A California Congresswoman, Rep. Jackie Speier CA (D), wants to federalize a state law to prohibit counseling to change a person’s sexual orientation. Though this may not alarm many folks, the bill classifies pedophilia as a sexual orientation. According to the bill's language, a mental health counselor could be sanctioned if there was an attempt to get a pedophile or gay individual to change his behavior or speak negatively about their behavior as it relates to sexuality. The bill wants states to prohibit efforts to change a minor’s sexual orientation, even if the minor requests it, saying that doing so is “dangerous and harmful.” The text of the bill doesn’t specifically ban “gay” conversion therapy but instead prohibits attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation. “Sexual orientation change efforts’ means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation,” the legislation says. When Republicans tried to add an amendment specifying that, “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation” the Democrats defeated the amendment. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law, and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality. Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, said, “This language is so broad and vague, it arguably could include all forms of sexual orientation, including pedophilia. It’s not just the orientation that is protected—the conduct associated with the orientation is protected as well.”
The major concern here, is, are legislators opening up the proverbial "can of worms?" If pedophilia becomes classified as a sexual orientation, then discrimination laws will apply to pedophiles. That means you will not be able to block a pedophile from working in any capacity that might be considered high-risk. Recently, a United States District Court Judge, William Shubb, sided with Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) by granting their plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against the legislation, which is known as California SB 1172. “Because the court finds that SB 1172 is subject to strict scrutiny and is unlikely to satisfy this standard, the court finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims based on violations of their rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment,” wrote Judge Shubb. “This victory sends a clear signal to all those who feel they can stifle religious freedom, free speech, and the rights of parents without being contested,” said PJI President, Brad Dacus. “We at PJI are ready to fight this battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. “This will be a long, grueling battle with tremendous consequences for generations to come. We are grateful to those who are willing to support us in this critical time to preserve our freedoms and protect our children,” he continued.
SB 1172 establishes a dangerous precedent for normalizing the behavior of pedophiles while stripping parents of their rights and peace of mind. However, you can be certain that this is only the beginning. The legislation was been blocked but it will return. Why? It has to do with the history of the Gay Liberation movement itself, as well as the history of Western civilization.
To begin with, "What do homosexual’s themselves have to say about bisexuality or pedophilia?" "Do they view it as a preference or orientation similar to their own?" Conversely, what do the bisexuals and pedophiles say about their orientation and that of the homosexuals’? Many bisexuals dichotomously have created opposition between themselves, and what they call, monosexuals, meaning the exclusively homosexual or heterosexual individuals. Homosexuals, on the other hand, essentially refuse to believe bisexuality is possible, considering it as a step along the road to homosexual exclusivity. For many homosexuals, bisexuality devalues their sexuality, suggesting it is a question of choice rather than orientation. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the Gay Liberation movement, homosexuals and bisexuals have been allies in struggle. But increasing tensions between the groups lead bisexuals in the mid-1970’s to form their own organizations. The schism between the two communities increased around 1985 when many people began to vilified bisexuals as the “conduits” for AIDS from the homosexual to the heterosexual community.
John Money, a leading sexologist felt that humanity was on a path towards bisexuality. But more importantly he also felt that both sexual researchers and the public do not make distinctions between affectional pedophilia and sadistic pedophilia. Money believed that affectional pedophilia was about love and not sex. He argued that if a boy aged ten or eleven is intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, and the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then it is not pathological. He viewed affectional paedophilia, like sexuality of any kind, not as a behavioral disorder, but an example of a societal and therefore, a superficial, ideological concept.
Attacking and discrediting the contemporary Gay Liberation movement’s emphasis on the biological basis of homosexuality in the United States is gay activist and pedophile David Thorstad, who believes the movement retreated from its vision of sexual liberation, in favor of integration and assimilation into existing sociopolitical structures. As a result of this retreat, Thorstad believes the movement has increasingly marginalize even demonize pederasty or cross-generational love. Some middle-class homosexuals, lesbians, and feminists, say it has nothing to do with gay liberation and other go as far as to claim it is a heterosexual phenomenon, or worse “sexual abuse.” According to Thorstad: