The long road to legalised paedophilia

Anna Raccoon has revealed that Stonewall are flapping their petticoats again because the twenty TV programmes they monitored were not ‘gay’ enough for them. Or at least, they didn’t show homosexuality in exactly the way they wanted.

The shows they watched included the popular soaps and talent shows, but they also hoped to find “positive portrayals” of homosexuals and bisexuals in The Gadget Show, Football Focus, You’ve Been Framed and Blue Peter.

Yes, Blue Peter.

Or maybe they chose these programmes specifically because they didn’t expect to see any mention of sexuality (of any sort) and so this would make their “findings” look better for them.

As I wrote on Anna’s blog, because homosexuals know that their behaviour is disgusting, the activists hope that the day will come when every single voice of dissent has been silenced forever and they can finally sit back and stop feeling dirty and guilty. They think that if we all accept them (via ‘education’ and mass media indoctrination), they will finally be able to accept themselves.

But my recent blog post which offers a cure for homosexual desire suggests that homosexuals will never be able to accept themselves in their current condition.

So what does this have to do with legalised paedophilia?

Consider this…

The law permitted two “consenting adults” over 21 of the same sex to engage in indecent sexual behaviour in private.

Over the following 40 years, the age has been reduced from 21 to 18 to 16 (i.e. legalised pederasty now).

The media has been instrumental in making all of this appear acceptable and will do so also with paedophilia.

There are already various people talking about children’s “sexual rights” and calls for the age of consent to be reduced further, including by Peter Tatchell.

There have been plans to change the law in N. Ireland (drawn up in London for the provincial guinea pigs) which would have enabled 13 year olds to legally have sex with each other (and an 18 year old man could legally have sodomised a 15 year old boy) and in 2008 Scotland’s children’s commissioner argued for much the same thing.

21 – 18 – 16 – 13 – ?

How low can this agenda get?

As Ed Balls again tries to push through his legislation which would compel all primary schoolchildren to be indoctrinated with sex ‘education’ from the age of 5 and the aforementioned Children’s Commissioner said that the Scottish Government should consult 8-year-olds on changes to the law on underage sex because it “affects” them and as parental rights are constantly being undermined (e.g. no opt-out for the proposed 5 year olds’ sex ed) then things will continue to get worse.

“Children’s rights” are at the expense of parental rights which in fact means that the State is assuming all the rights.

You may remember the fuss last year when the NHS in Sheffield issued a leaflet encouraging schoolchildren to have sex or masturbate twice a week to help their cardiovascular system.

The Mail also reminds us,

[The leaflets] came to light just a week after it emerged that teenagers who took part in a £6million Government initiative to reduce teenage pregnancies were more than twice as likely to fall pregnant as other girls.

The scheme tried to persuade girls not to get pregnant by handing out condoms and teaching them about sex.

Standard Government-issue advice. No wonder we are where we are. While waiting for my recent doctor’s appointment, I had a good look at the posters on the walls. A number of them were directed at youngsters and reminded them of the confidentiality they are entitled to, i.e. the State can know, but not the parents or legal guardians.

When the media have done their ‘job’ once again of re-engineering the opinions of the masses, multitudes will be convinced that children should be having sex because it is a) their ‘right’ b) a healthy choice (with free contraception and abortion if required) and c) none of the parents’ damned business anyway.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to The long road to legalised paedophilia

  1. indigomyth says:

    But, don’t you believe in “children’s rights”, Stewart? Isn’t it a child’s right not to be tortured to death by their parents? Or for a girl to be subjected to FGM? So, could you please delineate the extent of a “child’s rights” and a “parent’s rights”. If you believe that children have no rights, than you should see nothing wrong with children being mutilated by their parents – if you do, then your above post is a load of pish.

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    Let me think of a reply. Sarcastic or straight; sarcastic or straight?

    As I said at Anna’s, you will see that I want to return power from the State to parents where it belongs. The whole agenda of “children’s rights” is to transfer power from parents to the State. I thought you would be with me on this one seeing how you are more anti-State than I am.

    P.S. Torturing children is already a crime.

  3. English Viking says:


    Get a dictionary (they might have one on the Sixth Form bookshelves, check it out at ‘play-time’), look up ‘straw-man’ and realise what a plonker you just made of yourself. You could try ‘logic’ as well.


