homophobia vs. pedophilia

As popularized as homosexuality has become, the term "homophobia" is being cast around more and more.

First, I'd like to point out, based on my understanding of the bible, I believe that a man lying with a man is sinful. The bible also teaches me to hate sin. This does NOT equate to a hatred of sinners. We all fall short, we all have weaknesses, I have plenty of gay friends, and I'm opposed to the mistreatment of gay people, however, I still view the action as wrong.

However, even this understanding is quite often belittled and insulted as homophobic. People suggest "I can't help who I love" ... so get used to it.

So, what about pedophiles? Not people who kidnap children and have their way with them against their will... but my last room mate was 24, dating a girl who had just turned 16. This falls under the category of pedophilia. He happens to be "sexually ambiguous," so his preference in girls are not the epidomy of "the womanly form" ... he tends to like flat-chested, under-developed women.

So, is this considered OK by people who are such champions of the homosexual community?

If he simply preferred the male form, this would be considered "the way he was born" ... and although much of society considered it a perversion, and unacceptable... if you don't like it, you're intolerant, and that's bad.

But, if his preference for the male form leads him to an attraction to under-developed (and thus under-aged) females... is this not equivalent?

Similarly, when he was in the other mood, the men he was attracted to tended to be feminine scene-kid types, I'm sure some of them were in the same age-group (Although I don't know that it ever went far enough to be "illegal" ... I was certainly uncomfortable by their actions).

So, why is homosexuality more acceptable than an attraction to the under-aged? 16 isn't really that far from 18, of course. But, if that were considered "OK" ... where would we draw the line? 14 isn't that far from 16. 12 isn't that far from 14.

Why is it our society is so accepting of an act many consider to be immoral (homosexuality) to the point that society is UNaccepting of anyone who would question it? Yet, this same society feels so morally strong that I get a flyer any time a pedophile moves within a few miles of me?

Does anyone else see it as a little hypocritical to be so opposed to one sexual preference, yet so accepting of another?

No, since one is objectively different from the other. Homosexuality is sexual attraction to ones own sex, but homosexuals are rarely attracted to underage people (much like heterosexuals).

Paedophilia, on the other hand, is the sexual attraction to the underaged, and is usually not specific to one sex or the other.

Ostensibly, there is nothing with with the attraction itself, but acting on one's paedophilic desires is immoral, since you are effectively committing rape. Since the underaged are incapable of giving their informed consent to have sex with an adult, it is both immoral and illegal. Paedophilia also involves an abuse of the balance of power (a father forcing himself upon his daughter, a child being snatched from a mall, etc), a violation of the trust placed upon the adult by the family and the state, etc.

Homosexuality is no different from homosexuality, except that the sexual attraction is placed on a different gender. Since being attracted to a particular gender is not itself immoral (heterosexual women being attracted to men is not seen as immoral, nor is heterosexual men being attracted to women), I don't see why it should matter who the person who is attracted should matter.

Paedophilia, on the other hand, differs from both homosexuality and heterosexuality in that it is, first and foremost, sexual attraction towards the underaged, towards those who are sexually, physically, and mentally immature. While there is nothing immoral about being attracted to a particular gender, there is something immoral about being attracted to a particular age. Or, at least, acting on that attraction.

Is this just because it is not defined as such, or does there exist heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual pedophiles?

Especially considering the regressed pedophile (someone who is also attracted to adults), they are likely to have some notion of male/female/or both attraction, at least with adults.

There is a vast difference in that last part.

I'm sure they do exist. But as I explained in the rest of my post, there is nothing wrong with which sex you're attracted to, since no sex is inherently incapable of giving consent. But there is something wrong with being attracted to a particular age of people (regardless of what sex, if any, you prefer), since the issue of consent (and, thus, morality) does depends on age.

It's certainly not unheard of.

I'm sorry? Which part?

As popularized as homosexuality has become, the term "homophobia" is being cast around more and more.

First, I'd like to point out, based on my understanding of the bible, I believe that a man lying with a man is sinful. The bible also teaches me to hate sin. This does NOT equate to a hatred of sinners. We all fall short, we all have weaknesses, I have plenty of gay friends, and I'm opposed to the mistreatment of gay people, however, I still view the action as wrong.

However, even this understanding is quite often belittled and insulted as homophobic. People suggest "I can't help who I love" ... so get used to it.

