Does a California bill really classify pedophilia as a “sexual orientation”?

UPDATE: 5 April 13:19 GMT

From information provided by readers in the combox, below, you will see that there were a lot of problems with the information about the bill and the issues.  That’s why I posted the title in the form of a question.  A pretty good discussion resulted.

_____________

In the past I have posted that the cultural push (putsch?) to normalize homosexual acts will result in a program also to eliminate the taboo against sex with children.

Now I read this at Rethink Society.

Pedophilia Is A Sexual Orientation Under CA Bill

California Congresswoman, Rep. Jackie Speier CA (D), wants to federalize a state law to prohibit counseling to change a person’s sexual orientation. That doesn’t sound that extreme, but pedophilia is a sexual orientation according to this bill as well.

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.  [There it is.]

“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.”

Who Cares If Pedophilia Is A Sexual Orientation?

It also means that, if pedophilia is a sexual orientation, [then…] that discrimination laws also apply to pedophiles. That means you cannot block a pedophile from being a preschool teacher or any other high-risk occupation.

[…]

Once you attack what true marriage is, what nature calls for, this is the road you follow.

Does a California bill really classify pedophilia as a “sexual orientation”?
0 votes, 0.00 avg. rating (0% score)
FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, Pò sì jiù, The future and our choices and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Does a California bill really classify pedophilia as a “sexual orientation”?

  1. The Drifter says:

    The next step we’ll hear is SNAP taking bishops to court because their clergy is not pedophile enough.

  2. LarryW2LJ says:

    But pedophilia was just used as a weapon against the Church! What is society saying now – that it was all OK?

    We are soooooo messed up!

  3. Titus says:

    Hmm, the quoted language is not in any bill introduced in the 113th Congress, although I don’t know that I can search proposed amendments. So I don’t know what the article is talking about in terms of any effort by Congressman Speier to “federalize” anything.

    As for California, there does appear to be a statute.

    The statute appears to be the subject of at least two federal-court actions. Pickup v. Brown, No.2:12-CV-02497-KJM-EF (E.D. Cal.), and Welch v. Brown, CIV. 2:12-2484 WBS (E.D. Cal.). I see three total orders from those two cases on Westlaw (two in Pickup dated 12/4/12 and one in Welch dated 12/3/12), but you might be able to find more on PACER, or the ones from Westlaw might be available on justia or elsewhere on the web.

  4. workingclass artist says:

    Incredible.

  5. AvantiBev says:

    Let’s jump on this NOW. Take a lesson from the progressives aka The Left. Fight the looming battle not yesterday’s. Don’t wait. We waited on the out-of-wedlock hooking up and now we fight the abortions that result from it. We waited on no-fault divorce and shack-ups among heterosexuals and now we lose on the definition of “marriage” to the homosexuals.

    The Left takes baby steps and as Antonio Gramsci prescribed have marched slowly and persistently through the civic and cultural institutions with the aim of destabilizing and demoralizing the Church and the Family in favor of an overarching, omnipotent State.

  6. george says:

    Luckily, though, the Constitution forbids the government from establishing a religion!

  7. Why are we surprised to hear such news? Namba has been pushing for this for many years. Shows how sick the culture really is! As far as government not establishing a religion, the 1st Amendment speaks of only the States may not; it says nothing about the Federal Government being prohibited, at least not explicitly.

  8. Bob B. says:

    Does anyone remember last month’s news concerning a California pro-abortion politician and member of Verbum Dei’s Board of Advisors (a Jesuit school) teaching a social justice class? The bill in question is SB 1172 and guess who also voted for it?
    Outrageous doesn’t begin to describe the assault on our Faith.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-abortion-politician-taught-social-justice-class-at-catholic-high-school

  9. Johnno says:

    Now I hope more people will wake up to the real agenda behind homosexual indocrination & ‘safe clubs’ in elementary schools. We’ve been screaming about it for years! And you can bet there are more people out there who fantasize about underage sex than there are homosexuals! Planned Parenthood is a leading supporter of eliminating ‘age discrimination’! I don’t have to tell you why!

  10. Kathleen10 says:

    It is going to be so hard for the media and Hollywood, liberals, to condemn the Church and priests for what it applauds in others.

