Sunday, November 20, 2011


Almost nobody I know has ever heard of NAMBLA. It’s an acronym that stands for North American Man Boy Love Association.

Founded in 1978, NAMBLA describes itself as a support group for pedophiles.

Its web site lists a number of well known people who are supposed to have had sexual relations with young boys.

Replete with links to references in art, music, poetry, and history, it presents arguments in favor of consensual sex between men and boys and invites persons of similar views to join the movement.

Consensual. That’s the key word. When is a boy old enough to be a real, active homosexual?

Hey, our modern public schools are featuring sex education for middle school kids – age 10 through 14. They learn about anal sex and oral sex. They practice putting condoms on bananas, and are told that one’s sexual orientation is entirely a matter of personal choice.

Sexually active teen agers are apparently the norm. The dominant American culture makes no judgment about sex. It has no moral dimension. It is neither right nor wrong. Just a matter of personal choice.

Thanks to the radical cultural departure of our United States Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence v Texas, consensual sex between consenting adults is now a constitutionally protected activity, at least when done in private.

Now we have teen agers and even sub teens, engaging in sexual
experimentation with the not so tacit approval of the educational system.

By what logic do we rise up in righteous indignation when the activity is between adults and children?

The logic is that the kids are not really consenting. Approached by an authority figure; a teacher, a boy scout leader, a priest or a coach, a child is unlikely to protest.

Indeed, he may assume that the initiative is educational. Here is a gown up who teaches him about other things - arithmetic, grammar, religion, sports –demonstrating the bodily function of sex.

The public goes ballistic over Jerry Sandusky. The same media voices that lionize homosexual activists, that cluck with criticism about right wing condemnation of homosexual conduct, are the first to crucify pedophilic priests and coaches.

In my view, they have a problem. If right and wrong is nothing more than a function of the age of consent; if sexual activity has no more moral significance than push ups, what is the logic of condemning pedophiles?

If teaching a boy how to engage in sodomy or felatio has no greater moral significance than showing him how to brush his teeth, how is it to be condemned or criminalized?

NAMBLA may well be a congregation of sickos, but given the popular consensus that sex has no moral dimension, nor rightness or wrongness about it, it’s hard to fault their logic.

What is missing in the whole Penn State mess is the voice of reason, of history, of the immutable laws of nature.

Who steps forward to teach children that sex is the most powerful, significant, sacred function of the human body?

Who tells them that the function of sex is to procreate human existence on this planet? That it carries serious, moral, and personal responsibilities? That every person’s sexual attitudes and practices define them as human beings and the attitudes and practices of people in a community define their very civilization?

We live in a declining hedonistic society. Adultery and fornication are celebrated in our entertainment media. Abortion provides an inhumane escape from parental responsibility. Sexual perversion is glorified as an honorable alternative lifestyle.

Poets, writers, actors and musicians drive the cultural bus. They create the norm of political and cultural correctness.

Fifty years ago, the idea that an organization of homosexuals would have standing and credibility in the chambers of the United Nations would have been unthinkable. It isn’t any more.

I wonder how long it will take for NAMBLA to get the folks in Hollywood to wear lavender or some other color ribbons in support of pedophilia?


  1. This whole idea is unthinkable!

  2. Dear Cousin Tom, So glad to read your thoughts!!
    It means that you are still on the ball and still kicking. My love to you, your cousin Mary

  3. It would be a pretty big stretch to read your blog and view it as an endorsement for NAMBLA.

    To me it's an indictment of the mentality of liberals. To liberals cultural rules are arbitrary therefore they are flexible. It's like the George Carlin thing about the words you couldn't say on TV. Who gets to draw the line between those previously banned words and live sex on the major networks? Where should the line be drawn? As with all things liberal they never see the unintended consequences of their actions.

    I can see it now. Kim Kardashian secretly taped during honeymoon. Film at 11 !

    Why not?

    See you on the golf course.

    1. Wow, you actually somehow found a way to blame NAMBLA on liberals. Rush and Glenn would be so proud.

  4. "...and are told that one’s sexual orientation is entirely a matter of personal choice." What evidence do you have to prove the truth of this statement? It's pretty much the opposite of current medical opinion, which is that sexual orientation is inherent and unchangeable.

  5. This web site: supports the argument that choice is an important factor in homosexual behavior. No doubt some people have a genetic disposition toward homosexual conduct, just as some people like the smell of tobacco smoke or the taste of scotch whiskey. But acting on our genetic dispositions, as long as we have free will, is a matter of choice.
    A physical attractionto a person of the opposite sex is certainly genetic, but it is no defense to a prosecution for rape, nor is it a satisfactory excuse for marital infidelity.

  6. NAMBLA? Really? Way to burn a strawman, old man . . .