I have heard this argument before, years ago. It goes along with "Don't look at what is going on, just listen to what I tell you". I don't find it very convincing.

Hmmm. I don't recall anyone suggesting that one should avoid "looking at what is going on." Unless, of course, you're referring to the recommendation to avoid R-rated movies, pornography, loud laughter, or other unwholesome, unholy, or impure practices.

It is the basis of your argument. I am sure you are very knowledgeable of those exact same things. It is one reason you are willing to bend the arch of history to justify yourself.

Quote

With a stroke of a pen that resolution would be gone, just as it was with other unacceptable behaviors. You may pray and hope, but when society has no standard what is there to pray and hope to? The APA?

I don't believe society or the APA is "standard"-less, as you appear to be suggesting. Would you mind clarifying? Are you suggesting our society depends, rests upon, or requires religion for "standards"?

To use their words, the hundreds of thousands of members of the APA themselves have consistently "advocated sound public policy" based on decreasing behaviors which are "abusive, exploitive, reprehensible and properly punishable by law." Do you find these words describing their standard nebulous, non-consistent, or challenging to interpret or understand?

Sound public policy? Lets see, they advocated the use of drugs to control healthy people at one time, they advocated euthanasia at one time, they even advocated therapy for homosexual behavior.

Drescher said he was especially concerned about claims by some trans bloggers that Zucker and at least one other member of the APA’s Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group would push for reinstating homosexuality as a diagnostic disorder under the APA’s revised diagnostic manual in 2012.

Connecticut transgender group

I am sure you will find the APA entirely consistent and unaffected by the politics of the day. Or do you? I guess if it goes your way, you are fine, just remember that when it doesn't.

As to the theological question, yes, I think there needs to be an objective criteria to define what is right or wrong. Since you have rejected such, it is natural that you will redefine right and wrong to suit whatever immediate needs you have that satisfy you. Much like the APA you merely respond to stimulus and react accordingly without the need to discern whether it is right or not, only whether it meets your needs, or not.

Quote

Again--- there are many fringe groups. They start out, just leave us alone, let us do our thing, then its, if you don't accept us you are bigots, and finally, you must learn and accept that we are as normal and wholesome as you, to say otherwise makes you a bigot.

Will you please enumerate ten or so of the "many" fringe groups you're referring to, above?

Yours is an excellent example.

Quote

Yeah, right. And you fail to understand how that cudgel is being used by groups that disagree with other groups. Sorry it just doesn't quite wash, especially given the number of times your group uses it on others.

When faced with those that use derrogatory language as a means to attempt to bully, I try to aspire to the phrase often taught during my childhood: sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Obviously, as adults we may agree that words are often intentionally (and frequently successfully) used in attempts to hurt others. When faced in the moment by such tauntings, we may still do well to remember to strive to be guided by that childhood lesson that words can only hurt us if we let them; and the more adult concept that words often say more about those that bully than they do about ourselves.

Then you and your group has failed miserably in curbing bullying. So I really think your words are rather empty and fill no need other than self justification.

I'm interested to see the evidence that you provide to back up your assertion that "NAMBLA had an integral part of the gay pride parade" and that they were "accepted"--especially since that is not the case now (and, depending on the evidence you provide, the fact that NAMBLA is not affiliated with gay pride parades or other national or widely-supported LGBT civil rights organizations would actually demonstrate that the trend towards pedophiles is increasing in rejection, not acceptance--the exact opposite of what you're implying).

They were part of a number of informal gay pride parades and welcomed members there. They were also part of the international gay and lesbian groups up to 1993. They still have members who are part of the gay community, indeed the much higher incidence of pedophilia in the gay community. I find those points to be rather common knowledge.

You may indeed count of the changeability of society to make changes and allow for behavior that you might, or others might deem appropriate. We can see those initial steps before us now. We can see groups attempting to normalize pedophilia. Your groups have taught them well, your groups gave birth to their movement. And your society is has allowed these groups to flourish.

More is the pity that you want us to look elsewhere while our children fall under harms way.

