Why is homosexuality accepted, but not peadophilia?

I know the author is playing "devils advocate" but its completely unreasonable to compare homosexuality and peadophilia on the same level because one is viewed by the majority of the population as a legal and OK thing, whereas the latter is not accepted because it is quite a heinous crime. For example, in the Netherlands the smoking of weed is accepted because it has evidently few harmful effects, but the snorting of cocaine is not accepted because it causes serious effects to the user's health and is thus widely viewed as dangerous.

I'm quite entertained, actually. I thought I'd get a wave of thumb-downs from people a) who wouldn't even read the full post with a minutely open mind and b) don't like to participate in discussions about touchy topics.

I'm not promoting peadophilia. Can you even read?

I merely asked a question. Jesus.

And no, I'm not a troll. You can just look at the other threads I've posted in to know that.

"Troll" isn't a magic word to dismiss anyone who posts an unconventional opinion, or an opinion that you disagree with.

playing devils advocate here but, says who? because some arbitrary line in the sand has been drawn at the sweet old age of 16?

yep, and I always like to point out that age is 13 in Spain, 13 in Japan, and 14 in China

Also OP certainly has little idea the importance of consent is. A better topic to discuss would be incest, which in my opinion there is nothing wrong providing both parties are able to consent.

Thank you.

Good call on the incest one, actually. I guess the only real issue is the possibility of any children (accidental or otherwise) having, well, defects.

Let me clarify: I am not homophobic to any degree (I'd be a hypocrite if I was – I like girls too, hello), but the idea popped into my mind and I know of no better people to discuss this with than, well, the kind of TSRers who lurk on the Debate & Current Affairs forum.

So, let's just compare the two.

Paedophilia:
— viewed as 'unnatural' by some
— viewed as 'gross' by some
— is arguably just a natural preference

Homosexuality:
— viewed as 'unnatural' by some
— viewed as 'gross' by some
— is arguably just a natural preference

So what's the difference? Do you think in 50 years' time we'll be seeing peadophilic pride matches, for instance?

I do know and understand that a) most paedophilic relations tend to be forced (i.e. one of the people involved has given no consent or been bribed/blackmailed) and that b) legally, there is no maximum age difference requirement for brides and grooms (?), so obviously the two differ in those respects, but honestly, I haven't been able to get this out of my mind.

Literally, the only arguments I've ever heard being used against paedophilia are "it's not right" and "it's disgusting" – so, basically, exactly the same as the arguments most commonly used against homosexuality.

Can someone help me out here? What do you think?

EDIT: Guys, come on. Why the thumbs-down? Is it not blatantly obvious that I'm playing devil's advocate?

EDIT 2: Okay, so apparently I need to make this even clearer. ASIDE FROM THE CONSENT ISSUE, WHAT ELSE IS THERE THAT MAKES US ACCEPT ONE "NON-TRADITIONAL" SEXUAL PREFERENCE, BUT NOT THE OTHER? Apart from the "ew, it's gross" reaction?

No, I'm not a peadophile. Calling me one won't make your arguments any more valid. I was just looking to have an interesting discussion. That's all.

Homosexuality is often seen in the animal kingdom so I guess it is pretty natural. Also sperm donation and surrogacy mean gay people can have biological children (not to mention they can adopt/foster children with nowhere else to go). Yay, science!

If everyone was gay there would be chaos

Everyone is born heterosexual.

Not 'anyone' straight gets AIDS. Those engaging in illicit and immoral sexual practices are more prone to AIDS.

If we, under the guise of 'human rights' give people the right to do anything they want, they we might as well give extremists the right to do whatever they want.

You can't defend homosexuality by saying it is there human rights.

My argument is firmly based on the observation of the laws of nature, the history of nations past, human nature, the religious scriptures, the news and research about family life and homosexuality.

As for sperm donation and surrogacy, you are taking away a child from his natural mother. Even if the mother agrees to it, as soon as it is being born, the mother and baby form an attachment breaking which would be painful for the child and mother. Why do people turn away from the natural human method of procreation?

If everyone was gay, then there would be chaos in the world. How twisted would it be for fathers to give sperm to a woman then the child is left without one of the parents - only to find out when he is older that his father lives with another father and his mother with another mother. How strange and backwards. One of the true biological parents would be missing out on his child.

Everyone is born heterosexual. Your other feeling and attractions develop later in life with the influence of those around and of society.

