God save us

Theo-sophical Ruminations

The Guardian published a story about pedophilia last week.  You would expect such a story to offer strong moral condemnation against such a practice, but you would be mistaken.

The story begins by emphasizing that experts on pedophilia are not even sure that “consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.”  Really?  A ten year old child is capable of making informed decisions about their sexuality and sexual relationships?  And how consensual can a relationship be between an adult and a child?  Children naturally submit to the desires of adults, even if deep-down they do not want to.

I found this article so appalling not only because of its sympathetic voice for pedophilia and pedophiles, but because it uses the same talking points used by the homosexual lobby to break down the moral and emotional barriers the public once held against homosexuality.  For example, the story begins by talking about the number of…

View original post 568 more words


Published by


I’m Tracy

4 thoughts on “”

  1. God is not going to save us: never has and by all indications never will. If the RC church is any indication, believing that those who try to represent god on earth have the best interests of children at heart is deeply misguided.

    Aren’t you disturbed at how the blog author tries to paint pedophilia as equivalent to homosexuality? Aren’t you disturbed that not a single commenter has taken him to task for this gross distortion, not challenged him to prove equivalent harm, allowed him to make reference to the lie about a homosexual ‘agenda’? Here in Canada where same-sex marriage is legal, the sky has not fallen and ‘traditional’ marriages have not undergone the slightest ripple of effect? Doesn’t that count as evidence of the lies and distortions painted by such people as the blog author show us that he doesn’t care about what’s true but, rather, endeavors to promote a faith-based belief that when acted upon causes real harm to real people in real life?

    Again, Tracy, where’s your critical thinking here? Do you honestly believe that because an article is written in the Guardian that doesn’t clearly condemn the act of pedophilia but tells us about various problems clearly and causally associating it with a mental disorder that somehow it will ever become legal when we know that adults having sex with children causes a high percentage of them harm? No such equivalent data can be shown for consensual relations between same-sex adults. Why do you think these facts don’t matter when they so clearly do?

    1. Tildeb, he didn’t say homosexuality and pedophilia are equivalent. He compared them. There is a difference. If I say that fish and sand both exist in water, I have not said that they are equivalent. I have said that they are alike in that case – which they clearly are. It is perfectly reasonable. If someone said ‘you’re being unreasonable. Sand isn’t a living thing.’, it would take a great deal of patience to respond calmly to the individual.

      He said that the techniques used in the article – arguing that pedophilia is genetic, that a huge percentage of the population might have it, that it is not necessarily a mental illness, etc. – have been and are being used to argue in favor of homosexuality. That is true.

      Secondly, in connection with your claim that traditional marriages haven’t been affected by the legalization of SSM in Canada, do you have studies showing that? Because what I’ve heard is that there are no divorce rate statistics from Canada because it has stopped tracking them. So, how should we know that SSM has not affected the stability of the institution?

      Thirdly, no, I don’t fear the article because it doesn’t ‘clearly condemn’ pedophilia. I fear it because it attempts to justify it. People tried to justify killing sick and disabled children in Nazi Germany. It became legal. The mere fact that it hurts people has never kept humanity from legalizing terrible stuff; slavery is another example.

      I’m going to tell you about something I learned in communications class. In order to communicate effectively, one must keep the listener willing to listen patiently. One essential part of that is making sure they don’t feel under attack. It’s easy to make people feel under attack. If my brother tells me “Tracy, we’ve run out of cereal” and I say “we had a whole box yesterday. what did you do to it?”, the conversation will go downhill from there. Using the word ‘you’ in a negative manner makes people feel slighted. I might be right, but if I want to communicate effectively, I must use the word ‘you’ only in a positive manner. For example, I could respond with “We had a whole box yesterday. What happened to it?”. As long as my tone is not accusing, we should be fine. It’s not always possible, of course. There are times when you have to use it.

      I’m saying this because you have a penchant for annoying me that other atheist commenters here don’t. It’s probably because oftentimes, when you speak, you come across as putting down some characteristic of mine – my intelligence, responsibility, open mindedness, critical thinking skills, etc. For examples, look back at your last two posts.
      You have every right to do that. It just won’t help us get along. If some people, like me, feel slighted, they lash out and conversations don’t happen when both parties are trying to hit each other.

      How did the above paragraph make you feel? Did my use of the word ‘you’ help or hurt our correspondence?

  2. Tracy, thank you for your lesson on communication, emphasizing our intention to further conversation.

    The title of your post indicates that you are putting forth an argument that there is an organized intention (by some as yet unidentified unknown agency) to “normalize” pedophilia. You then link to a post about a Guardian article. The article explores a whole bunch of contentious issues related to pedophilia – its prevalence, its factors and causation, its diagnosis, etc.. It clearly is not any kind of official endorsement to normalize pedophilia but presents various descriptions of it by various concerned parties. Although I have absolutely no doubt that certain pedophiles greatly desire “normalizing” their sexual preferences to be akin to mutually consensual sexual relationships between adults, there is an obvious difference when such preferences cross a very strict and meaningful legal barrier concerning minors. We know there is significant harm caused by the sexual predation of minors that no liberal hand waving will remove. At issue is whether or not there is harm caused when this boundary is crossed by mutual consent. But I see no ‘conversation’ around this central issue raised (and explored with comments and professional opinions included) in the Guardian article.

    An 17 year old male was convicted of statutory rape of his 15 year girlfriend and sentenced to ten years in a Georgia court in spite of compelling evidence that the girl greatly desired and initiated the encounter after the two had been an exclusive non-sexual couple for 34 months. From a legal standpoint, this is pedophilia, and a crime with a minimum 10 year sentence. But the defense ran the argument that a crime occurs only when there is a victim. Should we dare to have a conversation about this? I think so because real lives matter, but how can we when we pollute the issue with false comparisons to the “homosexual agenda” and the false notion that any conversation automatically creates impetus to normalizing a sexual behaviour that we know can create real victims with real harm?

    When those on one side of an argument begin a conversation by misrepresenting and maligning their opponents and their motives, then perhaps you might better understand why this tactic sets the stage for confrontation rather than conversation. This is the tone YOU have set by framing the Guardian article as one attempting to “normalize” pedophilia (when it clearly does no such thing) because it doesn’t condemn it outright as you would have it do (and shut down any conversation about how important it might be to associate crime with a victim). And you offer nothing but a blanket condemnation (and a request from god to ‘help’ us when you aren’t willing to even understand what the issues are) that you also throw over the legal equality for same-sex marriage in your rush to be pious.

    So where, exactly, are there any indications from you that you are willing to have a respectful ‘conversation’ about real issues with real consequences for real people? I see none. I see you agreeing with a bigoted religious moron not because he offers any compelling evidence from reality to back up his desire to impose his religiously inspired legal discrimination on others but because you just so happen to believe that his religious belief (that you share) somehow overcomes the insidious and pernicious effects of his religious harmful beliefs simply by declarations of conspiracy and widespread harm that does not exist in reality.

    Look, Tracy, if all you want is an echo chamber of support for your posts then I will gladly leave well enough alone. If all you want is to present your beliefs and feel better for expressing yourself online, then I won’t waste my time confronting what you present by pointing out how and why they are your biases, your misunderstandings, your misrepresentations, your religiously motivated pernicious alliances that harms real people in real life. I think that when you come to realize that your support for very bad ideas are very much part of wider problem then we can begin to have real conversations about creating meaningful and lasting positive change from this deplorable state of affairs.

What did you think of my post?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s