The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Why not Pedos?

I'm obviously against pedophilia so don't get me wrong but I wanted to ask this question.

If our society allows a man to marry with another man as long as there is mutual consent, then why can't they allow an adult to marry a minor as long as there is mutual consent?

I think it just highlights how backwards a society we are if we pave open doors to pedophilia by allowing gays to marry.

Not looking to argue extensively. I just wanted to show my views on this subject and I would like to hear other people's views on this.

Scroll to see replies

Why are they mentally ill if they look at a child? You're a hypocrite.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Yeah, that's what I meant. And you're a hypocrite because you say man liking another man is natural. How do you know if a man liking a child is not natural?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 3
Avatar for Anonymous #1
Anonymous #1
OP
To consent is to willingly go along with something and the age of consent being 16 and the statement "A child cannot consent" is 100% subjective to those who made the law. Noone can say with 100% certainty that a 15 year old boy has no idea what he is doing if he got into a sexual relationship with an adult female. Btw, there's no significant significance in me not including lesbians; I just never mentioned them. I still don't condone of them.
I'm just talking about attraction atm. And plenty of kids have sex before 16, they not consenting?

And in no ways I'm defending paedophilia. I'm just highlighting why normalising homosexuality is stupid.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 5
Avatar for Anonymous #1
Anonymous #1
OP
Original post by donutellme
I'm just talking about attraction atm. And plenty of kids have sex before 16, they not consenting?

And in no ways I'm defending paedophilia. I'm just highlighting why normalising homosexuality is stupid.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Exactly my point bro! Man, if you were next to me, I would deffo shag you!!
NORMALISING. I don't care if it's natural or not, they can do what they like. But normalising/accepting/praising it, as everyone seems to be doing, is retarded and is gonna bring worse things in future.

Posted from TSR Mobile
No not that. Gays marrying, fine whatever. But this opens other doors.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 8
Avatar for viriol
viriol
12
Original post by donutellme
I'm just talking about attraction atm. And plenty of kids have sex before 16, they not consenting?

And in no ways I'm defending paedophilia. I'm just highlighting why normalising homosexuality is stupid.

Posted from TSR Mobile


You raised a good point initially, but you're taking it too far.

The thing is claiming something is "normal" is extremely subjective. Paedophilia was normal 50 years ago. People would even publicly claim to practice it without fear of judgement. From a biological point of view, both paedophilia and homosexuality are as natural as natural gets.

So clearly the big difference has to do not with "naturality" but with consent. Sex without consent is tantamount to rape. Likewise if one is not mature enough to consent. So I guess from a moral perspective it should be OK to have sex with anyone who is mature enough to consent (special relationships as in teacher-student aside). Of course since maturity is ill-defined a legal rule will have to pick some arbitrary threshold. 16 is just a more or less safe threshold to pick - personally, I think some people never really get mature enough to be allowed to have sex, but hey, I guess we can't just forbid them.
Original post by Anonymous
I'm obviously against pedophilia so don't get me wrong but I wanted to ask this question.

If our society allows a man to marry with another man as long as there is mutual consent, then why can't they allow an adult to marry a minor as long as there is mutual consent?

I think it just highlights how backwards a society we are if we pave open doors to pedophilia by allowing gays to marry.

Not looking to argue extensively. I just wanted to show my views on this subject and I would like to hear other people's views on this.


Because we (society) deem that a child (the term "child" varying legally upon where you live) cannot consent, which takes priority/precedence over satiating the wants of other people.

Change doesn't mean degeneracy or change for the worse; change is change, there's no other definite in it. Change can be for the worse, can be for the better, can be neutral. The traditionalness of any belief holds no ground either.
No, I wouldn't say sick in the context I think you're using it of.

Paedophilia is a mental illness, because those characterised by it (paedophiles) are affected by it in their day to day lives negatively and it isn't acquired like prejudices or anything.

It clearly won't be a choice, as one doesn't choose their sexual attractions, so to stigmatise paedophiles, preventing them from getting help/therapy, is morally wrong. I assume plenty of paedophiles have never touched a child in a sexual way in their lives, but are burdened by their (sexual) attraction. By stigmatising them, you could also decrease mental stability etc. and further incline them to child molestation themselves. It is immoral to stigmatise people of something they cannot allow regardless, especially if it doesn’t by default hurt any other party

Let's also make the distinction that not all child molesters would be paedophiles either, because there may be other motives at work, other than a sexual attraction to children.

