Milo, George Takei, Child Sex Abuse Often Precedes Gay Lifestyle

'They blame themselves, and it's very, very tragic'

GREG COROMBOS

Two viral videos of famous men casually discussing being molested as teenagers this week is no aberration but rather a common experience for many engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.

And a leading expert on the issue told WND and Radio America the far left is not horrified by pedophilia but has actually worked to mainstream the sexualization of children for a long time.

Milo Yiannopoulos

The issue exploded earlier in the week when former Breitbart tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos lost a book deal and was disinvited from delivering a keynote address at the Conservative Political Action Conference after video surfaced of him refusing to name pedophiles in Hollywood while also discussing how he engaged in sexual relations with adult men – including a priest – when he was a young teenager.

Just days later, interviews by “Star Trek” actor George Takei flooded the Internet. An outspoken gay activist, Takei revealed he had his first homosexual experience with an adult at a summer camp when he was just 13 years old.

Yiannopoulos and Takei are not alone.

“It is fairly common among men who identify as gay in their adulthood. I think this is one argument for homosexuality being a product of circumstances. It’s not something you’re born with,” said Americans for Truth about Homosexuality President Peter LaBarbera.

George Takei - Star Trek's Sulu

Decades of research and confronting the LGBT agenda convince him it’s one of the driving factors in men turning to homosexual lifestyles.

“I’ve been doing this for 25 years, and I now see that I really underestimated this factor,” LaBarbera said. “I think it’s extremely high. I think it could be upward of half the men or even much higher than that.”

He said the research backs that up. LaBarbera cites a 2016 study in The New Atlantis that concludes that “compared to heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse.”

Major factor

LaBarbera said molestation was also a factor in the orientation of gay activism icon Harvey Milk, a homosexual political figure from San Francisco who was murdered in 1978. President Obama later honored Milk with a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom and named a U.S. Navy ship after him. Milk was sexually assaulted as a boy in a New York City theater after his mother sent him there alone.

“He went on to become a homosexual activist who also liked to date so-called younger men, even a teenager once,” LaBarbera said. “There was a 16- or 17-year-old boy with whom Milk had a sexual relationship when he was 33.”

LaBarbera said the premature sexualization of children can happen in many forms, including exposure to pornography at an early age.

Harvey Milk

“Something happens when you expose a child prematurely to sexuality or abuse and dysfunction,” he said. “There’s other factors, but this is clearly a major factor in male homosexuality and also among some lesbians.”

And that is why LaBarbera is horrified that the Boy Scouts of America opened its doors wide open for homosexual scouts and leaders.

“The Takei thing is fascinating because it was a camp counselor,” he said. “Here we have the Boy Scouts of America are now allowing openly homosexual – not just boys – but openly homosexual men. That means you’re going to have homosexual men taking boys on camping trips. We know from history that is not a good thing, and a lot of abuse comes out of that, including in the Boy Scouts.”

He said the impact is similar to other abusive relationships.

“It’s sort of like the girl who is a abused by a boyfriend or a relative,” LaBarbera said. “Then she seeks out other abusive men.”

Or, she reject men altogether! Would love to see a study on how many practicing lesbians were sexually assaulted before coming out.

LaBarbera said deeper research must be done into the issue, but he’s not expecting it to happen anytime soon.

“A fascinating study would just be famous homosexuals. Just take people like George Takei, who are well-known as homosexual and look at their backgrounds,” he said. “I think you would find an amazing amount of abuse, neglect, dysfunction in childhood, parent alienation.

“These things should be studied, but of course, in academia, they’re not because the rigid political correctness says you have to be pro-gay,” he said.

It’s not just academia. LaBarbera said the media also turn a blind eye even though some – like CNN anchor Don Lemon – suffered abuse as kids.

“There’s a lot of examples of this. But for the media, it’s not a politically correct topic, because when you start raising questions like this, people say, ‘Well, maybe this is a contributing factor to homosexuality,” he said.

“That’s the problem with this debate. We focus on the gay rights-civil rights aspect, which I believe is fraudulent. We don’t talk about these negative causes and factors.”

Alfred Kinsey in his monumental study in the 40's, which was reproduced in the 70's by the Kinsey Institute, made it rather obvious that most homosexuality (about 90%) can be attributed to abusive or neglectful parenting, or to introduction to gay sex by an older person (family or friend).

Effort to remove stigma

LaBarbera said Yiannoupoulos inadvertently pulled the mask off one of the dark secrets of homosexuality, and the exposure may do some good.

“I don’t think he intended to, but he has educated a lot of people about homosexual ideation,” LaBarbera said.

