Pedophilia: A Problem?

A couple of months back, I offered the salient—if not particularly profound—prediction that polygamy would eventually become legal as well as acceptable to the consciences of a majority of Americans:

The acceptability of polygamy is all well and good of course, as what one does in one’s room should be personal business. But only to a point. It is good to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical and it is imperative that the rights of the majority do not trample on that of the minority. Yet if the majority cannot enact laws based on a shared morality, this republic of ours has exposed itself as a fraud.

It would be good for the people to think long and hard about the purpose of marriage and the role of government therein, before the right to marriage is even more of a sham than our supposed democracy.

I took a bit of criticism for my application of the slippery slope. Deemed a logical fallacy, it is often insensibly ignored in discussions among seemingly rational people. For though not every slope is slippery, such things do exist. If a president wished to extirpate the liberty of the people in his attempts at achieving complete control, he would be extraordinarily foolish to suddenly suspend all civil liberties for an indefinite amount of time. If, on the other hand, he was less of a fool, he might "temporarily" limit liberties, removing the object to his desire through a slow and methodical process until his subjects should discover that the slope to despotism was slippery indeed.

This does not mean that the acceptance of gay marriage will necessitate a slide into moral anarchy, at least in regards to sexual indiscretions. Yet without the sudden manifestation and widespread adoption of a comprehensive doctrine on human sexuality, there is nothing to stop society from descending into utter turmoil. Having declared as normal something deemed an abomination by Judeo-Christian society, it is preposterous to believe that the rest of the doctrine will be honored. If Jews and Christians are wrong about homosexuals, there may be no end to the things of which they are ill-informed.

The sexual revolution was a reaction, but like all too many reactions, it was so obsessed with the wrong that it was reacting against, it didn't pause to consider that it would soon too produce a tremendous wrong. To the Netherlands we must go to see further evidence of this revolution, and the amusing situation that has even some of the revolutionaries wondering if things haven't gone too far.

Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals, sparking widespread outrage.

...

"A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper.

...

"We want to get into parliament so we have a voice. Other politicians only talk about us in a negative sense, as if we were criminals," Van den Berg told Reuters.

One cannot help but feel a smidgen of pity for the poor revolutionaries. They were told that any number of mad creatures would jump aboard their bandwagon as soon as it had gained momentum, and, wonder of wonders, thus it has come to pass.

I am not so foolish or uncharitable as to suggest that there is no reasonable defense against pedophilia which nonetheless allows for gay marriage. Yet those who have signed onto the revolution have not often, for all their passion, demonstrated a propensity to think rationally, as evidenced, most obviously, by their surprise that some might suggest polygamy, pedophilia, or bestiality. Since I have a sanguine faith in the mind of modern man, I have no doubt they'll figure something out.

On a personal note, I have no problem at all with the Pedophile Party. Oh, I realize that it is morally repugnant to allow children to be abused, but I've been warned against legislating morality. What happens between two people is their own business. Children, or teenagers anyway—again I am told—are going to have sex anyway. Am I to be so intolerant as to limit the age of their respective partners?

In the City of God, laws would be superfluous, but until Christ establishes his reign or men and women let him live ever in their hearts, no law, nor any amount of laws, however well intended, will cause man to live according to the Higher Law of the triune God. The battle is, and will always be, a cultural one. We cannot look to the government to protect our children from pederasts; we must do that on our own. We cannot look to the government to legislate according to the Higher Law; in due time, men's hearts turn away from God, and erect laws which conform to stubborn pride. Such things only distract from that which matters, and as we squabble over just how many lunar cycles is proper for fornication, the intrusion of government into the whole affair causes it to grow in scope and invasiveness.

There is no reason to involve the heads of state in something so sacred as sex, and when even conservatives Christians turn to government and not to God to save us, quite literally, from sin, one cannot help but feel we are dire need of Him.