In Pursuit of Innocence
Innocence attracts both good and evil.
Tim Curry's masterful performance as the Lord of Darkness in Ridley Scott's 1985 fantasy classic Legend is a must-see. Curry had always been a great actor but he did this one wearing 80 pounds of makeup and prostheses.
I don't recall anyone else's performance in that movie as well as I did his because of a single line.
In the movie, the Lord of Darkness, simply called "Darkness," seeks to kill a mated brace of unicorns who guard the Power of Light. Doing so will bring about an eternal night upon the Earth thus allowing the demon to escape his imprisonment in his underground lair.
When Darkness instructs his hench-goblin in catching the unicorn, the very embodiment of goodness, the demon reminds him that there is only one lure "for such disgusting goodness…one bait which never fails…"
As the goblins appear in the forest, the human Princess Lily (Mia Sara), a mischievous young lady who resides in the same forest as the unicorns, unintentionally helps the goblins to kill one of them by distracting it as she admired them.
At the sight of Lily, Darkness desires her but not out of love, as demons cannot love. Instead, he is drawn to her innocence, hoping to corrupt it.
It was truly a frightening scene, both dramatically and spiritually. It put innocence into its proper perspective as a virtue that draws both good and evil to it. Divinity seeks it out as a place in which to dwell while foulness seeks its utter destruction as it cannot bear anything that reflects such inherent goodness―that is, the spark of Divinity which resides in it.
Peter Tatchell, a British homosexual activist, has been campaigning to lower the age of sexual consent to 14 years of age — for no other reason than that underage sex is "mostly consenting, safe and fun." As it is, adults can't be trusted to use condoms correctly. If they could, one wonders why the abortion and "accidental" birth rate is as high as it is. It's odd that Tatchell presumes that kids would somehow make more intelligent and wiser decisions than adults who refuse to take responsibility for their behavior presuming that their actions, in fact, have zero consequences.
If an impregnated child decides to keep her child, how will she and her boyfriend support the child? The boy-father, a child himself, can't legally work and therefore cannot come to the aid of his child and its mother. Can she emotionally survive becoming a mother when she herself is still a child? If an impregnated child decides to abort her child, will she be able to emotionally survive the abortion? Even if there was zero chance of pregnancy, children aren't emotionally prepared to have sex—that's why intelligent and wise parents actively teach them to avoid it.
This is a transparent attempt on Tatchell's part at making more children sexually available to him and those who support him. This is not a question of Tatchell's homosexuality. Rather it's a matter of his foolishness and depravity. Just because some children might want to have sex doesn't mean they're emotionally prepared to do so. Further, pedophiles would be Tatchell's biggest supporters, whereas parents of young children would rally against any such possibility of allowing adults to have sexual access to their children. The insanely hypocritical part of Tatchell's argument was how he rallied against Pope Benedict's visit to the United Kingdom — specifically, so he claimed, because of the Pope's alleged "cover up" of clerical sexual abuse of children.
You can't have it both ways.
Tatchell claims that by lowering the age of consent, this would be "the best way" to protect young people from sexual abuse. He has three points:
1. MYTH: Kids are having sex anyway.
Allowing children to engage in sex is the equivalent of giving the keys to a liquor store to an alcoholic. First, the fact that children are having sex has no bearing on the question, "Should children have sex?" and "Should society, parents, the law and adults in general, condone it?" Of course not.
It's neither moral nor advisable for children to be sexual as they aren't mature enough to give consent. Admittedly, some small percentage of children is having sex but this is mostly because they're dealing with dysfunctional parenting and because of adult sexual and emotional abuse. Further, our society sexualizes children through fashion, movies, television and general culture. Our society is frightened of offering moral and value education in our schools but incongruously insists on offering them sex education. Sex educators and too many parents are encouraging their students and children, either by explicitly encouraging it or by acquiescing to its "inevitability."
