Pedophilia; I can't accept it.

[Sal]

That's moving the goal-post; a 2-year old dog is technically an adult, but nice try.

Would a puppy want to fuck an adult dog?

It's not moving the goal-posts, you misunderstood the comparison. Evidently you didn't read the sarcasm around the terms 'impressively complicated subject'.

I wasn't addressing the goal post movements about the sarcasm bit, nice try (again). Instead of talking about how they're obviously already adults you shift the focus onto its 'complexity', when I'm talking about ability (not gone through puberty and all that) to understand.

A median adult dog has the intelligence of a median 6-year old human. It was a question of sex's complexity, which is to say: if a dog of two can understand sex enough to have and enjoy it, why cannot a human of 6?

Slow down there Lassie, who says they enjoy it? Is it because they've gone through puberty, or because it's easy to do (not 'complex')?

My only contention was they hadn't gone through puberty, hence not being developed sexually and being able to further the human species and whatnot alongside it.

As for the last... you tell me. I know of a brother and sister kitten (1 year each, same litter) that fucked each other and made some four-five incest kitties.

That's anecdotal, but I'll take your word for it (although how it could be indeterminate between 4 or 5 makes me a tad suspicious). And I don't know - I only have puberty and how puberty raises interest, of a 'sexual nature' between the sexes, or your own sex, if you're gay. I Don't know how to categorize bisexual.

More goal-post motions.

You're a real big fan of these 'goal-post moving' claims... I wonder if you know what that means.

I asked you what the fundamentals of having a 'sexual nature' (a term which I don't yet know what you mean by) are... what is the root of a sexual nature? Please also observe... you had said this: "I contend, though, that since they do not have a sexual nature, this would be nothing more than a curiosity that adults partake in, like drinking fine wine and beer and knocking each others brains out, preferably in a large bed."

To which I asked myself, 'why do you believe that children do not have a 'sexual nature' and adults do?', to which I recognized that the only physiological difference between the two beings is: hormones. Then I explained why this is NOT the root of sexual desire, fulfillment, enjoyment, but of initial desire, the former being what I had assumed you meant by 'sexual nature'.

You forgot the physiological differences before puberty and after puberty; it's not just hormones. Case-in-point for females is menstruation, and for men the production of sperm cells.

If you mean the latter, then by all means: children don't have as much of a sexual nature (they do, however, still have hormones) as adults... but this means nothing as to how well they would enjoy sex ("this would be nothing more than a curiosity that adults partake in"). Now that we're done observing that you're a disingenuous twit, let's take a look at your new argument

You too, dear.

The difference is that I'm already an adult, meaning I would've learned because I would have the gone through puberty in your scenario, no sex-drive notwithstanding. A child hasn't gone through puberty, hence the difference.

So learning is the only difference between children and adults? This means, if a child of three learns about sex as they might about the ABCs: they are completely and utterly ready for fucking. A 'sexual nature' can be boiled down to... learning? I guess you can't have much of a sexual nature without some hands on experience: let's start them on their practical exams immediately after weening them off milk. Preferably with cocks.

And ability, don't forget that, but I digress, you're fond of moving goal-posts and putting words into peoples mouths.

That was sarcasm. Sorry I didn't use an emoticon to elicit that. :|

Oh? Then you'll agree, yes?

On what?