    I don’t know about anyone else, but here is my line in the sand. I have always tried to advocate against those who speak ill of God, my faith, my church, my religion, or even, what is just right and good, as taught to us by God, such as against abortion, or for traditional marriage. It is tiring, and the cultural tsunami is hard to deny, and very fatiguing. Lately, I have had to temper some of this activism, because one has to balance activism and acceptance of what one cannot themselves change or directly affect. It’s all a worthwhile and necessary endeavor, holy even, but, you have to modulate yourself unless it is unavoidable.

    But this, this is the line in the sand. God help us if we become so jaded and complacent we stop caring about innocent and vulnerable children being used for selfish purposes by homosexuals. Then the ground ought to really open up and swallow all of us whole!
    As long as I am on this earth I will do whatever I can to protect children from sick and perverted predators. That means, we must look for opportunities to speak truth to the disorder that is gay predation of children. Call people out on this issue, NOW, while the subject is just being broached in the mainstream public. Now is the time to set the tone, so that the tone does not become biased in the direction of those words that have all but ruined our culture: tolerance, acceptance, diversity, etc. Save studies, articles, so you can have some data on child abuse, effects, and so on. It’s out there already. Be proactive in statements about this final line we just cannot cross. There is a point at which even sick societies must say NO, this is something we will NOT allow you to normalize, not allow you to force us to accept, not allow you to DO. Call and complain when speakers are spreading their sickness to groups, talking about it on campuses, teaching it to others. Protest! Go with a sign. Walk back and forth. I’m not kidding. Will you be looked at? Yes. Will you feel a bit the nut? Probably. But you will feel the sweet and consoling contentment that comes from really putting yourself out there for a reason that God understands, and understands why you are doing it, in this case for God’s children.

    Gather others. Collect signatures if need be, to address any attempt to normalize it. One does not have to be obnoxious, giving the opponent the opportunity to say you can be ignored because you ARE obnoxious. No no. Be wise, but be definite. Be calm. Statistics and studies on effects are the best defense and offense.
    We must defend the innocent unborn, and we must always defend to our utmost, God’s vulnerable children who are here, who are being targeted and assaulted in an increasingly sick, severe and now, open way.
    This is an issue about which we cannot become complacent. Personally I vow to fight this to the end and never stop until I am just not here anymore.
    Dear Jesus, please help us be strong and always defend your children against such perversion. Thwart the plans of evil people who wish to commit evil deeds against your little ones.

  11. SimonDodd says:

    I’m confused. This appears to be the California bill, SB1172. In which clause is “pedophilia … a sexual orientation according to this bill”? What is the bill number for Rep. Speir’s bill? (LOC says that she has sponsored six bills in this congress; none of them match the description tendered) When and where—in committee? On the floor?—was it debated? What, precisely, did the amendment say? What, precisely, did Rep. Hastings say? What sources do we have for these remarks?

    This will not do. This is an incredibly vague report that asks us to make enormous jumps of reasoning based not on what is reliably reported but by stroking our presuppositions. We are wary of liberals generally, and we suspect that liberals are liberal about pedophilia. We are told that a bill that we don’t like does something we wouldn’t like, even though the bill doesn’t appear to say that, and no bridging analysis is provided for why it could be or will be construed that way. We are told that a representative we don’t like is doing something that we wouldn’t like, and that a representative we don’t like said something absolutely outrageous, even though we are given no specific details, no direct quotes, and nothing that we could use to verify this stuff for ourselves.

    Is it true? Is any of it true? Who knows? This is lazy, shoddy reporting by a pseudononymous writer that threatens to ricochet around sympathetic echo chambers and gets folks all riled up before there’s any reason to suppose it’s true.

  12. Carrolju says:

    whoa-pedophilia and homosexuality are two different things. You can’t classify homosexuals as pedophiles.

    Other than that-you go girl!

  13. SimonDodd says:

    I mean, one almost gets the sense that this is a trap—a deliberate attempt to make us look stupid by feeding us a lie that we want to believe—so perfectly does it prey on our prejudices and fears, so perfectly does it push our buttons such that assumption and outrage take over. One almost doesn’t stop long enough to realize that the story provides neither evidence, reasoning, nor verifiability for any of its key points. At its core, it is nothing more than bare assertion that we are asked to take on trust, and then leap to the barricades.

