Is the Push to Normalize Homosexual Relationships Leading to State-Sanctioned Incest and Pedophilia?

Supreme Court Gay Marriage

Alfred Kinsey, the famous (or infamous) sexologist, estimated that 10% of the American population is homosexual. A 2011 Gallup poll found that Americans believe that as much as 25% of the population is homosexual. According to the findings (emphasis added):

There is little reliable evidence about what percentage of the U.S. population is in reality gay or lesbian, due to few representative surveys asking about sexual orientation, complexities surrounding the groups and definitions involved, and the probability that some gay and lesbian individuals may not choose to identify themselves as such. Demographer Gary Gates last month released a review of population-based surveys on the topic, estimating that 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, with bisexuals making up a slight majority of that figureGates also disputes the well-circulated statistic that “10% of the males are more or less exclusively homosexual.”

Americans’ current collective estimate — which is substantially higher than Gates suggests — is likely driven more by perceptions and exposure than by scientific measurement or reality.

In addition to the far lower demographic estimates of the homosexual population in America, the US Census Bureau data indicates that “same-sex partner households made up less than 1 percent of all households in both 2000 and 2010.”

Why does this matter?

Simply put, the fight over same sex marriage is about far more than just tax benefits or visitation rights. It’s about attaining societal legitimacy for behavior that was once considered deviant — and statistically, still is. Further, it’s about silencing those who oppose their agenda, the 1st Amendment be damned.

Advocates for same-sex marriage are often loathe to admit that their push for legitimacy would open the door for the State to sanction other forms of sexual behavior now considered deviant. Whether they don’t want to acknowledge this “slippery slope” in a way that would weaken their case or sincerely disbelieve it, the handwriting is already on the wall.

Today, I came across two stories that I believe are bellwethers of what is to come.

In California, there is a legislative push to federalize a state law that prohibits counseling someone in an attempt to change their sexual orientation. The kicker? In this law, pedophilia is classified as a “sexual orientation.” And sexual orientation is a protected category under anti-discrimination laws.

Under the bill’s language, a mental health counselor could be sanctioned if there was an attempt to get a pedophile or gay individual to change his behavior or speak negatively about their behavior as it relates to sexuality.

The bill calls on states to prohibit efforts to change a minor’s sexual orientation, even if the minor requests it, saying that doing so is “dangerous and harmful.”

The text of the legislation doesn’t specifically ban “gay” conversion therapy. Instead, it prohibits attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation.

“Sexual orientation change efforts’ means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation,” the bill says.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that, “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation.” However, the Democrats defeated the amendment. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law, and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality.

“This language is so broad and vague, it arguably could include all forms of sexual orientation, including pedophilia,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “It’s not just the orientation that is protected—the conduct associated with the orientation is protected as well.”

Even as I write this, I see that another facet of this story is playing out in the Virginia Gubenatorial race. It’s hard to believe.

I also came across a story from 2010, in which a Columbia University professor was charged for having an incestuous relationship with his 24-year old daughter — a relationship that lasted 3 years. His attorney offered a predictable defense:

He told ABCNews.com: ‘Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so.

‘At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms.

‘It’s ok for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different?

‘We have to figure out why some behaviour is tolerated and some is not.’

And further:

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Galluzzo questioned if prosecuting incest was “intellectually consistent” with the repeal of anti-sodomy laws that resulted from Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. “What goes on between consenting adults in private should not be legislated,” he said. “That is not the proper domain of our law.”

Galluzzo continued: “If we assume for a moment that both parties [involved in incest] are consenting, then why are we prosecuting this?”

These are the fruits of the push for homosexual legitimacy. This is the fallout of the ongoing same-sex marriage debate. Normal sexual relationships become one option in a panoply of accepted “lifestyles.” Normal, natural, traditional marriage becomes marginalized as other kinds of relationships are recognized by the state. Marriage, and the sexual intimacy that is truly proper only to marriage, get twisted into something unrecognizable.

I have written about this here before, but it bears repeating: there is no logical way, absolutely none, to divorce sex from procreation and preserve the integrity of marriage. Further, there is no way to divorce sex from procreation and keep deviant sexual behaviors classified as, well, deviant. Sex has two polar aspects that exist in balance as they relate to each other. These are the natural biological end of sex (namely, children) and the (sometimes, but not always) unifying love and pleasure that is shared by its participants. The Christian conception fuses both, making it both immanent and sublime, always balancing the raw, unimaginable power of creating life against the raw, incredible intimacy of true conjugal love.