In this universe, by virtue of our free will, we can do anything we want. Anything, that is, as long as we're mature enough to deal with the consequences. Sex isn't for everyone. It's not a right in that regard. Some people aren't mature enough at any age but some definitely aren't mature enough because they're underage. If children are allowed to engage in sex, they should also be able to drink alcohol, smoke, vote, work, sign contracts, own a gun, get married and fight in our wars. If they're mature enough for one, they're mature for everything else. Even if we were to foolishly reject every shred of morality and decency that mankind has ascribed to in the past few millennia, common sense would dictate that Tatchell is seeking his own sexual gratification and isn't at all interested in the welfare of children. When pedophiles target a child, they try to convince themselves and others that the younger person is "mature for her age." This is simply not true. Adults who seek out children for sex inevitably are so psychologically immature that they can't find mates among their own peers. Children aren't ready for sex let alone romantic love. Anything else is a transparent and unsuccessful rationalization.
We often find adults who are too immature or naïve to deal with the complexities of sex. What hope is there to find children who can handle it? Children aren't finished growing yet, physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. That's why we call them "children."
2. MYTH: Current laws criminalize children who are having sex.
This is a reactionary lie told by people desperate to appear intelligent, "sensitive" and have "right on their side." Actually, the current laws do not criminalize children having sex with other children. So-called "Romeo & Juliet laws" protect children who have sex with another child of comparable age. Rather, the laws on the books stop adults from having sex with children. There's no need to lower the age limit but rather to increase them and to be stricter in punishing adult offenders.
3. MYTH: Children under the age of 16 have the right to their own bodies and to decide when to have sex.
We should all be grateful that Tatchell doesn't have children for fear that he would put into practice his dangerous ideas. I think legally, he could be held responsible for sexual abuse of any children he would raise in this manner. Tatchell's irresponsible foolishness and moral turpitude isn't as odd as one might think. The very same people who decried Pope Benedict XVI for his supposed involvement in the clerical pedophilia scandal simultaneously and incongruously, condoned and supported Roman Polanski when he drugged and raped a young girl. These are the very same people also defended Michael Jackson when he was accused of the same crime. Other than mental insanity, foolhardiness or moral hypocrisy, how can one castigate one person who never sexually abused anyone but wholehearted congratulate and support a sexual felon and fugitive from the law? The principle argument of these patent hypocrites is that Polanski was an "artist" and "has contributed very important films to the world." Dawn of the Dead simply wasn't that good a movie to excuse a man of any crime let alone drugging and raping a child.
But this attack on innocence is no longer a matter of an odd cult leader or lone park pervert abusing children here and there. Now there are ivory tower "academicians' like Peter Singer who urge adults to destroy children's innocence. Secular atheists were oddly supportive of both Woody Allen marrying his stepdaughter and Roman Polanski drugging and raping a child. Please keep in mind that these very supported of these two pedophiles are simultaneously vehemently anti-Catholic and pretend that every Catholic priest is a pedophile.
Both Harvey Milk and Harry Hay, names associated with the homosexual rights movement, were not only both pedophiles but were also associated with NAMBLA (i.e., the infamous North American Man/Boy Love Association) — though most homosexual activists are furious whenever you remind them of this salient fact.
Consider what was understood to be the most heinous incidence of the homosexual abuse of a child ever prosecuted in the United States. In 2013, Australian citizen Mark Newton, 42, and his American companion Peter Truong, 37, paid a Russian woman to give birth to a child and hand him over to them. They paid $8000 to the woman for her troubles.
The homosexual couple started sexually abusing the child when he was just 20 months old. Police in Australia and the United States found 80 hours of videos recording the abuse. A great amount of it was uploaded to an international pedophile syndicate known as Boy Lovers Network.
Apparently, they had brought their adopted son on a global tour selling his tiny body as a sexual plaything to at least eight other pedophiles.
Before the "loving couple" was arrested, the two pedophiles were lauded as "pioneers" and "advocates for homosexual rights." They insisted that two homosexual men could raise a child as well as a heterosexual one and that, in fact, "most" homosexual couples were as good parents as they were.
When they were arrested, they initially denied the sexual abuse and claimed they were being targeted "because they were gay."
Newton was sentenced to 40 years in prison. Truong got 30 years. U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker reportedly said the pair deserved a harsher punishment.
