Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In your rush to insult, you missed the point 17:47--yes, sodomy has been around for eons, but has been illegal in many jurisdictions. For many, it would have been unimaginable for those laws to change and yet they rightly have. That is not to say that at some point age of consent laws won't change, too. Views on morality are fluid--just take a look back over the last 50-60 years.

I get it. Mary was a mother at what, 14? But still, unlike pedophilia, I'd venture to say that a solid percentage of married couples were practicing one or another form of sodomy - in the 1800's, 1900's, and now. It's like marijuana vs. heroin. I can easily see marijuana legalized, half the country has tried it after all. But I don't see heroin becoming legal, no matter how many analogies you can draw between the two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll probably get flamed for this, but I think there is a legitimate call to reexamine the social response to pedophilia and other sexual deviances (which homosexuality is decidedly NOT!). It is my genuine understanding that these people's desires are very much out of their control. In general, our sexual attractions are not controlled. They might be socially conditioned, but no one wakes up in the morning and decides to be straight or gay or attracted to blondes or brunettes or older women or younger guys or children or teenagers.

Of course, none that justifies victimizing others. Be it heterosexual rape of an adult or the sexual abuse of a child, no matter what your sexual predilection is, nonconsensual sex or sexual contact is wrong and ought to be illegal.

However, the demonization of pedophiles and other sexual deviants goes too far. They're not monsters, even if they engage in admittedly monstrous behavior. They're humans, potentially hard-wired in an unhealthy way, who should be supported to be healthy members of society. Which can happen in conjunction with penalizing them for their crimes.

Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality. The extent to which it is the same, it is equally the same with heterosexuality. But where it differs from both homosexuality and heterosexuality is the creation of victims. Pedophiles deserve certain rights, those of full-blown citizens and, should they act criminally, the same rights we afford criminals (which seem to be lesser and lesser each day).

And instead of acknowledging their urges and actions hurt others, they hurt others rather than seeking treatment before they hurt others.

Because they are hard-wired to hurt children, they need to be controlled, not supported.

Maybe if they weren't so deeply, deeply stigmatized, they'd be more likely to reach out for help.

Imagine, if you will, a middle aged man announces that he is sexually attracted to children. He has never acted on these urges, but he struggles to maintain them and it is taking a toll on his life. He'd like to get help, support, so that he can live a healthy life, or as healthy a life as possible, without causing harm to anyone. How do you think he'll be received?

[Anonymous]

Well, if he decides to go get help, it is reassuring to know that the IRS will have access to this information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has begun, soon a goat and 3 men can marry. Thanks gay marriage.

Gay marriage didn't start this trend. Hetrosexuals were the first to start marrying and now look what that has led to. Back in the days when you just had to club a woman and drag her back to your cave by her hair, we didn't have these kinds of problems.

Frankly, I'd like to go back to the days when men were actually not neutered by femi-Nazis - minus the club of course

Poor baby. Everyone knows women are the stronger sex anyway. You're finally in your rightful place.

Um... I'm the PP who made the statement - I'm a woman.

Ann Coulter, is that you?

Nope. But thank you for the complement

It's compliment, moron. Complement means you are a couple.

A spelling Nazi! That's all you got?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll probably get flamed for this, but I think there is a legitimate call to reexamine the social response to pedophilia and other sexual deviances (which homosexuality is decidedly NOT!). It is my genuine understanding that these people's desires are very much out of their control. In general, our sexual attractions are not controlled. They might be socially conditioned, but no one wakes up in the morning and decides to be straight or gay or attracted to blondes or brunettes or older women or younger guys or children or teenagers.

Of course, none that justifies victimizing others. Be it heterosexual rape of an adult or the sexual abuse of a child, no matter what your sexual predilection is, nonconsensual sex or sexual contact is wrong and ought to be illegal.

However, the demonization of pedophiles and other sexual deviants goes too far. They're not monsters, even if they engage in admittedly monstrous behavior. They're humans, potentially hard-wired in an unhealthy way, who should be supported to be healthy members of society. Which can happen in conjunction with penalizing them for their crimes.

Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality. The extent to which it is the same, it is equally the same with heterosexuality. But where it differs from both homosexuality and heterosexuality is the creation of victims. Pedophiles deserve certain rights, those of full-blown citizens and, should they act criminally, the same rights we afford criminals (which seem to be lesser and lesser each day).

And instead of acknowledging their urges and actions hurt others, they hurt others rather than seeking treatment before they hurt others.

Because they are hard-wired to hurt children, they need to be controlled, not supported.