Try to have one without the other and everything goes sideways. Sex, when it is about ONLY procreation, objectifies men and women and turns them into breeders. Sex, when it is only about pleasure and intimacy makes any form of sexual gratification between consenting individuals a legitimate means to that end. Same sex, multi-partner, non-procreative (ie., sodomy), self-gratification, etc. It’s all on the table if it’s just about how good it feels.

Contraception shattered sex into its component pieces. It was only a matter of time before sexually conservative people over-emphasized making babies, and sexually “liberated” people over-emphasized the pursuit of maximum gratification, in whatever sort of relationships they felt like engaging in.

We no longer can make a natural law argument (or a pragmatic one, for that matter) that sex belongs in marriage and marriage is about kids and family when so many married couples stopped having kids and building families. This door may only be cracked open now, but it’s going to get kicked open soon. And the consequences are not going to be pretty.

UPDATE: 4/4/2013 @ 4:46PM

In the interest of accuracy, when I wrote this post, I said that “In this law, pedophilia is classified as a “sexual orientation.” And sexual orientation is a protected category under anti-discrimination laws.” This was a misstatement of fact.

In actuality, the word “pedophilia” never appears in the bill, California SB 1172. Instead, it defines sexual change efforts as follows:

“(b) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

The ambiguity of the definition would cover any inclination considered to be a sexual orientation. Concerned about the implications of such broad language in situations such as pedophiles going in for psychiatric counseling, it has been alleged, but I have been unable to verify, that an attempt to amend the bill and add specificity was attempted.

Considering that there have been recent attempts by some groups to push the American Psychological Association to de-stigmatize pedophilia and de-classify it as a disorder, a cause for concern in this legislation still exists.

9,413 views

Categories:Legislation Marriage Politics

27 thoughts on “Is the Push to Normalize Homosexual Relationships Leading to State-Sanctioned Incest and Pedophilia?

  1. Michael says:

    This is one of the reasons why opponents of same-sex marriage are losing and will lose. Susie has a gay uncle, Billy has a gay Mom, Mary has a gay best friend, and Joe has a gay teacher. They are told, “Your uncle/Mom/best friend/teacher is sick and evil and a monster who wants to abuse children and have sex with his/her siblings! They hate God and want to destroy Christianity and America!” And, of course, Susie and Billy and Mary and Joe correctly think, “This person is nuts! He’s the last person I want to listen to when it comes to same-sex marriage or ANY issue!”

    1. Steve Skojec says:

      That’s not at all what’s happening, nor is it what I’m suggesting.

      You’re arguing from a place of emotion and subjectivity. “My personal experience says X, therefore X must be true.”

      The fact is simply this: if marriage as a state-sanctioned institution does not exist as a mechanism that provides incentive for familial stability and the procreation and education of new citizens, it is completely useless to the state. It becomes something else entirely – a state-recognized sexual relationship that has no higher purpose than to be a state-sanctioned sexual relationship.

      And if marriage is only a state-sanctioned sexual relationship, then ANY consensual sexual relationship should receive those rights, despite the fact that they provide no tangible benefit to society.

      Same-sex marriage, if widely adopted, will almost certainly lead to a re-institution of polygamy, will likely lead to the destigmatization of consensual incest, and will open the door for NAMBLA and B4U-Act to continue to push their agenda of normalizing “Minor-Attracted Persons” (MAPs) and the ultimate de-classifcation of pedophilia as a disorder by the APA.

      (Check out B4U-Act’s website to see their agenda: http://b4uact.org/)

      Use your logic, not your feelings, and tell me why this isn’t the case.

      1. Patrick says:

        Steve. Take a step back and look at history. We’ve had gay marriage in Massachusetts for how long now? There’s no polygamy concern in that state. Same with all the other worldwide jurisdictions that have gay marriage.

        And please don’t confuse your readers with introductory phrases like “the fact si simply this” followed by your personal opinion. Your own words continue to give your readers reasonable cause to doubt you.

        A marriage can be a “state-sanctioned institution that provides incentive for familial stability” with or without children. Children don’t make a marriage. Vows do. I formed a new family on the day of my wedding. And the state benefits from my marriage whether or not my wife and I raise children

        1. Joe M says:

          Patrick. You accuse Steve of over-stating his opinion. Then proceed to declare your opinion about “what makes a marriage” as a matter of fact.

