My Personal Views On Homosexuality

Indeed. And lets look at your last point.

'As in for an adult to have sex or attempt to have sex with a sexually immature juvenile.'

See the difference? Pretty obvious tbh.

Therein lies the problem. You view sexual intercourse as a completely benign entity. Whereas it technically has more risk and consequences than many medical procedures such as taking a bloodtest.

THere are various aspects to consent which require a level of maturity, understanding and dealing with long term consequences.
Its not simple. You don't become competent to consent at a specific age, and not all children will be at the same level of others of the same age.
Again, arbritray lines for 16 were created, with specific tests and rules applied to consent in under 16 years of age.
I can't see a 40 year old guy checking the 12 year old he is about to bang is Fraser competent.

Because paedophillia damages people, and homosexuality doesn't?

Paedeophilia is not found, as far as i am aware, in any other species, whether it be acts or not. Certainly nowhere close to the extent homosexuality is found if it is. This makes one natural in that sense and the other not. Very simple.

Paedeophilia is not found, as far as i am aware, in any other species, whether it be acts or not.

Because paedophillia damages people, and homosexuality doesn't?

Suggest reading up on a species called the Bonobo Chimpanzee. Incidentally, the closest relative to Homo Sapiens still in living existence. Your argument is just like the old Catholic one, that animals don't have sex for fun - now of course widely dis-proven.


Please could you state the source of your evidence? Whenever an adult is found to have engaged in sexual acts with a child, the adult is thrown in jail, and the child given "therapy" wherein they're brainwashed into believing the things that happened were bad, and the person who did them was evil. This is only based on the assumptions of the person delivering the therapy. Of course it may be the case that the child enjoyed those acts, and very much loved the person who did them.

Is it any surprise the children we know about who were "victims" of paedophiles grow up to be dysfunctional adults?

Do you think adults who had sex with Paedophiles as a child, but enjoyed the experience and see it as positive would stand up and be counted - given society's negative views towards the subject?

Does automatically assuming such contact is a bad thing, and society having negative views, create a victim where there was none previously?

Yes, because you said all child sexual activity is coercive. Therefore as a 15 year old engaging in sexual activity, according to you I must have been coerced.

Why would it matter if the ages are similar? Why would it matter if a 40 year old is having sex with a 15 year old rather than a 16 year old?

Why does one need some sort of special mental capacity to agree to sex? If they don't need one for anything else.

I agree that is one reason they renounced it, because it would provide a defence to child sex abuse making it more difficult to prosecute. However that does not detract from the fact that it proves child sexual "abuse" is not necessarily harmful.



You really think if a 1000 studies came out which proved beyond doubt that child sexual activity is beneficial it would make a difference to the "party line"? No. It is a politically contentious issue. Politics is what decides the "party line", not science. It was the political backlash which led to the APA backtracking from the study.

In the same way homosexuality was always considered a "mental illness" with no scientific evidence to back it up. Once political pressure was applied and society began seeing it as acceptable, it quickly changed.

And there are many studies, many of which I quoted in large parts a few pages ago which were conveniently ignored. I'm sorry, but it is naive to suggest that people will change their opinions on such a stigmatised issue merely because of scientific evidence. You come out with the scientific truth which contradicts public policy, you lose your career. Look at Professor Nutt when he told the truth about cannabis and MDMA.



I don't know why you consider a 'horrible organisation', I guess I don't know that much about them apart that they used to be part of the LGBTQ movement. But I'm not claiming that children should be put at risk, I'm saying people should look past their biases and simply accept the scientific truth and not tarnish all people with a certain sexual orientation with the same brush. You are grateful people don't do that for homosexuals, why do it with paedosexuals?

I understand there needs to be a line. I'm not calling for the abolishment of the age of consent. However I would argue it should be lowered to 13. I'm saying that you can't factually assert that ALL child-sexual activity is harmful, because it is simply inaccurate and beyond reason. What exactly is the mechanism which causes harm without coercion? It remains unexplained.