So in summary, solely stigmatise the child molestation, not the paedophilia, because it's counterproductive. By stigmatising paedophiles, you will most likely only cause more child molestation (but everyone needs to not stigmatise them, no? or your effort will be naught. Actually no, people need to destigmatise them, so that they aren't afraid to get help.)
Original post by donutellme
Yeah, that's what I meant. And you're a hypocrite because you say man liking another man is natural. How do you know if a man liking a child is not natural?

Posted from TSR Mobile


They are both natural, because they both occur without human interference.
Anyway, why appeal to nature? Whether or not something is natural has no impact on whether or not something is good.

Oh, and by the way, learn your definitions.
Original post by donutellme
NORMALISING. I don't care if it's natural or not, they can do what they like. But normalising/accepting/praising it, as everyone seems to be doing, is retarded and is gonna bring worse things in future.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I'd say your point is much more retarded than my attraction to the same sex :lol:.

Oh yes, because allowing people to have their love for each other recognised in the eyes of the law is obviously oh so damaging to the world - get real. Homosexuality has existed just as long as heterosexuality and just because it was behind closed doors does not mean it didn't happen. I don't see how saying being gay is ok is damaging - your attitude is much more so.
Original post by donutellme
I'm just talking about attraction atm. And plenty of kids have sex before 16, they not consenting?

And in no ways I'm defending paedophilia. I'm just highlighting why normalising homosexuality is stupid.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Yes, kids before 16 having sex might be consenting, but as the other person (@viriol) put it, you have to make an arbitrary threshold on the matter.

I really don't see why people are against drawing a line? Because, a line must be drawn.

It's silly and far too overcomplicated to think otherwise.
Original post by donutellme
NORMALISING. I don't care if it's natural or not, they can do what they like. But normalising/accepting/praising it, as everyone seems to be doing, is retarded and is gonna bring worse things in future.

Posted from TSR Mobile


At least we've clarified about appealing to nature.
Now, whether or not something is normal has little impact on whether or not something is good.
Because normal is a quality often dictated by majority, so if you're going to use that word, or any word in its meaning-based word family, please clarify what dictates it. In the word normal, there's also a slight emphasis on what is traditional.

For what reasons could normalising (I should say destigmatising) homosexuality cause worse things in society in the future?
I'm going to be honest with you; I've never seen one argument that is valid, honestly.
Years back homophobia was huge. I won't be surprised if our children's children legalise pedophilia :lol:

Spoiler

(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by donutellme
No not that. Gays marrying, fine whatever. But this opens other doors.

Posted from TSR Mobile


No, it doesn't; change is change, not degeneracy or whatever you want to call it, hence why it's called change. Change can be good, bad or neutral/indifferent. All change is probably going to do it veer away from traditionalness, and whether or not something is traditional has no impact on whether or not something is good.

Yet again, please learn thy definitions.
Original post by viriol
You raised a good point initially, but you're taking it too far.

The thing is claiming something is "normal" is extremely subjective. Paedophilia was normal 50 years ago. People would even publicly claim to practice it without fear of judgement. F̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶a̶ ̶b̶i̶o̶l̶o̶g̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶o̶i̶n̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶v̶i̶e̶w̶,̶ both paedophilia and homosexuality are as natural as natural gets.

So clearly the big difference has to do not with "naturality" but with consent. Sex without consent is tantamount to rape. Likewise if one is not mature enough to consent. So I guess from a moral perspective it should be OK to have sex with anyone who is mature enough to consent (special relationships as in teacher-student aside). Of course since maturity is ill-defined a legal rule will have to pick some arbitrary threshold. 16 is just a more or less safe threshold to pick - personally, I think some people never really get mature enough to be allowed to have sex, but hey, I guess we can't just forbid them.


I must say, there's only one meaning of the word natural; there's no biological point of view in the first place.

Bingo, that's the best way to put it!
Original post by Imperion
Years back homophobia was huge. I won't be surprised if our children's children legalise pedophilia :lol:

Spoiler



The fact that one affects someone negatively and the other does not, one has the potential to cause harm and one does not, places them in two distinctly different boats.
Oh, and let's just remember....

paedophilia is characterised by a sexual attraction (a sole philia) to PREPUBESCENT children, otherwise, no? they are not categorised as paedophiles.

So this means children who have not started puberty, around the ages of ~0 - 11.

So, in summary, learn thy definitions, or thy is ripped apart when argumenting.

edit: this applies to everyone here!! :biggrin::biggrin::h:

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you