    This is either a very smart writer playing us for chumps, or the writer is a chump.

  14. catholicmidwest says:

    Keep an eye on your kids. Don’t let them out of your sight.

  15. Mandy P. says:

    “This is either a very smart writer playing us for chumps, or the writer is a chump.”

    I wish the article were more specific as well. However, I will say that from what I have read it does appear that the psychological community is contemplating re-classifying pedophilia as a sexual orientation (how serious those efforts are, i have no idea). If that happens it would give a lot of ammo to pedophiles in the legal setting. If it is declared an orientation and not a disorder, then any law passed prohibiting discrimination based upon sexual orientation that does not specifically exclude protections for pedophilia will be used against anyone who does not hire or otherwise discriminates agains pedophiles.

  16. Torpedo1 says:

    At Simon dodd,
    I agree with you. I read the bill, and though I don’t agree with some of the presumptions the language implies, there isn’t anything in it specificly saying that Petofilia is considered sexual orientation and would be covered by this bill. Also, i can’t find the proposed amendments or anything said by the senator who opposed this bill anywhere. Do i like or agree with the idea that a minor or his or her parents can’t ask a therapist or counselor to help stop unwanted behavior, even if it is thought to be good and helpful by all parties? No, of course not, but I didn’t see the term petofilia anywhere in the bill.

  17. jamie r says:

    The proposed resolution encourages states to ban gay conversion therapy for minors. It doesn’t directly regulate it in anyway. Also, it only applies to minors. The text is here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.141:

    Most relevantly, it doesn’t encourage states to ban therapy that includes “terventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices.”

    You shouldn’t link to news articles about congressional resolutions that don’t give a link to the actual resolution.

  18. Roguejim says:

    Since 1978, NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association has been pushing for legislation to legalize consensual sex between men and adolescent boys. At that time, we merely scoffed at what we thought was only a filthy dream of theirs. Maybe not such a dream anymore…

  19. O. Possum says:

    Those who say that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to the acceptance of other deviant behavior are mocked and ridiculed constantly. Yet when we point out something like this, they say “oh that’s just an outlier, no one would support that, you’re just being dramatic.” So frustrating. :(

  20. pseudomodo says:

    There is nothing in this bill that sanctions pedophilia.

    The only mention of it is in this months-old article in Rethink with no credible statement from Rep. Speir.

    This is smoke.

  21. APX says:

    whoa-pedophilia and homosexuality are two different things. You can’t classify homosexuals as pedophiles.
    This is true. The vast majority of the offenders I dealt with who committed acts of pedophilia were not homosexuals. Many were in heterosexual relationships, and their victims were little girls.

    Pedophilia is still addressed as a mental disorder in the DSM IV, so I don’t see how a Bill could classify it as a sexual orientation.

    Jamie r says:
    Most relevantly, it doesn’t encourage states to ban therapy that includes “terventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices.”

    How familiar are you with the therapy they use to “prevent or address conduct or unsafe sexual practices”? I won’t go into it here because some of it is just disgusting and is directly in violation of the 6th and 9th Commandments.

  22. DetJohn says:

    Will this mean that the child sexual victims were not abused, jut overly loved? Will they now be called the so called victims? Will they have to return any money they got? Worst of all, will Cardinal Mahoney be vindicated?

    Saw this coming since 1978.

  23. SimonDodd says:

    Jamie says… “The proposed resolution encourages states to ban gay conversion therapy for minors. It doesn’t directly regulate it in anyway. Also, it only applies to minors. The text is here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.141: Most relevantly, it doesn’t encourage states to ban therapy that includes ‘terventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices.’ You shouldn’t link to news articles about congressional resolutions that don’t give a link to the actual resolution.”

    Well there you go; it’s a dead bill that was introduced at the very end of the last Congress, a press release on legislative paper, a representative stroking a constituent. It was referred to committee at the end of November (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HC00141:@@@X) and lapsed a month later with the conclusion of the 112th Congress. Its content is purely hortatory—it would have done absolutely nothing—and like the Cali bill, it says nothing about pedophilia. Every inch of mileage about pedophilia seems to be entirely in Lisa’s head.

