Examining the Myth of the Gay Agenda

[Archer93]

Pedophilia - Sexual attraction of an adult to young prepubescent children
Ephebophilia - Sexual attraction of an adult to adolescents between 15 and 17.99999999.
Hebephilia - Sexual attraction of an adult to a pubescent children, usually ages 12-14.


A Pedophile and a Hebephile are attracted to those who are incapable of consent. An Ephebophile is attracted to someone might be, but most likely (say 99%) is not capable of consent.

It depends entirely on what you mean by consent- legal consent or mental comprehension necessary to understand the concept?
Doubltess one could bribe or persuade a six year old to 'consent', but it wouldn't be a meaningful form of consent as they won't understand what they are being persuaded to do.

In which country or state do you live? Here in the UK, it is generally considered that 16 and 17 year olds are capable of meaningful consent, and are legally permitted to do so- well, to be precise, it is legally accepted that they can consent.
In Spain, the age of consent is 13. That's the legal age, whether a 13 year old can meaningfully consent is another matter, and should, I feel, be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Spain does have laws about using deceit to sleep with said 13 year olds.

 

[OllieFranz]

From Ollie:

[/indent]

Hey, Ollie:

If you are using any definition other than this one for the term 'pedophile'

pe⋅do⋅phile

   /ˈpi

dəˌfaɪl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pee-duh-fahyl] –noun Psychiatry. an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

I'll even provide you with a reference to this definition: pedophile. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved February 04, 2010, from Dictionary.com website: Pedophile | Definition of Pedophile at Dictionary.com:

Please provide it and cite your source for the definition. You do not get to redefine words to fit your agenda.

A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to young children. A young child cannot consent to sex.

A homosexual is sexually attracted to members of their own gender. A fellow adult member of their own gender is perfectly capable of consenting to sex.

A heterosexual is sexually attracted to members of the opposite gender. A fellow adult member of the opposite gender is perfectly capable of consenting to sex.

Therefore, a homosexual is incomparable to a pedophile. A homosexual is just as 'right' as a homosexual, as both desire to have sex with consenting adults.

Since you still have not managed to counter the argument above or even actually address the argument above, I will consider you to have conceded the point. If you continue to use the comparison, you will be proving once and for all, beyond doubt, that your comparison is based purely in bigotry and hatred of homosexuals.

Quoting a PM in the forums without the other party's consent is against the rules of this forum. Odd behaviour from someone so concerned with consent.

I sent the question as a PM because I did not want to continue the derail here if the effort was hopeless. The fact that you choose to insult me rather than answer the question shows that to continue is indeed hopeless

 

[Keres]

It depends entirely on what you mean by consent- legal consent or mental comprehension necessary to understand the concept?

I previously provided a definition earlier. I will provide it again:

Main Entry: con·sent
Function: noun
1 a : compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another; specifically : the voluntary agreement or acquiescence by a person of age or with requisite mental capacity who is not under duress or coercion and usually who has knowledge or understanding —see also [SIZE=-1]AGE OF CONSENT[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]INFORMED CONSENT[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]RAPE[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]STATUTORY RAPE[/SIZE] b : a defense claiming that the victim consented to an alleged crime (as rape)
2 : agreement as to action or opinion consent of the Senate, to make treaties —U.S. Constitution article II> consent of the parties established through offer and acceptance —Louisiana Civil Code>; specifically : voluntary agreement by a people to organize a civil society and give authority to a government —consent intransitive verb —con·sent·er noun Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Since definition 1 is the meaning that fits the context of this thread, it would follow that it is the one I am using, would it not?

 

[Keres]

I sent the question as a PM because I did not want to continue the derail here if the effort was hopeless. The fact that you choose to insult me rather than answer the question shows that to continue is indeed hopeless

I see you aren't going to answer the question or address the arguments.

Since you still have not managed to counter the argument above or even actually address the argument above, I will consider you to have conceded the point. If you continue to use the comparison, you will be proving once and for all, beyond doubt, that your comparison is based purely in bigotry and hatred of homosexuals.

