In recent skirmishes over homosexual "marriage", conservatives have often made a "slippery slope" argument. Liberals routinely laugh it out of court without a second thought. We've said, basically, "Hey if we're going to say that this activity over here is normal, then what's next?" If you're going to push the boundaries out so that they include homosexual "marriage", then what will those same boundaries keep out? Answer: eventually, they won't disallow anything. It'll be a free-for-all, and anything goes.

"Oh, don't be ridiculous!"

"That's inflammatory fear-mongering!"

"It'll never happen, you pre-evolved fool!"

Well, we hate to say, "We told you so." But we told you so.

Check this out, from WND.COM:

"CNN recently featured a story by James Cantor, a homosexual psychologist and scientist at the Sexual Behaviors Clinic of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health who serves as associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto.

“It appears that one can be born with a brain predisposed to experience sexual arousal in response to children,” he wrote in his CNN piece."

Where have we heard this before, that deviant sexual appetites have biological, and not moral, causes?

"Dr. Judith Reisman, the principal expert investigator for a U.S. Justice Department study on child sex abuse, said pedophilia advocates are using the same strategy that was successfully employed to make homosexuality a classroom subject for small children in the nation’s public schools."

A recent symposium advocating the normalization of pedophilia had these themes:

  • Pedophiles are unfairly “demonized” in society.
  • The concept of “wrong” should not be applied to “minor-attracted persons.”
  • “Children are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with an adult.
  • “An adult’s desire to have sex with children is ‘normative.’”
  • And the Diagnostic Manual “ignores that pedophiles ‘have feelings of love and romance for children’ the same way adult heterosexuals have for each other.”

If that's not eye-opening enough, catch this quote from one of the conference speakers:

Self-described “gay activist” and speaker Jacob Breslow said it is proper for children to be “the object of our attraction.” Breslow said pedophiles shouldn’t need to get consent from a child to have sex any more than they would get consent from a shoe to wear it, according to Barber.

Let's be clear. I'm not suggesting that homosexual people would all be in favor of this sort of thing. Clearly, some are, but most would probably be disgusted by it.

But the question is still a fair one: If "yes" to homosexual "marriage", then why "no" to this? Especially so now, since the very same arguments that legitimized the one can be used to legitimize the other, and are, in fact, being used that way.

Read the whole, detailed report at WND.COM

More on Faith and Freedom from Gordan Runyan can be found HERE.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.