Republican Paul Stam came under fire recently for his comments on the House floor concerning sexual orientation. In a presentation, he mentioned at least thirty different sexual orientations (including more common orientations like homo- and heterosexuality, but also comprising obscure sexual practices like coprophilia and asphyxophilia).
Many commentators have noted that most of the practices Stam included in his list could not be defined as “sexual orientations,” but were more specific classes of sexual activities within a particular sexual orientation. The Huffington Post, reliably, inserted its two cents:
The list he handed out came from a version of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders that was published in 2000. At the time, the APA didn’t even list these 30 categories as sexual orientations, but instead classified them as disorders. . . .
“Pedophilia is not a sexuality, and we cannot continue in this body to keep calling things something [they’re] not. It’s offensive to a whole group of people,” [Democrat Representative Marcus] Brandon [the only openly homosexual member of congress] said. “It is a disease and a problem that has to be addressed outside of this body.”
That’s interesting, isn’t it? Homosexuals discriminate against pedophiles. They have convinced the APA to define homosexuality as a healthy sexual orientation, but it was hardly forty years ago that homosexuality was itself labeled a “disease”—a disorder—by that same psychiatric institution. It wasn’t until 1973, that the APA decided to remove homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). In the first of those manuals, printed in 1952, homosexuality was listed as a sociopathic behavior.
How things change. Now the APA lists bestiality and pedophilia in the DSM, with almost all homosexuals heartily approving that negative designation. But why should we define sexual orientation as only having to do with gender? What about species or age? Why should these be outside the definition of sexual orientation? There really is no reason why not. Some people prefer their own gender. Some people prefer animals. Some prefer children.
And before you begin saying that I’m exaggerating, consider the fact that the groundwork toward normalized pedophilia is already well underway. Many psychologists and experts are already fighting to lift the stigma on what they’re calling the “cross-generational lifestyle”:
Paedophiles may be wired differently. This is radical stuff. But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia “is a sexual orientation” and therefore “unlikely to change”.
Homosexuals can’t have it both ways. Either pedophiles have equal protection under the law, or homosexuals don’t. They don’t like this obviously. It casts their behavior in a very ugly light. But if the shoe fits…