Tuesday, July 16, 2019

Apparently most "LGBT folks are on board with pedophillia"

Matthew Hanley
Matthew Hanley is irrational, unbalanced in his extreme anti-LGBT bigotry.
Photo via CatholicThing
One Matthew Hanley has penned LGBT is swiftly being normalized. Pedophilia is next. At another site, the accusation is more direct; titled Adding P to LGBT. Hanley is just one more demented schmuck claiming that LGBT people pose a peril to children. According to the Catholic faith, one should not engage in gay sex. Adherents have some choices to make.

The faith does not require smearing LGBT people as pedophiles. I know at least one priest who would say that such behavior is discouraged, even sinful. That makes Matthew Hanley a bigoted fool. Does Mr. Hanley have underage fantasies? Does Hanley have repressed gay fantasies? Those questions are perfectly reasonable and appropriate. Homophobia, for example, is bigotry based on one's own sexual insecurities.

Much to their credit, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued very strong statements opposing Trump's border policies. If Mr. Hanley is so concerned about the welfare of children, why is he not writing about “kids in cages?”

LifeSiteNews is already on a trajectory to be designated a hate group at the end of 2019. Providing an outlet for the mad ravings of Matthew Hanley is not going to help their cause. They had the common sense to water down Hanley's title but the text is the same.
Lest there be any doubt about Hanley's intent:
Targeting children comes in two general phases. The first involves bombarding them with LGBT messaging in schools. Or now, on public television (PBS) cartoons in which an 8-year-old Aardvark named Arthur and his peers are portrayed as pleased that his male teacher is "marrying" another male.
Mr. Hanley lacks the introspection and critical thinking skills to appreciate that children are not being “targeted” sexually as he claims. In contrast, the objective is to teach children to be kind to people who are different. That would not be necessary were it not for jerks like Mr. Hanley. As I suspect he knows perfectly well, gay people do exist. They even get married and raise children. A grade school child might very well have a peer whose parents are a gay couple. Would Hanley prefer that the child being raised by gay people be ridiculed or bullied by classmates?

Hanley voices the requisite outrage over Drag Queen Story Hour which is staggeringly stupid. Many parents see the benefits of that program for their children. The kids gain an interest in reading and they learn a thing or two about diversity. Hanley is asserting that his judgment is superior to that of those parents. He wants to prevent others from participating in a program that he disapproves of. He hasn't that right.
If you still have some doubt, there is “grooming:”
Appeals to "tolerance" show their true colors when they are enlisted to support the blatant grooming of children — grooming being a term we used to be happily unacquainted with in this abusive context. Such grooming also presents some commonality with certain elements in Islam; I refer to authorities in the UK willfully ignoring the systematic rape of local girls by Muslim "grooming" gangs for decades.

In short, a great many people in positions of authority are so keen on protecting both Islam and homosexuality that even the grotesque abuse of youngsters must be swept under the rug.
Note the appeal to anti-Muslim bigotry. Mr. Hanley is saying that we are turning children gay so that we can prey upon them — just like Muslims do. There is no other interpretation. Hanley fails to define “the grotesque abuse of youngsters.” What are we, or anyone else, doing that goes beyond teaching kids to be kind to people who are different?
All of us are not pedophiles. Just most:
Sure, one could say that not all LGBT folks are on board with pedophilia. But a larger point is in play: when the goal is rationalizing LGBT behavior, the very innocence of children must be targeted. Concepts of normality, morality, and virtue must be radically inverted because they stand as a rebuke to the depravity we must now esteem with "pride" — or else!
Or else what? Matthew Hanley has no problem at all expressing irrational, untethered bigotry. I would add that many — if not most — LGBTQ people are far more moral than he presumes to be. Fundamentalist Catholicism does not make its adherents moral or immoral. It makes them pious. More than anything else, morality is determined by how we treat others.

If this is Hanley's best then he is immoral. Virtuous? Claiming that LGBT people are “depraved” child molesters is not a display of virtue.
If you STILL have doubts:
The second phase involves attempts to accommodate or actually espouse pedophilia. This can take the form of classifying it as a clinical condition, which amounts to a plea for exculpation; after all, no blame is attached to the person who comes down with Parkinson's or pneumonia. But it can also be couched in terms of advancing "rights," breaking down barriers, and allowing "love" to win out.
And this all has something to do with gay people? You will recall that Hanley wrote: “The first involves bombarding [children] with LGBT messaging in schools.” Who the fuck is involved in “attempts to accommodate or actually espouse pedophilia?” Pedophilia is unacceptable and illegal because minors cannot provide legal consent. It's just that simple. No one — no one — is interested in advancing the rights of, breaking down barriers for, or allowing the activities of pedophiles.
Oh goodie — Let's compare gay people to pedophiles some more:
Indeed, influential medical bodies seem to be biding their time to classify pedophilia not as a disease but as just another sexual orientation. One that is unchangeable, you understand — because according to current dogma, anything that goes against human nature and common decency is unchangeable.
Name one! Name one medical association ready to classify pedophilia as a sexual orientation. And suppose one did? The fact that pedophilia seems to be immutable does not mean that pedophiles deserve legal protection (which is the intended inference). No one thinks that they do warrant any form of legal protection.