          I’m not necessarily disagreeing that the state benefits from you marrying your wife and not having children. But, I’m curious to hear your explanation of how? If a radioactive meteor hit the earth and made everyone sterile, on what basis would you justify giving tax dollars to people who choose to live their lives together (under any label)?

    2. Joe M says:

      Michael. You mischaracterize the concern that Steve and others have raised.

      While I agree that same-sex marriage proponents have limited intentions, the arguments they are standing on to achieve their goal open the door for others to defend other acts/relationships on the same grounds.

      This concern is not extreme or without merit. Even Sotomayor brought it up, unprompted, during the recent gay marriage related hearings. Currently, society is allowed to enforce a wide variety of restraints regarding marriage. The gay marriage movement arguing that the authority to define marriage does not belong to society is logically and legally problematic for limiting marriage in other ways.

  2. Robb says:

    “And sexual orientation is a protected category under anti-discrimination laws.”

    What you are saying is woefully wrong. As a gay man working in the state of Indiana, my employer has the right to fire me simply because I’m gay.

    Please, get your facts right. The Catholic Church should be out front on this issue; sadly, it is not.

    1. Joe M says:

      I’m not familiar with the laws in Indiana. It certainly varies by state. However, Steve wrote “anti-discrimination laws” and there are indeed anti-discrimination laws that protect sexual orientation.

      Maybe a clarification is warranted. But, I don’t see how he is “woefully wrong” on this.

      The larger point is true. There is a large and growing body of law designed to protect various classes of people. It’s difficult to predict how many other circumstances the same-sex marriage argument can/will be applied to.

      We aren’t just considering adding a new class of people to the protected list. We’re considering adding new logic. And in law, that matters quite a bit.

  3. Tony says:

    All i can say is LOL. Did you miss the fact that the Catholic Bishops have been lobbying against every version of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act? Yeah, sexual orientation is definitely protected from discrimination when one can still be fired in more than half the states for being gay…supported by the Church. And perhaps you’re not aware of the Catholic Supreme Court justice or the Catholic Attorney General of Virginia, legislating that homosexual acts should be criminalized? Yeah, thank God gay people are protected from discrimination, and thank God Catholics are leading the charge!

    1. Joe M says:

      I would be interested to learn more about the case of the Supreme Court justice that is legislating that homosexual acts should be criminalized.

      Do you have a link?

  4. Patrick says:

    Thanks, but the more I read on this the more clear it is that the only person saying that pedophilia is a sexual orientation is the radical Christian Brad Dacus. Rep Hastings never said that, and the phrase you’ve quoted twice now: ” accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality,” is not traceable to any legislator, but – surprise – a radical Christian blogger named “Lisa A” at a blog called “Rethink Society.”

    Is this journalism?

    1. Joe M says:

      Patrick.

      If a pedophile says that they were born that way and that society is wrong to discriminate against them in any way over how they were born, what would your response be?

  5. Steve Skojec says:

    Patrick,

    The legislation is SB1172. While it does not explicitly state a protection for pedophilia, it defines sexual change efforts as follows:

    “(b) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

    The ambiguity of the definition would cover any inclination considered to be a sexual orientation. Concerned about the implications of such broad language in situations such as pedophiles going in for psychiatric counseling, an attempt to amend the bill and add specificity was attempted.

    As cited above:

    “Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that, “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation.” However, the Democrats defeated the amendment. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law, and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality.”

    “Accordingly decided” may be the editorializing of the writer, but the point stands. If they tried to specifically exempt pedophilia from the legal definition and were defeated in their attempts to do so, this is a de facto endorsement of pedophilia as a class of “sexual orientation.”

  6. Patrick says:

    Steve,

    By my reading, the only person who is suggesting that pedophilia is a sexual orientation is Brad Dacus, the president of an anti-gay, religious lobbying group.

    Please show me that I am wrong. Does the text of the bill say pedophilia is a sexual orienattion or is this another case of a radical Christian in CA trying to conflate pedophilia and homosexuality? Again.

    1. Joe M says:

      It’s not conflating pedophilia and homosexuality.

      It is recognizing that the gay marriage movements argument opens the door for others to challenge laws on the same grounds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.