What Else Will They Declare A "Sexual Orientation"?

First they claim that those experiencing unnatural attraction to their own gender can't change that (in spite of many evidences to the contrary) and declare this perversion "a sexual orientation" that ought to be accommodated at all costs. Then, the same accommodation was extended to those who believe that surgery and hormone therapy could turn a man into a woman and the other way around.

Just recently, the three opposition parties (along with a few social perverts in the Conservative ranks) joined forces to legislate similar protections for those who merely think they are "trapped in the body of the wrong sex", so if the Senate caves in - there will be no legal grounds left to keep a male pervert wearing a dress out of the ladies' room. But that apparently is not enough. Now, we have a retired professor declaring pedophilia a "sexual orientation" in his speech to the House Justice Committee and arguing (using false analogies) that it should be viewed the same way as the normal man-woman relationships.

Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ): ... I am concerned, Professor Van Gijseghem—and I know you well as I have heard you testify on a number of other subjects—because you say, if I am not mistaken, that pedophilia is a sexual orientation.

Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem: That is what I said.

Mr. Marc Lemay: Should it therefore be compared to homosexuality?

Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem: Yes, or heterosexuality. 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.

(Source)

It's not the first time sexual deviants and their supporters use this "imagine if the world was gay" analogy. Without mentioning that even if such a world could ever materialize - it just wouldn't last. But Van Gijseghem's "spherical gay society in a vacuum" analogy, which he uses to prove not so much that pedophiles can't change, but that they shouldn't even be compelled to, poses a serious challenge to his opponent, Marc Lemay.

As a Block MP, Mr. Lemay must adhere to his party's anti-family ideology; he begins his response by distancing himself from those who consider homosexuality to be an illness, by reaffirming that it's now accepted, accepted, accepted... But when it comes to accepting pedophilia as a "sexual orientation", he just... just can't... can't imagine... What's that, comrade Lemay? Do I sense some of what your fellow "progressives" call intolerance and bigotry? Haven't received enough doublethink training on this particular subject? You better shape up unless you want to end up just like Bev Desjarlais or Louise Thibault.

I predict they will accept pedophilia. Maybe not now. But give it twenty years. There's a reason nobody in the artistic world gives a damn about Roman Polanski's crime against a 13-year-old. That kind of laissez-faire morality is chic. Getting a moral high horse about anything sexual would ruin their self-image.

More >>>

Don't be surprised if they start telling us that calling them "pedophiles" is diminutive and we should use something like "ageism-free" or "age-diversed" or any other politically correct term that would portray child molesters as poor misunderstood victims of the society's prejudices.