In the above quoted paragraph, Hanley links to an idiotic post by the very moronic Stella Morabito referring to pedophile activists. Who and where are these supposed activists?
Apparently there is a pedophile agenda endorsed by the LGBTQ community:
This would essentially amount to adding a P to LGBT. Another P, I should specify; not Pansexual, which is already included in the ever expanding LGBTQIAP+ acronym. (Look it up — and ask: what does the "+" exclude?) We all know what that would mean: "hate" would be the only thing standing in the way of legitimizing pedophilia.

So which is it: a disease one haplessly contracts, or a legitimate orientation that is unjustly oppressed? Who cares; doesn't matter; whatever "argument" will do. Innocence will be targeted.
The obvious problem is that “this” does not exist except in Hanley's diminished intellect as means of denigrating LGBTQ people. Exactly why he wants to slander and smear LGBTQ people is unknown. Doing so is not an article of faith.

Matthew Hanley's personality disorder is a problem; one that he should work through. Calling gay people pedophiles is only going to marginalize him. Then, of course, he will claim that he has been victimized by the Homosexual Agenda™. I am not being sarcastic. Hanley's misadventure is sick. I am no shrink but he seems to be mentally ill.

Pedophiles do exist. The vast majority are men who prey on young girls. Gay people are not predisposed to be pedophiles. Just ask the FBI. Carole Jenny's study proving that fact was published 25 years ago.
A plea to authority:
Benedict XVI recently asserted that, "Part of the physiognomy of the Revolution of '68 was that pedophilia was then also diagnosed as allowed and appropriate." He sheds a bright light on the disturbing developments during this past half-century.
Ratzinger says many crazy things and he does so without offering evidence. Ratzinger is not a social scientist nor even a theoretician. He is a catechist and theologian (and he misuses the word physiognomy). What he is trying to do is to blame the abusive priest scandals on other people. 1968 Hippies? Vietnam resisters? How does this even relate to the rest of Hanley's diatribe?
While he is at it, a false equation while relishing victimhood:
Apparently the task for those in the driver's seat of our post-decency culture is to strike the right balance: condemn Christianity for its views on sexuality, and also for the violation against those norms by its pastors, while promoting such transgressions in the wider world — in just the right doses as the timing of our ongoing collapse permits.
I will speak for myself. I do not condemn Christian views on sexuality. My condemnation is generally limited to three things:
  1. I will condemn the words and actions of others who use their religious beliefs to marginalize, denigrate, smear and discredit sexual minorities.
  2. I will condemn individuals who would posit that sexual orientation and gender identity are choices. They do so in defiance of the overwhelming consensus of science. People who try to conform evidence-based science to faith-based dogma — by any means — are worthy of at least ridicule.
  3. I will condemn efforts to impose religious beliefs on public policy. We are a society with vast differences in religious belief. People who are wed to the notion that their beliefs deserve to be the law of the land are arrogant.
So, if you don't call me a pervert or pedophile and if you do not assert that I choose, or chose, to be gay and if you do not attempt to incorporate scripture into law you will probably be free of my condemnation. Furthermore, Hanley is juxtaposing criticism that does not exist against the non-existent promotion of sexuality. Both sides of his equation are faulty.

No one, for example, promotes homosexuality (this claim reminds me of Anita Bryant as well as the Briggs Initiative [California proposition 6]). Some people happen to be gay or transgender. That is fact supported by medical science. What I will promote is the idea that LGBTQ people deserve equal protection and due process. In my opinion that includes the enactment of the Equality Act to protect us from discrimination in housing employment and public accommodations.
We are “dangerous people” (emphasis added):
We are not just dealing with a simple or abstract disagreement here. We are dealing with dangerous people and disastrous ideas. Perhaps the ever more brazen attempts to target children will lead people to see how one transgression logically leads to the next, and reject the sexual revolution outright.
Matthew Hanley has aggregated perils that do not exist. He has a very vivid imagination and a need to construct events which, by their very nature, promote Church dogma. His biggest problem is that he believes his own bullshit and that is not an abstraction. As I stated, without my usual sarcasm, Mr. Hanley has a serious personality disorder. Tilting at windmills is not going to improve his mental hygiene. He requires some professional help.

In spite of his irrationality he has an audience and that makes him dangerous; someone with disastrous ideas.

Related content:



No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.