Why not Homophilia, is a serious question not a rhetorical jab.

While it is true that there were legitimate fears of being ostracized, the same claim can be reversed to prove a point on the opposing side of that argument. Here’s what I mean: again, I go back to the parallel of another thing that is seen as morally wrong, sex with minors. Similarly, to how homosexuality was seen in the centuries prior to the early 60s, pedophilia was seen as tantamount. Similarly, much like people today with pedophilia, people during that time openly detest the very idea of seeing themselves with another of the same sex. Today those people would be criticized as being closeted homosexuals, but why would that same logic be used again for people who openly detest pedophilia? While in certain cases this is true, it’s very few. Now, again, the very thought of pedophilia and homosexuality being paralleled in such a way may offend you deeply, but why is that? Wasn’t there a time where homosexuality was openly detested as much as pedophilia is today? I only ask you to think: how did two things once detested now in today’s time become accepted? Now you may say pedophilia is and will never be accepted by the masses; no one today tolerates this act. But I say to you there was once a time where people unanimously saw the idea of homosexuality as being something that was never to be accepted in masses. Yet here we are. As a more recent example, 15 years ago the idea of a man dressing as a woman competing in female events and dominating most of the time brutally female competitors, 15 years ago the idea of a man dressing as a woman going into the female’s bathroom was openly shunned. Yet here we are. Again these ideas did not become normalized instantaneously but were slowly implemented into society through social engineering with celebrities, both social media influencers and Hollywood alike, and people in government accepting these ideas and influencing others to think that people opposed to these ideas are being bigots. Slowly implementing that idea into people’s brains to where now society goes against those who even bring the slightest criticism of this act.

You may say I’m crazy for thinking of such a thing, maybe even call me a conspiracy theorist, but I’m far from it. All of what I just said can be proven with one 3-letter acronym: M.A.P., Minor Attracted Person.

This term was not merely a recent invention but one slowly implemented into larger circles of society. Starting in the early nineties on social messaging platforms like BoyChat messageboard, this was part of efforts in those circles to create a less stigmatizing, more “neutral-sounding alternative” to terms like pedophile, framing the attraction as an inherent trait rather than equating it directly with child abuse or criminal behavior.

Founded in 2003, B4U-ACT and groups like it promoted “minor-attracted person” to encourage help-seeking for non-offending individuals while reducing perceived prejudice. B4U-ACT explicitly used the term in its materials and events, such as a 2011 symposium on pedophilia and the DSM. And since then it began appearing in some academic and clinical contexts, often to distinguish attraction from offending behavior and to facilitate research or therapy access. Remember what I told you about social engineering. Slowly warming the public up to these ideas as being less stigmatizing. Soon after, a Wikipedia page for the term was created around mid-2018, marking increased public awareness outside “niche” circles.

August 2022 at Franklin High School in El Paso, Texas, English class. A teacher named Amber Parker shamed the student for using the word pedophile, saying “Stop calling them that. You’re not allowed to label people like that. Stop it, Diego. We are not going to call them that. We’re going to call them MAPs. Minor Attracted Persons.” Adding “So don’t judge people just because they want to have sex with a 5-year-old.”

According to some students and even defenders of Amber, the lesson was to illustrate how society might shift language due to stigma. How ironic—it’s exactly what I’m talking about, social engineering at its best. Now luckily many opposed the teacher; she was terminated from her position soon after, as she should. Does anyone remember this? How could you? This was not broadcasted on the news but only for small segments; it was reduced to a short segment discussing multiple news stories and not mentioned again. Why weren’t there investigations on where she would’ve gotten this idea? When involving school shootings, talks are immediate on where the shooter got his ideology to do such a thing. Pedophilia is on the same level, if not worse than the murder of a child. The child who suffered the act of pedophilia cannot live on to better pastures where they never have to think of such a thing happening to them or other children like them. Instead, it haunts them and some even succumb to the very act of pedophilia itself.

All this to bring to your attention that things once seen as abhorrent and immoral can very easily become normalized within a few generations. This is not a theory; this is reality. The idea of a person being born gay, or born straight even, is the work of outside influences, the surrounding society around a boy or girl that influences him or her to become what they are today.

My claim isn’t that they are getting this from friends, but rather from their environment. This includes friends but not limited to them. It includes family, social interactions, and what the child sees that influences him or her in one way or another. Claiming that the attraction to the same sex were always there is obvious and doesn’t change the fact that environmental interactions are what shape a person. And to the point that no single explanation covers everything, this is true. But only marginally. There can be multiple explanations for many things but if one seems to have a better causation and explains what is going on more accurately, it is safe to say one can trump the other. Some things are black and white and some things are balanced.

**EXTRA.**

**WOMEN AND MEN** To the point of repressive eras, again this still doesn’t change the fact that there still are environmental factors that were in play. Curiosity and the rush from doing something that is known to be unacceptable in a social setting, and getting away with it, is a major factor people forget. Just as stealing something and getting away with it can and does give people a rush that some, not all, enjoy, the same would be the case for homosexuality in repressive culture in times past.

I’m equating homosexuality to pedophilia because all one has to do is look at other countries where it’s completely opposite from our own, where having sex with donkeys or children is not looked down upon and homosexuality, even though it happens, is still publicly shunned. And I’m not arguing that it is purely social engineering being the cause of homosexuality, but it is a major factor in its rise to prominence in our society. Some say Christianity is the cause for the historical public disapproval and oppression of homosexuality, but far the opposite. Two articles: “Mediational effects of right-wing authoritarianism factors in the path religiosity—prejudice towards sexual and gender diversity” by Felipe Vilanova, Silvia H. Koller (often listed as Sylvia Helena Koller or SH Koller), and Angelo Brandelli Costa (AB Costa). And “Unpacking the Drivers of LGBT+ Legislation” by Eduardo Gibert Diaz and Juan Carlos Palacios (PhD), published in the *Journal of Homosexuality*, show that other religions and political causes have contributed to the oppression of LGBT communities, not necessarily Christianity. And even still Christianity does not teach this, quite the opposite. While Christianity doesn’t promote the act of homosexuality, it wouldn’t shun them either. It would, through the knowledge of Christian thinking, like many things once seen as normal in both society and the singular person, slowly change their thinking on the act. Leading them away from their old way rather than shunning them for it. The whole idea of human rights sprang from Christian thinking, so to say that Christianity is the cause of oppression towards, based on a few who have in the past oppressed others, is faulty thinking. More emotional than logical.

Unapologeticapologia.com