Not 'anyone' straight gets AIDS. Those engaging in illicit and immoral sexual practices are more prone to AIDS. Babies are born due to the ill practices of their parents, multiple partners, foolish sexual escapades mean that not only the current generation suffers but so does the future generation. That's why we need to work hard to build a beautiful world for the future generation.

If we, under the guise of 'human rights' give people the right to do anything they want, they we might as well give extremists the right to do whatever they want.

My argument is firmly based on the observation of the laws of nature, the history of nations past, human nature, the religious scriptures, the news and research about family life and homosexuality.

tif49, your argument can be reduced to this, in a nutshell:

In other words: you're a homophobe. Just come out and say it: you hate me. You hate LGBT people.
I shall, however, deconstruct your post point-by-point, if you can follow that. (Evidently you are not the brightest spark in the box.)

Firstly this is my whole argument if you haven't read it already: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2433904&page=5&p=44030953&highlight=#post44030953

Secondly, I am in no way whatsoever a homophone. I don't hate or fear homosexuals whatsoever. I have nothing against you as a person, only the very concept of homosexuality is the issue I have - not you as a person.

Firstly this is my whole argument if you haven't read it already: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2433904&page=5&p=44030953&highlight=#post44030953

Secondly, I am in no way whatsoever a homophone. I don't hate or fear homosexuals whatsoever. I have nothing against you as a person, only the very concept of homosexuality is the issue I have - not you as a person.

At the end of the day, here are a lot of sick and twisted people out there and likewise there are many different illicit, vile and harmful sexual practices out there. Paedophilia is one, pornography is another as is sadomasochism. These are all extremely harmful, twisted and illicit means of gratifying one's self.

One may argue that if a person has these natural feelings and attractions, he can act upon them to fulfil his 'natural' desires. This is absolutely wrong. We humans have the intelligence and ability to control ourselves and regulate our passions, desires and emotions. This separates us from animals who blindly give in to their natural inclinations and don't have the ability or intelligence to regulate and control and develop their attributes as well as humans do.

Humans have many different feelings and passions and if we were to give in and follow blindly each one, we would live an animalistic existence and eventually die out.

So the very purpose of human life is to develop ourselves and regulate our behaviour by not giving in to our low desires and rising above all those base desires,...

...humans have the power to do that which is why all these vile sexual methods of gratification should be very strongly condemned and spoken against otherwise once a person has even a small sexual feeling he will think that it is all right to watch porn, to engage in sadomasochism and look at naked children with ill intent because society gives him the license to do so.

Now coming on to homosexuality. It is just another branch of these illicit means of sexual gratification. Where to you draw the line?

After this maybe people will start thinking paedophilia is OK.

It's an obvious and undeniable fact that homosexuality is unnatural. It's blatantly obvious.

A man should remember that it is because of the union of a man and woman that he exists. If his parents were homosexuals, then he wouldn't even exist today.

The very basic purpose of a relationship between a man and woman is so that they may find comfort in one another and may thereby create offspring who will carry on their works and their name after they have gone.

If people start thinking and believing that homosexuality is the norm and acceptable, then every 15 year old going through puberty, who has the slightest feeling of attraction and interest in men will feel as though it is all right to carry that onwards and explore that interest leaving aside women all together.

Are people blind that they can't see the fact that women were made for men as partners.

Yes, no one denies the inherent human need for a mate, yet when one is clearly there in front of you, why look the other way and go after people of the same sex?

Opposites attract and true comfort and fulfilment in a partner can and will only be found in the way nature intended it - between a man and a woman.

If you're still not convinced reading this, then what say you about the rising trend in HIV/AIDS in gay men more than any other group?

November 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20526380
February 2013: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21277450

When you go against nature, nature is bound to punish you and severely.

Imagine if you continue this façade of 'protecting' human rights by giving gay people the right to hinder the procreation process, cease the continuation of progeny and deny any adopted child of the motherly comfort of a woman or the fatherly support of a man.

Yes, a man and a woman are best for bringing up a child well. A mother provides the love, tenderness and motherly instinct to care for the child while the father gives that sturdy moral support, discipline and direction with which a child, girl or boy may fully develop in to a sound minded and upright individual.

Imagine where the world would end up, the history of nations past bears testimony to the fact that when in any nation, homosexuality became widespread, the wrath of God descended down and destroyed everything in its wake.

The Qur'an as well as the Bible teach this so it is surprising and shocking to hear those prominent Christians including the Pope & Desmond Tutu turning a blind eye to that same book and those same principles for which they supposedly stand for.

