Pedophilia is one of the most heinous crimes a person can commit. It is the intentional robbing of childhood innocence for the sexual pleasure of an adult. It is selfish. It is dangerous. It is helping to create victims of sexual abuse that often engage in damaging behavior such as drug and alcohol abuse (and some say homosexual behavior).

The question being asked is whether or not it is fair for a person guilty of pedophilia to be sentenced to jail?

Here’s the story, a 39 year old man is busted for sexual activity with his 3 year old daughter. After a lengthy trial in which the man claimed the child initiated the sexual contact with him causing him to be aroused, he is sentenced to twelve years in jail. Is this case fair for all parties involved?

Before you answer there’s a couple more facts to be aware of. The man in this case admits to having mental disabilities of a minor kind that do not prevent him from knowing the difference between right and wrong. He was judged to be more than competent to stand trial. The accused also repeatedly blamed the child’s mother for the incident (presumably his ex-wife). The accused also said it was the child that initiated the contact by undressing herself and then unzipping his pants; which led the man to become aroused and engage in the sexual contact.

While any sane, rational human being would look at the evidence of the case (at least what is being reported) and conclude that it is most certainly fair for the man to receive jail time, some are wondering if the man wasn’t just acting naturally.

A recent article reports”

“Pedophiles’ brains are ‘abnormally tuned’ to find young children attractive, according to a new study…published in scientific journal Biology Letters, discovered that pedophiles have the same neurological reaction to images of those they find attractive as those of people with ordinary sexual predilections, but that all the relevant cerebral areas become engaged when they see children, as opposed to fellow adults.”

The study used a sample of both homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles during which both were shown images of men, women, boys and girls. The study concluded that when shown images of children the brains of these pedophiles signaled sexual emotions rather than nurturing ones.

This leads the scientists conducting the study to believe that pedophilia is a matter of “crossed wiring” in the brain which causes the offender to be confused about what he or she is feeling regarding the child. Rather than feeling the normal nurturing emotions pedophiles – because of the confused brain wiring – feel sexual emotions.

Nothing in the article suggests that pedophilia should be accepted or that pedophiles are innocent victims of nature acting out an alternative sexual orientation. For that I’m grateful. I’ve read other articles make such assertions and it’s hard to resist the urge to send angry emails to the authors. This article reports the findings of the study to say that hope in reducing the number of pedophilic crimes is the outcome of such a study.

“…[T]he research is certainly significant in providing scope for future practicable testing that could reduce the number of pedophilic crimes committed. By being able to run these tests and examine a person’s tendency toward being sexually attracted to underage children, rehabilitative care and necessary precautions could be taken to safeguard children and ensure that those at risk of committing a crime of this ilk would not be able to do so.”

Here’s the problem I see with this study and the jail time issued for the man guilty of sexual contact with his three year old daughter.

In both articles words like “crime,” “victim,” and “sexual deviancy” were used to describe both the perpetrator and the…victim. That makes sense to most of us. But to others these are not accurate ways to describe these people as – according to them – pedophilia is simply another sexual orientation and those engaging in such behavior, including the children, are consenting participants.

In the first story about the man receiving jail time the judge said:

“I suspect he plays up his mental illness either to gain sympathy or deflect the severity of his acts, and that’s problematic when we’re dealing with sexual deviancy. He needs long-term treatment, and to protect the victim, I want her to be a sufficient age so (the defendant) cannot re-victimize her (upon release).”

On what basis does this judge call pedophilia “sexual deviancy”? What moral standard does he adhere to that would dare label any sexual activity as deviant? And what right does he have to do so?

These might seem like absurd questions to be asking of this case but only the most naïve person would believe they are not already being asked in courts around the country of pedophilia advocates seeking to legitimize and de-criminalize pedophilia.

I’ve previously written about the end of morals based laws in America. As activists push for further celebration of homosexuality the logical outcome is to legitimize and de-criminalize other “sexual orientations” such as polygamy, polyamory, and pedophilia. If, as a society and people, we cannot find a moral basis to oppose homosexuality we have no ground to stand against any other sexual activity. Even bestiality becomes a legitimate sexual option.

Already there is a push to normalize pedophilia by labeling it a sexual orientation rather than a mental disorder. Earlier this year when the APA sought to change the classification of pedophilia in its vaunted manual from mental disorder to sexual orientation there was an incredible backlash. So great was the outcry that the APA labeled it a mistake and backtracked as quickly as possible.

But are we so jaded as to think their intent was not clear, and intentional? They were testing the waters. They wanted to see how people reacted. This will lead to further steps aimed at relabeling pedophilia in an effort to normalize it.

Comments by some prominent social observers make the situation taking place very clear.

Justice Anthony Scalia, in his dissent to the disastrous Lawrence v. Texas ruling predicted this very scenario when he blasted the court for their decision. Scalia said the court decision “decrees the end of all morals legislation,” including laws banning “fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity.”

He’s right. Once you can find a justification for homosexuality there is no longer a moral foundation to oppose any other behavior, sexual or otherwise.

Unfortunately, I believe Dr. Judith Reisman is right in her summary of where we stand as a culture. She said:

“Our laws are no longer based on Judeo-Christian morality, but on Kinsey’s immoral ‘morality’: an adulterous, fornicating, aborting, pornography-addicted, masturbating, impotent, sadistic, masochistic, bisexual, homosexual, exhibitionist, voyeuristic, and child-sexual-abusive world,”

This case and the movement toward legalizing pedophilia is troubling. It’s troubling for the adults that will feel empowered to engage in disgusting sexual behavior with innocent children. It’s troubling for those of us that will be forced to accept yet another sexual sin our society chooses to celebrate. It’s troubling for the kids.