Come To Christ
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Apr 2002
Posts: 34
|
 Posted: Wed May 22, 2002 5:28 pm Post subject: Apologists for Pedophilia and Popery |
 |
|
John Leo wrote the definitive essay on Apologists for pedophilia. The subject of Seventh-day Adventist love of popery is being taken up in the thread, CATHOLIC ADVENTISTS.
Since apologists for pedophilia and popery are united in giving me a hard time at my forum and at VOAF, a Seventh-day Adventist bulletin board, I thought I would combine their two issues into one hellish battle between Satan’s army and my lonesome self.
| siagian wrote: | eugene, how many times do i have to repeat myself? that article i posted was in NO WAY pro-pedophilia. it was an objective, non-judgemental look at a book by judith levine.
and like i said before, the public outcry against that book is an indirect attack on the freedom of speech. we all know that when freedom of speech goes...it will have a domino-effect on the other civil liberties.
my intention was to direct the attention of fellow believers to the fact that the beginning of the end is near. and up till now, you have yet to answer me. |
You say “The public outcry against that book is an indirect attack on the freedom of speech.” Is that being objective and non-judgmental? I challenged you to post your favorable book review of this perversion at VOAF and you refused. Let’s take a look at Judith Levine’s book and our differences of opinion.
The book title is “Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex.” Eugene Shubert called you an agent of Satan for exalting the article, the author and the book. He said that those who exalt such degenerate material belong in the bottomless pit. [1]
Here is a respectable book review (by comparison). “Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex” opposes what author Judith Levine calls “the ideology that it’s always harmful for kids to have sexual relationships with adults.”
YOU THOUGHT I WAS KIDDING? [Jonah Goldberg]
In yesterday’s column I wrote that sexual leftists were already committed to demystifying child sexuality. Lo and behold this morning’s Washington Post has an article on Judith Levine who believes that the age of consent for minors should be dropped to 12, that the right-wing is hysterical about pedophilia, and that children have the “right” to sexual gratification. From the Post:
“Sex is not ipso facto harmful to minors,” Levine writes, “and America’s drive to protect kids from sex is protecting them from nothing. Adults owe children not only protection and a schooling in safety but also the entitlement to pleasure.”
That is, the adults who teach the sex education courses Levine likes, but not necessarily parents, who don’t count for much.
“Laudable protective parental instincts notwithstanding, an intimate consensual sexual relationship, including one between minors, is private business,” she states.
| Quote: | By Laura Sessions Stepp
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 11, 2002; Page C01
Once again: a provocative new book about child-raising that seems to be written for everyone except ordinary people who are actually raising children.
"Will the real sex educators please stand up? Mom and Dad aren't talking," writes New York feminist Judith Levine in her new book: "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex."
She attacks right-wing anxiety over pedophilia, pornography and child molestation -- anxiety that is unwarranted by the facts, she says.
She denounces mainstream authorities for spreading hysteria by focusing on disease and pregnancy rather than children's rights to sexual pleasure and privacy.
She recommends looking at Dutch law, which allows children ages 12 to 16 to have sex with an adult if the young person is willing.
"Sex is not ipso facto harmful to minors," Levine writes, "and America's drive to protect kids from sex is protecting them from nothing. Adults owe children not only protection and a schooling in safety but also the entitlement to pleasure."
That is, the adults who teach the sex education courses Levine likes, but not necessarily parents, who don't count for much.
"Laudable protective parental instincts notwithstanding, an intimate consensual sexual relationship, including one between minors, is private business," she states. |
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Login
