A month ago I posted a commentary in support for the decision of the city of Moscow to ban so-called “gay pride” parades. Just as I expected, the post resulted in somewhat of a firestorm of outraged reactions from those who believe that homosexuality is, to quote Wikipedia, a “normal and positive variation” of human sexuality. They were particularly outraged at the fact that I stated that homosexuality was just one form among many other of what is known is paraphilia which also includes such “orientations” as pedophilia, sadism, masochism, sexual fetishism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, necrophilia, nymphomania, etc. (source). In fact, there is even an increasing body of scientific evidence that pedophilia is not a choice, but a condition, that pedophiles where “born that way” to use one of the favorite slogans of the homo-lobby. But unlike homosexuals, pedophiles are still offered cognitive, behavioral and pharmacological therapies no, not to cure them – they are considered “incurable” – but to help them with their “symptoms”…
“Gay” pride in action
When I pointed out that while homosexuals were asking to be treated like a persecuted minority deserving of some special protections, pedophiles were severely persecuted and prosecuted (just think of the public “sexual predators” databases which list the home address, photo and contact information of any person condemned for, among other crimes, possessing photos of nude children or having sex with an under-age partner) the defenders of homosexuality pointed out that homosexuality is different from pedophilia because it involves two consenting adults whereas sex with underage children implies violence, whether direct or statutory.
What the homo-fanboys missed is that they were comparing apples and oranges.
From a legal point of view homosexuality and pedophilia are, indeed, totally different for the above mentioned reasons. However, from a psychological point of view, they are not. Let me clarify: nobody will ever send a person to jail for having pedophile inclinations, only for acting on them. Somebody who is sexually attracted to children is considered as having a sexual disorder (i.e. sick) and only considered a criminal if he/she acts on this psychopathology. But if we take this legal/psychopathological distinction to the issue of homosexuality we can just as easily accept the possibility that homosexuality is a psychopathology, a sexual disorder just like pedophilia, and that the only difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is that the latter is considered criminal by society if acted upon.
But are there any experts making the case that pedophilia is, to use this wonderful expression of Wikipedia, just a “normal and positive variation” of human sexuality? Turns out that yes, there are.
I just came across this rather amazing article, which I want to share with you. I have bolded out the parts which appear most interesting to me.
Pedophilia a ‘sexual orientation’ experts tell Parliament (Canada)
OTTAWA, Ontario, February 28, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a recent parliamentary session on a bill relating to sexual offenses against children, psychology experts claimed that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation” comparable to homosexuality or heterosexuality, a definition that was questioned by one Member of Parliament who was present.
Bill C-54, an Act to Amend the Criminal Code, seeks to increase or impose mandatory minimum penalties or punishment on sexual offenders of children for particular crimes.
Parliamentary discussion on February 14 centered on the mandatory minimum imprisonment and how offenders respond to treatment. Dr. Vernon Quinsey and Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem, experts on the issue, were called to witness.
“When we speak of therapy or when individuals get therapy and we feel as though everyone is pacified, the good news is often illusory,” said Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal.
“Pedophiles 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,” emphasized Van Gijseghem.
“True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation.” He added, however: “He may however remain abstinent.”
MP Serge Ménard later praised the witnesses. “Mr. Van Gijseghem and Mr. Quinsey,” said Ménard, “corrected some of our impressions.”
However, MP Marc Lemay of the Bloc Quebecois challenged Van Gijseghem’s definition. “I have to admit that I was not expecting, on this Valentine’s Day, to be talking about this inappropriate type of love. It is not really love. It has more to do with violence and control. I am concerned, Professor Van Gijseghem … because you say, if I am not mistaken, that pedophilia is a sexual orientation.”
“That is what I said,” continued Van Gijseghem.
Lemay pursued the point, asking if it therefore should “be compared to homosexuality.”
“Yes, or heterosexuality,” responded Van Gijseghem. “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”
During his witness, Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University, said that pedophiles’ “sexual interests” “prefer prepubescent children.” “There is no evidence,” he said, “that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”
“You can manage the risk that sex offenders present – even pedophiles,” added Quinsey, “It’s not necessarily that they need to change their sexual orientation; they need to learn to control themselves, with our help.” “In my opinion, society and no one around this table will accept pedophilia, even if it is a sexual orientation,” said Lemay, “I recall a period, not too long ago, when homosexuality was treated as an illness. It is now accepted, society has accepted it … I cannot imagine pedophilia being accepted in 2011. You are telling me that even if we were to impose a five-year minimum on people it would not solve the problem. Once they get out of jail, they reoffend. That is worrisome.”
