So, where are we at on the pro-paedophilia slippery slope, today? In one of the most prescient blog posts I’ve ever read, David Robertson predicted seven years ago that gay marriage would quickly lead to the erasure of gender and, eventually, we’d wind up at pro-paedophilia activism.
The only things that Robertson got wrong was “eventually”, and that pro-polygamy would be an intermediary step. In fact, with astonishing speed, the social engineers of the rainbow left have skipped over polygamy and polyamory, and gone straight for the jugular of legalising child molesting.
So, we’re at the stage now where it’s bigoted to even criticise a paedophile.
Because it’s not a crime — it’s a “sexual orientation”.
Democratic California Rep. Katie Porter said Wednesday during a Congressional hearing on anti-LGBTQ violence that the term “pedophile” brands people as criminals because of their “sexual orientation.”
This is exactly what Robertson predicted, seven years ago: The way it will happen is for paedophilia first of all to be defined as an illness and a sexuality.
And so we’re at the point where a “Professor of Ethics” is claiming that “paedophilia should be seen as an innate sexuality that requires destigmatization”. The Bible of Establishment American leftism, The Washington Post, has praised a stage play that “humanises” paedophiles (and demonises their victims). Australia’s taxpayer-funded leftist propaganda machine, the ABC, admonishes its journalists not to refer to child sex abusers as “paedophiles”, because it might “marginalise” the poor darlings.
And if you dare criticise a paedophile, you’re a wicked bigot.
Porter said the phrase “groomer” is a “lie” used to position members of the LGBTQ community as a “threat.”
If Porter hears the phrase “groomer” and immediately thinks “LGBTQ community”… I think we know who the bigot is.
How, then, does Porter explain grassroots gay activists organising against paedophilia, under the banner “Gays Against Groomers”?
Robinson then said phrases like “groomers and pedophiles” are used “to describe people … that are mothers and fathers … It is dangerous.”
If they are groomers and paedophiles — it’s they who are dangerous.
“You know, this allegation of ‘groomer’ and ‘pedophile,’ it is alleging that a person is criminal somehow and engaged in criminal acts merely because of their gender identity, their sexual orientation, their gender identity.”
The Daily Caller
Ah, newsflash, Katie Porter — paedophilia is against the law.
For now.
Because the inescapable logic of Porter’s argument that “paedophilia is a sexual orientation” is legalisation. If it’s wrong to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation and outlaw them from practising their sexual orientation (as our human rights laws indeed declare), and if paedophilia is a sexual orientation, then logically it’s wrong to outlaw paedophilia.
If you think the left isn’t trying to normalise and legalise paedophilia… you’re just not paying attention.