However, he doesn’t expect much help from the far political left in the U.S. LaBarbera said there has been a persistent effort over the years to remove the stigma from pedophilia. Figures ranging from Bill Maher to liberal academics are on the record defending it or trying to explain it.

“It is gaining traction. There is actually a movement which is redefining pedophilia as MAPS – Minor-Attracted Persons. I was reading the [American Psychological Association] manual on mental disorders. They called pedophilia an orientation,” he said.

“The idea that being attracted to children is an orientation, that is already officially out there. And that’s pretty scary,” LaBarbera said.

And he said the far left’s end game is clear.

“The radical left wants to achieve the normalization of pedophilia, defining the age of consent down and treating children as sexual objects,” he said.

But LaBarbera said there is hope for anyone engaged in a homosexual lifestyle or who is badly damaged from childhood sexual abuse.

“The good news is, people have come out of homosexuality,” he said. “My good friend, Stephen Black, was abused as a boy. But he is now ex-gay. He came out of the homosexual lifestyle. He’s married with children. The good news is, you can come out of these awful circumstances.”

See also: Ex-gay Man: ‘Homosexuality is Just Another Human Brokenness’

APA Says It's Normal for Men to be Aroused by Children

American Psychiatric Association States: It Is ‘Natural, And Normal To Be AROUSED By Children’

BY LISA MARIE for Joe for America

An academic conference said that to be interested in pedophilia is “natural and normal for males”, and that “at least a sizable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children, and normal males are aroused by children.”

The discussion took place last year during a conference. The “professionals” attended so they could discuss the classification of sexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), for most who have no idea what that is, it’s the standard international psychiatric manual used by the legal system.

The conference, titled “Classifying Sex: Debating DSM-5″, featured many speakers who were in favor of sex with children, basically, they supported pedophilia.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA), (who also put on the conference) couldn’t decide if hebephilia should be included as a disorder. Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, usually anywhere between 11 to 14-year old’s.

The proposal became a hot topic due to the fact that children are going through puberty at a younger age. The current definition of pedophilia is to have an attraction to pre-pubescent children, but these children are not pre-pubescent if they have gone through puberty.

One of the enthusiastic participants, was Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, a long-time campaigner for the legalization of sex with children, and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he stated on his blog afterward. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”

They invite criminals to have input into what goes into the DSM? That explains a lot!

The Telegraph reported:

After a fierce battle in the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produces it, a proposal to include hebephilia as a disorder in the new edition of the manual has been defeated. The proposal arose because puberty in children has started ever earlier in recent decades and as a result, it was argued, the current definition of pedophilia – pre-pubertal sexual attraction – missed out too many young people.

Ray Blanchard, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, who led the APA’s working group on the subject, said that unless another way was found of encompassing hebephilia in the new manual, that was “tantamount to stating that the APA’s official position is that the sexual preference for early pubertal children is normal”.

Prof Blanchard was in turn criticized by a speaker at the Cambridge conference, Patrick Singy, of Union College, New York, who said hebephilia would be abused as a diagnosis to detain sex offenders as “mentally ill” under US “sexually violent predator” laws even after they had completed their sentences.

But perhaps the most controversial presentation of all was by Philip Tromovitch, a professor at Doshisha University in Japan, who stated in a presentation on the “prevalence of pedophilia” that the “majority of men are probably pedophiles and hebephiles” and that “paedophilic interest is normal and natural in human males”.

O’Carroll, the former PIE leader, was thrilled and described on his blog how he joined Prof Tromovitch and a colleague for drinks after the conference. “The conversation flowed most agreeably, along with the drinks and the beautiful River Cam,” he said.

There are so many reasons that this is wrong! I get that fine, whatever, some people think it’s a mental disorder, and maybe it is, but that doesn’t mean that people should give into their terribly unnatural urges just because they have a screwed up brain!

Even if it were consensual between an old person and a young pre-teenish child, who’d already gone through puberty, it shouldn’t be legal. According to mentalhealthdaily.com Our brains do not fully develop until we are AT LEAST 20! Some speculate even 30-years-old.

“All behaviors and experiences you endure until the age of 25 have the potential to impact your developing brain.” With that in mind, tell me why these idiots think that a child with an “underdeveloped brain” as they put it, can make a life-altering decision?!

And if the child has no say, then it’s just rape, plain and simple, which should be illegal for obvious reasons. Then again, one would think that pedophilia would be illegal for obvious reasons too, but idiot liberals seem to have gotten the lines of morality very blurred on that one, so can we really expect too much from them?

Maybe we are going somewhere with this, maybe being liberal is a mental disorder? That seems more plausible.

