Support NeoGAF

[Dan Yo]

I realize now that people who are using homosexuality as an example haven't yet accepted the fact that heterosexuality isn't the only normal sexual orientation.

Physiologically, it is. Biology has given us a very clear directive as to which parts are supposed to go where. Anything other than heterosexuality is a deviation. The question is, do you deem deviation to be harmful to society? I think many are finding that they are willing to accept deviation as long as it doesn't appear to be directly harming others.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Ok, so you'd rather continue arguing about what you meant? Or did you just want me to tell you you're always right? :lol

You accused me ofbeing thickheaded when in reality you misread what I wrote. Instead of simply saying 'my bad' you do this. I agree lol:

 

[Amibguous Cad]

You missed the traditional caveat "as long as it's not harming anyone." Incest, and particulary incest over multiple generations inarguably harms the products of such relationships.

Dali - Mumei has a shit ton of links, hopefully he'll hook you up when he gets a chance!

This is a fig leaf. Nowhere except for justifying the incest taboo will you find people condemning people for having children that have a higher likelihood of having genetic defects or inferior genes. There is no significant stigma against people having children in their late 30s and 40s despite the fact that the rates of genetic defects in such births are comparable to those of first-generation incest.

 

[Opiate]

BINGO, GOLD STAR!

Do I really seem to be suggesting that? I'd be painted with this brush.

I definitely agree that some here seem to be conflating the two in order to advance a tertiary agenda. However, others like me are making a fairly straightfoward claim here.

My claim only makes sense because homosexuality is clearly natural (let's avoid the word "normal" here, as that's a societal construct). If heterosexuality was instead the only natural sexual orientation, that would make this case simple: paedophilia is a psychological disorder, and that's that. It obviously cannot be a natural phenomenon if heterosexuality is the only natural sexual preference.

However, as soon as we accept that there are other natural sexual behaviors -- such as homosexuality, which I am convinced is a natural sexual preference -- then surely we can agree that there are likely other natural sexual behaviors, as well.

Paedophilia seems like a good candidate, because it is proving so difficult to "cure." Incurable psychological behaviors often have strong genetic components.

 

[harSon]

It's a sexual orientation. There's absolutely no scientific data to suggest otherwise, regardless of how much people would like to believe that a potentially harsh childhood is the reason for its occurrence in a population.. Having said that, it's a sexual orientation that we simply cannot allow to be acted upon.

Question: Would you guys consider Ephebophilia a disorder as well? Considering that such a term is reliant on a particular area's laws regarding age of consent.

 

[Gaborn]

There are plenty of cases where incest resulted in no genetic abnormalities. It would be like outlawing the mentally handicapped or midgets from having relations due the the higher propensity of their children coming out with some sort of abnormality.

The difference is the abnormality is the same in the child as the adult had. A better, but still flawed analogy would be if we were to outlaw people who each carry the genes for Tay-Sachs from reproducing. A couple of differences there, the child is born live, and generally healthy, just terminally ill. Also, in THAT case the result is inevitable. As I said though Multi-generational incest is the big concern, single generation incest IS low risk, but it's much easier to outlaw incest than to verify your parents weren't an incestuous couple as WELL as you. And the risks to children in that case are ENTIRELY the creation of the parents and preventable. So society should.

Incidentally, if you're curious - my position is parents who carry the genes for tay-sachs, if they get married should not risk having children. It's a horrible disease. But it shouldn't be illegal either.

Not to mention, as homosexuals know, relationships do not always have to be about reproduction. Would you oppose a marriage between two relatives where the man had a vasectomy? Where the woman has had her tubes tied? Where both only engage in protected or oral sex? How about between a brother and a brother?

It's ostensible hypocrisy to condone one but then condemn another under that same common argument that is used to justify homosexuality.

I don't think you can legislate it that way under an equal protection argument as you suggest. Incest should remain illegal in all it's forms even when having children is impossible.

 

[Devolution]

Physiologically, it is. Biology has given us a very clear directive as to which parts are supposed to go where. Anything other than heterosexuality is a deviation. The question is, do you deem deviation to be harmful to society? I think many are finding that they are willing to accept deviation as long as it doesn't appear to be directly harming others.