    Sorry, folks, but if you got worked up over this—you’ve been had. There’s a very simple lesson in this: It’s 2013! If a bill has been introduced, its text is online. If someone said something, unless the person attributing the remark is claiming personal witness, there is video, audio, transcript, or reliable reporting. If a story makes wild claims about what a legislator said or what bill she introduced, and the story doesn’t link to the underlying materials, you have to assume until proven otherwise that that person is lazy, lying, or stupid, and NONE of those possibilities should make you feel good about trusting their reporting!

  24. robtbrown says:

    Carrolju says:

    whoa-pedophilia and homosexuality are two different things. You can’t classify homosexuals as pedophiles.

    Agree, but you can classify ephebophiles as homosexuals.

  25. SimonDodd says:

    And that goes a fortiori when the story avoids giving you anything that you could use to verify the story—when it gives you paraphrases rather than quotes, when it doesn’t give you the bill number, stuff like that. The very worst thing about the internet is how it has made people on both sides of the aisle—well, maybe it has just revealed a preexisting state, I don’t know—unbearably credulous. Ridiculous, unattributed, and unverifiable stories arrive in someone’s inbox or on their FB timeline, and if it strokes that person’s biases, they hit repost or forward and the same cycle begins over. How many people have been led into actions that constitute calumny by that refusal to VERIFY before FORWARDING?

  26. tominrichmond says:

    Add another letter to the soup: LGBTQ*P*

    I wonder if it’s the kind of company otherwise well-intentioned homosexuals want to keep?

  27. DetJohn says:

    To APX I say, my expierences are diffrent than yours, most of the victims of child sexual abuse that I investigated we little boys and not girls.

    In fact, as in general socity, homosexual people are just as horrorified by the sexual abuse of children as is everyone else.

    This does not mean that some homosexual people are not pedophiles too.

    One of my worst cases involved a homosexual man living in an open relationship with another man.

    My suspect physically and sexually abused a nephew and sexually abused several boys in his neighborhood.

    The suspect’s partner was repulsed by the suspect’s conduct and was my best witness.

    The suspect was out on bail when he stabbed his partner for cooperating with me. The suspect wanted to have his partner to take the blame for the crimes.

    I have seen too many horrors.

    My level of expierence was that of a Police Agency Detective.

  28. Are children in our society to have no protections AT ALL?

  29. BLB Oregon says:

    One of the reasons that homosexual ephebophiles and pedophiles commit more crimes is that it is easier for them to find opportunities to groom and assault their victims without being suspected.

    The problem now is that we have gone from the proper compassion of realizing that few people choose to have a sexual disorder or the temptations that go with having one all the way to the twisted stance that makes it into “compassion” when what we would really be doing is accepting what is totally unacceptable behavior. It’s as if we were to abolish laws against shoplifting because some people are compulsive kleptomaniacs who keep themselves from stealing only with great difficulty.

  30. PostCatholic says:

    Just a moment there, BLB Oregon. I’m not sure what you base your statement upon that “One of the reasons that homosexual ephebophiles and pedophiles commit more crimes is that it is easier for them to find opportunities to groom and assault their victims without being suspected,” but it doesn’t square with the facts. The overwhelming number of cases of childhood sexual abuse are girls victimized by males. http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/CSA-FS20.pdf for some basic statistical information (and for a discussion of the shortcomings of that information).

  31. Clinton R. says:

    That nuke from North Korea just might be our just punishment. How wicked and depraved have we become? How far from God have we turned? How desirous of hell are we? Domine, miserere nobis.

  32. gjp says:

    I just had a look at house.gov.

    There are six bills that have Rep. Speier as the primary sponsor. If you want to see them, go here:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d113,d113&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Rep+Speier++Jackie))+01890))

    The bill discussed in the article doesn’t seem to be among them. Rep. Speier is listed as a co-sponsor of 55 other bills. You can search the system at the following address:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?n=BSS;c=113

  33. JabbaPapa says:

    PostCatholic — careful :

    The overwhelming number of cases of childhood sexual abuse are girls victimized by males. http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/CSA-FS20.pdf for some basic statistical information (and for a discussion of the shortcomings of that information).