    RE: The final paragraph of your post. We are already way past that point already. I remember having this conversation 15 years ago.

    PS Never had you down as a child-torturer. Tsk, the things you learn, eh?

  4. Stewart Cowan says:

    Don’t forget the female genital mutilation, English. I do that on my days off!

  5. indigomyth says:

    Stewart and English Viking,

    My point was to demonstrate that children do actually have rights, which supersede the authority of their parents, and therefore to universally condemn “children’s rights” would seem to be a very foolish act.

    //I thought you would be with me on this one seeing how you are more anti-State than I am.//

    Of course I do, however, I also recognise that children do have rights, as both you and EV agree. These rights do not extend from the State, however the State (in its most basic, and best form) has a duty to protect them. In that way, the recognition of children’s rights does not outsource power to the State, but rather limits the activity of parents over their children. For, just as human rights dictate what individuals and the State may or may not do to other individuals, so children’s rights limit what the State and their parents do to them.

    Whether the //whole agenda of “children’s rights” is to transfer power from parents to the State// is actually true (and, as a political volley ball, it may very well be), does not alter the fact that children do have rights, and the recognition of those rights by the State does legitimately limit the authority of parents over children. This does not mean that the State gains authority over the children, as in the State gaining a power over the children that the parents do not, because the child’s rights protect them from abuse by the State, as well as their parents. A State or a parent that transgresses against the right of a child, is in error – it is the duty of the State to punish those that infringe on other peoples rights (I assume you would agree with that?). In doing so, the State does not then get “power”, any more than the State getting “power” when it imprisons a thief or a murderer.

  6. indigomyth says:


    //Torturing children is already a crime.//


  7. English Viking says:


    It is not much of a ‘right’ for a child of 13 to be buggered. It most certainly is a ‘wrong’.

  8. indigomyth says:


    //It is not much of a ‘right’ for a child of 13 to be buggered. It most certainly is a ‘wrong’.//

    Another wonderful turn of phrase, EV! First “the emasculation of morality”, now this. You should be saving this for a book; if you could translate it into the appropriate form, I think ‘The Little Book of Authoritarian Haiku’ has a certain ring to it.

  9. miwkshake says:

    Obviously it must be a right for any child who through no fault of their own who was born homosexual to be subjected to rhetoric that they are ‘wrong’ and ‘evil’ to feel how they do.

    Suicide and attempted suicide rates for gay teens are phenomenally higher than heterosexual teens for precisely this ‘right’.

    There is nothing at all wrong or disgusting about homosexual relations, and to state this is simply a symbol of your ignorance of the subject. A wise man once said to say nothing if you know nothing.

  10. English Viking says:


    I suppose your heart bleeds for all those who were born as pædophiles as well?

    PS Maybe the suicide rate amongst confused teens would go down if people like you stopped trying to normalise a perverted situation, then they would not be faced with trying to reconcile their feelings of guilt with the false ideas that you propagate concerning the normality of a sexual attraction to excrement.

  11. English Viking says:


    RE: ‘A wise man once said…’.

    An even wiser man said ‘Even the fool, when he remains silent, is considered wise’.

    Why open your mouth and spoil it?

  12. indigomyth says:


    //the normality of a sexual attraction to excrement.//

    How is homosexuality a sexual attraction to excrement? Do you believe coprophilia and homosexuality to be identical things?

    (even if you are going to make some comment about anal sex, I still do not see how that would condemn female homosexual attraction to being an attraction to excrement?)

  13. miwkshake says:

    As I said, you’re homophobia is simply a display of your ignorance on the topic – and in this case also an ignorance of human biology. I very much doubt there is any more sexual attraction to excrement amongst gays than heterosexuals.

    Cases of gay teen suicides & attempts have fallen in recent years with the abolition of section 28 and the rise of better sex education and a culture which tells them that it is perfectly natural to be the way they are. Past feelings of guilt were due to being lied to that their natural attractions and tendencies were wrong. And just so we’re clear – attraction to others of the same sex, love not just lust, not as you so incorrectly stated to excrement.

  14. English Viking says:

    indigomyth and miwkshake,

    Homosexuality (amongst men) and coprophilia; two cheeks of the same backside, so to speak. Are really trying to say that sex with the anus does not involve excrement?

