Could pedophiles be equivical to homosexuals?

[Mrsoupcup]

Two adults who love each other is far different than a guy who just like kiddie porn. Children don't even understand sex let alone love or their bodies. You can't honestly expect a kid to make a choice like that and expect him to know what he or she is doing. Besides the amount of damage it does to kids physically and mentally is to glaring to ignore. Only people who want age of consent laws removed are people who actually want to have sex with kids. Most of them are mentally ill. And the only kids who want age of consent laws removed are teens just under 18 who cant be bothered to wait a few years.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Fully educated and intelligent, but are they truly mature? They're 5 years old, but being grown in a tank would not breed any maturity or understanding of not just their sexual tendencies, but also social interaction in general.

What I'm saying is that no matter how much a child knows, he or she will not be ready for sex at age 5, or 6, or 7. Or 13. Or, for the most part, even 15. You could tell them all the secrets of the world, you could imbue them with God's wealth of knowledge if you wanted to, but a child at age 5 still wouldn't be ready for sex physically or mentally. Not at all. Why? Because they're 5

I could be biased in this: I was thinking about busty ladies at aged ten and I knew what I wanted to do with them.
I'm presuming that everyone else has the capacity for a sex drive like I did.

I also forgot to mention that part of the education was sex-education, but I suppose that hardly matters now.

 

[Popido]

If
Pedo = Rape + Children
Then
Homo = Rape + Men
While
Hetero = Rape

Love you guys. The logic is flawless, as always.

 

[Aiden_the-Joker1]

I do not think so as several ancient societies have considered homosexuality and even incest to be ok however no society I have ever heard of has condoned paedophilia(under the age of what that society deemed mature 12, 14 etc). Also there is the argument that children do not fully understand and thus are being taken advantage of. If paedophilia is introduced imagine how hard it would be to distinguish what was rape as they are children. So no I do not think it ever will, although I think some people might bring up the idea like you have.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

As I'm sure most of you know hundreds of years ago homosexuals were considered evil and under the corruptful influence of satan, and were tortured, lynched and exiled. Fast forward to about 100-150 years ago around the time psychology began to make its strides, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and "sufferers" were given unethical treatment to attempt to cure them. Within the last few decades homosexuals have begun to be recognised as a complete social community, even though there is still a lot of discrimination against them.

Uh-huh...except that's not really true. That sentiment rolled around when Judeo-Christian religions became world powers. Roll back the clock a few more centuries to the glory days of Greece and Rome, and getting an apprenticeship at the local smithy was practically a one-way ticket to getting bent over an anvil by a burly blacksmith.

Not to mention things like the Sacred Band of Thebes, which was a military unit made entirely of gay couples on the theory that 1) comrades could potentially desert one another on the battlefield, but lovers would not and 2) only men could be good soldiers, so you could only use male couples for this idea. The SBT spent most of its career kicking the asses of armies several times their size until fighting to the last man against Alexander the Great.

What i'm asking is it not feasible that pedophilia could go through the same lifecycle?

Not really, no.

Now before i get destroyed by many, many people i want you to consider one thing, the way the world feels about pedophiles was the exact same way the world felt about homosexuals however many years ago

We also treated adulterers the same way. And witches. And Jews. And pretty much anyone who defied social norms. Nowadays, homosexuality is generally acceptable because it's sex between two consenting adults, as opposed to pedophilia, which is sex between an adult and someone who is neither mentally capable of giving consent or physically ready for the act of sex.

EDIT: I am NOT saying that the two are the same i just used homosexuality as an example because of the drastic change in public opinion!

Uh-huh. Funny how it's always homosexuality that gets used for the slippery slope argument about pedophilia. It's never "Oh, look! We let athiests openly be athiest! They'll let people bone children before long!" or something else that used to carry a horrific social stigma.

 

[Knight Templar]

So if you don't consider them to be thesame (which is good since they are very clearly not), why would you expect them to be treated the same?


Two consenting adults.
One forcfull adult and a child unable to give consent.

Yeah I don't expect these to be viewed the same outside a papal address.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

Once upon a time, people thought Slavery was just a part of the natural order of things, today it is one of the worst moral ills imaginable for one human to own another. By that same token, "homosexuality" (which actually didn't exist as a construct until the early 20th century, before then it was what role you played during sex, not who you had sex with, that decided your sexuality) used to be considered a huge affront to the natural order of things. Basically, the "natural order of things" is defined by the people who live at the time and the changing moral values they possess. There are no "age of consent" rules in the bible, many Muslim nations still don't have one but rather place all of the emphasis on being married at first sexual contact. The beliefs held by people in 1811 were different in large ways from the beliefs held today and they will surely continue to change between now and 2211. Nothing is static about human beliefs, even morally. There is nothing to suggest that pedophilia will be any more acceptable in 200 years than it is today, but nothing, particularly in the realm of acceptable sexuality, is held as completely unchangeable over time.

