To be clear, being the word that rhymes with bedophile is not illegal, at least in the US. Only acting on it is.
Homosexuality is only legal because laws that made it illegal were repealed due to political pressure. I predict that the day will come when enough paedophiles come together to start protesting for their right to act on their attractions, using the exact same argument that was used by the homosexual community. Do you know how many paedophiles are in our population? There are thousands of cases every year, and those are just the ones who get caught. I suspect that there are probably just as many people born with the homosexual defect as there are people who were born with the paedophile defect. Eventually, they're gonna come together and start demanding their equal rights, too. Therefore, if we want to prevent such a thing from ever taking place, we need to recognize homosexuality for what it really is - a psychological defect.
sure like all the parts with selling daughters and slavery and such (grin) after i do all that then ill like be able ta pic and choose what to agree and disagree with even more (giggle)
@Knight- I woldn't argue with that. Being married to (and I presume attracted) young kids was common in history, and probably still is in some countries I'm sure.
Your arguments have no effort and aren't even close to being valid. Before you try to argue about something know both sides in and out. You obviously know nothing about either side so go lose some weight troll.
What part of legal age of consent is too difficult a concept for you? Personally, I think that your inability to grasp simple concepts and unreasonable hatred towards gay people is a psychological defect. Isn't it nice we can both have opinions?
Aye, I hear of people getting married to animals in my native country twice removed. Maybe moral relativism is the way to go. What sets the baseline for any sort of moral compass these days? The Bible? The Quran? Obama?
We could solve global poverty (the kind seen in India) if we could pay it with the ignorance in this thread.
I like how you associate liberalism with pedophilia, as though that is its goal. "Becoming liberal" You have no idea what liberalism is. "We" became liberal over 200 years ago, after the American and French revolutions changed the Western political landscape. If we didn't, we'd still believe that the sun rotates around the Earth and that God gave Kings the divine power to rule over men. 200 years ago, liberal meant that you believed in democracy, believed that the church should not control the state, that people should not be enslaved, and in the rights of all men. It meant that you believed that science should be the main driver for political progress - not religion. That only through observation could you determine whether something is true or not - as opposed to a small group of people dictating to you what is true and what is false. Today it means that you stand for the liberty and rights of all people. It means that you believe in women's rights, the rights of the unprivileged, and that you believe in democracy and fair elections (even for those who disagree with you). As a side note: the Catholic Church has a history of pedophilia. They are also a very conservative group of people - who still oppose the use of condoms to prevent AIDS. This makes them conservative - yet you would rather associate pedophiles with Liberalism.
The legal age of consent is just a law, not unlike the same laws that outlawed homosexuality, which can (and will eventually) be overturned by popular demand.
As bad as being attracted to kids may be... There is one reason why it should not, could not, and hopefully never will be illegal to have an attraction to children. If we punish someone for having thoughts about kids, then we will open the door for the government to punish people for different types of thinking as well. The reason is this: It undermines democracy and creates a slippery slope towards authoritarianism. If we have police interviewing people and making sure that they aren't attracted to kids, and locking people up if they are attracted to kids, then it wouldn't be hard for us to expand that law into other realms, such as homosexuality, advocating for homosexual marriage, or advocating for other changes in policy. Thought police might roam the streets, harassing people for their political opinions. Candidates like Bernie Sanders might get imprisoned for advocating his policies. Perhaps it will become illegal for someone to support the democrats. Perhaps it will become illegal for anyone to have negative thoughts about the country's leader, or to consider voting for anyone other than the leader. This is what happened in Nazi Germany, and it's what happened in the USSR.
well yeah controlling one's thoughts isn't ok... but is it right for a person to fantasize about killing someone? this is where I'm going with this argument there is a direct link with thoughts and actions. thinking about something whether legal or illegal or right or wrong will eventually lead to an action of some sort. while controlling a person's thoughts is another moral dilemma that doesn't mean it's ok for someone think about harming others
Age of consent is a law based on the protection of children and people who have been determined unable to legally bind themselves to a contract. A child cannot enter into numerous types of contracts, and cannot make legally binding decisions. Laws against homosexuals were based solely on who they were, and had no relation to anything else, similar to all the jim crow laws and such. Quite different really.
Actually, not that different. We selectively alter the legal age laws to fit our needs. Minors can enlist in the military Minors can own guns Minors can even be tried as adults, which absolutely supports the argument that children CAN, in fact, make informed decisions about their behavior. I don't see why this same line of thinking couldn't be applied to people who are attracted to children.