One columnist in the Toronto Sun, Brian Lilley, expressed shock at Van Gijseghem’s testimony: “what really shocked me was the Universite de Montreal professor, Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem, who showed up to tell MPs pedophilia was a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality or homosexuality.” He argued that “it’s time to take our country back by ignoring the ‘experts.’”
Speaking of pedophilia and its acceptance, did you know that Frédéric Mitterrand, former French Minister of Culture and Communication and nephew of the late President of France François Mitterrand, wrote a book called “The Bad Life” in which he openly admitted using boys in Thai brothels? Here is the relevant Wikipedia section on this book:
Mitterrand – Homo/Hebe/Pedo?
Mitterrand’s autobiographical novel The Bad Life (French: La mauvaise vie) was a best seller in 2005. In the book he details his “delight” whilst visiting the male brothels of Bangkok, and writes, “I got into the habit of paying for boys … The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire I no longer needed to restrain or hide.” At the time of its release Mitterrand was applauded for his honesty, but he has had to defend his writings after he publicly defended Roman Polanski when Polanski was detained in Switzerland on an American request for extradition for having sex with a thirteen year old girl. On 5 October 2009, Marine Le Pen of the French National Front Party quoted sections of the book on French television, accusing him of having sex with underage boys and engaging in “sex tourism”, demanding that Mitterrand resign his position as culture minister. Amongst others he was also criticised by the Socialist Party spokesman Benoît Hamon, who stated: “As a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking.” On the other hand, some conservatives supported Mitterrand, and a close aide to Nicolas Sarkozy said the French President backed his Culture Minister, describing the controversy around him as “pathetic.” Mitterrand also insists the book isn’t an autobiography, the publisher describes it as a “novel inspired by autobiography” and the BBC refers to it as “autobiographical novel”. In his own defence Mitterrand stated, “Each time I was with people who were my age, or who were five years younger – there wasn’t the slightest ambiguity – and who were consenting,” and that he uses the term “boys” loosely, both in his life and in the book. He also declared, “I condemn sexual tourism, which is a disgrace. I condemn paedophilia, which I have never in any way participated in.”
Now, notice something very interesting here. France has had many homosexual politicians and members of government, but Mitterrand was the first one to openly display his homosexuality. And what happens to him? Soon his “homo only” image gets marred by allegations of pedophilia, and then made even worse by Mitterrand’s defense of another pervert, rapist cum pedophile Roman Polanski. Needless to say, nobody took Mitterrand’s denials seriously, even if only a few dared to openly challenge it openly.
For decades now, homosexuals have vehemently denied any link between homosexuality and pedophilia/hebephilia, and yet before the homo-lobby got its way and found an army of experts to agree with such nonsense, a short look into the concept of pederasty clearly showed that there is a strong link between the two. Heck, there is even an organization openly advocating, quote, “for the end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships“. How do they propose to do that? By
building understanding and support for such relationships;
educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements;
supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.
Also, make sure to check out their latest bulletin: not only will it tell you everything you need to know about this “persecuted sexual minority”, but it will even show you how they too compare their “persecutors” with Nazis. Priceless…
I am quite sure that Frederic Mitterand would feel right at home in this crowd…
I could go on for hours and hours giving examples not only illustrating the fact that there is no real inherent difference between the homosexual and pedophile psychopathologies, but also showing that these two are closely linked by the “pederasty” category.
And yet, Western society actively promotes one form of paraphilia (homosexuality) and harshly persecutes another one (pedophilia). This makes absolutely no logical sense at all, and just goes to show how confused and, frankly, degenerate this society has become. It reminds me of the Biblical city of Nineve, “in which dwell more than twelve myriads of human beings, who do not know their right hand or their left hand” (Jonas 4:11). It is ironic that this society seem to suffer from what I would call a spiritual form of AIDS, an acquired deficiency of its “spiritual immune system” to differentiate between right and wrong, healthy and sick, fertile and sterile. This is a phase which many degenerating societies seemed to have reached before their inevitable collapse.