 

[Archer93]

I previously provided a definition earlier. I will provide it again:

Main Entry: con·sent
Function: noun
1 a : compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another; specifically : the voluntary agreement or acquiescence by a person of age or with requisite mental capacity who is not under duress or coercion and usually who has knowledge or understanding —see also [SIZE=-1]AGE OF CONSENT[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]INFORMED CONSENT[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]RAPE[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]STATUTORY RAPE[/SIZE] b : a defense claiming that the victim consented to an alleged crime (as rape)
2 : agreement as to action or opinion consent of the Senate, to make treaties —U.S. Constitution article II> consent of the parties established through offer and acceptance —Louisiana Civil Code>; specifically : voluntary agreement by a people to organize a civil society and give authority to a government —consent intransitive verb —con·sent·er noun Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Since definition 1 is the meaning that fits the context of this thread, it would follow that it is the one I am using, would it not?

Ah yes, appologies.

In that case, on what basis do you make the statement that 16-17 year olds cannot in 99% of cases consent?

 

[Keres]

Ah yes, appologies.

In that case, on what basis do you make the statement that 16-17 year olds cannot in 99% of cases consent?

compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another; specifically : the voluntary agreement or acquiescence by a person of age or with requisite mental capacity who is not under duress or coercion and usually who has knowledge or understanding

 

[OllieFranz]

In furtherance of LawtonFogle's line of inquiry:

In the Middle Ages, they used to geld young boys with beautiful soprano singing voices, so that their voices would not change. That is not the only change it prevented. It did not stop the passage of time, however, or the boys' growth in knowledge and understanding.

Physically undeveloped as they were, sexual attraction to them would be pedophilia. Where, though, is the bar to them being considered consenting adults?

 

[Polycarp1]

Well just to make sure you understand, I do not make that comparison. I compare the attractions, but not the actions.

That being said, I have recently found out there is a middle ground. How do you feel about people comparing consensual sex with adults with consensual (including legally consensual) sex with children?

I am aware of that. My point was that few people make the distinction you and Ollie did between pedophile-by-orientation and active child molester, and virtually every single thread on the subject of homosexuality on VF for five years has had that invidious comparison injected, generally by someone out to condemn homosexuality and either anxious to draw a slippery slope or convinced that homosexuals will molest boys (presumably the males, it's rare to see worries about lesbians molesting girls).

I'll observe only that the nearly-universal setting of an age of legal consent is there because adolescents, and even some few younger children, do have sexual desires, but do not have the life experience and mature judgment to give a reasoned mature consent. (The full three word phrase is fully intended, and to distinguish from 'consent' in the broader sense. That the same is true for a few emotionally stunted or naive people over the age of consent should be a source of concern to people ethically, but doesn't concern this particular topic). I have very little doubt that those teens can consent to, and will even actively pursue, sexual contact; what concerns me is that the majority of them don't have the maturity to give that reasoned mature consent I spoke of. And it is worth noting that there are some adolescents of unusual maturity who can give that level of consent.

BUT -- let me make this 100% clear -- while this is an interesting discussion, it has absolutely nothing to do with "The Gay Agenda". In dragging into and perpectuating the discussion of pedophilia, those responsible for it hijacked the thread -- IMO, in a common and reprehensible manner.

 

[Archer93]

compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another; specifically : the voluntary agreement or acquiescence by a person of age or with requisite mental capacity who is not under duress or coercion and usually who has knowledge or understanding

In many countries 16-17 year olds are 'of age'. Why do you also feel they are not of 'requisite mental capacity' or without 'knowledge or understanding'?
Because when you stated that 99% were not able to consent, that is what you are saying.

 

[lawtonfogle]

May I?

I'm less concerned with legal capacity to consent and more with the mental capacity. The two do not always overlap; people don't become magically mentally able to consent at the moment they become legally able to consent.

What do you generally mean by 'children'?
I can't see a five year old being able to understand the matter and being able to consent, I can see a fifteen year old being able to do so.
Both are legal minors, but the latter is much more capable of understanding the concept of sex.
Actually, I don't really see ten year olds being able to make a fully informed decision either. Twelve? Thirteen? Fourteen? A case-by-case basis would be best for working that one out.

Also, a twenty year old Down's Syndrome sufferer may be biologically old enough to consent legally, but not capable of meaningfully consenting mentally.

By children, I was roughly meaning any child.

