To Trumpet: One reason is to annoy lamebrains like you.
A bit more about Democrat Party incrementalism should annoy the piss out of assholes like you:
After the U. S. Supreme Court decided to change the 6,000-year-old definition of marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, I predicted to a liberal friend that the Left’s next big push would be to normalize and ultimately legalize pedophilia. Of course, he scoffed at the notion.
In all fairness, he was right -- but just barely. The next item on the Left’s agenda, it turned out, was changing the definition of biological sex and thus normalizing gender dysphoria. But mainstreaming pedophilia was not far behind.
Actually, that has long been part of the Left’s plan to “fundamentally change” society by blowing up all its most basic and vital institutions -- in particular, the nuclear family. Strong traditional families tend to raise children with good sense who can think and do for themselves.
Such independence is antithetical to the Left’s designs. Thus, children must be alienated from their parents -- and what better way to accomplish that than by enticing them into decadent and even deviant behaviors?
Plus -- let’s be honest -- the Left is rife with out-of-the-closet, in-your-face pedophiles who embrace their own deviancy and need no reason to exploit children beyond their own twisted desires.
For example, NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, has been in existence since 1978. The group is described as “a pedophilia and pederasty advocacy organization” whose goal is “to abolish age-of-consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors.”
I’m betting there aren’t many Christian conservatives on NAMBLA’s rolls.
But surely that’s just the lunatic fringe, right? Unfortunately, pedophilia is becoming more mainstream every day, as evidenced by the public’s “ho-hum” attitude toward a former president who traveled multiple times on a private jet with a convicted pedophile well-known for “pimping out” young girls. Or toward the son of the current Oval Office occupant who, according to his sister-in-law-turned-lover, was “inappropriate” with a 14-year-old girl.
But the biggest barometer, of course, is the media, which both shapes and reflects the country’s mood. As Andrew Brietbart famously noted, “politics is downstream of culture.” That means if longstanding laws are ever to be overturned, the culture must be changed first -- which is exactly what happened with same-sex marriage. A decades-long media campaign to normalize it led first to societal acceptance and from there naturally to legalization.
So what messages now permeate our culture regarding pedophilia? Well, if we include in the definition the exploitation of children for adults’ sexual pleasure, whether direct or vicarious, then the answer is that many seem to think it’s no big deal.
Hence, the sexual indoctrination of children at school, their inclusion in Pride parades, and “drag-queen story time.” All, I believe, can be accurately described as “grooming” -- sexualizing children in an attempt to make them more susceptible to recruitment and ultimately seduction by adults.
Highlighting this disturbing yet accelerating trend are two very recent examples. The first is an op-ed in the Washington Post titled “Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my children to see it.” The author, one Lauren Rowello, tells of taking her elementary-school-age son to Philadelphia’s Pride parade. When the little boy asked why some participants were acting like animals and “playfully” hitting each other, she explained that they were just “celebrating who they are and what they like to do.”
Rowello goes on to say that exposing children to “kink” allows them to “shamelessly explore what brings joy and excitement.” And she insists that “we don’t talk to our children enough about pursuing sex to fulfill carnal needs that delight and captivate us in the moment.”
Well, no. We don’t. Because they’re children. When good parents talk to their kids about sex -- once the kids are old enough to have such conversations -- they do so in a way that is factual and straightforward and emphasizes its private, sacred nature. Teaching them about furry sadomasochism is not on the agenda.
What’s really going on in this story is grooming, making it an example of child abuse if not full-fledged pedophilia. Rowello talks about the need for children to “give… enthusiastic consent” but never mentions the age at which she believes they are capable of such consent. Do you suppose that’s an accidental omission?
Yet not only is Rowello unapologetic, she insists that all families should be encouraging their children to embrace perversion. If that’s not an attempt to mainstream her warped perspective, I don’t know what would be.
The second example, from the entertainment world, has to do with Disney/Pixar’s new film, Luca, which is about two young sea monsters who turn into little boys. In this case, the problem is not the film itself, which reportedly is quite good (I haven’t seen it), but rather the response from the Hollywood media.
Apparently, the two boys, Luca and Alberto, have a deep friendship -- but that’s all, much to the chagrin of many left-wing talking heads. In an article titled “Sorry folks, Pixar’s Luca isn’t gay,” Petrana Radulovic notes that “online commentators hoped Luca would possibly be Pixar’s first queer love story for theater.” She then goes on to lament, “but those fans will have to wait, because Luca isn’t a queer love story. In fact… Luca won’t be a love story at all.”
Gee. I’d say Luca sounds suspiciously like a film for… um… children.
Undaunted by reality, Matthew St. Clair writes that “Pixar’s Luca isn’t officially queer -- but here’s how it still is, anyway.” He then explains that “Luca and Alberto having to don human disguises to avoid persecution from the close-minded Portorosso villagers is analogous with the struggle felt by queer youths who have had to hide their identities to assimilate and avoid being othered.” And he longs for the day when Disney and Pixar “go beyond the intended subtext.”
In other words, St. Clair et al. desperately want to see a film in which children are depicted in overtly sexual situations.
You know, I think there’s a word for people who like that sort of thing.
To date, not one Democrat Party’s incremental policy was ever stopped, and certainly not stopped in the Democrat Party’s public schools taught by Communist teachers.
The question is —— How long will it be before children engaging in sex with animals becomes required curriculum?
An accompanying workshop book produced by the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF) tells Latin American mothers and teens: “Situations in which you can obtain sexual pleasure: 1. Masturbation. 2. Sexual relations with a partner — whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. 3. A sexual response that is directed toward inanimate objects, animals, minors, non-consenting persons.”
Democrats always invoke “the children” whenever they want more tax dollars to pay for every perversion.
Not a peep from then-Senator Hillary Clinton admitting that she made her gal pal, Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of UNICEF in 1995 when she was co-president.
Not a peep from then-Senator Hillary Clinton admitting that she made her gal pal, Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of UNICEF in 1995 when she was co-president.
The co-presidents prevented then-U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali from getting a second term so Clinton stooge Goofy Annan could serve two 5 year terms —— January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2006.
Everybody noted Bill Clinton’s last minute pardons for money while nobody blamed him for what the Ol’ Goofer did when he gave Carol Bellamy a second five year term in 2000.
My point: That foul UNICEF workshop book was published and distributed on Bellamy’s watch. I prefer saying published and distributed with the full approval of then-Senator Hillary Clinton in 2002.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...From-The-United-Nations&p=3241475#post3241475
p.s. Teachers will get a lot of help from Democrat judges when they begin teaching bestiality:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on November 2, 2005 that parents' fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children "does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door," and that a public school has the right to provide its students with "whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise."
Instead of using the "village" metaphor, the judges substituted a Latin phrase that has the same effect. Parens patriae (the country as parent) was a legal concept used long ago by the English monarchy, but it never caught on in the United States and the few mentions of it in U.S. cases are not relevant to this decision.