Maybe if they weren't so deeply, deeply stigmatized, they'd be more likely to reach out for help.

Imagine, if you will, a middle aged man announces that he is sexually attracted to children. He has never acted on these urges, but he struggles to maintain them and it is taking a toll on his life. He'd like to get help, support, so that he can live a healthy life, or as healthy a life as possible, without causing harm to anyone. How do you think he'll be received?

If he's never acted on them, then he's not hurt anyone and therefore can't be arrested, etc. That's why FREEDOM is so important to maintain. That's number one. I'm sure that a good psychiatrist will medicate to control the urges. How he FEELS about how he is received, is of no real matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, if he decides to go get help, it is reassuring to know that the IRS will have access to this information.

You bring up a critical point here, one that liberals I'm sure are not getting. This is EXACTLY why this type of data storage is frighetning as hell.

[Anonymous]

^^^ And yes, I know I spelled frightening wrong.

[Anonymous]

If he's never acted on them, then he's not hurt anyone and therefore can't be arrested, etc. That's why FREEDOM is so important to maintain. That's number one. I'm sure that a good psychiatrist will medicate to control the urges. How he FEELS about how he is received, is of no real matter.


[Report Post]

Except that his records will be open to HHS and IRS.

[Anonymous]

As long as we continue to require legal consent you all don't need to worry children and dogs can't legally consent. End of discussion.

Two consenting (human) adults. That's the key.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If he's never acted on them, then he's not hurt anyone and therefore can't be arrested, etc. That's why FREEDOM is so important to maintain. That's number one. I'm sure that a good psychiatrist will medicate to control the urges. How he FEELS about how he is received, is of no real matter.


[Report Post]

Except that his records will be open to HHS and IRS.

Wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll probably get flamed for this, but I think there is a legitimate call to reexamine the social response to pedophilia and other sexual deviances (which homosexuality is decidedly NOT!). It is my genuine understanding that these people's desires are very much out of their control. In general, our sexual attractions are not controlled. They might be socially conditioned, but no one wakes up in the morning and decides to be straight or gay or attracted to blondes or brunettes or older women or younger guys or children or teenagers.

Of course, none that justifies victimizing others. Be it heterosexual rape of an adult or the sexual abuse of a child, no matter what your sexual predilection is, nonconsensual sex or sexual contact is wrong and ought to be illegal.

However, the demonization of pedophiles and other sexual deviants goes too far. They're not monsters, even if they engage in admittedly monstrous behavior. They're humans, potentially hard-wired in an unhealthy way, who should be supported to be healthy members of society. Which can happen in conjunction with penalizing them for their crimes.

Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality. The extent to which it is the same, it is equally the same with heterosexuality. But where it differs from both homosexuality and heterosexuality is the creation of victims. Pedophiles deserve certain rights, those of full-blown citizens and, should they act criminally, the same rights we afford criminals (which seem to be lesser and lesser each day).

And instead of acknowledging their urges and actions hurt others, they hurt others rather than seeking treatment before they hurt others.

Because they are hard-wired to hurt children, they need to be controlled, not supported.

Maybe if they weren't so deeply, deeply stigmatized, they'd be more likely to reach out for help.

Imagine, if you will, a middle aged man announces that he is sexually attracted to children. He has never acted on these urges, but he struggles to maintain them and it is taking a toll on his life. He'd like to get help, support, so that he can live a healthy life, or as healthy a life as possible, without causing harm to anyone. How do you think he'll be received?

If he's never acted on them, then he's not hurt anyone and therefore can't be arrested, etc. That's why FREEDOM is so important to maintain. That's number one. I'm sure that a good psychiatrist will medicate to control the urges. How he FEELS about how he is received, is of no real matter.

But there are people who think the urges alone justify imprisonment, castration, and being ostracized. Given that climate, why would anyone admit them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll probably get flamed for this, but I think there is a legitimate call to reexamine the social response to pedophilia and other sexual deviances (which homosexuality is decidedly NOT!). It is my genuine understanding that these people's desires are very much out of their control. In general, our sexual attractions are not controlled. They might be socially conditioned, but no one wakes up in the morning and decides to be straight or gay or attracted to blondes or brunettes or older women or younger guys or children or teenagers.

Of course, none that justifies victimizing others. Be it heterosexual rape of an adult or the sexual abuse of a child, no matter what your sexual predilection is, nonconsensual sex or sexual contact is wrong and ought to be illegal.