  15. English Viking says:


    I’m not homophobic (an unnatural an unfounded fear of gays). You do not frighten me, you sicken me.

    PS What’s the thing about gays and public toilets? Seems to me gays like the perverse, stacked on the sick.

  16. indigomyth says:

    //Homosexuality (amongst men) and coprophilia; two cheeks of the same backside, so to speak. Are really trying to say that sex with the anus does not involve excrement?//

    Sex with the anus does involve excrement, yes, as a consequence of the actions performed. However, I do not see your conclusion as flowing logically from your premise.

    Firstly, male homosexuality does not, necessarily, involve anal intercourse. There are many other activities that may be conducted between males (mutual masturbation, oral sex etc). None of these involves the anus, does it?

    Secondly, coming into contact with excrement does not, of itself, indicate an attraction to faeces. After all, sewer workers come into contact with excrement on a daily basis, and yet they are not coprophiliacs, are they?

    Now, EV, if your argument was true, and homosexuality = coprophilia, then gay porn sites would be just photographs of piles of excrement, wouldn’t they (if it was the excrement that was actually the object of the attraction). However, if you wish to conduct your own experiments on this topic, google “gay porn”. You will see many photos of naked men, however, few of piles of excrement.

    I like eating eggs; does that mean I like chicken vaginas?

    You also ignore the fact that heterosexual couples also engage in anal intercourse (again, google if you do not believe me). Does this mean that heterosexuals that engage in anal intercourse are coprophiliacs?

  17. Stewart Cowan says:


    Children have the right not to be subjected to abuse, however, the State is trying to change the definition of abuse, e.g. smacking, and usurping parental authority in matters such as faith and sex education.

    //Torturing children is already a crime.//


    I guess it’s one of those quaint old laws left over from the days before moral relativity took a firm foothold.

  18. indigomyth says:

    //the State is trying to change the definition of abuse, e.g. smacking, and usurping parental authority in matters such as faith and sex education.//

    Agreed. The State has been, for too long, dictating to parents (via National Curriculum etc) what they can and cannot teach their children. However, you would not sweep away that control, but rather replace it with your own, Christian, version.

    I have no interest, nor do I see any gain, in advocating changing one set of centrally imposed regulations (that of compulsory sex ed) for another set of centrally imposed regulations (that of banning all sex ed, regardless of the will of the parents). But we have clashed on this issue before.

  19. Stewart Cowan says:


    Nobody was ‘born’ homosexual.

    “Suicide and attempted suicide rates for gay teens are phenomenally higher than heterosexual teens…”

    Because they don’t have proper guidance. Many people with same-sex attraction do not want it and many children are under pressure to ally themselves to a particular ‘sexuality’ while they are still far too immature to know the issues.

  20. indigomyth says:

    Stewart Cowan,

    //Nobody was ‘born’ homosexual.//

    This conflicts with what you said on another thread:

    //“In that sense then, would you be prepared to say that there may very well be a genetic element to homosexual attraction?”

    There may be, but like I said before, whatever the cause doesn’t make it right or good.//

    If there IS a genetic element, then I would argue that people are “born homosexual”, in the same way that they are born alcoholics, born gamblers etc.

  21. miwkshake says:

    Stewart Cowan,

    I’ve already addressed teen suicide rates – since proper guidance (by which I mean they have been taught there is nothing wrong with what they are feeling) has been introduced, suicide rates have fallen.
    Also, there is growing evidence that homosexuality is indeed genetic – people are born gay.

    English Viking,

    Anal sex rarely involves excrement in my experience. Unless you actually need a crap the anal canal is generally empty. And trust me, the exceptions to this rule have been far less enjoyable. Neither myself nor any past partners have had any attraction to excrement.

  22. Jan (bloke) says:

    ‘Legalised pederasty’? Presumably because the age of consent for gays has come to down to 16? But …. but …. does that mean that men aged 18 and over who have legally married girls of 16 (and vice versa) also have been committing pederasty for decades, if we define ‘pederasty’ as sexual relations with someone who is a child? Or are only men who have/want sex with men capable of pederasty? Logic defined by recourse to prejudice is not only not logic, it is dangerous and offensive. Men pee from their penises, who brings this up when heterosexual intercourse is considered? What a load of tosh. Codswallop, even. No one wants gay sex with you, rest assured in your bed.

