What to do with paedophiles

I’ve just discovered that in Iron-age Britain we supposedly had group “marriages” – so I was wondering what would come next … When I read in the Sun, this article:

‘I’m not a monster’ One-armed ‘virtuous paedophile’ is ‘not ashamed’ of being sexually attracted to kids as young as THREE… because he doesn’t act on urges

I’d just finished the article, and was going to leave it a day to think about it when I read this appalling and probably illegal* tweet:

Coincidentally I would not be ashamed to hang him. https://t.co/GI1YmgNrTc

— Guido Fawkes (@GuidoFawkes) November 17, 2016

I’m disgusted with the individual, and as a result I’ve decided to publish immediately .

In the same way as I cannot imagine what it is like to share a wife with my brother (that may be because he never shared anything), I cannot imagine what it is like to be sexually attracted to a child. However, it does happen. And whilst I have very little interest in the subject, I was wondering when someone would point out the glaring hypocrisy in the media.
Because on the one hand the media will attack anyone who dares to suggest homosexuals aren’t entirely equal to normal people and the media go bananas if anyone even suggests they can be “cured” by treatment … but on the other hand that same media will ruthlessly attack paedophiles irrespective of whether they are actually harming children, and then insist they should be “treated” (often by castration is mentioned).
Now, unlike some people (Guido Fawkes) I’m of the view that I am who I am by chance, and equally by chance I could have turned out as many other people. A homosexual, a paedophile or even a journalist or politician. So, I shouldn’t treat others in a way that I wouldn’t wish on myself if I had been born into their position.
Now I’m no expert on the subject of “treating” sexual orientation, so I’ve no real idea whether or not it is plausible to treat either “condition”, but it seems to me if the media “experts” are saying it is not possible to treat homosexuals and that their sexual “condition” should be respected, then I do have to wonder why they they insist that paedophiles can be treated and that their sexual “condition” cannot be tolerated in any form?
Now Obviously paedophilia cannot be equated to homosexuality in the sense that it necessitates sexual activity with a minor who cannot reasonably give their consent. So unlike a homosexual, any paedophile who engages in their sexual deviancy is committing a rape. But theoretically, if paedophiles abstained completely, then why doesn’t their particular sexual deviancy deserve the same kind of treatment as homo-sexuals (if neither group engages in sexual acts of any kind – surely they have to be treated the same?)
As far as I was concerned this was just the press being the normal bigoted hypocrites they are on so many issues. But then this “Todd Nickerson” came along …and put the cat amongst the pigeons (or paedophile amongst the PC luvvies). What will the PC brigade do? Will they praise him for “coming out” and say we should all respect his particular sexual orientation as we’ve all been instructed we must for homo-sexuals?

If one deviancy must be treated as equal, then all must be

Obviously the problem for the PC brigade originates because they have insisted that all sexual preferences must be treated the same. And as I know, we the public were not allowed to have a debate about the subject – so it’s entirely the fault of the narrow minded PC brigage that they’ve got into this mess.
It is the natural outcome when idiotic self-serving activists push through legislation to demand that one particular form of sexual deviancy must be treated as completely equivalent to heterosexuality. Because the “human rights” logic is this: if you cannot discriminate on one particular sexual deviancy, then you cannot discriminate on any.
The same argument for homo-sexual “equality” can be made for any sexual preference so it is pretty obvious that once you say that there can be no distinction between hetero-sexual and homo-sexual then all sexual preferences (abiding by other laws) must be treated the same. And as you can’t legislate for people to stop being paedophiles, and apparently cannot treat sexual orientation, then by inference if homo-sexuals must be treated the same as hetero-sexuals, then paedophiles must also be treated the same as hetero-sexuals.

Children’s Rights

And indeed, they both homo-sexual and paedophile rights both raise similar issues to do with children’s rights.
The issue for homosexuals is in marriage. Marriage is the historical institution that protected children from “selfish lustful adults”. This is because marriage was a way for society to protect the rights of children who were not yet born: to ensure wherever possible, that they were born within a family that would nurture them. I think most reasonable adults would see that as a benefit (but we weren’t allowed to discuss this by the PC bigots). Indeed, contrary to what is often said, marriage is not discriminatory against homosexuals. Homosexual were free to marry like anyone else, and many did and had children otherwise the trait would have been removed by natural selection.
So, redefining “marriage” so as to change it from an institution helping to protect children’s rights to one where children would be irrelevant, may benefit the “rights” of homosexuals, but it does so at the expense of the rights of children.
There’s no win-win. Someone loses out … and because children seem to be ignored in
Law-markers have made an ass of themselves, they have changed marriage so it no longer has anything to do with protecting children and they have proscribed that sexual deviancy must be treated as the same as “normality”**
But once you say you cannot discriminate on deviancy, by inference, people who love sheep, love siblings, mothers, fathers, whatever their sexual orientation – must for the sake of “equality” all be treated the same.

Sexual preferences are not equal, but people are.

Obviously once you start saying there can be no discrimination on sexual deviancy, there is no practical limits to the perversions that someone will dream up that by inference have to be respected as equal to all other sexual orientations however crackers they are.
But there  is a more intelligent approach. That is to say that sexual preferences are not all the same, but instead that people have a right to be treated with equal respect wherever that is possible irrespective of their sexual preferences.
So, all sexual deviancies** should as far as is reasonable be tolerated within the law and that, so long as those of any sexual deviancy does not break any other law or infringe on the rights of others, and that they are not otherwise a risk to society in general, that they should be treated equally.
In more general terms, so long as you don’t infringe other people’s rights, particularly the rights of children, or the right not to have it thrust in your face by the TV, then consenting adults should be free to participate in whatever sexual deviancy they like. That’s a common sense approach to the subject.

What to do with Paedophiles

As for what to do with paedophiles – I’ve really no idea. But there’s clearly a need for a mature public debate – but given the immature behaviour of the Scottish press++ I’ve seen, I severely doubt they can get above the level of playground name calling.

*We have a right to free speech and it’s questionable whether even such appalling comments should be restricted. (There’s no actual incitement)
**(who’s to say what is “normal” in light of “group-marriages” in iron-age Britain – perhaps even monogamy is also a form of deviancy from some “natural” form of human sexual orientation?)
++I was frankly disgusted by the behaviour of the Scottish press and media one homo-sexual marriage where anyone who dared to discuss the subject was attacked by bigoted journalists. It was clear that a certain section of the media were intent on preventing any real discussion on that subject, just as very much the same section have prevented discussion on issues like climate. Totally immature and bullyboy journalism leading to real damage to society.