[Pindar]

(Original post by lucaf)
the reason paedophilia cannot be compared to homosexuality is because children cannot consent to a sexual relationship

Any evidence for this?

[Pindar]

(Original post by kuteascake)
You shouldn't 'struggle' to accept homosexuals, because there's no reason not to.

At the same time, there's not a single reason not to accept paedophiles.

[Pindar]

(Original post by kuteascake)
Paedophilia is wrong

(Original post by kuteascake)
Why is being gay such a bad thing?

If being gay shouldn't be a bad thing why should being a paedophile be a bad thing?

[Jester94]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
I am sorry, but some members have endlessly tried to and failed to debate homosexuality not being a choice. I am happy that their claims have been founded to be untrue.

A) If you're going to quote somebody, do it properly
B) Erm, no they haven't
C) I am happy you still haven't learnt English, means we can take your points even less seriously

[Jester94]

(Original post by Chrosson)
This choked a laugh out of me.

I'm going to take that as a good thing

[Arekkusu]

You are correct that paedophiles can't help it any more than gays can, but remember:
- Children cannot give informed consent
- Children are not sexually mature
- Children are dependent, thus subject to psychological harm

Gay people have none of these restrictions so it's OK to have sex with them.

Paedophiles are persecuted a little bit too mercilessly and have become something of a folk devil, but there is still absolutely no comparison between paedophilic and homosexual sex.

The case for bestiality is a lot more acceptable, there isn't much of a reasoned argument that can defeat bestiality. Necrophilia is also similar to this.

You really can't demonise incestuous couples either, but it's good for society that incestuous unions be outlawed because it produces genetic defects likely to severely compromise the health of the progeny.

In terms of things being good for society, homosexuality is actually good for society in an overpopulated world.

[Sniper90]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Firstly these are my views. I have the right and I am entitled to have my views regarding this subject especially as it is always under constant mass scrutiny. Just because you do not agree with me does not mean my rights should be compromised. It is my intention to promote positive discussion of the topic and my points.

Some argue homosexuality is not a choice, one does not choose their sexual orientation. I disagree with that statement because this can also apply to other situations. A lot of people including some scientific researchers also say paedophilia is not chosen by an individual. My issue with this is if society is to accept homosexuals on the basis that they have no choice, then why punish and criminalise paedophiles as they also have no choice?

Humans are limited in their choice, we 'cant' decide what we want. We are designed in a way, this information is stored in our DNA. Society can also have a strong say. Two siblings, a brother and a sister, cannot have a sexual relationship because it goes against etiquette of society and science. He cannot just say 'oh I love my sister, its not affecting you so whats your problem if i go out with her'. I therefore believe choice alone is not justification for homosexuality.

Furthermore if we are to accept the argument 'gays are born gay' we must investigate that claim and examine what it means for humanity. Under the assumption that the argument that they are born gay holds, then it is something which is affecting their ability to reproduce (as they are not attracted to the opposite sex). Then, it is in my belief that by definition of continuity of the human race we must find a way to prevent it as it is, technically speaking, a negative genetic mutation and must be addressed by doctors and medical researchers to preserve continuity.

These are some subjects which I feel strongly about. I am willing to debate issues regarding psychology, health and hygiene, communication, social impacts etc.

This topic is constant in media, social and professional circles. There will always be support for and against, I am simply against due to some points I outlined above. I should not be down voted because of my views (there are plenty of groups which are allowed to have a say no matter how 'wrong' some people think they are such as BNP EDL Extremist Muslims), rather I would like TSR to assess my points. This issue must be discussed if were are to find an eventual solution. I welcome feedback and further discussion.

***************************

A lot of people are saying that paedophilia and homosexuality cannot be compared and the comparison is not relevant. You cannot just say it is not relevant without any sort of justification. I am saying it is relevant and will pursue to argue the case. Wikipedia also agrees with the relevancy with a cited source, to quote directly from Wikipedia:



Further to this my point is society in general is vastly negative towards paedophiles. If a paedophile is known to the authorities they are punished, criminalised and jailed. How is this fair if we are saying both circumstances are through no choice of their own? Nature has come up quiet frequently. Some users are saying homosexuality is natural and paedophilia is not - where is the evidence I ask to accept one and reject the other of being natural?

People are discussing incest as being not natural. A common consensus for the acceptance of the homosexual community is the argument where two practising consensual adults are free to do what they desire as long it is not harming anyone else. One (or two) can maintain an incestuous sexual relationship in this manner as it can be said they are not harming anyone. Many users have rejected the idea of incest on the basis that children produced from an incestuous couple will be disadvantaged from a weaker gene pool, but why are users making the assumption that all incestuous relationships will directly lead to a child I ask? Homosexuality and incest can be practised without procreation so I ask again, why is the idea of incest constantly rejected by society?