  23. English Viking says:


    Too much information…

  24. len says:

    There are spiritual Laws in the Universe
    1, The Law of sin and death.
    2, The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus. When God created the Universe He put spiritual laws in place, we can deny them but when we break them there will be repercussions.

    Sin is a very insidious thing it promises to give you what your carnal,corrupted nature desires but sin eventually entangles, traps and kills you.There is an universal Law ” The soul that sins will die!(Ezekiel 18) This is not so much a punishment as a cause/effect.
    Gods remedy for man`s fallen corrupted condition is a new birth, man`s remedy is to make
    his fallen nature ‘politically correct’ and acceptable.

    It is somewhat ironic that when Christians speak the truth in love about man`s fallen condition and God`s remedy for that condition they are accused of’hate speech’.

  25. English Viking says:

    Hey Len,

    Truth Sir, truth. And very refreshing too.

  26. Stewart Cowan says:


    “If there IS a genetic element, then I would argue that people are “born homosexual”, in the same way that they are born alcoholics, born gamblers etc.”

    They may be born to develop a same-sex attraction as they grow, as I developed an alcohol problem. Drink, drugs, sex, gambling. There are many addictions – usually bad – so if they are partially linked to genetics, why should illicit sexual behaviour be treated in a favourable light?

  27. miwkshake says:

    Its probably worth pointing out, given the scripture appearing now, that homosexuality is not – despite common misconception from those who choose to use religion as a tool for hatred instead of reading it – condemned by the Bible. There are a minimal number of choice phrases which over time have been mistranslated from the original latin and hebrew, and then the original mistranslations then misinterpreted by those who wished to stir up hatred of difference.

    Love thy neighbour, right guys?

  28. indigomyth says:


    //There are many addictions – usually bad – so if they are partially linked to genetics, why should illicit sexual behaviour be treated in a favourable light?//

    But I do not believe homosexual acts to be illicit, or wrong, or disgusting, and I also do not believe it to be an addiction. Further, you fail to make a distinction between “addiction” and mere casual pleasure. If someone has a glass of wine a month, that does not make them an addict. So also with homosexual activity – engaging in homosexual acts is not, of itself, an addiction, as we use the word to describe addictions to drugs, booze etc.

    However, for the record, I also believe it to be perfectly permissible and legitimate for people to promote drugs, drink and gambling, as much as they like. Free speech guarantees that human right.

    Out of curiosity, given your puritanical and righteous indignation, would you also want to ban alcohol addiction, drug addiction, gambling addiction, sex addiction etc etc, as part of your push for a British Commission for the Protection of Virtue and Suppression of Vice?

  29. len says:

    If the fallen man ,entrapped,entangled by sin desires to escape its power he will find he cannot.Sin is his master!.
    So if as some advocate this fallen condition is man`s natural state they will give up the struggle and sink into a downward spiral ending in a state of licentiousness and apathy.”This is just the way I am! they say, ” must be in my genes”. So there must be a ‘robber gene’and a gene that makes us alcoholics and drug addicts?Ridiculous? certainly. No, we have a fallen nature which drives us to sin,compels us to sin.
    The remedy? Jesus Christ said”You must be born again, that which is born of the flesh is flesh(fallen) and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit ( Redeemed,restored,liberated from the power of sin )

  30. Jared Gaites says:

    Mention queers and Indigomyth turns up like a mosquito in a swamp.

  31. English Viking says:


    If you actually read the Bible instead of churning out someone else’s pre-planned argument, you would find homosexuality condemned in the strictest terms.

  32. indigomyth says:

    Jared Gaites,

    //Mention queers and Indigomyth turns up like a mosquito in a swamp.//

    As does Stewart Cowan.

    When a man is dying of thirst in the desert, both vultures and his friends will come to him. But only one group will be there to help.

  33. miwkshake says:

    English Viking,

    I have read the Bible, thank you, front to back. I went to a Church School and unlike most hate-mongers basing their lies in religion, I do know what I’m talking about when it comes to scripture. Homosexuality is only condemned if you make certain presumptions about what is being said. As I said, misinterpretation of mistranslation.