Link to comment

...Unless of course you have no standard for that line.

...I am sure you are very knowledgeable of those exact same things. It is one reason you are willing to bend the arch of history to justify yourself.

...Since you have rejected [right or wrong.], it is natural that you will redefine right and wrong to suit whatever immediate needs you have that satisfy you. Much like the APA you merely respond to stimulus and react accordingly without the need to discern whether it is right or not, only whether it meets your needs, or not.

...Yours is an excellent example.

...Then you and your group has failed miserably in curbing bullying. So I really think your words are rather empty and fill no need other than self justification.

...More is the pity that you want us to look elsewhere while our children fall under harms way.

Personal attacks by Jeff, instead of substance addressing the issue...? I'm SHOCKED...!!! :shok::shok::shok:

:rolleyes:

Jeff, I know we disagree on other issues, but whether or not it causes some discomfort to realize it, so far as the topic of pedophilia is concerned, I'm actually on the same side as you: any pedophilic behavior is wrong, immoral, depraved, worthy of condemnation, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. As a father, I cannot imagine anything that would anger me more than a man or woman preying upon my own children. Our kids should be protected from sexual predators and sex offenders should be punished and appropriately identified on sex offender registration lists so those of us that are parents may take full precautions to protect our children.

Daniel2

Link to comment

Problem is Daniel2..... is that society is "normalizing" what was once abnormal.

You may be offended, you may think it won't happen with Pedophilia, but in time the "age of consent" is going to be lowered.

The Psyco babblers already consider in many cases the age of consent to be to high, wanting to lower it to 16 even 14.

After all, in the olden days, if people could get married at 14, then why not be able to have "consensual sex" with an adult?

We know 12-13 is usually when children start having sex. The Psyco babblers will one day think THAT is the proper age of consent for sexual contact with anyone the person freely wants. After all, they already do it, thus they are "old enough to choose".

While I believe marriage is a different matter in the society in question, clearly the "professionals" are moving to normalize all deviant behavior, and that includes pedophilia.

You already see women teachers not punished the same as men teachers when they have sexual contact with their students.

Normalizing homosexuality is just another step in the notch. You don't think it's wrong, we do.

You think pedophilia is wrong now, but in a 100 years those like you won't. After all, they want their "rights" too.

Link to comment

Personal attacks by Jeff, instead of substance addressing the issue...? I'm SHOCKED...!!! :shok::shok::shok:

:rolleyes:

Jeff, I know we disagree on other issues, but whether or not it causes some discomfort to realize it, so far as the topic of pedophilia is concerned, I'm actually on the same side as you: any pedophilic behavior is wrong, immoral, depraved, worthy of condemnation, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. As a father, I cannot imagine anything that would anger me more than a man or woman preying upon my own children. Our kids should be protected from sexual predators and sex offenders should be punished and appropriately identified on sex offender registration lists so those of us that are parents may take full precautions to protect our children.

Daniel2

Unfortunately, you may be decieving yourself. You are on the side of normalization. Normalization of all kinds of things. There is not a standard or "line" since there is reason for all groups to claim victimization, and for all groups to claim equality. People like you will always give way to the societal changes, and even embrace them as cathartic understanding of rights if nothing else. The definition will change and unfortunately groups like yours will accept that change. They will feel an affinity to the struggle of those attracted to younger people. You are shocked this year, but if there is not a line or standard in place, eventually, those people you claim as being wrong, will be on your side (or you on theirs) claiming they are right and exercising their rights to attraction. It is the same first step that your group took Daniel. They will follow the path your group blazed for them. And whether you want to admit it or not, without your group, they probably wouldn't have stood a chance of attaining what you yourself are seeking for your own once abnormal group.

The pity is that society will have to deal with the debris later, long after you have left this earth. Perhaps you don't care about the consequences of the actions taken, perhaps you don't even see those consequences. But I article illustrates how the pedophiles are taking the very same steps you have taken. They feel an affinity towards your group and the path the group has blazed for them. I am sure they thank your group for it.

More's the pity.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...