To suggest that something is normal requires a definition of the word 'normal'. If we define normal as being common or in the majority at the moment, then it's possible that they are correct. But if we define normal as being common or in the majority over a period of decades and/or centuries, than I don't believe there is any possibility of them being correct. 

Pedophilia was never accepted except in extremely small pockets of society, throughout history. But society today is listing precariously to port and more and more so everyday. I believe we are very close to the tipping point where the ship will roll and immediately sink. 

Gay 'Conversion' Therapy Funding Targeted by NY Governor

Cuomo wants to block funding of gay "conversion therapy"

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) © Brendan McDermid / Reuters

The controversial practice of gay "conversion therapy" faces a funding ban in the US state of New York.

Shortly before receiving the "National Equality Award" at the Human Rights Campaign's (HRC) gala Saturday night, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced his plan for new laws to prohibit public and private healthcare insurers from funding the practice for anyone under the age of 18.

Ah! The power of the gay lobby! It deceives, divides and destroys; and liberal-minded people lap it right up like a dog and his vomit.

The state’s Medicaid program and mental health facilities will also be restricted from financing such programs.

Proponents of the therapy say it can reverse a person’s sexual orientation and is available in numerous states around the country with health insurers often providing funding for the treatment.

"Conversion therapy is a hateful and fundamentally flawed practice that is counter to everything this state stands for," Cuomo said in a well-timed statement released ahead of his appearance at a fundraiser for HRC, a leading LGBTI advocacy group.

Is it hateful to release an innocent man from prison? Is it hateful to pull an unconscious woman out of a fire? What is hateful is keeping a person in bondage to unnatural desires and outright lies. But it appears that NY state stands for unnatural desires and outright lies - according to Cuomo.

Groups such as the American Psychiatric Association and the New York State Academy of Pediatrics have described the therapy as "not a scientifically validated treatment".

OK, this is a pretty weak condemnation! It is not 'scientifically validated' because no-one has actually done the research to validate it, not because it cannot be validated. The APA and NYSAP are not in the habit of endorsing anything that has anything to do with Christianity. They don't recognize that God is real, so any therapy based on God must be false. However, what they significantly did not say, (at least according to this article) was that it did not work.

They did not say that it doesn't work

A representative from the Christian conservative organization Focus on the Family told ABC News that they oppose Cuomo’s laws.

Minors "should have access to professionally based, ethically directed care that assesses, clarifies and aligns with their deeply-held values, faith and life goals," Carrie Gordon Earll, the group’s vice president for public policy said.

This isn’t the first time such legislation has been tried in New York.

Two previous attempts passed the Democrat-led state assembly, but failed to get through the Republican-controlled senate.

Pedophilia or Pedophilic Disorder - Eminent Psychiatrist's Hair-brained Reasoning

What follows is an excerpt from a paper by an eminent psychiatrist who valiantly attempts to separate pedophilia from child sex abuse. Pedophiles who don't sexually abuse children, other than in their minds, do exist, but they are still pedophiles.

 Pedophilia and DSM-5: The Importance of Clearly Defining the Nature of a Pedophilic Disorder

Fred S. Berlin, MD, PhD

Dr. Berlin is Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.

Psychiatric terminology should convey information in as clear and unambiguous a manner as possible. In light of the associated stigma, that is especially so of the terms Pedophilia and Pedophilic Disorder. Although from a psychiatric perspective the term Pedophilia is intended to define a recognized clinical entity, in the collective consciousness of contemporary society, the term has become a demonizing pejorative. Good adjective - 'demonized' is a fitting description!

Many in society are likely to equate Pedophilia with child molestation. They are not the same. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) may be contributing inadvertently to the misconception that they are the same, for the following three reasons:

First, DSM-5 states that an indicator of a Pedophilic Disorder would be that an individual has “acted on” his sexual urges (Ref. 1, p 697). “Acted on” could mean that he has actually molested a child. On the other hand, it could also mean that he has masturbated to pedophilic fantasies or that he has viewed child pornography. The current criteria for diagnosing a Pedophilic Disorder place some persons who have never molested a child into the same diagnostic category as those who have done so. That could cause confusion, suggesting that the current definition of a Pedophilic Disorder may lack adequate diagnostic specificity. As a consequence, the distinction between being sexually attracted to children in some fashion (e.g., experiencing urges to view child pornography) and experiencing urges to act on that attraction with a child can easily be lost.

