THE HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY in the United States jubilantly erupted on June 26, when the Supreme Court declared that in all 50 states, gays and lesbians now have the freedom to “marry”.
Some people called it a victory, but is it? Is there anything else on the horizon for the LGBT community now that the significant goal for which that they have been legally aiming has been realised? I will let you be the judge.
Remember the words I quoted recently from the late legal guru Paula Ettelbrick, who was in the vanguard of formulating the LGBT legal framework. One of the group’s goals, expressed since early 2003, was that being “queer” means “more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender and seeking state approval for doing so”. Having the highest legal body in the country, the Supreme Court, approve one of her significant goals has now been accomplished. But is there more to come? It seems so.
According to Ettelbrick, pushing “the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society . . . providing true alternatives to marriage and radically reordering society’s view of reality” is still the LGBT’s ultimate objective. One wonders if this transformation includes our children. Again you be the judge.
Here are some frightening developments that may be setting the stage for paedophilia ‘rights’ to be added to the already long list of “orientations” endorsed by the LGBT movement. What we now know as the very vociferous LGBT community was originally known as gays and lesbians. Today they continue to add other groups to their ranks such as bi-sexual and transgender.
According to several LGBT dictionaries/ glossaries composed by state governments and organisations in the US and wider world, transgender embraces individuals who identify themselves as genderless, cross-dressers, gender-benders or gender queer, transsexuals, inter-sex and a long list of other sexually related terms. With very clearly defined sexual goals, one cannot rule out the possibility of paedophiles being added to its listing in the not too distant future. The stage is being set for such a possibility to become a reality.
The February 2015 edition of Psychology Today defines paedophilia as “the fantasy or act of sexual activity with prepubescent children”.
There is an organisation called B4U-Act, founded in 2003 and made up of a team of mental health professionals, that refers to paedophiles as minor-attracted people (MAP). This organisation sees paedophiles as individuals having a sexual orientation, just as homosexuality was categorised in the 1970s.
One of its principles and perspectives of practice states: “We recognise the severe stigma directed against minor-attracted people by the media, politicians, law enforcement officials and some mental health professionals. We oppose the perpetuation of false stereotypes and the use of language that instills fear in the public, fails to promote understanding and ignores the humanity of minor-attracted people. We realise that stigma and stereotypes force minor-attracted people to remain in hiding and prevent those who could benefit from mental health services from receiving them.”
Psychologist Professor Van Gijseghem, of the University of Montreal, told the Canadian members of Parliament on February 14, 2011: “Paedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offence from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation, just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”
Dr Vernon Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, concurred with Van Gijseghem in the same Parliament session and said: “Paedophiles are people who prefer prepubescent children . . . . They have quite a restricted area of sexual interests in terms of the kinds of body types that their victims have.” He went on to say: “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”
The Harvard Medical School had already stated in a July 2010 health publication that “paedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on such sexual urges”.
In January 2013, The Guardian quoted psychologist Glen Wilson, co-author of The Child Lovers: A Study Of Paedophiles In Society, as saying that “the majority of paedophiles, however socially inappropriate, seem to be quite gentle and rational”.
Later that same year, in the Washington Post’s August 30, 2013 edition, Betsy Karasik, writer and former lawyer, wrote: “I don’t believe that all sexual conduct between under-age students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape, and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalised.”
Journalist Jack Minor of WorldNet Daily in 2013, quoted Professor Milton Diamond, director of the Pacific Centre for Sex and Society at the University of Hawaii, as saying that child pornography could benefit society because “potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children”.
In the Washington Times of Monday, June 29, 2015, columnist Cal Thomas put things in perspective in his response to the Supreme Court’s decision favouring same-sex “marriage”. He said: “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” To my mind Thomas summed up the LGBT’s goal of “pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family . . . to transform the very fabric of society”.
Sexual child abuse is already a major worldwide headache. With the recent ‘triumph’ of the LGBT and a growing group of social scientists and influential leaders, including politicians and legislators, becoming more and more sympathetic to paedophilic behaviour, my fear is that the our precious children may be swept into the welcoming arms of paedophiles and made to swim in the cesspool of immoral stench that now pervades our societies. I hope I am wrong.
In June 1962, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-1 to stop the reading of the Bible in public schools. In 1963 the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 to remove the Bible from public schools. The US Supreme Court dismissed God from the institutions of learning because God was no longer relevant in the eyes of some.
The Bible is still relevant today when it says that the heart (mind) of man continues to be deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Only God can transform it.
Let us fight to protect our children from all abusers, in whatever form they present themselves.
• Reverend Haynesley Griffith is a marriage and family life consultant. Email [email protected].
