Why isn't there a 'pride' for Paedophiles, too?

Paedophiles have to get their "kicks" for their "fetish" some how. Even if they don't actively abuse kids, they will search for porn. Child porn requires the abuse of children at some stage. I do not see how paedophiles can be none acting. Unless they become a monk for a life of abstinence they will always be tempted.

So you are saying that you honestly believe that same sex attraction is the same as being attracted to children? Honestly?

there are probably reasons why you would want to do that to G Brown but why should a paedo be allowed to do that to innocent children?
i think they are just being too soft and allowing them the opportunity to do that without warnings or prosecution will just result in greater offences

I don't care whether you were the victim, I think you have to be a moron not to understand that peadophilia is a sexuality, and not a choice. Similar to heterosexuality and homosexuality. The difference is in acting upon the urges (which I obviously don't condone). But if a peadophile were to fancy children it'd be completely natural, and therefore isn't inherently wrong, but obviously acting upon it is, because they're not legally of age to consent.

I think Brad Pitt is hot.
Brad Pitt probably won't consent to sex with me.

I'm not gonna rape Brad Pitt. I assume you think I would?

Of course they can, I get urges sometimes (not peadophilic ) it doesn't mean I can't control them. And anyway, if child porn is there then why shouldn't they look at it?

I tell you what...What until your children or some child in you family or friends is a victim and you will care. Call me a moron or whatever I don't care, I DO NOT consider it right and whether or not it is a sexuality is irelevant! They should be removed form society as they pose a potential threat. Not saying all will act on their urges but do we reallly want to risk them slipping up?

You are sick. This thread is disgusting.

And anyway, if child porn is there then why shouldn't they look at it?

Yes, they're both innate and neither are choices, so in that sense it is the same notion.

And anyway, if child porn is there then why shouldn't they look at it?

You are sick. This thread is disgusting.

Who said anything about allowing paedophiles to do things to children?

A person's head is their castle, and no-one has any right to attempt to forcefully breach it or hold him or her accountable for anything that happens within. I might ask what's wrong with all you people that seem to be advocating thoughtcrime legislation to criminalise sexual attraction without any related actions.

Because funny enough Child Porn is illegal and therefore contains VICTIMS! thats why it shouldn't be looked at...It's sick. End Of.

Oh shut up. So I guess you don't consider any sexuality to be right either? If you didn't agree with homosexuality do you think we should get rid of those too? Potential threat isn't a big enough reason, anything can pose a potential threat, we could all pose threats as potential rapists, shall we remove absolutely everybody from society?

Get real.

Tell me how breaking the law, or even considering it is the same as same sex attraction?

The fact of the matter is this, wanting to, or indeed having sex with a child, is wrong, and immoral regardless of where you live. The child cannot consent, and as I have previously said that is where lies the difference.

You are sick. This [...] is disgusting.

Please do explain why I am "sick".