    That report is focused on the victims ; not the number of cases of assault, nor is it a statistical analysis of perpetrators.

    There are several complex reasons why the contents of the report are likely to be skewed by the analytical position that has been chosen — this is not a problem for professionals dealing with such crimes, as they have a wide range of studies to rely on for a broader picture, but when presented in isolation like this, a single report can be unintentionally misleading.

    Just providing a caveat, not denouncing any lack of accurate factuality — as an analysis of victim distribution in the population, it’s good enough — though cases of sexual abuse of boys by paedophiles are routinely under-reported by the victims, and cases of the statutory rape of adolescent boys by homosexual men (where the adolescents may have “consented”) are under-reported too.

    One should realise that the fact that there are greater numbers of girl victims than boys does not prevent that the far greater number of individual crimes are committed by men upon boys.

  34. PostCatholic says:

    All sexual crime is vastly under-reported.

    In any event, it will be interesting to see what happens to this blog post, since it’s now shown to be an instance of “bearing false witness;” as someone once defined calumny in a Book.

  35. jamie r says:

    SimonDodd,

    To be fair, this isn’t What Does The Bill Really Say.

    On the other hand, where half the posts on a blog are critiquing NCReporter and the secular press for sloppy reporting on the Church, a touch more rigor about legal/political reporting would be nice. But that’s not what I come here for.

  36. NoTambourines says:

    “A program also to eliminate the taboo against sex with children.” – above

    For girls, that’s been well underway for years in practice, with the early sexualization of younger and younger girls, the age of first sexual activity creeping lower, and a less and less womanly and more girlish (in a creepy way) standard of beauty. For that matter, the prevailing standard of attractiveness for males is getting more and more boyish.

    This is the fruit of divorcing sex from reproduction, and of birth control.

  37. Stephen D says:

    Post Catholic, the proportions of male and females who report that they were sexually abused when underage shows that a homosexual is many times more likely to offend than a heterosexual even though offences against females are indeed slightly higher. Females (13%) males (9%), when the proportions are 97% heterosexual and 3% homosexual among adult males.

  38. Stephen D says:

    Canadian psychiatrists who deal with pedophile offenders decided several years ago that their clients were exhibiting a sexual orientation rather than a psychiatric problem.

  39. Gail F says:

    This piece is poorly written. It’s difficult to tell waht the legislation is/was or exactly what it said. For instance it says, “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.” Decided when? Where? Did she say it in session? One would think THAT would be the quote to use, but as there is no quote you can’t tell what she did or didn’t say. Bad writing, the whole thing needs clarification.

  40. MKR says:

    This is relevant:

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/11/how-pedophilia-lost-its-cool

    Unfortunately, it’s also dated; pedophilia’s “cool” is coming back. Well, for some people, anyway. Pedophilia remains absolutely totally UNCOOL when priests engage in it, but it is very, very cool when “married” gay couples in San Francisco engage in it. The left is merely making more clear than before its embrace of a disgusting double-standard: child rape is evil if you work for right-wing stuff like the Catholic Church but is healthy self-actualization if you raised a bunch of money for Obama in 2012.

  41. MKR says:

    I should add that the left is now the side of child-rape (pedophilia) and child-murder (abortion, infanticide). I’m waiting for support for the eating of children to become a trendy left-wing cause.

  42. JuliaSaysPax says:

    Not surprised at all, sadly. When I was at one of a consortium of the 5 most influential liberal arts colleges in California (where many senators and other politicians earned undergraduate degrees), all students were required to attend a series of lectures on the writings of Foucault during their first year. Among other things, he argued that denying children access to “inter-generational sexual experiences” was “superstitious” and actually harmed children by “repressing” them. At first, I thought people were silent because they were too appalled to voice disapproval. However, upon voicing my opposition, I found my classmates more than willing to gesture and shout and otherwise get worked up into a frenzy to defend Foucault.

    That’s the state of “progressive” “enlightened” education in California- no surprise that graduates of California universities are taking it to heart.

  43. JuliaSaysPax says:

    tominrichmond-
    how behind the times you are ;P
    It’s already LGBTTIQQ2SA so it would be LGBTTIQQ2SAP
    (I wish I were making that up or typing random letters, but I’m not. I’ve even seen LGBTTIQQ2SBDSMFKA.)