In my opinion, you haven't even touched on the real debate yet. In the 20th century, there was an active and well funded scientific search going on for a "cure" to homosexuality. Today such a search would be abhorrent, and yet there is now the exact same search on for a "cure" for pedophilia as well. With gene therapy and the rising possibility of genetic editing between generations, there could soon be a way to eradicate the genes that cause such socially unacceptable attractions. If attraction to youth becomes eradicated in the future, then the morals on the issue must, by definition, remain static. Do we, as the bearers of the morals of our current generation, have the right to decide what the morals of all future generations must be? Now that would be an interesting debate.

 

[BGH122]

Also, nice avatar for the subject matter.

Yes, yes it is a nice avatar. I enjoy the fact that it bemuses people when I give in-depth and verbose responses since it strikes a sharp contrast to their presumptions of my personality owed to my avatar.

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is typically defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The child must be at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles.

There you go. The DSM-IV disagrees slightly with this definition, holding that the diagnostic criteria for paedophilia include sexual activity, rather than just proclivity, but the DSM seems to be alone in this particular criterion.

 

[Knusper]

My great uncle* was charged with pedophilia and imprisoned for having sex with a 15 year old boy. It was right for him to face the law, but his defense was that the boy was consenting. Therefore, whilst I don't ever see it being made legal for a fully-grown adult to have sex with an 8 year old, it is possible that we will reduce the minimum age for having sex from 16 to 14 in years or perhaps decades to come.

[sub] *The fact that he is a relation does not change my stance favourably towards pedophilia, I've never even met him.[/sub]

 

[Wow they sure are generous with the usernames]

When I saw this thread, my jaw actually dropped. Un-fucking-believable.

There is no way anyone can honestly argue that the two are remotely even. It's the equivalent of taking a giant shit on all the strides forward gay rights activists have made in the past 100 years. Seriously.

 

[daemon37]

Arguing about this logically is a waste of time. See below:

1) You are correct on your historical account

2) It doesn't matter because no one will listen to you out of fear of persecution

 

[Verlander]

Seriously.. we're doing this, we're actually doing this?

Look, OP, I accept you're not a homophobe but that doesn't give you a carte blanche to feed them. Above and beyond the fact that a lot of homophobes believe the two are the same thing, this line of thinking is just begging for someone to come along with the logic of the daily mail reader and say that supporting gay inclusion into society means supporting paedophiles.

Why paedophiles.. seriously.. can we talk about zoophiles or sadomasochists or foot fetishists? It's not like paedophiles are the only permutation of human sexuality currently considered abnormal.

Funnily enough, yesterday the Daily Mail did this beauty of an article, which related homosexuality to zoophilia

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1356699/David-Cameron-Tory-Prime-Minister-upholding-traditional-morality-bigotry.html

I think S+M gets left out of these topics, mainly becuase to one extent or an other, we all roleplay in a sado-masochistic manner. You may not realise it or mean it, but we do, especially as we get older. Risk makes things fun. Same with foot fetishists-everyone has a fetish, no matter how dull or banal it may be.

OP (and others): Pedophilia is a large issue currently, generally due to media fueled paranoia that started in America. I mean, technically the state isn't going to go overboard on a 17 year old caught with a 16 or 15 year old-that's ridiculous, and any time the media reports on a case where a young boy gets a severe sentence, you can bet everything you own that there were other mitigating factors that helped define his sentence, that were "accidentally" left out by the reporter, in order for a better story.

Basically, normal people generally people have a little sense about it. It becomes an issue when trust has been abused, such as in an education setting, a family/community setting, or when a much older person grooms a much younger person, with intent to sleep with them. That "theft" of trust is what makes it morally and legally wrong, something which has no relevance to homosexuality.

 

[Lord Kloo]

I do believe pedophilia, homosexuality and psychopathics are all conditions of the brain not willing choices, if humanity takes the path of becoming increasingly patient and caring then we will eventually accept a lot of things as being life choice, however I don't think that we will go that way and it is likely that pedophiles (at least active ones anyway) will never have a space in society..

I think it would be best if we all just accepted that people behave differently, some for reasons perhaps beyond human understanding.

I think the problem you have here is that the human is wired to protect its children from anything and so pedophiles will never be allowed to just get with consenting children because of the nature of parenthood. Homosexuals are different as they are adults. Now in my mind that shouldn't make a difference but it does.