I agree we should not depend upon the legal definition, but some are quite intent on saying we must use the legal definition, except when the legal definition disagrees with them.

That said, I am quite unsure when a minor should be allowed to consent. It is very dependent upon the individual. Not to mention, many of the arguments people use against a minor consenting apply to adults. For example, intimidation, it can be just as effective against adults as minors.

There are also issues of age difference. A fifteen year old and a sixteen year old- not inherantly a problem. Fifteen and thirty? There's more probability of a coersive element, which would affect the capacity to give full consent.

I don't understand. There is plenty of thread between a 15 and 16 year old of coercion. Isn't it better to actually just outlaw the use of coercion in general, instead of actions because there is a chance of coercion.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Pedophilia - Sexual attraction of an adult to young prepubescent children
Ephebophilia - Sexual attraction of an adult to adolescents between 15 and 17.99999999.
Hebephilia - Sexual attraction of an adult to a pubescent children, usually ages 12-14.

Wrong, Ephebophile is attracted to any teenager, including 18 or 19 year old.

A Pedophile and a Hebephile are attracted to those who are incapable of consent. An Ephebophile is attracted to someone might be, but most likely (say 99%) is not capable of consent.

Most 17 year olds have just as much mental ability as 18 year olds, and their ability to consent (not legally) is quite the same.

That said, any child can legally consent under certain situations, so you need to tell us do you mean legally consent, or are we talking about a more scientific level?

 

[lawtonfogle]

I previously provided a definition earlier. I will provide it again:

Main Entry: con·sent
Function: noun
1 a : compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another; specifically : the voluntary agreement or acquiescence by a person of age or with requisite mental capacity who is not under duress or coercion and usually who has knowledge or understanding —see also [SIZE=-1]AGE OF CONSENT[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]INFORMED CONSENT[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]RAPE[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]STATUTORY RAPE[/SIZE] b : a defense claiming that the victim consented to an alleged crime (as rape)
2 : agreement as to action or opinion consent of the Senate, to make treaties —U.S. Constitution article II> consent of the parties established through offer and acceptance —Louisiana Civil Code>; specifically : voluntary agreement by a people to organize a civil society and give authority to a government —consent intransitive verb —con·sent·er noun Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Since definition 1 is the meaning that fits the context of this thread, it would follow that it is the one I am using, would it not?

In definition one, is the 'or' inclusive or exclusive (the or in this sentence is exclusive).

 

[Archer93]

By children, I was roughly meaning any child.

I agree we should not depend upon the legal definition, but some are quite intent on saying we must use the legal definition, except when the legal definition disagrees with them.

That said, I am quite unsure when a minor should be allowed to consent. It is very dependent upon the individual. Not to mention, many of the arguments people use against a minor consenting apply to adults. For example, intimidation, it can be just as effective against adults as minors.

I don't understand. There is plenty of thread between a 15 and 16 year old of coercion. Isn't it better to actually just outlaw the use of coercion in general, instead of actions because there is a chance of coercion.

I think that, once we unpack our arguments, you and I are in agreement rather more than we are not.

Just a few things though-
'Children' is just the plural of 'child', which can mean pre-pubescents, anyone under the full age of adulthood, or the offspring of parents, regardless of age (e.g. child of the marriage- a legal term refering to heirs rather than dependents necesseraly). For the sake of clarification, I associate the term 'child' with someone up to the age of 12. After that, I think of them as 'teenagers', although I still consider there to be a marked distinction between a 13 year old and a 19 year old.

I am not big on insisting on a legal definition. When it comes to the phrase 'consenting adult', if it is not to be a tautology in that adult automatically implies consent (which, as you say, it doesn't), then the word I am more concerned about is 'consenting'.
I don't have any issue with two 15 year olds who, in full possesion of the relevant facts, choose of their own free wills to have sex.
I DO have an issue with two 20 year olds where one of them feels pressurised into having sex. Specifically, I have an issue with the one doing the pressurising.

Which brings me to your coercion point- it is indeed quite possible for there to be coercion in the case of two teenagers below the official age of consent, and in the case of the 15 and 30 year old, it might be the 15 year old putting pressure on the 30 year old. I personally know of a case where a socially awkward 28 year old male was tricked by a 15 year old female into thinking that she was 18. She was the baddie, but he was the one who ended up on the sex offenders register, which also of course put paid to his teaching career.