Second, at present, in discussing Pedophilia, DSM-5 makes reference to the term Pedophilic Sexual Orientation. Sexual Orientation is ordinarily used to designate the category, or categories, of persons whom a given individual finds to be sexually appealing. Those who are heterosexually oriented are sexually attracted to adults of the opposite sex; those who are homosexual, to adults of the same sex; men with a heterosexual pedophilic orientation, to prepubescent females; and men with a homosexual pedophilic orientation, to prepubescent boys.

In the face of significant criticism of its inclusion in the DSM-5, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated its intention to remove the term Pedophilic Sexual Orientation from the diagnostic manual. Removing that term in response to public criticism would be a mistake. Experiencing ongoing sexual attractions to prepubescent children is, in essence, a form of sexual orientation, and acknowledging that reality can help to distinguish the mental makeup that is inherent to Pedophilia, from acts of child sexual abuse.

You're saying that the mental make-up is significantly different in pedophiles who molest children from those who just watch kiddie-porn? Seriously? 

Why do some act on their pedophilia while others don't? Is it because their disorder is substantially different, or is it because some pedophiles are just too cowardly to act out? Or maybe they still have some remnant of morality telling them that molesting children is evil? 

Third, in discussing the nature of a Pedophilic Disorder, DSM-5 has done little to characterize the multitude of psychiatric burdens associated with the condition, burdens that are frequently present, even in the absence of any acts of child sexual abuse.


Viewing Child Pornography

Viewing child pornography should not be considered a useful diagnostic indicator of a Pedophilic Disorder. DSM-5 states that the “extensive use of pornography depicting prepubescent children is a useful diagnostic indicator of a Pedophilic Disorder” (Ref. 1, p 698). Any diagnosis simply constitutes a way of conveying information in shorthand. For example, when a diagnosis of Diabetes, Schizophrenia, or Anorexia Nervosa is made, that diagnosis conveys a great deal of useful information to a properly trained physician. For that reason, it is critical that the information conveyed not be misleading, particularly in a forensic setting. Under current circumstances, a diagnosis of Pedophilic Disorder can infer a risk of hands-on offending with children. If the diagnosis is made largely on the basis of the use of child pornography, the inference may be inaccurate, with potentially unwarranted negative consequences for the individual. Or, it may be accurate with almost certain devastating consequences for the children they destroy.

There are two ways of trying to determine whether those who have viewed child pornography pose a risk of hands-on offenses with children. One way is statistical, and the other clinical.

From both a clinical and an actuarial statistical perspective, an early retrospective study conducted at a Federal Civil Commitment Facility in Butner, North Carolina, inferred an association between accessing child pornography and hands-on sexual offending. That study has been criticized regarding its methodology and lack of scientific rigor.

I'm sure it's been criticized, but perhaps more for its outcome than its methodology. Here is what that study concluded:
The study found that the child-pornography offenders who were convicted of the possession, receipt, or distribution of child-sexual-abuse images but had no known criminal history of “hands-on” sexual abuse were likely to have engaged in the actual sexual abuse of a child. Thus, they were similar in their sexual behavioral patterns toward children to the second group examined, which consisted of child-pornography offenders with documented histories of “hands-on” sexual offending against at least one child.

More recent prospective data have questioned the contention that there is a correlation between accessing child pornography and hands-on offending. For example, one such study found that less than one percent of 231 men who had viewed child pornography (but with no evidence of a prior hands-on sexual offense) had gone on to commit a hands-on sexual offense. From a purely statistical standpoint (all else being equal) individuals with no history of a hands-on sexual offense against a child, but who have accessed child pornography, are at low risk as a group of committing a hands-on sexual offense in the future.

I think that 'less than 1 per cent' study should be investigated as to who sponsored it. 

From dont-offend.org Germany's program to intervene with pedophiles who have not yet sexually assaulted a child. The point of the intervention is to stop pedophilia from progressing to that level:

The therapy being offered to individuals with a pedophilic or hebephilic sexual preference, who are aware of their problem and seeking help for it, is aimed at preventing sexual offenses against children and/or early adolescents and at avoiding the consumption of child sexual abuse images. In this way the Prevention Network “Kein Täter Werden” (Meaning: Don’t offend)” actively contributes to the protection of children and early adolescents by addressing the problem before children become victims, thus preventing repeated abuse and counteracting their ongoing traumatization.

The distinction between those pedophiles who use child pornography and those physically abuse children is largely ludicrous. It's as if Dr. Berlin doesn't know that child pornography is made by the sexual abuse of children. Or, is he so patient-focused that victims don't really count for much in his economy? More from dont-offend.org:

The use of child sexual abuse images (so-called child pornography) provides an opportunity to satisfy sexual needs without having direct physical contact with children. However, there is often no awareness of the inherent problem that the production of child sexual abuse images relies on the sexual abuse of the depicted individuals. Being aware of this, some consumers of child sexual abuse images feel bad about their behavior.