Not all paedophiles are 'high-risk', the majority would never even come into contact with a child. Studies have shown only about 3% would actually go through with sexual contact with a child if no one found out. Around 90% of child abusers aren't even what can be classed as paedophiles, most child abusers are sexual opportunists. When heterosexuals are convicted of rape, nobody begins to claim that all heterosexuals are "high risk" of raping people.

Suggest reading up on a species called the Bonobo Chimpanzee. Incidentally, the closest relative to Homo Sapiens still in living existence. Your argument is just like the old Catholic one, that animals don't have sex for fun - now of course widely dis-proven.

Other species fight and kill each other over their 'pack': should we not then accept race war to be 'natural'?

Please could you state the source of your evidence? Whenever an adult is found to have engaged in sexual acts with a child, the adult is thrown in jail, and the child given "therapy" wherein they're brainwashed into believing the things that happened were bad, and the person who did them was evil.

Of course it may be the case that the child enjoyed those acts, and very much loved the person who did them.

I have studied Psychology at Undergraduate and Masters and disagree with your conclusions. In children from the time they're born, boys can have erections, girl's vaginas can lubricate, and both can reach orgasm (not things I have learned through experience I might add). The only difference is a boy does not produce ejaculate, and a girl cannot get pregnant, until they have gone through puberty. It is actually very normal for young children to explore each other's bodies and play "doctors and nurses". It is also very normal for children to find out rubbing their genitals is pleasurable. But of course parents almost universally tell children off for doing such things. All this goes against your assertion the brain is not developed enough.

My argument is not actually like that at all and that is a completely irrelevant comparison.

I also suggest you learn the difference between paedopihlia and infanticide



Yes we should

Unless of course you use a completely wrong, unintelligent and imaginary definition of the word. But last time i checked Natural means something, it is defined by the human language as we speak the word natural, thus we follow what we mean by the word.



/yawn
Never said it was more factual that any of those things

Try not to put words in my mouth, it makes you look oh so pathetic.

And as above. I follow what the word actually means. You do not. You are the illogical one and you have no argument other than to completely ignore the humanly specificiated human language meaning of the word natural.

Are you trying to say it isn't bad?




Children under aged are deemed not emotionally capable of knowing what they want.
Young children aren't capable of love.


Just shut the **** up. You're an absolute idiot, probably a paedophile yourself. I don't think I've ever come across people defending them like this, and saying they don't damage children, and saying it's right.

You disgust me.

It's quite pathetic how you insult someone for bettering your point, especially given that they've studied Psychology at undergraduate and postgraduate level.

I have studied Psychology at Undergraduate and Masters and disagree with your conclusions. In children from the time they're born, boys can have erections, girl's vaginas can lubricate, and both can reach orgasm (not things I have learned through experience I might add). The only difference is a boy does not produce ejaculate, and a girl cannot get pregnant, until they have gone through puberty. It is actually very normal for young children to explore each other's bodies and play "doctors and nurses". It is also very normal for children to find out rubbing their genitals is pleasurable. But of course parents almost universally tell children off for doing such things. All this goes against your assertion the brain is not developed enough.

I guess the question is, does it make it any different when it is an adult, rather than a similar-aged child? It is certainly exploitative for an adult to initiate such activity, but I have never seen conclusive proof that harm occurs through non-coercive and consensual adult-child sex. It's always coloured by someone's opinion, and I suspect publication bias has a lot to do with it. Google for "Gardner a review of his theories" for an interesting read from the slant of someone who is against his ideas.

So because I am a lesbian and an atheist, both of which you seem to have a problem with, you assume you have me all figured out?

yep pretty much figured you out.you got rid of god to give yourself the excuse to be a homosexual.don't even start about you being born homosexual.....

Lol...wow. you are just so intelligent aren't you? Can't even use basic powers of reason to debate so you resort to claiming anyone who doesn't believe in your god is wrong. You might as well just leave now seeing as you haven't said anything productive at all on this thread.