We have laws regarding coercion- rape laws. Consent under coercion is not meaningful consent.
The matter of being able to prove coercion is a different topic, and tricky to prove, but that doesn't stop us from trying to deal with it.

So yes- I think we are, in the main, in agreement?

 

[OllieFranz]

I am aware of that. My point was that few people make the distinction you and Ollie did between pedophile-by-orientation and active child molester, and virtually every single thread on the subject of homosexuality on VF for five years has had that invidious comparison injected, generally by someone out to condemn homosexuality and either anxious to draw a slippery slope or convinced that homosexuals will molest boys (presumably the males, it's rare to see worries about lesbians molesting girls).

I'll observe only that the nearly-universal setting of an age of legal consent is there because adolescents, and even some few younger children, do have sexual desires, but do not have the life experience and mature judgment to give a reasoned mature consent. (The full three word phrase is fully intended, and to distinguish from 'consent' in the broader sense. That the same is true for a few emotionally stunted or naive people over the age of consent should be a source of concern to people ethically, but doesn't concern this particular topic). I have very little doubt that those teens can consent to, and will even actively pursue, sexual contact; what concerns me is that the majority of them don't have the maturity to give that reasoned mature consent I spoke of. And it is worth noting that there are some adolescents of unusual maturity who can give that level of consent.

BUT -- let me make this 100% clear -- while this is an interesting discussion, it has absolutely nothing to do with "The Gay Agenda". In dragging into and perpectuating the discussion of pedophilia, those responsible for it hijacked the thread -- IMO, in a common and reprehensible manner.

You are quite right. And I am ashamed that their tactic worked so well and that I was a part of its success. Not only only did they derail the thread, but they got us arguing among ourselves over an issue that does not matter to them.

They don't care because whether it is the action or the orientation, neither pedophiles nor gays are, in their eyes, human or worthy of any human consideration, so there is no need to worry about the fine distinctions.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I think that, once we unpack our arguments, you and I are in agreement rather more than we are not.

Just a few things though-
'Children' is just the plural of 'child', which can mean pre-pubescents, anyone under the full age of adulthood, or the offspring of parents, regardless of age (e.g. child of the marriage- a legal term refering to heirs rather than dependents necesseraly). For the sake of clarification, I associate the term 'child' with someone up to the age of 12. After that, I think of them as 'teenagers', although I still consider there to be a marked distinction between a 13 year old and a 19 year old.

I am not big on insisting on a legal definition. When it comes to the phrase 'consenting adult', if it is not to be a tautology in that adult automatically implies consent (which, as you say, it doesn't), then the word I am more concerned about is 'consenting'.
I don't have any issue with two 15 year olds who, in full possesion of the relevant facts, choose of their own free wills to have sex.
I DO have an issue with two 20 year olds where one of them feels pressurised into having sex. Specifically, I have an issue with the one doing the pressurising.

Which brings me to your coercion point- it is indeed quite possible for there to be coercion in the case of two teenagers below the official age of consent, and in the case of the 15 and 30 year old, it might be the 15 year old putting pressure on the 30 year old. I personally know of a case where a socially awkward 28 year old male was tricked by a 15 year old female into thinking that she was 18. She was the baddie, but he was the one who ended up on the sex offenders register, which also of course put paid to his teaching career.

We have laws regarding coercion- rape laws. Consent under coercion is not meaningful consent.
The matter of being able to prove coercion is a different topic, and tricky to prove, but that doesn't stop us from trying to deal with it.

So yes- I think we are, in the main, in agreement?

Yes, we are. The points we don't seem to agree on are the points I am still unsure about, which makes it a bit impossible for us to even be able to agree on them.

 

[Keres]

Wrong, Ephebophile is attracted to any teenager, including 18 or 19 year old.

An 18 or 19 year old is an adult. Therefore, entering into a sexual relationship with them violates no laws.

Most 17 year olds have just as much mental ability as 18 year olds

Which says more about 18 year olds being immature than 17 year olds being mature.

That said, any child can legally consent under certain situations, so you need to tell us do you mean legally consent, or are we talking about a more scientific level?