This is all rather pathetic, in particular coming of a society which fancies itself as some kind of leader of the rest of humanity and which has the arrogance of delivering yearly “human right” reports to the rest of the planet while killings its unborn children by the millions or giving up its kids to “same sex couples”.
Although all that is only a logical outcome of declaring any form of psychopathology a “normal and positive variation”, is it not? And here, the blame cannot be put solely upon those who suffer from these pathologies. The main culprits of this pathetic state of affairs are all those who fully know, feel and understand that homosexuality is no more “positive” or “normal” than any other form of paraphilia but who lack the basic courage and decency to speak up. Why are they afraid? Because the homo-lobby is very aggressive, very well organized and even violent. This lobby has learned all the tricks of the Zionist lobby, but it is using them in a much more brazen and arrogant manner.
For example, in France the French comic humorist Dieudonne has declared that poking fun at homosexuals might be even a bigger “crime” than making fun of Jewish organizations. In Russia the famous Russian sexologist Dilia Enikeeva became the object of a massive campaign of death threats against her and her family after she wrote her book “Gays and Lesbians” which enraged the “gay community”. Again, the examples are all out there, but the corporate media is simply ignoring all the evidence proving that the so called “gays” are, in reality, a nasty and powerful lobby who will not hesitate to hunt down anybody who dares to object to its propaganda and myths.
One last example? Sure. Recently, a Russian “feminist puck group” delicately called “Pussy Riot” has organized a “punk-prayers” asking the Virgin Mary to get rid of Putin. So far so go, except for these ladies organized their “punk-prayer” in front of the altar doors of the biggest Orthodox Church in Moscow, the Cathedral of the Christ Savior. Here is a video of the “performance” of these ladies:
Predictably, they were eventually kicked out of the church building and eventually had to leave. What is more interesting, however, is that the authorities decided to prosecute them for “Hooliganism committed for motives of politics, ideology, race, national or religious hatred or religious hatred or hostility towards anybody for motives of hatred or hostility for any social group“. It seems that the Russian authorities did detect a hate motive in this action and decided to treat this as a hate crime. Well, guess what? Amnesty International decided to declare that Pussy Riot were, I am not kidding you, “prisoners of conscience”. They particularly objected to the fact that these ladies were held in preventive custody and that they risked a jail term. It seems that the “artists” of Pussy Riot did not anticipate that the Russian state would actually dare to defend the rights and freedoms of the simple Orthodox people whose beliefs and holy shrines they wanted to mock with impunity. They clearly miscalculated.
How is all this linked to the topic of homosexuality? Simple: not only are Pussy Riot at the forefront of the “struggle for gay rights” in Russia, but the homo-lobby has immediately used all its power in Russia and abroad to lionize “Pussy Riot” as the most heroic defender of sexual rights and persecuted “prisoners of conscience”. Something tells me that if some Neo-Nazi punk rock group (of which there are, alas, plenty in Russia) will organized a spontaneous “prayer-concert” in, say, the Grand Choral Synagogue, which is the largest synagogue in Russia, Amnesty International and its homo-lobby allies will not protest nearly as loudly, but that kind of double-standards and hypocrisy is not anything new, not for Amnesty International nor for the homo-lobby.
Nikolai Alekseev, the main organizer of the Russian “gray-pride” parade has recently declared on a Russian TV talkshow “I don’t give a shit about the opinion of 99% of Moscovites”. Pussy Riot and the rest of these “gay rights” “activists” are simply putting in action this wholly intolerant and overly aggressive mindset: better support us or else….
So let’s sum it up. “Gay rights” are neither about gaiety, nor about rights. This is the organized political expression of a group of psychologically sick people who are seeking to impose their sexual dysfunctions and pathology as a norm on the rest of society and which do so with the utmost regression and intolerance. History shows than these groups only prevailed in degenerating societies and that when they did achieve their objectives, the society which they submitted to their agenda rapidly collapsed.
A personal note in conclusion: this blog is mostly about ethics, politics and the quest for truth in all matters. I have no personal axe to grind with those whom I call the “sads”. I am blissfully married for 18 years now, have three kids, and I am not really interested in dwelling in topics of sexual psychopathology. But I am observing how the issue of “gay rights” is becoming instrumentalized by the West in its current campaign to destabilize or, at least, discredit Russia and, I would add here, Iran. By turning “gays” some kind of kind of persecuted prisoners of conscience, the West is simply using another tool amongst many others to try to eliminate any regime which would dare to oppose its rule over the rest of the planet. The fact that they will fail, both Russia and Iran have a strong social consensus on this topic, is no reason not to denounce the substance and form of this type of campaigns. This is why I will conclude by repeating what I said in my first piece:
“Let the Western homosexuals do whatever the hell they want in their own countries – that is the West’s problem – but don’t let them engage in cultural imperialism and demand that the rest of the planet submit to their completely subjective and illogical system of double-standards.”
