Not too long ago, a [1] hate crimes bill passed the House of Representatives and went to the Senate, promised a signature by president Obama and lauded by Democrats as a huge step forward in civil rights (1).  The only problem?  If passed in the Senate, since it grants protection to sexual orientation, there is a chance it will also eventually grant pedophiles (and chicken lovers, and necrophiliacs) federally protected status from hate crimes.

What is a hate crime?

We should probably get our facts straight before anyone gets their pitchforks and starts a lynch mob, so here’s what we’re looking at: a hate crime can consist of many different actions against a protected class, and these actions range from murder to intimidation.  Yes, that’s right: intimidation.  Actually, the FBI keeps statistics on hate crimes, and it turns out that over 40% of all hate crimes [2] consist of intimidation alone (2).

So why does sexual orientation deserve protection?  Well, liberals would have you believe that Matthew Shephards are being murdered every second by hillbillies, but this isn’t anything near close to the truth.  [3] The FBI actually let us know that only 15.6 percent of all hate crimes occur as a result of sexual orientation (love crimes occur to everyone else, and are less offensive to liberals)(2).

That didn’t stop liberals from being Chicken Little, however.  In order to make hate crimes against sexual perversions a federally prosecutable offense, they [4] actually made it an “interstate commerce” issue, arguing that straights could chase gays across state lines and disrupt commerce, which is just about the stupidest idea I’ve ever read about (3, see sections 6A and 6B).  They then claimed that this 15.6% of all hate crimes (of which 40% or more were likely to be intimidation offenses) presented a dangerous national emergency that had to be dealt with in order to keep the republic together.

What is sexual orientation?

Even more stupid and bizarre than the arguments about interstate commerce are the implications brought about by a broadly defined “sexual orientation.”  To get started, the American Psychological Association defines “paraphilias” (also known as “sexual orientations”) to mean about 547 different perversions, ranging from an attraction to corpses to child-molestation, and even sexual acts that involve an unwilling, unknown partner (read some of them [5] here [4]).  And if you think that men being attracted to men is a sexual orientation but that being attracted to chickens or corpses or children isn’t, you’re very confused: it’s the direction your sexual desire points that gives you your orientation, and legitimizing more than one sexual orientation categorizes the others equally . After all, if homosexuality isn’t a disorder, what makes any attraction a psychological disorder, anyway?  If having a desire for sex that cannot facilitate childbearing is already considered legitimate, then you’re simply attracted to whatever you’re attracted to, coming from a consistent standpoint on biological order and disorder.

Furthermore, the reader must remember that homosexuality [6] has only been removed from the list of other paraphilias recently, leading us to wonder when the whims of our increasingly Godless population will sway next (5).  It was only fifty years ago, remember, that having sex out of wedlock was considered shameful. Currently, without an objective moral standard, the only thing keeping us from legalizing pedophilia is majority opposition to it, something a media-circus with another [7] civil-rights fraud case could achieve as in the past (6).

Isn’t anyone doing anything about this?

For those of you discounting the intentions of our congress, representative King (R) has introduced legislation ([8] on video) to expressly exclude only pedophiles from the list of protected sexual orientations, but he was rejected overwhelmingly–[9] on another video–by his Democratic congressmen, generally because they said the term “sexual orientation” was already understood to mean only homosexuals(7)(8).  Although it is absolutely true that laws regarding sexual orientation have already been passed without any sort of argument about the term, when our congressmen were given a clearly defined reason to include a clause that impacted nothing other than the chance that child-molesters could someday be included within the boundaries of hate-crime protection, Democrats voted no.

But that didn’t stop Democratic representative Alcee Hastings from honestly stating on the floor that “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.”  If you don’t believe that, watch [10] the video (9).

This means that anyone who wants to stick their wee-wee into anything other than their willing wife should be eligible for federal protection from the people who don’t like perverts and sexual assailants.  And why?  Because to the gay-rights crowd and their supporters, freedom is being able to have sex with a pig or run up to an unknown woman and rub your willie on her behind ([11] see the list!) and not have your neighbors get retaliate (4).  No wonder we’re worried about the swine flu.  Ultimately, regardless of what people say or don’t say, a repeated refusal to declare what the bill doesn’t protect is leaving the door wide open for an easily won discussion about why pedophilia is a sexual orientation.  And with our national non-logic thus far, why wouldn’t it be?

