Isn’t it disgusting to wake up to headlines of «Gerry Studds – courageous gay congressman » dies? At least he died. Not by his own doing, unfortunately, because his courage lies in preying on underage kids half his own age, in order to exploit them for sex. And when he gets a slap on the wrist for it from his equally morally corrupt Congress leaders, he turns his back on them in a full performance theater act. He does not apologize, he does not resign. At the time, Studds called the relationship with the teenage page, which included a trip to Europe, “a very serious error in judgment.” (This is liberal-speak for « mistakes were made, pass out the slap on the wrist, and send in the next page). Then Studds gets re-elected. So this is what passes for courage nowadays: a NAMBLA congressman.

This is why I think the headlines would have been more appropriate if they had read, «Studds- First Open NAMBLA Congressman Dead at 69 – after being re-elected several times. »

Let’s compare Studds’ position with what Nambla advocates:

– legal sexual consent age under 18 – CHECK!
– man/boy love – CHECK!
– NAMBLA rejects the widely held view that sex between adults and minors is always harmful, arguing that “the outcomes of personal experiences between adults and younger people primarily depend upon whether their relationships were consensual. « – CHECK!

What we are now witnessing with the likes of Studds and Foleys is the Nambla-ization of morality and sexuality (with loads of hypocrisy heaped onto the process). Big speeches are made about how horrible the Self-Outed-as-Pederasts folks at NAMBLA are, while homos like Studds and Foley get a big coddling. Apparently many people are not willing to notice they are all displaying the very same sexually exploitative NAMBLA attitudes and behaviors.

At least with Studds dying, we have been spared having him make a speech about how horrible NAMBLA is. However Foley, having been co-chair of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, has probably made such a comment somewhere along the line. Pro-homo activist associations display the same PR hypocrisy. Take the case of International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA): ILGA had passed a resolution in 1985 which stated that “young people have the right to sexual and social self-determination and that age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect.” In a ridiculous PR show, they then expelled NAMBLA, but kept their resolution intact. Evidently the press wasn’t interested in reporting the blatant contradiction.

In 1994 the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) adopted a “Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA” saying GLAAD “deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association’s (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD.”

So why hasn’t GLAAD made the same statement towards ILGA? Or why don’t they call Studds a pederast? Or Foley a homo slime?

Because they can always do the « pretend you’re not going along with Nambla » dog-and-pony show, while supporting people who act accordingly in a more closeted way. And from the public reaction in the Studds case, we can see that the GLAAD hypocrisy works quite well from a political agenda perspective. Call it “gay” instead of NAMBLA and the pro-homos fall over themselves to cheer about the “progress in homosexual freedom” – which is NAMBLA-speak for sexual exploitation of minors.


answers.com has an excellet recap of NAMBLA

Advertisements