The "rise of gay acceptance" (by which is presumably meant the acceptance of gays) mentioned by JordanR has occurred in the context of a general loosening of sexual restraints. The vast majority of people have been browbeaten by the elites into keeping any vestigial objections to homosexuality that they might have firmly to themselves.

In the context of this most intolerant "tolerance" it is hardly surprising that the paedophiles should present themselves as just another beleaguered sexual minority protesting against prejudice and misunderstanding.

It is in any case highly questionable whether a clear line of demarcation can be drawn between male homosexuals and paedophiles, given the prominence of "boy love" as a recurrent motif in gay erotic mythology.

A conversation between a heterosexual and a homosexual:
 
Heterosexual, "Gay sex and marriage is wrong."
 
Homosexual, "You are a bigoted and intolerant.  I cannot enjoy myself sexually unless it is the same sex.  I cannot love unless unless it is the same sex.  I want the same rights that you have."
 
A conversation between a homosexual and a pedophile:
 
Homosexual, "Sex with a child is wrong."
 
Pedophile, "You are a bigoted and intolerant.  I cannot enjoy myself sexually unless it is with a child.  I can only love children.  I want the same rights that you have."

Then.... 
 
A conversation with a pedophile and a masochist/sadist couple:
 
A conversation with a masochist/sadist couple and a male bigamist:
 
A conversation between a male bigamist and a female bigamist:
 
etc, etc, etc.
 
Welcome to your(our) future
 

Does anyone in Flanders remember the theaterpiece called "snoepjes" (sweeties) that played some 30 years ago in Ghent and some other towns? In this piece sex with children was promoted. There was some protest from rightwing students but the left defended it. It is to long ago to find anything about it on the net.Yet it would be interesting to investigate.

Peter Vanderheyden continues to prefer not to respond to arguments. That is his right, and it is no doubt rooted in his inability to come up with counterarguments rather than simple repetition of his positions.

However, he has no (moral) 'right' to want to silence the arguments of others. Yet that is exactly what is implied by his support for the banning-of-parties, for arbitrary Belgian laws selectivily forbidding certain kinds of political speech, etc...

His claim that we can no longer distinguish "between evil and good opinions", UNLESS one bans certain opinions, that is pure nonsense and intellectually dishonest. Any serious person can perfectly distinguish between evil and good opinions. I have no difficulty whatsoever in declaring the program of this new Dutch party in question as "evil". My moral judgement is not impaired by the presence of different opinions. I do not need politically-correct politicians to tell me what is "evil" and what is not.

'Freedom of opinion' becomes meaningless if it were to apply only to 'symphathetic opinions' (i.e. presumably corresponding to the views of Vanderheyden). It is only when we are faced with 'unorthodox' opinions that we can make a clear disctinction between true democrats and nondemocrats.

"... allow ‘consensual’ sex between humans and animals." The Friesean cattle and pampered pooches of the Netherlands better head for the hills [oops, I forgot Holland doesn't have any hills] if these 'Charity ... etc' characters get their wishes. Are these people a bunch of Dr Doolittles, for heavan's sake - who's going to ask the animal whether it consents? Nederlandse volk, draw a line in the sand with this one.

Like I wrote in the Dutch section, I think we should be able to forbid this kind of parties. But then there is the Holy Grail called “freedom of speech”. We consider our self as being not able to distinct between evil and good opinions. Isn’t freedom of speech in his absolute form the emanation of, I quote JordanR: “our society has lost its ability to judge anything anywhere” ?

Is it really any wonder that Muslims despise us Europeans? St. Paul said: "
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,........the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one
toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and
receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Jordan: No, there is no comparison between the two. I disagree, too. I didn't write that, I just linked to an essay written about the subject of the moral collapse of the West, and noticed that he predicted the acceptance of pedophiles. The comparison he chose was very poor, however.

In their world pedophiles are noble souls seeking the enlightenment of society and the uplifting of all persons of all ages. They are engaged in an epic civil rights struggle which is an inseparable part of the greater civil rights movement. Man/boy sex is emotionally and physically healthy and opens a cornucopia of social benefits for any culture wise enough to normalize it. Anybody else feel like they need a bath?

Like most people, I find these Nambla pedophiles disgusting. Sex with children is unacceptable under any circumstances.
But I must protest against pedophiles and gay couples being compared in any way. There is absolutely no evidence that consenting gay adults forming long-term relationships is hurtful to themselves or society in any way. If anything, you would think that conservatives would want gays to form monogamous relationships and abandon more dangerous free-loving lifestyles.
While I agree our society has lost its ability to judge anything anywhere, there is just no connection to the rise of gay acceptance and pedophilia or terrorism (as mentioned in previous posts)