What does this imply?

Furthermore, with child predators one court case away from being included in the range of paraphilias and thus a “legitimate” sexual orientation, this means that our legislators would rather protect the child-molester than the guy who wants to protect his boy from the offender.  Under this new hate crime abomination, if you were to say something like “stay away from my boy or I’ll kill you” or “if I see you in this neighborhood again, you’re dead” to a convicted homosexual kiddy-fiddler, you could go to prison for committing a hate crime if any lawyer–not just a crafty and particularly evil one–were involved.  And if I threaten a straight, married guy on the street with murder just because I feel like it, I will do less jail time than if I threaten a pedophile for being a pedophile.

Call me old fashioned, but not threatening one of these “free-spirited and liberty-enhanced” characters in order to protect your child should immediately result in your children being taken away from you.  A person who molests an eight-year-old girl or boy doesn’t have a place on this planet, let alone your neighborhood.  They are simply too dangerous.  And if a parent who allows pedophiles to commingle dangerously with their children should have their parental rights removed, then what’s to be done with a congressman who wants to give protection to a child rapist?

And now on to the really embarrassing stuff

A lot of people forget to mention that this bill passed the House of Representatives, meaning that it survived in the section of congress most likely to represent popular opinions and the voters of America.  This means that–like David Cross would have said if he hadn’t been such a liberal– it’s not that Americans are promoters and partakers of child-molestation and other “exotic” perversions.  Just the people they elect into office to represent them. 

In order to end this abomination, we need to get to the root.  Back in the 60’s when the whole sexual liberation movement was raging and people decided that Christianity wasn’t a valid basis for our society, preachers were telling people that we’d be “liberating” homosexuals next, and then after that we’d be “liberating” pedophiles.  And people laughed at them.  But when you break a sexual barrier (or any vice barrier), human tendency is to lead further down the road to depravity, which is why we need an objective standard with an incredibly high bar: because once you take that first step, you begin to legitimize the others.  All it takes is some time, “reason,” and desensitization–and look.  Here we are.  As such, homosexuality may be the vehicle to protect pedophiles, but it is not the only gateway into pedophilia.  The gateway was an unwillingness to acknowledge the original sexual perversion of lust, as well as the sanctity of chastity both imagined and expressed.

Let’s call perversions what they are, people.  Lusting is wrong.  Promiscuity is wrong.  Adultery is wrong.  Divorce is wrong.  Homosexual relationships are a perversion.  Having sex with animals is a perversion.  Having sex with children is a perversion worthy of death.  These are all perversions.  We just let the bar slip so we feel like we’re in charge of our lives, and now we’re on the road to protecting pedophiles.  Funny how this “liberation” thing works.  

And understand one thing, the high standard (God’s standard) is incredibly high, and we will not be able to hold to it perfectly until the day we die.  But damn us if our lack of fortitude leads us to abandon that standard for what it is.  And remember, as George Will would say about standards: of course they feel like they’re going out of style.  That’s why they’re standards: particularly because people want to break them, and breaking them is dangerous.  Never lower your standards to keep with the times.

Unless you want to end up protecting pedophiles, of course.

1) The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

http://gaylife.about.com/od/hatecrimes/p/matthewshepard.htm

2) FBI: what a hate crime is, and stats

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html

3)  The bill in full glory, as passed to the Senate

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s909/text

4) Some bizarre sexual orientations

http://www.afa.net/sexualorientationshr1913.asp

5) Homosexuality removed from list of sexual disorders

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/2/210

6) The Matthew Shephard fraud

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=277685&page=1

7) Representative King introduces amendment to exclude pedophilia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbkaEyAHsak

8) Dems vote no on amendment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V3F80r3h7Y

9) Representative Hastings says bill will protect pedos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv-5AdqYrkk

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=520544

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLDWI0-Y0Fk