So in essence as long as it is unlawful to have sex with someone under the normal sexual age limit pedophiles cannot exercise their natural desires and so will always be removed from society..

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

There's a giant difference between Paedophilia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia] and Ephebophilia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia]. Unfortunately, many laws consider them one and the same, setting the age of consent in the range of ephebophilia (roughly 15-19). I personally believe this to be invalid, but I can't cite any evidence to say it's any better to have sex with a 15 year old than a 9 year old, other than the fact that the onset of puberty is roughly 12 years of age. But, of course, the presence of functioning genitals isn't consent, otherwise rape would be a non-crime.

It's a very complex issue, but I certainly wholly disagree with the way society treats paedophiles. Regardless of the morality of the actual act, they were still born as they are. They have not made a choice to become attracted to children and we as a society have no right to treat them with the kind of abhorrence we currently exhibit. We can disagree with their sexual proclivities and render them illegal without also hating these people for the way they happened to be born.

This pretty much sums up a lot of my opinion.

The issue is more complicated than simply 'no, that's sick!', because that reaction comes from the teachings of modern culture. I wouldn't condone the act, but I do see similarities between 'paedophilia' and homosexuality on a historical level. Back in Roman times (which is pretty much the basis of modern society) both were acceptable, although potentially embarrassing. But then, back then children culturally knew what to expect and how to react (I believe they were meant to make adults work for their affection, but I have no source for this information), whereas today despite schooling they do not and are not expected to.

I find it interesting that both were condemned to hell-fire, but only homosexuality recovered. It's probably the way culture has developed I suppose. My point is, that while it's very much forbidden today and is unlikely to change any time soon, it's conceivable that either we are going to evolve our standards into something beyond age-based maturity or that our cultures will change to facilitate it again.

 

[Zuljeet]

There's a giant difference between Paedophilia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia] and Ephebophilia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia]. Unfortunately, many laws consider them one and the same, setting the age of consent in the range of ephebophilia (roughly 15-19). I personally believe this to be invalid, but I can't cite any evidence to say it's any better to have sex with a 15 year old than a 9 year old, other than the fact that the onset of puberty is roughly 12 years of age. But, of course, the presence of functioning genitals isn't consent, otherwise rape would be a non-crime.

It's a very complex issue, but I certainly wholly disagree with the way society treats paedophiles. Regardless of the morality of the actual act, they were still born as they are. They have not made a choice to become attracted to children and we as a society have no right to treat them with the kind of abhorrence we currently exhibit. We can disagree with their sexual proclivities and render them illegal without also hating these people for the way they happened to be born.

What is the obsession this site has with posts about pedophiles?

This.

Also, homosexuality is a mature decision between two mature adults. Pedophilia is a pre-pubescent child who isn't old enough to make responsible decisions regarding sex.

/thread.

No, not /thread. Cite studies to show those claims are valid and make a distinction between the treatment of paedophiles and the legitimacy of their acts.

What exactly is complex about this again? Pedophiles need to be removed from society for a ton of very good reasons which all could be summed up in the statement "they (pedophiles) break children". You want me to cite the validity of that statement? Fuck you; do your own research and try to prove me wrong. I am speaking from experience. You wanna try to parse out the act into age groups in the hopes of obfuscating the issue? You can try I guess, but the act and the results are the same: the child in question remains broken.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

thank you that was exactly the kind of response i was hoping to see

Then why not ask for it honestly? Were you so afraid to make a post saying 'I think paedophiles are treated unfairly' that you had to drag homosexuality into it?

Like I said, a lot of people already equate the two. I for one don't appreciate having that reinforced.

Agreed on all points grammar to griefing. This is a thread which does little but add ammo to the already ridiculous amount the 'moral majority' has aimed at the popular view of homosexual relations. *raises glass* Here's to hoping it dies a swift death and does not reappear.

 

[okogamashii]

This is flamebaiting of the highest degree.

I don't think you understand what that term means. It doesn't mean 'controversial' or 'will raise split opinions'.

It absolutely is flamebait. The OP has created a topic about a very sensitive, yes, controversial, issue, then proceeded to make it outright offensive to a lot of people, whether he meant to or not, by comparing pedophilia to homosexuality.

Also, not only is your avatar tasteless, but your first post was absurd. It doesn't matter that they were born attracted to children, acting on that, or even thinking about acting on it is repulsive and wrong. They're defective, and anyone that isn't disgusted by the idea of an adult permanently scarring a child for their own sexual gratification is a foul human being.