Pedophilia as a Birthright

It is argued that because many homosexuals are born with same-sex attraction, the homosexual lifestyle is therefore acceptable. This argumentation is now being applied to other orientations, namely pedophilia.

An article written by Gawker West Coast editor Cord Jefferson argues that we need to regard pedophiles in a more compassionate way if they are born that way:

• But there is a growing number of researchers, many of them out of Canada, whose work suggests that pedophilia is an illness deserving of the public's sympathy the way any brain disorder is. Some of the scientists say pedophilia is a sexual orientation, meaning that it's unchangeable, regardless of how much jail time or beatings or therapy someone is dealt. Others have reason to believe that pedophiles are born that way, and that some of them will suffer through entire lives without hurting a single child. If this research proves to be correct, it should help shape both our public policy and our public attitude,

There is no plausible evidence that homosexuals or pedophiles are born as such. However, even if they are, “should [this] help shape both our public policy and our public attitude?” Should what is genetically innate determine what is morally acceptable? I’m sure that the wife-batterer or any assaulter can just as easily make the claim that he is born that way. Closer to home, the adulterer can also claim the same and that one woman can’t satisfy him. Should this make adultery right?

Well, if pedophilia should no longer be a crime, what should remain a crime? Besides, are we now to be considered “hate-mongers” if we don’t agree with wife-beating or child-abusing? Jefferson seems to want pedophilia decriminalized:

• Currently, there is no significant longitudinal evidence that pedophiles can be made to not be attracted to children, and thus it can be defined as their orientation. And if pedophilia is a sexual orientation, that also means it's futile to send pedophiles to prison in an effort to alter their attractions.

Jefferson confuses orientation with behavior. Pedophiles aren’t sent to jail because of the orientation but because of their behavior. We all have criminal “orientations” – whether it’s an orientation towards lying, stealing, or seeking revenge.  However, our orientations shouldn’t excuse our crimes.

If Jefferson simply wants us to be more compassionate towards the pedophile, his goal is commendable. However, this compassion should extend to all law-breakers, not just pedophiles. Also, it should take the form of tough love and not an indulgent “love” that encourages the law-breaker to continue in criminality, causing his own self-destruction and the ruin of others.

Sadly, Jefferson doesn’t distinguish between love as indulgence and enablement and a love that seeks the ultimate good for the other. He therefore assumes that Jesus would simply indulge the pedophile:

• One imagines that if Jesus ever came to Earth, he'd embrace the poor, the blind, the lepers, and, yes, the pedophiles.

For one thing, Jefferson is committing category confusion. He wrongly associates “the poor, the blind, the lepers” with another category of people who are committing immoral acts – pedophiles! Secondly, he is distorting Jesus’ life and message.

Indeed, Jesus had compassion on all sorts of people, even an adulterous woman. However, He warned her, "Go and sin no more" (John 8:11), precisely the thing that Jefferson is unwilling to tell the pedophile.

Jesus received sinners, but He warned them all against their sinful, unrepentant behavior.

• Unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:3-5)

Jesus never gave anyone license to continue in sin. Such license wouldn’t be compassionate but a glossy invitation to death and destruction.

This is the invitation that Jefferson and others are circulating, saying, in essence, “Since your desires are innate, well, have at it!”