However, the demonization of pedophiles and other sexual deviants goes too far. They're not monsters, even if they engage in admittedly monstrous behavior. They're humans, potentially hard-wired in an unhealthy way, who should be supported to be healthy members of society. Which can happen in conjunction with penalizing them for their crimes.

Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality. The extent to which it is the same, it is equally the same with heterosexuality. But where it differs from both homosexuality and heterosexuality is the creation of victims. Pedophiles deserve certain rights, those of full-blown citizens and, should they act criminally, the same rights we afford criminals (which seem to be lesser and lesser each day).

And instead of acknowledging their urges and actions hurt others, they hurt others rather than seeking treatment before they hurt others.

Because they are hard-wired to hurt children, they need to be controlled, not supported.

Maybe if they weren't so deeply, deeply stigmatized, they'd be more likely to reach out for help.

Imagine, if you will, a middle aged man announces that he is sexually attracted to children. He has never acted on these urges, but he struggles to maintain them and it is taking a toll on his life. He'd like to get help, support, so that he can live a healthy life, or as healthy a life as possible, without causing harm to anyone. How do you think he'll be received?

If he's never acted on them, then he's not hurt anyone and therefore can't be arrested, etc. That's why FREEDOM is so important to maintain. That's number one. I'm sure that a good psychiatrist will medicate to control the urges. How he FEELS about how he is received, is of no real matter.

But there are people who think the urges alone justify imprisonment, castration, and being ostracized. Given that climate, why would anyone admit them?

When a pedophile seeks help from a psychiatrist who recommends - and carries through - with the above, let me know. Until then, there's no excuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has begun, soon a goat and 3 men can marry. Thanks gay marriage.

For the OP and this PP, there is the issue of consent. Minors and animals cannot consent. When you can get a goat to say that it is voluntarily entering into a relationship with a human, then we can reconsider the topic of bestiality. And children will never be able to consent. Every local jurisdiction has a legal age of consent below which minors CANNOT consent to sexual activity.

"Consent" is a concept that most American "conservatives" just can't seem to wrap their minds around.

[Anonymous]

OT pet peeve -- someone who corrects your spelling is not a Nazi.

Let's leave the Nazi comparisons to those who deserve it -- perpetrators of genocide -- and not just anyone who is uptight about following certain rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll probably get flamed for this, but I think there is a legitimate call to reexamine the social response to pedophilia and other sexual deviances (which homosexuality is decidedly NOT!). It is my genuine understanding that these people's desires are very much out of their control. In general, our sexual attractions are not controlled. They might be socially conditioned, but no one wakes up in the morning and decides to be straight or gay or attracted to blondes or brunettes or older women or younger guys or children or teenagers.

Of course, none that justifies victimizing others. Be it heterosexual rape of an adult or the sexual abuse of a child, no matter what your sexual predilection is, nonconsensual sex or sexual contact is wrong and ought to be illegal.

However, the demonization of pedophiles and other sexual deviants goes too far. They're not monsters, even if they engage in admittedly monstrous behavior. They're humans, potentially hard-wired in an unhealthy way, who should be supported to be healthy members of society. Which can happen in conjunction with penalizing them for their crimes.

Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality. The extent to which it is the same, it is equally the same with heterosexuality. But where it differs from both homosexuality and heterosexuality is the creation of victims. Pedophiles deserve certain rights, those of full-blown citizens and, should they act criminally, the same rights we afford criminals (which seem to be lesser and lesser each day).

And instead of acknowledging their urges and actions hurt others, they hurt others rather than seeking treatment before they hurt others.

Because they are hard-wired to hurt children, they need to be controlled, not supported.

Maybe if they weren't so deeply, deeply stigmatized, they'd be more likely to reach out for help.

Imagine, if you will, a middle aged man announces that he is sexually attracted to children. He has never acted on these urges, but he struggles to maintain them and it is taking a toll on his life. He'd like to get help, support, so that he can live a healthy life, or as healthy a life as possible, without causing harm to anyone. How do you think he'll be received?

If he's never acted on them, then he's not hurt anyone and therefore can't be arrested, etc. That's why FREEDOM is so important to maintain. That's number one. I'm sure that a good psychiatrist will medicate to control the urges. How he FEELS about how he is received, is of no real matter.

But there are people who think the urges alone justify imprisonment, castration, and being ostracized. Given that climate, why would anyone admit them?

When a pedophile seeks help from a psychiatrist who recommends - and carries through - with the above, let me know. Until then, there's no excuse.

Well, I'm sure that will be a great deal of comfort to the person who gets imprisoned, castrated and ostracized. Any number of people must be dying to take that risk.