Well, either the end justifies the means or it does not.
I do not like the fact that they chose the "end justifies the means" route. At all. Nevertheless, I am glad they are not still suffering as we are, or as they once were, because I do not want to see anyone suffer like that.
Sadly, sometimes friends choose expediency when the going gets rough. Were they ever our friends? I think many of them were, but they made a bad call out of panic when the going got rough. That doesn't mean, however, that I consider them "the enemy" and hold animosity towards the entire group, as some of them are now bravely and openly coming to our defense. That shows some of them do have a lot of courage, and that will encourage more of them who feel that way but are simply too afraid to say it to come forth and speak.
Also, as per the examples I used within our own community, we have the same foibles and vulnerabilities to pressure as any other group of people, and have the potential to cave under pressure under similar circumstances. In fact, as we both know, many MAPs have already, and we are by no means a united community on ideology and sense of purpose. This is why, as I noted, even though I do not condone what they did, I nevertheless understand why they did it.
Good for him - at least one other NAMBLA activist questioned if GL was even ethical! Is unity, much less consideration of moral equivalency, possible under even such relatively mild conditions?
I think all of us can learn that fighting amongst each other over who's feelings and relationships are more legitimate than others, all in an attempt to legitimize our own group at the expense of another, eventually learn that no group is ever completely free unless all of us are. The LGBT community has more or less gained its emancipation (give or take a few more tweaks being required), but they are still vulnerable to a backlash that can rapidly reverse all of that as long as any other group is still oppressed. And I think an increasingly number of LGBT's are beginning to realize that, hence the papers by Walker & Padafil & Cash.
BTW, the religion of the modern Pagans is utterly unlike that of the Norse men, which would favor at least male hebephilia by default by way of marriage to young girls.
Yes, unfortunately. The Norse men lived in a much different era, with a different level of production that was far harsher on the human life span. In the days prior to the Industrial Revolution, you couldn't afford to force girls to wait to a later point in life to begin her status as an "adult," complete her education, or wait to get married and start a family. The fact remains, females are not fertile for nearly as long as males are, and this needed to be taken into consideration under such conditions. That is why youths lost their rights as the Industrial Revolution progressed, and treatment of them didn't start looking like it does now until the 1880s, when the Industrial Revolution was fully realized.
Contemporary Pagans were very friendly to youth liberation and youth sexuality when first beginning to appear in sizable numbers between the 1960s and '70s, but when the contemporary moral panic struck, they recoiled on that quickly, in lockstep with the mainstream Left they had become tethered to ideologically and in subtle political ways (i.e., in terms of getting the liberal establishment to consider them a legit alternative set of religions). This is why they presently swing mostly conservative in terms of youth sexuality and even youths in general, and instead focus strongly on just promoting and supporting mainstream homosexuality/bisexuality and transgenderism.