There are laws in place to allow for exceptions for particularly mature teenagers. There are also laws in place to allow for the exceptions for particularly immature adults, such as those with mental retardation or serious psychological illness. Scientific or legal, the cut off is the same, they must be of sound mind, maturity, and knowledge to be able to consent. The law in the US happens to assume the age of 18 for these, but is capable of handling exceptions.

In definition one, is the 'or' inclusive or exclusive (the or in this sentence is exclusive).

Is your argument really so weak that you have to quibble over the meaning of the word 'or'? Do I also need to define the word 'is' for you as well?

I guess that means we are done here.

 

[lawtonfogle]

An 18 or 19 year old is an adult. Therefore, entering into a sexual relationship with them violates no laws.

And the legality of the relationship has nothing to do with the scientific classification of attraction.

Which says more about 18 year olds being immature than 17 year olds being mature.

In truth, I agree. But that does not change the inconsistency in saying one can consent but the other cannot. And I am sure we can find many 17 year olds more mature than 18 year olds. I think that at least 5% of 17 year olds are more mature than 18 year olds, no?

And yet, here we are denying 5% of some group the ability to enter into meaningful relationships which they are mature enough for.

There are laws in place to allow for exceptions for particularly mature teenagers. There are also laws in place to allow for the exceptions for particularly immature adults, such as those with mental retardation or serious psychological illness. Scientific or legal, the cut off is the same, they must be of sound mind, maturity, and knowledge to be able to consent. The law in the US happens to assume the age of 18 for these, but is capable of handling exceptions.

The problem is the bolded words. We have NO WAY of defining, much less testing, when someone is mature enough for sex. Wouldn't it be better to actually define (using science, of course), and then test, for when someone is able to consent to sex?

Is your argument really so weak that you have to quibble over the meaning of the word 'or'? Do I also need to define the word 'is' for you as well?

I understand you probably don't work with math or computer science much, nor do you work with logical anaylisis. The difference between or and xor is vast, but in the english language, we tend to call them both or. The difference between or and xor is as strong as the difference between or and and.

I guess that means we are done here.

Well since you just want to avoid answering questions to get the root answer (example being the previous question of if your mean or xor xor), we probably are. When you seriously want to discuss this issue, let me know.

 

[Keres]

And the legality of the relationship has nothing to do with the scientific classification of attraction.

Try following the context here, sweetie. Someone was talking about pedophiles being attracted to fourteen year olds. I clarified the correct terms for underage relationships. Since 18+ are not considered to be underage, they were not part of what I was discussing.

I understand you probably don't work with math or computer science much, nor do you work with logical anaylisis. The difference between or and xor is vast, but in the english language, we tend to call them both or. The difference between or and xor is as strong as the difference between or and and.

Yeah, my degree in computer science is just wallpaper. Way to miss the point again.

That being 'the definition of the word 'or' is irrelevant, since either meaning works just fine. So the option can be 'fits both' or 'fits either one'. There was no need to clarify the word 'or', especially as there were 'ands' in there as well.

1 a : compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another; specifically : the voluntary agreement or acquiescence by a person of age or with requisite mental capacity who is not under duress or coercion and usually who has knowledge or understanding —see also [SIZE=-1]AGE OF CONSENT[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]INFORMED CONSENT[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]RAPE[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]STATUTORY RAPE[/SIZE] b : a defense claiming that the victim consented to an alleged crime (as rape)

There are multiple options here, and multiple uses of the word 'or'.

duress or coercion would be an inclusive or, but since the word can be taken as synonyms, the 'inclusive' or goes without saying.

the voluntary agreement or acquiescence by a person of age or with requisite mental capacity is both an inclusive and an exclusive or, as the person must have the requisite mental capacity, but a person who is not of age can demonstrate the requisite mental capacity to be an exception to the person of age clause, which I already demonstrated in other posts. The ideal is both, the requisite mental capacity is the minimum. A person of age is assumed to be of the requisite mental capacity unless otherwise demonstrated, a person not of age requires proof. Since I already discussed this, I saw no reason to explain it again, but apparently you think quibbling over semantics is a substitute for a coherent argument.

