How far down the slippery slope are we, so far? Well, we’re careening down the final slope, hurtling towards rock bottom at Ludicrous Speed.
Rock bottom being the actual legalisation of paedophilia.
Sound ridiculous? Of course it does. Once I would have said it was. It’s getting more and more difficult to believe that, though.
Miranda Galbreath, a self-described “Licensed Professional Counselor and Sex Therapist in Erie, PA,” has described pedophiles – whom she refers to as “minor-attracted persons” – as a “marginalized population” which is “probably the most vilified population of folks in our culture”.
This is pretty much the end-point of what David Robertson predicted, five years ago, would be the outcome of “rainbow” progressivism.
“After SSM, it would be Transgender and then the removal of gender altogether (this is all classic Queer Theory) and that this would then be followed by polyamory, polygamy, incest and then paedophilia. People think the latter especially is unlikely. I don’t agree. The way it will happen is for paedophilia first of all to be defined as an illness and a sexuality.”
Robertson got only one thing wrong though: they’ve pretty much skipped right over polygamy and incest. Instead, they’ve moved with dazzling speed from “gender” to “pity the poor pedos”.
In a video posted on YouTube last month, Galbreath said that the word “pedophile” has become “a judgmental, hurtful insult” used to “harm … or slander” individuals.
She defined a minor-attracted person as an individual who “has an enduring sexual or romantic attraction to minors”. Galbreath added, “They’ve not chosen this attraction just as the rest of us have not chosen whatever our attraction is.”
Ponder that argument, though, and its logical conclusion.
We are told, after all, that trannies are ‘born in the wrong body’ and that gay people are ‘born this way’. You can’t criticise anyone for an accident of their birth: after all, they didn’t choose to be that way. It’d be like criticising someone for being born with no legs.
The logical conclusion, then, of arguing that paedophiles are helpless victims of an accident of biology, is that they cannot be criticised for it.
“I want to be clear that attraction does not equal action. Just because a person is attracted to minors does not mean that they have acted on that attraction or will ever act on that attraction,” Galbreath said. “Another important thing to clear up is that most individuals who sexually victimize children are not minor-attracted persons. Some of them are. But most people who sexually victimize children actually are primarily attracted to adults.”
Galbreath claimed that mental health professionals are not required to report people who admit to being attracted to children.
“As mandated reporters, mental health providers are required to report if we have a reasonable cause to suspect that a specific child or children or vulnerable adult is being abused. Mandated reporters are not required to report that a person has confessed a minor attraction. Confessing to being attracted to minors is not the same as confessing that you are a specific risk to an identifiable minor,” Galbreath said.
The Blaze
But that argument is incompatible with her “born this way” argument.
After all, we’re told that expecting, as some Christian groups do, that gay people refrain from actually indulging in gay sex is bigoted. Who would argue, after all, that someone’s sexuality should be held against them?
In which case, expecting paedophiles to not molest children must likewise be “bigoted”. If you re-define paedophilia as a “sexuality” – as other activists have – then the logical outcome is that you must be okay with them putting their sexuality into practice.
Anything else is pure bigotry, surely? Call it “paedophobia”?