So, what about pedophiles? Not people who kidnap children and have their way with them against their will... but my last room mate was 24, dating a girl who had just turned 16. This falls under the category of pedophilia. He happens to be "sexually ambiguous," so his preference in girls are not the epidomy of "the womanly form" ... he tends to like flat-chested, under-developed women.

So, is this considered OK by people who are such champions of the homosexual community?

If he simply preferred the male form, this would be considered "the way he was born" ... and although much of society considered it a perversion, and unacceptable... if you don't like it, you're intolerant, and that's bad.

But, if his preference for the male form leads him to an attraction to under-developed (and thus under-aged) females... is this not equivalent?

Similarly, when he was in the other mood, the men he was attracted to tended to be feminine scene-kid types, I'm sure some of them were in the same age-group (Although I don't know that it ever went far enough to be "illegal" ... I was certainly uncomfortable by their actions).

So, why is homosexuality more acceptable than an attraction to the under-aged? 16 isn't really that far from 18, of course. But, if that were considered "OK" ... where would we draw the line? 14 isn't that far from 16. 12 isn't that far from 14.

Why is it our society is so accepting of an act many consider to be immoral (homosexuality) to the point that society is UNaccepting of anyone who would question it? Yet, this same society feels so morally strong that I get a flyer any time a pedophile moves within a few miles of me?

Does anyone else see it as a little hypocritical to be so opposed to one sexual preference, yet so accepting of another?

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." - Albert Einstein

No it doesn't. Consent is based off of maturity (mental, emotional, ect.), which has a high correlation with age, and thus our laws are based on age because maturity is hard to really test. That being said, letting an 18 year old with a mental disorder so they have the mind of a 5 year old 'consent' to sex is (or should be) no different than allowing a 5 year old to, in both cases they are going to be abused due to the same reasons.

I wonder how their demographics differ from teliophiles (normal adults)? More bisexuals, or at least that is the stereotype. Then again, the data is corrupt by all the non-pedophile mysogynist, sadist, ect. who prey on children and get 'counted' as a pedophile.

The 'attraction is immoral. Well, at least acting on it is,' part. Saying an attraction is immoral is a long shot different than saying the action is immoral. While you know the difference, many here do no (as seen by the numbers here who don't understand the difference between being a homosexual and having sexual relations with the same sex).

Semantics -_-. Do we call it homosexualphobia or homophobia? The second one should technically be fear of sameness.

Well, many minors can reproduce, considering that minors include people up to age 17. Not to mention List of youngest birth mothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and with more advance technology, this list is only going to increase (which is quite sad when you think about what causes the pregnancy).

Actually, they can be too harsh on the people who make them as well.

Wait for it...

You are probably asking me what the bleep do I mean by 'too harsh'. Well, you see there are those who abuse children and take photos of it, and then children who take photos of themselves (or maybe a boyfriend/girlfriend). The first group should be thrown in jail. But we should not treat the second group like we do the first group, but many times the law has.

You, sir, now owe me a new irony meter.

Ostensibly, there is nothing with with the attraction itself, but acting on one's paedophilic desires is immoral, since you are effectively committing rape. Since the underaged are incapable of giving their informed consent to have sex with an adult, it is both immoral and illegal. Paedophilia also involves an abuse of the balance of power (a father forcing himself upon his daughter, a child being snatched from a mall, etc), a violation of the trust placed upon the adult by the family and the state, etc.

That's because it IS homophobic.
...
That was a problem with YOU then.

Because modern society DOESN'T view homosexuality as immoral, only YOU do and that is a problem with YOU. Pedophilia is a whole separate issue where people DO think it is immoral, and they have reason to think so other then a book told them it was.

Which brings us back to the original topic of the thread. If I do not approve of one form of sexual deviance -I- have a problem.

However, I'm sure there are quite a few attractions that you would have a problem with?

If a person said they were a necrophiliac... would you have a problem with that? Corpses can't say "no," afterall! If you suggested that you did not approve of that, could I accuse you of being intolerant and say you "have a problem."

The intent here is... you have legal freedom to take whatever action you wish with another consenting adult... but I'm being discriminated against and repressed for exercising my moral freedom to be offended by such action. That's what I have a problem with.

Which is why they're a perfect correlation. Society as a whole often has a problem with homosexuality (especially between men), but today, people are told that "that opinion is unacceptable, if you have the nerve to disaprove of gays, then YOU have a problem, and YOU are sick."

The thing is homosexuality is given liberties beyond what heterosexuals have.