Many people have tackled my negative gene issue about human continuity by stating homosexuals will promote a negative population growth and will help issues of over crowding. I cannot express in words how offended I am by that statement. So because we want to control the population does that mean we should abandon research and development in preventing cancer and other forms of life threatening illnesses? By that logic we can say we should have more illegal wars as it will bring down the mortality levels and help control population?

***************************

There seems to be mixed opinion on the naturality of incest. How would one assess approval/disapproval of an incestuous homosexual relationship?

We homo sapiens are defined as a species. A definition for a species is:



If we are to again consider the case that homosexuality is not a choice then we assume there exists a gene of some sort that forces one to be attracted to only their own sex. This is directly contradicting the definition of the human species as it draws one to be sexually attracted to their own sex which therefore does not allow for breeding and production of fertile offspring with their chosen sexual partner.

Hence, just like any other biological disorder inhibiting the definition of our species such as people born with dysfunctional sex organs or paralysis of certain body parts or cancers etc., it must be addressed by human biologists and medical researchers.

Well even if paedo is genetic, it isn't allowed due to the issue of consent. Sure maybe one 13 year old is much maturer than another and so consent is ok from that 13 year old, but we can't know for sure. We can't really tell and differentiate easy between who is mature enough. By having the age of 16 (or whatever), we, as a society, ensure that both are consenting adults of age.

Homosexuality can't be compared.

I'd also use this argument for animals- some places prohibit beastiality. similar issue- consent and undestanding what's happening.

as for incest- i don't really care. not hurting anyone. its not my cup of tea but who am I to tell people what to do. anyway, I'd only talk against if it the incestual couple were thinking of having kids- genetic disorders could be v bad.

[Sniper90]

(Original post by Arekkusu)
You are correct that paedophiles can't help it any more than gays can, but remember:
- Children cannot give informed consent
- Children are not sexually mature
- Children are dependent, thus subject to psychological harm

Gay people have none of these restrictions so it's OK to have sex with them.

Paedophiles are persecuted a little bit too mercilessly and have become something of a folk devil, but there is still absolutely no comparison between paedophilic and homosexual sex.

The case for bestiality is a lot more acceptable, there isn't much of a reasoned argument that can defeat bestiality. Necrophilia is also similar to this.

You really can't demonise incestuous couples either, but it's good for society that incestuous unions be outlawed because it produces genetic defects likely to severely compromise the health of the progeny.

In terms of things being good for society, homosexuality is actually good for society in an overpopulated world.

wow we have almost the same views haha

as the his argument about leaving cancer research... we cannot wait till the planet is no longer over-populated to find a cure for cancer/aids. who knows how long that will take. it could wipe off most of the planet, whereas i doubt homosexuality will -.-

[Pindar]

(Original post by Auzuki)
But it doesn't affect my life when siblings have sex. It does not harm me in any way, so therefore I don't understand why I would be frowning upon them. Yes, the human body was not designed for it, but we weren't equiped for a lot of things, such as a nuclear bomb, natural disasters, and yet we still survive today

The very fact is exists in the normal realm of human behaviour points to the possibility that it serves some sort of evolutionary purpose. Although natural selections aims for a diverse gene pool, what we find attractive is genetically imprinted on us by our parents. For example, a girl with a hairy father is far far more likely to be attracted to hairy men. Therefore it stands up to reason that when the normal Westermarck effect and reverse sexual imprinting does not come into play, for example when siblings do not grow up with each other, then genetic sexual attraction (GSA) is likely to occur when the siblings meet up later in life.

People are naturally predisposed to be close with those who share similar genetic attributes. This explains closeness with family, clan or tribe and even racism and nationalism. Then again, since children do not seem to be programmed with a taboo against incest, I'd argue that it may be partly the result of social conditioning.

[Chrosson]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
At the same time, there's not a single reason not to accept paedophiles.

Sorry, I've not been following your debates fully. Are you using pedophile in the (imo correct) sense of expressing a preference or in the sense of 'child molester'?

[Pindar]

(Original post by Sniper90)
Well even if paedo is genetic, it isn't allowed due to the issue of consent. Sure maybe one 13 year old is much maturer than another and so consent is ok from that 13 year old, but we can't know for sure. We can't really tell and differentiate easy between who is mature enough. By having the age of 16 (or whatever), we, as a society, ensure that both are consenting adults of age.

You are conflating paedophilia as a sexual orientation, a psychological entity which only exists in the mind, with adult-child sexual activity an actual physical act.

Paedophilia should be allowed in the same way homosexuals are accepted and not closeted in society. They are comparable in this regard.

[danisolo]

It's correct to say that people are unable to choose their sexual orientation. Heterosexual, homosexual, asexual or paedophilic. Paedophilia is criminalised because it involves individuals who are unable to fully understand or consent to sexual relationships. Victims of childhood sexual abuse can be as young as months old. And that is not comparable in any way to a consenting relationship between two adults of the same sex. If you continue to insist that they are the same then I suggest that you go out and read the autobiography of someone who has suffered child abuse.