Coming back to the point about human rights. Where is the human rights in depriving the female population of the right of a male spouse? There are more women than men in the world, if more men turn to other men then where are these poor women left to turn to? Or should they also turn to their own sex and leave off men?

Where are the human rights in denying a child the benefits of a mother and father upbringing?

Where are the human rights in cutting off any future progeny and denying the world children who may end up curing cancer, abolishing poverty, bringing world peace, justice and harmony?

True human rights would be in safeguarding the society and those with homosexual tendencies from the harm caused by going against the very law of nature. True human rights is in protecting people from something harmful even if they insist in doing something that may give some temporary pleasure. A child may want to play with a knife and cry and scream for it, but would a wise mother or father give in to such a child's demands? Most certainly not.

So while it seems giving homosexuals the right to marriage and justifying their relationships is giving them their due human rights, where is the sense in giving a small percentage of people human rights which would then in turn take away the human rights of humanity and the future?

True human rights is protecting people from something that is harmful even if they insist in engaging in it.

See, the British government did a great job in the 1930s in crushing extremism and not letting it take root. Thousands supported extremist ideologies yet the government didn't let it take root. Now thousands support homosexuality under the guise of 'human rights'. Well give extremists the 'human rights' and 'freedom of speech' to express their filth, hate and evil. If we're going to to give everyone the 'freedom of speech' and 'human rights' to do and say whatever they like and please then let the child in the school swear, let anti-Semitics deny the holocaust and let the raving mad terrorist express their anger and inner discontent. Where do we stop?

Yet children aren't aloud to swear in schools because we have laws, rules and principles. We don't let extremists have their way because we have justice, rights and values which protect each individual from harming himself and others. We don't tolerate anti-Semitism because we are a open-minded, fair and egalitarian nation.

We should help the oppressed and the oppressor. Both are being harmed, one has inherent malcontent and distress and thus is oppressed by his own mind. The other is harmed due to that one's malcontent and evil. A school bully only bullies other innocent children due to his own problems and issues and finds a way to express them through mocking and hurting others. So you help the bully, the problem goes away. But if the bully can't be helped then you help the victim and protect him from the machinations of the bully. We don't say that because the bully or the terrorist has human rights, he can do what he wants.

Human rights and the freedom to do what you want stops at the point when you hurt, offend or harm others including yourself. So when we see that homosexuality and the freedom and openness that we give to it ends up harming the individual, the partner, potential legitimate partners, children, society and the future, nation and world at large eventually, then we have to drawn a line and say enough is enough.

A person goes through many emotions, passions and desire in his lifetime. At one stage he may think about others of the same sex. If that thought is allowed to linger and given legitimacy and freedom to develop then it transforms that person into a homosexual incapable of easily giving up such feelings.

Likewise if we give a small extremist thought or any minor ill feeling or base passion to develop and give it legitimacy in society then once it take root, cutting it off remains a struggle.

This is why we must regulate our desires, thoughts, passions and feelings. We should cut out any negative, ill or bad thoughts or feelings before they take root otherwise if we allow them to develop then our very character is put into jeopardy.

Man has the power and ability to change himself. We are in control of our own selves if we want to be. We don't have to give in to our base desires and passions. We have the power to develop noble and high qualities within ourselves. You are the captain of your ship.

“Watch your thoughts for they become words.
Watch your words for they become actions.
Watch your actions for they become habits.
Watch your habits for they become your character.
And watch your character for it becomes your destiny.
What we think and feel, we become.

A person goes through many emotions, passions and desire in his lifetime. At one stage he may think about others of the same sex. If that thought is allowed to linger and given legitimacy and freedom to develop then it transforms that person into a homosexual incapable of easily giving up such feelings

This thread needs to happen. No one chooses to have the thoughts of a paedophile. Having the thoughts of a paedophile but actively resisting them must be a horrendeous predicament. Imagine having to hide your natural feelings, knowing that if you acted on them you would become a monster. You wouldn't be able to talk about them to anyone, due to the stigma (the response to this thread is proof enough of that). That is on top of the intense self- loathing and disgust you must languish in every minute of every day. Even if you found those wiling to accept that you are fighting to control these feelings, they would be completely powerless in helping you.

It's interesting to see so many members of the LGBT community attempt to refute paedophilia in spite of the overwhelming evidence that both are attractions which cannot be helped outside the conventional norm of heterosexuality. I wonder if they realise that in condemning paedophilia they are only doing what homophobes do to them......