The Essential Saker IV: Messianic Narcissism's Agony by a Thousand Cuts
Ancient Greece is the foundation of Western civilisation and they didn’t have any problems with homosexuality. Interestingly in ancient Athens you could have sex with a boy a woman or a slave but they strongly disapproved of adult male citizens having sex with other adult male citizens. They regarded the sexual relationship as fundamentally one of inequality not one between equals.
Although the Greeks were tolerant of homosexuality they didn’t confuse it with marriage. The idea of gay marriage would have seemed absurd
@Robert: Ancient Greece is the foundation of Western civilisation
Actually, I vehemently disagree with that statement which is a western foundational myth and a complete fallacy. The Western Civilization takes its real roots in the Kingdom of the Franks. Yes, Rome had its roots in the Greek civilization, but the Franks never became Romans, they only INVADED Rome and USURPED the name “Roman”. If any civilization can claim to have its roots in ancient Greece it would be the Roman one, followed by Byzantium (which really was Rome even after the Western part of the Roman Empire feel in 476 and which continued the Roman civilization for a FULL MILLENIUM until 1453) followed, to a lesser degree, by pre-Revolutionary Russia until the rule of Peter I (who ruled from 1682 to 1725) and even less after that until the Masonic revolution of February 1917. Since 1917 no current civilization has its origins in ancient Greece.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU2ln0UBYHM&feature=relmfu … further to Saker’s point on the Franks …
@anonymous & everybody else:
The video anonymous mentions begins here:
The text discussed in the video can be found here:
also, this one can be helpful:
I don’t care about homosexuality, in the strictest sense of the expression “don’t care”, to the point that I’ve never formed an opinion regarding it. What annoys me is “gender identity politics”, which see gender as “socially constructions”, which is nothing but an absurd denial of the clearest fact that gender are mostly biological. All kinds of relativism, be it moral or epistemological, have always annoyed me a lot.
Anyway, leaving aside the secondary matter of wheter the Western civilization descends from the Greeks or the Franks, the central issue posted by Robert (ancient Greeks and their attitude towards homosexuality) was not addressed.
Didn’t Alexander the Great have a 15 year old lover?
15 Famous Men Who Had Boy Lovers
@Carlo:the secondary matter of wheter the Western civilization descends from the Greeks or the Franks
Oh but I assure you that far from being secondary, this is an absolutely crucial, essential and defining issue which really predetermines not only the kind of propaganda we are fed by our elites, but which actually defines the type of society we live in. From the various ideologies born in Europe (Feudalism, Absolutism, Imperialism, Masonry, Communism, National Socialism, Capitalism, etc.) to the way we commoditize and monetize our planet, to the way we view violence as a proof of legitimacy, if not superiority, and so many other things – all of them take their roots at the cultural, psychological and spiritual core of the Frankish Empire. Compared to that, the topics of a rather small percentage of sexually dysfunctional activists is really trivial.
the central issue posted by Robert (ancient Greeks and their attitude towards homosexuality) was not addressed.
Well, Jack has now taken care of this oversight :-)
And if somebody else wants to comment on homosexuality in ancient Greece – please feel free!
Shame it isn’t genetic otherwise these unfortunates could be cured of their dysfunction.
On some level it seems like gays are a Trojan horse for the power elites, much like the Jews, hired mercenaries for shadowy powers.
@Johnycomelately:Shame it isn’t genetic otherwise these unfortunates could be cured of their dysfunction
Genetic diseases are not that easy to cure at all. Besides, homosexuality is probably the result of several factors with complex interactions. See for ex:
or any other article from this page:
more about NARTH here:
One more thing: I know nothing about NARTH, do not endorse them or the results of their research. I am only mentioning them here as a source of alternative information.