A pedophile is a pedophile is a pedophile! Some act-out, some don't. That's all the categorization you need! 

No-one in the scientific fields has any real idea where pedophilia comes from. They pose theories involving 'cross-wired brains', environmental issues while growing up, and having been a victim of csa oneself. The last category of offenders have very high rates of becoming pedophiles. That would suggest that something is passed on to victims from offenders. When you figure that out, you might finally get somewhere, but you will never figure that out because you don't believe in the existence of evil as an entity.

I believe pedophilia is much less about sexual attraction than the destruction of innocence. 

Prepubescent children have an obvious innocence about them, an innocence that is destroyed by sexual abuse. That is where pedophilia comes from.

How Long Before Pedophilia is Protected by the Supreme Court?

In a post from this morning I suggested that marriage between a pedophile and a 3 year old may be sanctified by the Supreme Court within 20 years. In fact, it may happen with alarming speed thanks to the 'gay marriage' ruling.

That was FAST: Yesterday it was gay marriage; Now look who wants “equal rights”
Written by Ashley Edwardson

I am not adding much commentary to this, because I really think little is necessary. I am busy trying to find a hand hold on our slippery slope, because I fear my nation is falling into an abyss.

I, on the other hand, could not restrain myself from adding some commentary - Gary

Excerpted from the Northern Colorado Gazette:

Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits.

“Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.

B4U-Act calls pedophiles “minor-attracted people.” The organization’s website states its purpose is to, “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear.”

In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”

That is absolute crap! The negative effects of pedophilia on children have always been and are still dramatically understated. The above statement should disqualify the APA from expressing any meaningful opinion with regard to children and sexuality.

Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

How insane the world has become! Congress voted to recognize pedophilia as a 'sexual orientation' in order not to offend anyone, no matter how perverse their desires. In doing so, they are sacrificing our children on the altar of political correctness. How utterly evil and disgraceful!

The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another – whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.”

It's also about whether we value political correctness above our children. I don't think God will be kind to those who do.

Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense 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.”

He went on to say, “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 may, however, remain abstinent.”

When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, “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.”

This insinuates that homosexuals do not change their sexual orientation, either. That 'great' sex researcher with pedophilic tendencies, Alfred Kinsey, would be astonished at such a statement. He believed there was great fluidity in sexuality.

Many a gay person has been 'delivered' from his preference for gay sex - testimonies can easily be found on the internet. Deliverance means you are set free from something; something oppressive, something demonic! Many sexually abused children have grown up to be child sex abusers themselves. The passing forward of pedophilia is an indication that there is 'something' far beyond what psychologists understand, or are willing to talk about, going on.

Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

At least, none that you are willing to admit. see above comment.

In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”

Of course, psychologists don't believe that demons are real, consequently they can never really address the root of the problem, and therefore cannot 'fix' it.

Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for pedophiles to have equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT groups continue to assert themselves. “It’s all part of a plan to introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages; to convince them that normal friendship is actually a sexual attraction.”

Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”

This is the most astonishing statement of lunacy in this article rife with lunacy. Where do you think child pornography comes from, Mr Diamond? Child pornography cannot exist without child sex abuse! There is no protection for children in this insane attitude. Is Mr Diamond willing to accept a world where the sexual abuse of children is necessary, even 'a good thing'? 

Diamond is a distinguished lecturer for the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The IASHS openly advocated for the repeal of the Revolutionary war ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of “basic sexual rights” that includes “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.”

So then necrophilia and bestiality are 'basic sexual rights' in their eyes. None of the above restraints apply to dead bodies, or dogs.

Another right is to, “be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior” and “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The organization also says that no one should be “disadvantaged because of age.”

[Note: the website also says in its mission statement: The Institute is dedicated to the belief that sexual rights are basic human rights and it is appropriate to help students understand that many people have been hurt, falsely imprisoned, harassed and persecuted because of laws and misinformation about the role and place of sexuality and its many expressions by individuals in our society.

I'm sure the above statement is true in part; 'falsely accused' may not be accurate though, and 'misinformation' may also be inaccurate. Perhaps the misinformation and falsehoods are peculiar to the IASHS.

Sex offender laws protecting children have been challenged in several states including California, Georgia and Iowa. Sex offenders claim the laws prohibiting them from living near schools or parks are unfair because it penalizes them for life.

Now here’s the scary part: This article from the Greeley Gazette was originally published in 2011. But now, there’s actually a constitutional argument that can be made in its favor. The ruling on same sex marriage has many unintended consequences.

Please pray for our nation.