Should pedophilia be legal?

[Vera]

Vera, all that links proves is that paedophilia is the sexual desire for pre-pubescent children (as opposed to the sexual act with children), you do realize that doesn't help your argument, right?

Well, since my argument was and is that paedophilia is the sexual desire for/act with prepubescent children I fail to see how exactly a link that says the same is failing to help my argument.

But I guess being a Xtian, you're used to living with cognitive dissonance. Keep on.

[Aractus]

How about because you made the distinction and chose to come down on the side of action?

Pedophilia should be legal, yes. Having sex with prepubescents (if you're not a young'n yourself (I'm not going to suggest what ages these laws should all go by to allow flexibility)) should not be legal.

Paedophilia is having sex with prepubescent children.

[Vera]

How about because you made the distinction and chose to come down on the side of action?

Paedophilia is having sex with prepubescent children.

Whether or not the urge to have sex with prepubescent children is acted upon or not has no bearing on the whole issue. I wasn't making a distinction between having a sexual desire for and acting upon it, but was pointing that paedophilia involves prepubescent kids, in response to this:

Pedophilia should be legal, yes. Having sex with prepubescents (if you're not a young'n yourself (I'm not going to suggest what ages these laws should all go by to allow flexibility)) should not be legal.

Unless the original poster meant that the mere sexual desire for prepubescent kids should not be punished, in which case I agree - you can't punish someone for a feeling or a thought.

[John V]

Sick shit, but sex with children now is where gay sex was 50 years ago. We'll hear more of this stuff. There will be a movie depicting such a relationship positively. It will take decades, but these rules will at the least be significantly relaxed.

Fuck off you turd!

Gay sex is consensual, pedophilia means unconsensual - therefor rape.

Your equasion is incriminating and disgusting!!!

I didn't equate the two. I said that pedophiles have studied the tactics used to change public perception of homosexuality and are applying them, and will continue to do so.

---

Regarding the definitional debate: OP used "pedophilia" in the title, and that is attraction to prepubescent children.

HOWEVER, in the text he clearly mentioned acts and both prepubescent and sexually mature children: "What are your opinions of aduts having consensual sex with children and teenagers?"

---

I think it's funny how often atheists on this forum will just assert moral values like if they're obvious.

And it begins.

[Cinjin]

For this reason alone it should remain illegal. As to haggling over the cutoff age, that's fine, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere and it makes common sense to draw it so to protect the vast majority of children (as in, the 75% of females who responded that it was harmful) rather than the exceptions to the rule (the 25% who responded that it wasn't.)

Those statistics don't mean anything.

The 25% is not legitimate because some victims of child molestation (and that's exactly what it is) cannot admit publicly the damage it has done because they don't want to psychologically confront their own pain. It's more likely that the actual percentage is significantly lower.



And this next portion is not addressed to youmightbeanatheistif, it is addressed to those of whom it applies:

It seems to be popular on internet forums to take the position of, "We should consider pedophilia even though I'm against it" and then defend this position by showing everyone what an "open-minded intellectual" you are. I think it's sanctimonious bull shit and absolutely hypocritical. It's just like those who oppose the death penalty ... right up until their 4 year old is kidnapped and decapitated. Yeah, it's completely fine to consider pedophilia until it's your 13 year old girl having sex with a 28 year old.


...o but wait, I don't support pedophilia, but I definitely couldn't judge someone for doing it.

Well fuck you, I can.

[Deicide73]

For this reason alone it should remain illegal. As to haggling over the cutoff age, that's fine, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere and it makes common sense to draw it so to protect the vast majority of children (as in, the 75% of females who responded that it was harmful) rather than the exceptions to the rule (the 25% who responded that it wasn't.)

Those statistics don't mean anything.

The 25% is not legitimate because some victims of child molestation (and that's exactly what it is) cannot admit publicly the damage it has done because they don't want to psychologically confront their own pain. It's more likely that the actual percentage is significantly lower.