MMorris Herman has also identified the promotion of ‘gay rights’ along with the promotion multiculturalism, globalization, unrestrained demography changing immigration, and imperial conquest as key parts of Jewish agenda. If you look up some of his earlier videos. He has talked at length about this topic.
I suppose how one sees homosexuality and pedophilia depends on whether one emphasises biology or adult-consent.
Many say two men having sex is more acceptable than a man having sex with a 12 year old girl because of “consent”, while others say that the latter is more acceptable because it is biologically more sound.
Both are “unusual” behaviors, but still universally-found.
Well, as the subject was brought, and if anyone is interested, here is what I think of it:
1- as you noticed, Saker, law and moral are two completely different things. Pedophily is and must remain illegal, while homosexuality isn’t and shouldn’t be. Pedophily necessarily presupposes powere and oppresion of one side over the other, while relations between two consenting adults don’t. This contradicts your support of the Russian government to ban “gay pride parades”: homosexuality may be immoral, but it can’t be banned by law. But it is undeniable, as you noticed, that homosexual activists are being used, whether voluntarily or not, to discredit countries as Russia or Iran.
2- I am still waiting to see a good moral argument against homosexuality. The most common one, that it is “unnatural”, is a very flawed one, as examples from history, anthropology and biology show that it is widespread. Of course, the fact that it is natural doesn’t make it good. But a better argument must be found.
I am not supporting homosexuality, and much less homosexual activism. I still don’t have a formed opinion on this subject. But I am really convinced that comparing homosexuality with pedophily or zoophily (I’ve once heard a Catholic activist here in Argentina using this argument, when same sex unions were approved: “Now what, they will allow the marriage of men and dogs?”) is senseless, as claiming that homosexuality is “unnatural”.
@Carlo:Pedophily is and must remain illegal, while homosexuality isn’t and shouldn’t be. Pedophily necessarily presupposes powere and oppresion of one side over the other, while relations between two consenting adults don’t. This contradicts your support of the Russian government to ban “gay pride parades”: homosexuality may be immoral, but it can’t be banned by law.
Ok. Homosexuality and pedophilia should be considered from three different angles: moral, medical and legal. On morality, I simply take exactly the stance which the Orthodox Church has had for 2000 years: they are a sin, which means ‘missing of the target”, a failure to achieve the full potential of one’s nature. From a medical point of view I don’t think that science has a clear understanding about either one of these, but I don’t need science to tell me that an effeminate “man” is beyond any doubt (in my mind) a pathology, a disorder. From a legal point of view, I seems to me that homosexuality as such (the sexual dysfunction AND the behavior) should not be banned between two consenting adults, but the ADVOCACY of this behavior can, and should, be banned, just like some countries ban the advertisement of tobacco or alcohol in commercials. I would separate the crimes of pedophilia and hebephilia, both of which should, in my opinion, by illegal, but with pedophilia being by far the worst of the two (it is one thing to have sex with a 15 year old and another to have sex with a 5 year old).
I am still waiting to see a good moral argument against homosexuality
Issues of right and wrong cannot be decided on pragmatic grounds, this is why atheists and agnostics are so clueless. Morality must, by necessity, by “anchored” in some absolute, otherwise it is both nonsensical and hypocritical. Of course, moral categories often transpose into sound social policies, i.e., theft is morally wrong and socially disruptive, but one does not prove the other. There are only two logical approaches to sexual norms: either one simply accepts the teachings of religion X, Y or Z, or one has to conclude that what happens between two consenting adults is, by definition, their sole private business which others cannot place a value judgment upon. To repeat – moral arguments are not pragmatic, they are sui generis and they cannot be adopted or rejected on pragmatic reasons.
But I am really convinced that comparing homosexuality with pedophily or zoophily
How are they different? and why *not* marry a man and a dog anyway if they both are happy together?
claiming that homosexuality is “unnatural”.
Is cancer natural? How about senile dementia? “Natural” means very little when considering either a sin or a pathology (depending on your point of view) as both can be considered “natural” or “un-natural” depending on your definition of “natural”. What is certain is that homosexuality is sterile and a deficiency in manly characteristics in a man or female characteristics in a woman.
Frankly, there comes a point when all these fine discussion and hair-splitting can become an impediment to instinctual and yet quite healthy reaction. I think that most man and probably most women deep inside themselves immediately feel that homosexuality is a pathology. But I also know that *no* amount of words will make somebody who really does not feel this suddenly feel it.