The convicted homosexual couple gave an interview about their "struggle" to adopt a child to an ABC reporter in Queensland in 2010. The duo presented themselves as a loving couple. And during all this, Judge Barker said, the pair brainwashed the child to believe sexual abuse was normal behavior. Newton admitted that he had trained the boy to deny any inappropriate behavior had ever happened if he was ever questioned by authorities.
Just before he was sentenced, Newton said, ''Being a father was an honor and a privilege that amounted to the best six years of my life."
The pedophile's admission needs no comment.
The unnamed child is being cared for by the extended family in the U.S.
Despite this, there was no outrage. The international homosexual community neither condemned the pedophiles actions nor distanced themselves. The media was similarly subdued about this evil.
Evil begets evil.
Moira Greyland, a Celtic music harpist, is the daughter of two American writers. Her mother, notorious bisexual, pedophile, pagan polemicist Marion Zimmer Bradley, (d. 1999,) was a science fiction and fantasy novelist. Her best-known book is the Mists of Avalon, an anti-Christian feminist rewriting of the Arthurian legend. Her second husband, and Moira’s father, Walter Breen, wrote books on numismatics. Breen was a misogynistic, bisexual, incestuous pedophile.
"Suffice to say that both parents wanted me to be gay and were horrified at my being female," explained Greyland to the New York Times. "My mother molested me from ages 3-12. The first time I remember my father doing anything especially violent to me I was five. Yes, he raped me. I don’t like to think about it."
"Now for all well-meaning people who believe I am extrapolating from my experience to the wider gay community," began Greyland. "I would like to explain why I believe this is so. From my experience in the gay community, the values in that community are very different: the assumption is that everyone is gay and closeted, and early sexual experience will prevent gay children from being closeted, and that will make everyone happy. If you doubt me, research 'age of consent', 'Twinks', 'ageism' and the writings of the numerous authors on the Left who believe that early sexuality is somehow 'beneficial' for children.”
Greyland says that what sets gay culture apart from straight culture is the belief that early sex is good and beneficial. "They really believe that the only way to produce another homosexual is to provide a boy with sexual experiences before he can be 'ruined' by attraction to a girl."
“If you’re OK with that, and you might not be, it is worth your consideration. if you think I am wrong, that is your privilege, but watch out for the vast number of stories of sexual abuse and transgenderism that will come about from these gay 'marriages'. Already the statistics for sexual abuse of children of gays are astronomically high compared to that suffered by the children of straights.”
And what ties all of this evil together under one perverted umbrella? Several well-funded international organizations are pushing for comprehensive sex education in our schools including International Planned Parenthood, UNESCO, United Nations Population Fund, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, (SIECUS) and the Population Council.
Adults have the moral, legal and spiritual responsibility to protect children and not to allow them to be sexually abused by predators. They shouldn't, as Tatchell insists, give children "frank, high quality sex and relationship education from an early age." Their innocence must be respected and celebrated.
Sex is an emotionally complex part of human behavior that is too important, too nuanced and too complex for young people to fully appreciate let alone attempt. It's not a question of mechanics. Human beings simply aren't made to be polygamous, even serially—neither physically nor emotionally. One New Zealand study found that 70% of girls who had sex prior to turning 16, subsequently wished they hadn't.
If sex is stripped of love and the possibility of procreation, there are no limits. And if someone were to then insist upon moral limits, they are decried as anti-progressive, old-fashioned, uncompassionate and a hater. And thus, under the guise of being "fair" or "open-minded," we've auctioned off our very souls which were erstwhile owed by Christ Himself.
Innocence attracts both good and evil. Perhaps this is what Christ meant when He bid us to become like children:
So Jesus called a child to come and stand in front of them, and said, "I assure you that unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the Kingdom of heaven. The greatest in the Kingdom of heaven is the one who humbles himself and becomes like this child. And whoever welcomes in my name one such child as this, welcomes me. "If anyone should cause one of these little ones to lose his faith in me, it would be better for that person to have a large millstone tied around his neck and be drowned in the deep sea. How terrible for the world that there are things that make people lose their faith! Such things will always happen―but how terrible for the one who causes them! (Mat 18:2-7)