Now, I can continue to explain the meanings and usages of small words to you, but it's pointless, as your attempt to quibble the semantics was pointless in the first place. It was a last ditch effort and rather pathetic.


Do you actually have a counterargument to the statement that pedophilia and homosexuality are no more comparable than pedophilia and heterosexuality that actually addresses the points raised? Or can I take your flailings as concession?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Try following the context here, sweetie. Someone was talking about pedophiles being attracted to fourteen year olds. I clarified the correct terms for underage relationships. Since 18+ are not considered to be underage, they were not part of what I was discussing.

In the post you quoted you were explicitly trying to define the difference between a pedophile, a hebephile, and an ephebophile. These are scientific terms for attractions, and you got one wrong.

Yeah, my degree in computer science is just wallpaper. Way to miss the point again.

That being 'the definition of the word 'or' is irrelevant, since either meaning works just fine. So the option can be 'fits both' or 'fits either one'. There was no need to clarify the word 'or', especially as there were 'ands' in there as well.

If both or and xor are acceptable, that is or.

Truth table.

a b or xor or or xor
0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 1 1
1 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 0 1

If you are will to take either or or xor, then that is simply or by proof by enumeration on truth table. So since you said that, I will assume you mean or.

1 a : compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another; specifically : the voluntary agreement or acquiescence by a person of age or with requisite mental capacity who is not under duress or coercion and usually who has knowledge or understanding —see also [SIZE=-1]AGE OF CONSENT[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]INFORMED CONSENT[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]RAPE[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]STATUTORY RAPE[/SIZE] b : a defense claiming that the victim consented to an alleged crime (as rape)

A child in certain conditions is considered of age, thus a child is able to consent (only under those certain conditions of course).

There are multiple options here, and multiple uses of the word 'or'.

duress or coercion would be an inclusive or, but since the word can be taken as synonyms, the 'inclusive' or goes without saying.

I wasn't even talking about that or. As to this issue, I agree this is an or, as either of those is sufficient, as is both, for the removal of the meaningfulness of any consent.

the voluntary agreement or acquiescence by a person of age or with requisite mental capacity is both an inclusive and an exclusive or, as the person must have the requisite mental capacity, but a person who is not of age can demonstrate the requisite mental capacity to be an exception to the person of age clause, which I already demonstrated in other posts.

That is what I was wondering here. Do you think that someone can have the needed mental ability but not be of age.

The ideal is both, the requisite mental capacity is the minimum. A person of age is assumed to be of the requisite mental capacity unless otherwise demonstrated, a person not of age requires proof.

The problem here being we don't really have any good consensus on what is required for consent. We got some basic ideas, but nothing really discrete.

Since I already discussed this, I saw no reason to explain it again, but apparently you think quibbling over semantics is a substitute for a coherent argument.

The same style quibbling where you said 'Is that the best you got' in relation to me quoting some laws? Can I just assume there you didn't have any good argument? I think that is an unreasonable assumption.

Now, I can continue to explain the meanings and usages of small words to you, but it's pointless, as your attempt to quibble the semantics was pointless in the first place. It was a last ditch effort and rather pathetic.

No more last ditch or pathetic than this:

ROTFLMAO.

Seriously? You are pulling that out of your rear end?

That's the best you can do?

Do you actually have a counterargument to the statement that pedophilia and homosexuality are no more comparable than pedophilia and heterosexuality that actually addresses the points raised? Or can I take your flailings as concession?

Um, why would I have a counter argument to my own argument. I have admitted on numerous occasions that as an attraction, pedophilia is just as comparable to homosexuality as heterosexuality. That is NOT to say it is not comparable, as it IS comparable to both.

See, the issue here is you are still looking at me as if I am trying to attack homosexuality here. That is like me trying to read an English book and pretending it is written in Japanese. It isn't going to end well.

 

[Maren]

See, the issue here is you are still looking at me as if I am trying to attack homosexuality here. That is like me trying to read an English book and pretending it is written in Japanese. It isn't going to end well.

Which merely emphasizes that you (and others) have completely derailed this thread with a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with the OP. Which begs the question: what was your purpose in trying to make a point that has nothing to do with the OP? And why do you not move your discussion to a new OP (it even seems like there was a thread recently you made that was about this topic)?