Hear the audio version here (segments older than 3 weeks may be unavailable)

A few decades ago, under heavy pressure from the guerilla tactics of homosexual activists, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from their official chronicle of mental illness known as the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).  They did so not based on empirical data or scientific evidence, but rather on the basis of the emotion of a political movement that was becoming increasingly vocal.

The argument went this way: because we homosexuals feel that this is natural behavior for us, because we feel we were born this way, to categorize who we are as akin to a mental illness is unfairly discriminatory and subjects us to disgrace.

Of course, the reality was that "who they were" was not being characterized that way, but rather "what they felt motivated and tempted to do" was being characterized that way.  Big difference.  And the moment the APA gave in to their demands, they opened up the floodgates to similar claims by people engaging in all sorts of other behaviors previously considered deviant.  The strategy for these other groups was clear: claim you were born with natural urges towards whatever vice you participate in, and then claim that to categorize you as "mentally ill" on that basis is hurtful and bigoted.

And guess what's in the news now?  The Daily Caller reports:

If a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have their way at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association's bible of mental illnesses ? the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), set to undergo a significant revision by 2013.  Critics warn that their success could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia.

 

The August 17 Baltimore conference is sponsored by B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophile mental health professionals and sympathetic activists.  According to the conference brochure, the event will examine "ways in which minor-attracted persons [pedophiles] can be involved in the DSM 5 revision process" and how the popular perceptions of pedophiles can be reframed to encourage tolerance.

Notice that we even have a euphemistic name-change to accompany the demands of these pedophiles.  They are no longer child molesters, they are minor-attracted persons.  LGBTs, meet MAPs.  And it's pretty clear the MAPs have learned how to decriminalize their deviant sexual behavior from their trailblazing brethren, the LGBTs:

B4U-ACT has been active attacking the APA's definition of pedophilia in the run up to the conference, denouncing its description of "minor-attracted persons" as "inaccurate" and "misleading" because the current DSM links pedophilia with criminality.

 

"It is based on data from prison studies, which completely ignore the existence of those who are law-abiding," said Howard Kline, science director of B4U-ACT, in a July 25, 2011 press release. "The proposed new diagnostic criteria specify ages and frequencies with no scientific basis whatsoever."

 

The press release announced a letter the group sent to the APA criticizing its approach, and inviting its leaders to participate in the August 17 conference. "The DSM should meet a higher standard than that," Kline continued. "We can help them, because we are the people they are writing about."

In a sick way, it is oddly humorous how anyone can attempt to deny the reality that there is a larger movement towards sexual anarchy that these various groups each play their own part in.  As one gets normalized and decriminalized, the next group follows the exact same path, enacts the exact same strategy, uses the exact same legal arguments, and eventually - no matter how deviant the behavior was once viewed - achieves the exact same results.

For years now I (and many others like me) have been criticized for pointing out that the day is coming when pedophilia will be decriminalized or at least, the laws which forbid it will be "revisited and tweaked" to be less discriminatory.  And we have pointed out that the logic they will follow to achieve this wicked end will be the very same logic our culture has accepted for every previous movement like homosexuality and transgenderism and polygamy.  And, here we are...notice the language and the tactics:

Several speakers at the August 17 conference, including B4U-ACT director of operations Dr. Richard Kramer and conference keynote speaker Dr. Fred Berlin, of the Johns Hopkins University, have actively opposed sex offender notification laws.

 

 

"What purpose does calling someone a ?pervert' or ?predator' serve anyway, other than to express contempt and hatred?" Kramer wrote in a March 14, 2009 blog entry on the website ReformSexOffenderLaws.org. "How is this productive? It certainly doesn't protect children. I would urge all SO [sex offender] activists to listen to their own message: Stop buying into and promoting false stereotypes. Stop demonizing a whole class of people, and start learning the facts."

 

Berlin has similarly compared society's reaction to pedophilia to that of homosexuality prior to the landmark 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision that decriminalized sodomy.

 

B4U-ACT's own website puts Berlin's views front and center. "Just as has been the case historically with homosexuality," he writes, "society is currently addressing the matter of pedophilia with a balance that is far more heavily weighted on the side of criminal justice solutions than on the side of mental health solutions."

As I've said repeatedly: when you tear down your moral barriers for sexual conduct in the name of tolerance, you simply can't throw them back into the ground to stop the next group of folks who base their arguments on the exact same logic you've already accepted for the previous group.

If "discriminating against people" who are attracted to the same-sex is improper, "discriminating against people" who are attracted to minors must be as well.  Or, we could always come to our senses and realize that discrimination against certain kinds of behavior is not immoral or wrong, it's necessary for a free society to survive.