Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals?

[Anonymous]

I find it ironic that this thread was meant to say gay rights means that legal pedophilia is not far behind.

Then take a look at the thread on "WP says maybe we should just let teachers rape students" and the thread, "30 days in jail for sex with child" and it becomes clear that it's not homosexuality that is sexualizing our children. It's the typical patriarchal bull shit that sexualizes young girls and then values, criticizes and penalizes females based on whatever level of sexualization they have or have not realized. http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/327348.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they are born that way though, they can't be faulted for the sexual orientation they were born with. Yet their sexual orientation - which they can't choose or change - hurts others. So how do we acknowledge the struggle they have to have a sexual orientation that they can't change and that they didn't choose but that is socially unacceptable, and hurts others. Is it fair to ask someone to suppress their natural sexuality? how do we deal with this?

I agree it is a difficult issue. But I don't see that there is any choice other than to require them to suppress their natural sexuality - including through chemical castration if necessary.

Some people are born with sicknesses that need to be addressed, even if this requires them to change their personality in fundamental ways.

I don't see any comparison with homosexuality.

It is comparable to any sexual orientation. Is it fair to ask someone who is heterosexual or homosexual to suppress their natural sexuality? Are some sexual orientations a sickness and how do we decided which ones? For some acting on your natural sexual attraction is an expression of love and for others it is a crime.

Obviously they can't act on their sexuality as to do so harms others but many would give anything to not be attracted to children - they absolutely hate that that is what they find arousing and that is what they desire and find attractive.

I don't think everyone who molests a child is a pedophile (in terms of sexual orientation). Some abuse out of control/power issues or their own twisted sens of right/wrong based on very dysfunctional lives, others molest while drugged and in an altered state of mind. These to me are very different from men who have always only since an early age (teens) been solely attracted to prepubescent children and only find children arousing. These men were born that way and are tortured by the sexual orientation they have, one they had no choice in.

Yes, it is fair to ask that pedophiles suppress their natural sexuality. Because in order to engage in sexual contact with ANY other person in society, that other person must consent. Which a child cannot do. So no matter how attractive a child may seem to you, you are not allowed to have sexual contact with them.

It is also fair to ask a person who enjoys say, rape to suppress that urge.

Same deal with people who like to rape and murder. Just because you want it, doesn't mean you can violate the rights of another person and do it.

Same thing with sex with animals. An animal is not capable of consent. Therefore, no matter how much you love Fido, you can't f*ck him.

No comparison to two consenting adults of whatever gender getting it on.

It's really not that difficult to understand unless you don't WANT to. You get to enjoy your freedoms and natural urges so long as they don't tread on the rights and freedoms of someone(or something, i.e. a dog) else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they are born that way though, they can't be faulted for the sexual orientation they were born with. Yet their sexual orientation - which they can't choose or change - hurts others. So how do we acknowledge the struggle they have to have a sexual orientation that they can't change and that they didn't choose but that is socially unacceptable, and hurts others. Is it fair to ask someone to suppress their natural sexuality? how do we deal with this?

I agree it is a difficult issue. But I don't see that there is any choice other than to require them to suppress their natural sexuality - including through chemical castration if necessary.

Some people are born with sicknesses that need to be addressed, even if this requires them to change their personality in fundamental ways.

I don't see any comparison with homosexuality.

It is comparable to any sexual orientation. Is it fair to ask someone who is heterosexual or homosexual to suppress their natural sexuality? Are some sexual orientations a sickness and how do we decided which ones? For some acting on your natural sexual attraction is an expression of love and for others it is a crime.

Obviously they can't act on their sexuality as to do so harms others but many would give anything to not be attracted to children - they absolutely hate that that is what they find arousing and that is what they desire and find attractive.

I don't think everyone who molests a child is a pedophile (in terms of sexual orientation). Some abuse out of control/power issues or their own twisted sens of right/wrong based on very dysfunctional lives, others molest while drugged and in an altered state of mind. These to me are very different from men who have always only since an early age (teens) been solely attracted to prepubescent children and only find children arousing. These men were born that way and are tortured by the sexual orientation they have, one they had no choice in.

Yes, it is fair to ask that pedophiles suppress their natural sexuality. Because in order to engage in sexual contact with ANY other person in society, that other person must consent. Which a child cannot do. So no matter how attractive a child may seem to you, you are not allowed to have sexual contact with them.

It is also fair to ask a person who enjoys say, rape to suppress that urge.

Same deal with people who like to rape and murder. Just because you want it, doesn't mean you can violate the rights of another person and do it.

Same thing with sex with animals. An animal is not capable of consent. Therefore, no matter how much you love Fido, you can't f*ck him.

No comparison to two consenting adults of whatever gender getting it on.

It's really not that difficult to understand unless you don't WANT to. You get to enjoy your freedoms and natural urges so long as they don't tread on the rights and freedoms of someone(or something, i.e. a dog) else.

I find it terrifying just how many people who have trouble with the concept of "consent". Are we really turning into a culture of sociopaths, or has it always been this way?

[Anonymous]

They understand it. They are being intentionally obtuse because they want to harp on other issues (abortion, gays, birth control, whatever).

Now I am off to make sweet love to my Prius....