  44. acardnal says:

    The so called experts – the one’s who said sexual pedophile priests could be cured – are already calling for the normalization of pedophilia, and they want the DSM – the head shrinks’ bible – modified accordingly.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/academic-conference-seeks-to-normalize-pedophilia/

    http://www.wnd.com/2011/08/339113/

  45. NBW says:

    Good thing you didn’t post this on April 1st Fr. Z; I would have thought it was a joke. It is a joke and no laughing matter. I say all the priests that were accused of pedophilia should have their cases examined again and be released in CA.

  46. UncleBlobb says:

    More laws that empower these thought police.

  47. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:

    GJP (and others)

    In one of the Star Trek movies — hang on, bear with me — Kirk wonders whether Ambassador Spock is walking into a trap. Spock replies that, if he is, it is well to discover this by playing the part assigned to him.

    Relevance: it seems to be the role of all sorts of media outlets (left and right) to massage the mind to accept ideas before they are publicly proposed. Since REAL laws are driving in this direction anyway, EVEN IF this is a false lead, the drive of the media and their friends in the Democratic Party certainly goes in this direction. It would be quite logical to first condemn the Church for not protecting children against predators and then complain that the Church is sexually repressed and discriminatory. In the era of detachment from objective truth (what Pope Benedict XVI called the dictatorship of relativism) the “cognitive dissonance” is considered normal, and not to be criticized — or even acknowledged.

  48. rkingall says:

    Lord, have mercy on us, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.

  49. Measure Twice says:

    This “article” is very fishy. And a discerning blog such as one dedicated to reading text deliberately ought smell the stink too.

    Two things immediately make me suspicious.

    1) The author calls the legislation a “California Bill” when no such thing exists in the U.S. Congress. It could be a bill authored by a Californian but that is not what is reported. A California bill would be one written in a state assembly in Sacramento. This is no small oversight. It suggests to me the author of this piece is trying to sound authoritative but is actually ignorant. I recall the phrase, “…know enough to be dangerous.”

    2) The paragraph including, “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” appears to be the crux of the piece but it has no legs. The money shot offered with the words “and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation” is pure supposition on the part of the author. Nowhere in the legislation, Congressional record, press releases, etc, or more dangerously the bills unintended consequences, is an outcome making pedophilia a government recognized class worthy of protection. The placement of this sentence directly after a quote by the Congressman makes it appear to be true, but appearances are deceiving.

    Ironically, it was the horrible style of the writing that made clear to me the intellectual dishonesty of the author. While first reading the piece I thought it was about a California assembly bill because of the headline, but when I got to the part about a Florida Congressman I became very confused. After reviewing the piece one more time I came to see what a load of baseless opinion this was, and unworthy of even the most tin-foiled of heads.

    Tsk tsk for letting this slip through.

  50. James Joseph says:

    I remember when NAMBLA had a observer seat at the United Nations and then President Clinton gave an interview to their magazine publication.

  51. frjim4321 says:

    Most of the aforesaid would seem to support my previous comments about LSN not being a very good source for factual reports.

  52. torch621 says:

    We’ve been saying this for years. We’ve been saying this for so many years, and yet the world wouldn’t listen. Now that it’s happening, what will they say now?

  53. JabbaPapa says:

    The text of the resolution in Congress that’s causing so much fuss is found HERE :

    http://speier.house.gov/images/shok-speier%20resolution.pdf

    Someone has pointed out, elsewhere, that (quoted) “sexual orientation” is already defined by federal statute as applying only to “consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality,” thereby excluding pedophiles and the other “paraphilas” and making any amendment to the bill specifically excluding various “paraphilias” redundant. (paedophilia is also defined as a crime at the federal level)

    I’m afraid it looks like quite a few people (including our dear Father Z) have been taken in by some deliberate lies that have been spread about by an ultra-conservative political agitator.

  54. vetusta ecclesia says:

    So why do they get so excited about priests exhibiting this orientation?!