Incest is not uncommon in many many species. Most breeds of animals are a product of incestuous breeding at some point in their history. Due to the restricted gene pool that produces the desired offspring come disorders which should be recessive. For example, look at domestic dogs. Great danes suffer heart problems, pugs have numerous eye problems, shar-peis are plagued by skin infections. All as a result of inbreeding. This is why incest is scientifically unacceptable and presumably this is where the social stigma has come from too. Presumably that is why incest is illegal. But as you say, not all incest leads to procreation. So consider your own siblings, if you have any. Can you imagine a sexual relationship with them?

When you suggest that homosexuality needs to be addressed in order to preserve the continuity of the human race, bear in mind that A) homosexuals are a minority and B) the world population is actually increasing at a terrifying rate. That aside, it is not impossible for a same-sex couple to have children, whether it involves donors or surrogates or not. Yes, research has shown that it is possible to fuse two male or two female gametes to produce an embryo. It is costly and raises more ethical questions but it is possible. If it is deemed unnatural for a gay couple to have children then an infertile heterosexual couple should be considered too.

One important point here is, what is and is not natural has very little relevance in our society today.

And above all, I wonder why does the human race deserve to be preserved? We are all too damn full of our own self-importance.

[AlmostChicGeek]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
You need to go through puberty in order to reproduce, not to engage in sexual activity. So you admit that it's not always coercive, and therefore not always harmful. But why is an 8 year old incapable of understanding the concept of sexual activity? What are all these consequences you keep bringing up but never bother to explain?

You still haven't explained why it would matter if there is a difference in age. You've again, conveniently ignored that question.

I'm pretty sure a 15 year old has the mental capacity to understand the concept of sexual activity. How have children got the same mental capacity as someone in a coma? Care to come up with anything less nonsensical? Or at least make your strawman arguments less obvious?

No, the issue is that you cannot prove they don't have the mental capacity to understand what's going on, when it's obvious they clearly can and it's not a very difficult concept to understand. Amazingly, a natural process somehow comes naturally to humans. Who would have thunk it. So that's what's it's very hard tale to believe.

You need to back up your claims before you start making outrageous assertions you obviously cannot prove.

So you admit that child sexual activity is not necessarily harmful? Finally.

However what has even LESS basis is the idea that an age gap between people matters. Why would it matter? You still haven't explained why. Except that it's apparently "abhorrent". Your wanton moralising has no basis in reality.



You talk as if the age of consent actually prevents children from experimenting with sex. Children in second year at school are already becoming mothers, and have been doing so for years. The problem is a lack of sexual education, which people like you, self-appointed moral guardians, fail to realise might actually be beneficial.

It's not inviting people to take risks, it's decriminalising young people from doing something which is completely harmless and natural.

It's not ignoring reality and thinking that will somehow work, the reality is that most normal people start having sexual activity much younger than 16. It's in line with other European countries such as Spain. Who guess what? Have a much lower teenage pregnancy rate.



The idea that children will start having more sex just because the age of consent is lowered is a stupid idea with no basis in reality. It's like saying that people will stop drinking alcohol or smoking cannabis because it's illegalised. The age of consent has never stopped anyone having sex if they want to.

I'm afraid the slippery slope argument/fallacy won't work here.



One day if you choose to embrace reason, instead of prejudice, ignorance and dogma, you will be happier for it.

Again, you continue to ignore my points, or make things up. I don't wish to talk to you about this anymore, it is pointless arguing with you when you are so talented at twisting peoples words, as countless others have found in this thread.

Good Night to you.

[danisolo]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
If being gay shouldn't be a bad thing why should being a paedophile be a bad thing?

Attempting intercourse with a baby isn't a bad thing? There have been cases documented that concern kids that are only months old. How can anyone think that is ok?

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Jester94)
A) If you're going to quote somebody, do it properly
B) Erm, no they haven't
C) I am happy you still haven't learnt English, means we can take your points even less seriously

Thank you for this. I could not believe it when he just took the first part of my post. Makes me look like a hypocrite...

[lucaf]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Any evidence for this?

well I haven't looked at any studies myself, but it is pretty self evident that below a certain age children do not have the emotional capacity to grant consent to many things, which is why we they need parental permission for so much. I think the current age of 16 is probably too high, but nonetheless there is a limit

and would it be right in assuming from this:

(Original post by Stefan1991)
You are conflating paedophilia as a sexual orientation, a psychological entity which only exists in the mind, with adult-child sexual activity an actual physical act.

Paedophilia should be allowed in the same way homosexuals are accepted and not closeted in society. They are comparable in this regard.

that you are still against paedophiles acting on their urges, but do not think they should be ostracized simply for being paedophiles? if so, I agree with you. so long as they are not hurting children, it shouldn't matter what their sexual preferences are. but I think the general disdain from them comes in large part from fear, as they are still a potential threat to your children.