In Britain the Thatcher government passe a law, Section 28 that forbade the promoting of homosexuality in schools. This was repealed by the Blair government.
As far as the West is concerned the campaign for gay equality has been won. Although there is resistance from the older generation gay rights is orthodoxy on campus and in the younger generation.
Russia is not the West however. Not yet. I suspect Pussy Riot is twenty years too early.
The picture showing the women who approved of their little boys sex change boiled my blood. They are abusing him by sanctioning his confusion. He is nothing more than a pawn in a game of evil. He is not old enough and has not experienced enough life to make such determinations. It’s the same reason I’m against piercing babies ears or circumcising children no matter the gender; they should be of age to figure out if they wish to modify their bodies or not! And of age is like a legal adult!
Carlo wanted an arguement against homosexuality…well I won’t speak of homosexuality per se but receptive anal sex which both males and females can practice. Bend over Boyfriend with Carol Queen comes to mind. Look the stats show that such behavior increases the risk of colon cancer and other bowel disorders. Some people male or female if they are really into it may have to wear a tampon down there and or get surgeries. There is also the issue of giardiasis and other nasties from fecal to mouth contact because no matter how clean you keep it down there it is truly never clean enough. I think when people read the Bible and they use the passages in Leviticus to clobber homosexuals, they don’t seem to get that a woman can do that to a man (good vibrations anyone?) and that the behavior is still proscribed for health reasons I believe.
As to the substance of this post…yes I railed on this move and could see it coming some years ago when I took a human sexuality course at SF State University. The teacher was Ann Auleb and she had us read the Rand study as if it was gospel. I complained because I felt that it tacitly supported pedophilia and pederasty and that no amount of political correctness could change the wrongness of those things. But the TA’s told me that my concerns were invalid and that the initial encounter with a child and his or her molester may ‘not necessarily cause physical harm to the child’. I wondered why they kept emphasizing that point until I read that awful article by Rind et al to see where they were going and how they would soon move to reclassify the behavior and here we are…I won’t link to that abomination of Rind et all but you can wiki it under rind et al childhood sexual abuse…
no what the so called elites say the issue remains that all paraphilias are sexual disorders because if you say that in homosexuality people consent it doesnt change from being a sexual disorder and infact we see some people being forced!!!this thing is finding schizophrenic patients having sex…they are both sick and so it doesnt mean that they fine mentally because theyve consented!!!!!!these homos need serious treatment and psychotherapy….
OK, now I understand your opinion better. I agree that Pussy Riot was very disrespectful and I think they are a West’s tool to destabilize Russia. I also agree that Amnesty is often very hypocritical. By the way, Brazilian left loves them, not only because of LGBT promotion, but also because of their continuous denunciation of police violence in Brazil. I forgot to say in the first post, but I fully agree with your last argument, what the West is doing is cultural imperialism. It’s even more hypocritical because they don’t care about gay rights in Saudi Arabia or Qatar. But, anyway, this is not West’s business.
I very much agree with Carlo on this. As for a moral argument against homosexuality, it’s clear for me. All the big monotheistic religions condemn it. Sure there are minor religions which don’t. Anyway, I can clearly see it’s morally wrong. But as I’m not religious, my moral is not anchored in an absolute, but rather in “socially disruptive”, as you said.
I just lack a strictly rational, logical explanation, not based on a religion doctrine, as I defend a laic State, of why homosexuality is wrong and heterosexuality is the correct. And, as such, can not be promoted/celebrated/exposed/considered normal. For me, it would be a reason if it is proven bad for the functioning of the society, but by studies and not suppositions. I think the “deep inside themselves immediately feel that homosexuality is a pathology” is not sufficient. I don’t have such a strong feeling, but I feel it is not how it’s supposed to be, an heterosexual relation feels more natural to me.
“For decades now, homosexuals have vehemently denied any link between homosexuality and pedophilia/hebephilia, and yet before the homo-lobby got its way and found an army of experts to agree with such nonsense, a short look into the concept of pederasty clearly showed that there is a strong link between the two. Heck, there is even an organization openly advocating, quote, “for the end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual ”
You conflate attraction based on gender with attraction based on age: http://homoresponse.blogspot.com/2011/05/countering-heterosexist-arguments.html#11
“True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation.” He added, however: “He may however remain abstinent.””
And off course all this discussion is on the matter of treatment.