    You fail to understand the difference between someone’s actions and someone’s nature. A gay man doesn’t choose to love another man any more than a straight man choose to love a woman – that is nature.

  34. English Viking says:


    You obviously have not understood the Bible if you do not realise that your above comment is entirely consistent with Biblical teaching, but that the Bible places ENORMOUS emphasis on the difference between the old ‘nature’ ie the natural/ man, and the new nature, ie the spiritual/, born again man.

    You do what you do by nature. A fallen, damaged, corrupted nature. This corrupted nature manifests itself in a myriad of different ways. It could come out in lying, or stealing, or for a man (or woman) to indulge in heterosexual activity with numerous partners. It is always a combination of some or all of these things, plus a multitude of others. It could even manifest itself as homosexuality. Until you have received a ‘new’ nature, a spiritual nature, you will be constantly led about by your flesh, your ‘natural’ desires to please yourself.

    The mis-translation thing is an argument so weak it hardly needs to be re-buffed. Literally thousands of eminently qualified Bible scholars and linguistics experts (not a small amount of which are not Christians) translate the passages which are traditionally read as a condemnation of homosexuality as exactly that, while about 3 people have thought it means nothing at all, totally incomprehensible. You would also need the presumptions you accuse me of having to believe three translators over the thousands of others.

    ‘But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.’ 1 Corinthians 2 v 14.


    If you were thirsty, I would give you a drink. So would Stewart.

  35. English Viking says:

    PS Apologies for the italicization of the above. My fat, old fingers and my techno-averse mind failed to press the correct button to turn off the italics. I wanted them to avoid the appearance of shouting with CAPS. From now on, CAPS will not indicate shouting, merely emphasis, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED:

  36. indigomyth says:

    //but that the Bible places ENORMOUS emphasis on the difference between the old ‘nature’ ie the natural/ man, and the new nature, ie the spiritual/, born again man. //

    Surely that ought to be the “new old nature of man”. For men’s first nature, and oldest nature, must have been that which existed prior to The Fall, in the garden of Eden. In that sense, man’s oldest nature is also his most pure and divine. His new old nature is that which is his after The Fall. Now, I do not know if the “new” nature you talk of, as the nature which you obtain by being reborn, is in fact a reattainment of man’s oldest nature, his pure nature, or whether it is a different version of this oldest nature. Is the spiritual nature of man reborn different from man Pre-Fall? Thoughts?

  37. len says:

    The man god created( Adam() was created to bear the image of God.This was affected by Adam being filled with the Spirit of God.After Adam sinned by eating of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil,(and rejecting the Spirit of God)” all of his descendants were natural men who were “devoid of the Spirit” (Jude 19), “excluded from the life of God” (Eph. 4:18). As such they could not bear the visible expression of the character of God. But in the absence of the Spirit of God, they are indwelt by the evil spirit whose image of character they express in their behaviour.
    Adam’s first two descendants were Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:1,2). The visible expression of character exhibited by Cain was not derived from God in order to image God. Sin was operative in Cain, creating an anger and jealousy that prompted Cain to kill his brother, Abel (Gen. 4:5-8). Such was not the expression of the character of God, but the character of the spirit of evil. “Cain derived what he did out of the Evil One, and slew his brother” (I John 3:12). Cain was not visibly expressing and imaging the character of God, but instead was visibly expressing and imaging the character of Satan, who “was a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44).

    (ChristinYou Ministries has E books which you can read online .’Man as God intended’ explains this in detail)

  38. len says:

    To be born again is to receive a new Spirit,the Spirit of Christ.The old dead spirit is no more.Christ is known as the last Adam,He came to undo the rebellion of the first Adam and to make possible a new beginning.Man was incapable of changing this situation only God could initiate the change needed.
    Whereas our old position in the first Adam rendered us dead unto God and alive unto sin, our new position in the risen Last Adam renders us alive unto God and dead unto sin. “For ye died,and your life is hid with Christ in God” (Colossians 3:3, ). Formerly our Judge, now by means of His Son’s death and resurrection He is free to be our Father, and we His sons. “Beloved, now are we the children of God.” “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father” (I John 3:2; Galatians 4:6).

  39. Good post Stewart. Homosexuality and paedophilia are intimately linked – always have been and always will be.

  40. English Viking says:


    What Len said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>