And this next portion is not addressed to youmightbeanatheistif, it is addressed to those of whom it applies:

It seems to be popular on internet forums to take the position of, "We should consider pedophilia even though I'm against it" and then defend this position by showing everyone what an "open-minded intellectual" you are. I think it's sanctimonious bull shit and absolutely hypocritical. It's just like those who oppose the death penalty ... right up until their 4 year old is kidnapped and decapitated. Yeah, it's completely fine to consider pedophilia until it's your 13 year old girl having sex with a 28 year old.


...o but wait, I don't support pedophilia, but I definitely couldn't judge someone for doing it.

Well fuck you, I can.

Well said.

[Autumnlicious]

Those statistics don't mean anything.

The 25% is not legitimate because some victims of child molestation (and that's exactly what it is) cannot admit publicly the damage it has done because they don't want to psychologically confront their own pain. It's more likely that the actual percentage is significantly lower.

Better data is always needed, as well as society migrating to being able to support the mentally harmed in a less public manner.

It seems to be popular on internet forums to take the position of, "We should consider pedophilia even though I'm against it" and then defend this position by showing everyone what an "open-minded intellectual" you are. I think it's sanctimonious bull shit and absolutely hypocritical. It's just like those who oppose the death penalty ... right up until their 4 year old is kidnapped and decapitated. Yeah, it's completely fine to consider pedophilia until it's your 13 year old girl having sex with a 28 year old.

It seems to be popular on internet forums to take the position of, "We should consider interracial dating even though I'm against it" and then defend this position by showing everyone what an "open-minded intellectual" you are. I think it's sanctimonious bull shit and absolutely hypocritical. It's just like those who oppose the death penalty ... right up until their 4 year old is kidnapped and decapitated. Yeah, it's completely fine to consider such until it's your girl having sex with a gun toting, coke distributing gang banger.

Notice how the two are pretty much similar reflections of the same tactic?

Take a scenario, finger anyone who "might" oppose your viewpoint and then strawman them with an extreme example.

Did it occur to you that a fair number of Age-of-Consent cases involve something akin to an 18 year old boy and a 15-16 year old girl?

A difference of 2-3 years is enough to label a young man who just happened to slide into "adult" age group, whereas had he been one year younger, the laws would be more lenient.

The problem with this entire problem is extremists.

You identify an issue (major or minor) within existing frameworks (law), but the second one tries to argue to improve it, others immediately assume you are giving creedance to the "other side".

It's Reddit-style discourse, for the most part.

...o but wait, I don't support pedophilia, but I definitely couldn't judge someone for doing it.

Well fuck you, I can.

Another strawman.

The bulk of posters driving this topic have not argued that one cannot judge. So why do you need to argue this?

[Shell B]

You're wrong.

What a great, well-reasoned rebuttal.

Too bad I am right.

Are you serious? You just linked to a Wikipedia article that proves you are wrong.

---

Whether or not the urge to have sex with prepubescent children is acted upon or not has no bearing on the whole issue. I wasn't making a distinction between having a sexual desire for and acting upon it,

Backtracking or outright lie. You said pedophilia is sex with children. There is a distinction between sex and attraction. I'm fairly certain you know that.

---

Well, since my argument was and is that paedophilia is the sexual desire for/act with prepubescent children I fail to see how exactly a link that says the same is failing to help my argument

That is not what you said, at all. Just because Aractus is a Christian, does not make your argument or your backtracking correct. In fact, your bringing up his Christianity as a defense trying to distract from your blatant lie makes you an asshole. Aractus is often wrong. This time, you are and it has nothing to do with religion.

[Vera]

Jesus Christ! Overreacting much!

Whether or not the urge to have sex with prepubescent kids is acted upon is not what it is all about. The whole point of my post was to say that paedophilia involves prepubescent children and is not simply about a big age difference.

If I misunderstood Gilgamesh's post, I'm sorry.

[Whateverist]

As a practical matter it might well be easier to make pedophilia legal than to get priests to keep their hands to themselves. But then again convenience may not be the most important consideration here.