  55. Imrahil says:

    Dear @vetusta ecclesia,

    coming to think of it they did not get near so exited about the abusers than about the cover-ups. And they did not get near so exited of priests (in many cases at least seriously, albeit in a good or perhaps major part wrongly, believed by the responsible hierarchs to be healed and undangerous), silently to new parishes, as to the reason to do so “for the benefit of the Church”. Do not misunderstand me, the end does not justify the means; but it seems to me that the reason “for the benefit of the Church” was not, to them, a good end served in these cases by bad means, but a bad end in itself.

    Which is logical if you do not like the Church, at least if you are not thorough enough even in that to see her as your outright opponent, for then you might get chivalrous feelings.

  56. Imrahil says:

    3rd line: priests –> priests’
    5th line: silently –> silent assigning

  57. ocalatrad says:

    I think it is time that Catholics stop repeating the used-up old line that homosexuality is just fine so long as you don’t exercise it. This has been translated as: “it’s OK to be gay”. We need to call this what it is and stop the sexual Left from trampling all over us. It is sodomy. It is perversion. Believe me, they will seize every possible opportunity within the family, community, church and government to usurp common decency in order to buy themselves acceptance where what they are really calling upon themselves is chastisement.

  58. Giuseppe says:

    SimonDodd, thanks for your posts. There’s enough in the real world to get one all riled up, that we don’t need deceptive articles. However, I have very much appreciated the discussion that has ensued.

    I think that pedophilia will probably never be legal or considered a protected as a sexual orientation as the minor is considered incapable of consent. However, the definitinon of who can consent to sexual activity does vary. In the US, they are usually 16, 17, or 18. However, in Europe they go as low as 13, 14. I don’t envision age of consent laws going lower in the US, but who knows?

  59. acardnal says:

    Giuseppe, no one could imagine legalization of homosexual marriage 20 – 30 years ago either!

    Don’t bet on the age of consent being lowered and the legalization of pedophilia and other perversions within the next 20-30 years.

  60. acardnal says:

    Above should read, “Don’t bet on the age of consent NOT being lowered or against the legalization of pedophilia and other perversions within the next 20-30 years.”

  61. Giuseppe says:

    Hmm…interesting point, acardnal.

  62. Imrahil says:

    Hmm… pedophilia and lower age of consent are different things. (I’ll defend Europe for the matter.)

    Pedophilia is counternatural in that it seeks those not sexually mature. The rest is not counter-natural (I think the term is ephebophilia). A man who fornicates with a girl of 14 does nothing counternatural; both suggesting so and, if the girl consented, suggesting he is a rapist (statutory, or whatever), and then putting him on sexual offender lists or so, is striking injustice (in addition to being an outright official invitation to blackmail, for normally such acts do not become public). And no, that is not saying he did not sin before.

    America has a higher age of consent because of two reasons combined: 1. it is more religious (of the Puritan coining) and 2. it strictly follows official separation of religion and state, hence the need of some not-officially-religious substantiations. Forgive the stereotypes.

    Dear @ocalatrad,
    two points: First, the homosexuals themselves would vividly agree. Humanly speaking, they cannot but feel mucked around if they’re told “it’s okay but you must not do it”. For them, the point of being homosexual is acting homosexual. And it must be granted that, supposing there is such a thing as being homosexual, they have a point.
    Second, only this official church wording “objectively disordered, but only the act is a sin” is… true.
    I promised two points but not an answer…

  63. acricketchirps says:

    JuliaSaysPax, tominrichmond:

    Sad to see Queen Elizabeth II in there. Who’d a’ thought she’d get mixed up these crazy hijinks?!

  64. Johnno says:

    Giuseppe –

    “I think that pedophilia will probably never be legal or considered a protected as a sexual orientation as the minor is considered incapable of consent.”

    Incorrect! You are assuming that minors can never be ‘legally’ considered capable of consent and that society cannot be engineered to think in this direction. Here’s how they’ll do it:

    – Highlight cases, however exceptional, in which minors are themselves engaging in sexual activity.
    – Argue that because this is avoidable, minors must be instructed about sexuality at young ages and how to practice it safely.
    – Eliminate parental rights in order to force this education to happen. It is for the sake of the child.
    – Eliminate parental rights about knowing when their child can get access to contraceptives / abortions. It is for the sake and privacy of the child. Increase government spending to facilitate this.
    – Education of homosexual tolerance also requires sex education. Children must understand sex in order to understand what a homosexual is, and thus tolerate them. Encouraging children that homosexuality and a variety of other sexual activity is good and fun within safe parameters is a desirable thing.
    – Children gaining knowledge of sex can therefore consent to sex with each other safely.
    – What better environment for children to learn and experience sex via genital stimulation, first time gentle intercourse than with a knowledgeable experienced loving adult? Preferably their own parents?
    – With parental rights out of the picture, children’s privacy protects, their right to consent protected (this is all about the children after all), with government funding to back them up if there are problems, children have a right (emphasize on the children’s rights and what they want) to consent to sex in full knowledge with a caring adult.
    – Laws will be there to prevent abuse outside of this, so don’t worry, nothing to worry about. They’ve got this! All your concerns are taken care of. Everything will work out perfectly. Sunshine and rainbows!

  65. Johnno says:

    frjim4321 –

    Except this isn’t LSN, so you’re going to have to prove that accusation frjim, though you can also take the additional step of proving which news source hasn’t bungled up a few times. And likewise also apply the same criteria to all your own favorites like the NY Times and other liberal media. Do you do this frjim?

  66. MichaelJ says:

    Imrahil, I wonder if Priests and other Religious also feel “mucked around if they’re told ‘it’s okay but you must not do it’. What about unmarried laity?

    Honestly, what’s wrong with acknowledging that temptation in and of itself is not sinful, but acting upon it is?

  67. Mary T says:

    BILL NUMBER: AB 401 CHAPTERED  09/19/12

    CHAPTER  387
    FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE  SEPTEMBER 19, 2012
    APPROVED BY GOVERNOR  SEPTEMBER 19, 2012
    PASSED THE SENATE  AUGUST 20, 2012
    PASSED THE ASSEMBLY  AUGUST 29, 2012

    AB 401, Ammiano. School safety: Carl Washington School Safety and
    Violence Prevention Act.
    Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that public
    schools have access to supplemental resources to combat bias on the
    basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
    disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual
    orientation, as defined, and to prevent and respond to acts of hate
    violence and bias-related incidents. A provision of existing law
    prohibits the term sexual orientation from including pedophilia.
    This bill would delete the provision related to pedophilia.

  68. JabbaPapa says:

    Some of my friends are stunningly intelligent people.

    One of them, who I’ll call “C”, has pointed out that the wording of the Bill :

    speier.house.gov/images/shok-speier%20resolution.pdf

    Expressing the sense of Congress efforts by mental health practitioners to change an individual’s sexual orientation and gender identity or expression are dangerous and harmful and should be prohibited from being practiced on minors.

    … if it were to be enshrined in Federal Law, would actually PROHIBIT any and all forms of gender reassignment “therapy” in minors throughout the US and dependent territories, whether surgical, hormonal, or psycho-whatever in nature ; so that in fact, it would PROHIBIT the very things that it purports to establish permanently.

    Were it not for the absurdities of the US Legal System, the Bill could potentially be worth supporting LOL …

  69. Imrahil says:

    Dear @MichaelJ,

    for priests and religious it is not okay because that would break their promise. Of course.

    Honestly, what’s wrong with acknowledging that temptation in and of itself is not sinful, but acting upon it is?

    Nothing. But then a homosexual might say: “But that is mere common sense! We knew that already, you’re fighting a strawman! Yet if you really thing we must not act on our inclinations, then”, expletive, expletive, expletive, “stop telling us our homosexuality is okay!”

    I daresay he has a point.

    I daresay we must accept that we are against homosexuality, that we are against homosexuals (as such), that “no we are not against homosexuals” will be publicly understood as weakness, prowling around the bush (thanks to Google translator for the latter idiom) and not daring to utter our clear teaching, and that “the temptation is not sinful in itself” is mere common sense, true about any sin whatsoever, and nothing really in the focus of anybody that talks about the Church and her stand towards homosexuality**.

    [**This is not true for the faithful man feeling such inclinations, who lives in a culture where homosexuals are treated as the scum of mankind, and might get desperate on the thought to be one. For him it is perhaps necessary to be reminded that, no, temptations are no sins. But in our present quarrel, this is, while true, an evasion.]

  70. Imrahil says:

    … Yet if you really *think* …

    Sorry.