Biology has given us a clear directive on which parts go where if you want to reproduce. That doesn't mean it's the only way to have sex. If people have no problem screwing in other holes what makes you think they'd evolve another?

 

[Opiate]

Really? You didn't have a crush on somebody else when you were in elementary or middle school or something?

I suppose I did, but I'm not sure I'd call it "sexual attraction." It was more of a curiosity about getting to know girls.

I was about 16 when I first began looking at girls and thinking, "I would like to have sex with that," and even then the feelings were nascent.

I was not looking lustfully at 12 year old girls when I was 12, no. I wanted to know what they were like, but I did not want to have sex with them. These are two different behaviors, I think.

 

[Calcaneus]

I do kinda feel bad for the pedo's who are good people and don't act on their feelings. They basically have to keep that shit to themselves or everyone will think they are a sick fuck. They go to a doctor, and what can they really do?

 

[Uchip]

Sarcasm I hope ? seeing as the church is the biggest propagator of paediohilia known to man.

nah
that would be the anime industry

 

[Wickwire]

Id say disorder. Unless I am mistaken, a sexual orientation is based off gender only. I dont see how being attracted to a person only by their age would be consided an orientation. It sounds more like a fetish.

 

[Dan Yo]

The difference is the abnormality is the same in the child as the adult had. A better, but still flawed analogy would be if we were to outlaw people who each carry the genes for Tay-Sachs from reproducing. A couple of differences there, the child is born live, and generally healthy, just terminally ill. Also, in THAT case the result is inevitable. As I said though Multi-generational incest is the big concern, single generation incest IS low risk, but it's much easier to outlaw incest than to verify your parents weren't an incestuous couple as WELL as you. And the risks to children in that case are ENTIRELY the creation of the parents and preventable. So society should.

Incidentally, if you're curious - my position is parents who carry the genes for tay-sachs, if they get married should not risk having children. It's a horrible disease. But it shouldn't be illegal either.



I don't think you can legislate it that way under an equal protection argument as you suggest. Incest should remain illegal in all it's forms even when having children is impossible.

Sounds like you don't mind denying an awful lot of people from loving who they want to love. even when their love would not be harmful to others. I hear a lot of "it's easier to do this, and it's easier to do that". Perhaps it's also easier to just outlaw all sexual preferences that deviate from the physiologically correct standard of adult human man and adult human woman. This way we can be sure to eliminate all possible wrong-doing. The easy way.

 

[G-Fex]

It's all around wrong, but is it something that goes wrong in the mnid that can be treated ? Or is it something that people build a preference for ?



Awesome, I'm unavailable on thursdays though.

a little from column A and a little from B frankly, see I find that it could either come naturally or perhaps since the individual is already sort of a pervert in the sense of sexually active extreme nitches that they willingly fall into that sort of abomination of a genre

 

[Emerson]

I suppose I did, but I'm not sure I'd call it "sexual attraction." It was more of a curiosity about getting to know girls.

I was about 16 when I first began looking at girls and thinking, "I would like to have sex with that," and even then the feelings were nascent.

I was not looking lustfully at 12 year old girls when I was 12, no. I wanted to know what they were like, but I did not want to have sex with them. These are two different behaviors, I think.

Damn, I definitely did. I was definitely fantasizing about girls when I was like 9 or 10 years old. I discovered porn pretty early though.

 

[Gaborn]

Do I really seem to be suggesting that?

Oh, you? No, not at all. Actually you are one of the few exceptions to that in this thread. I've always found you to be an intelligent, well reasoned poster. A LOT of people are coming off that way though, perhaps I wouldn't use the word "everyone" in that way.

Because some of my most strident posts on GAF (I typically try very hard to seem temperate) have been in defense of homosexuality.

I definitely notice that and hope I didn't cause offense by agreeing with him.

I definitely agree that some here seem to be conflating the two in order to advance a tertiary agenda. However, others are making a fairly straightfoward claim here.

Sure. And it's certainly possible to have this discussion without being homophobic or advancing an agenda. It's a valid question. I think my concern comes in with my post earlier in the thread when I pointed out no one compares pedophilia to heterosexuality because at some level some people don't see homosexuality and heterosexuality as equivalent. One is "normal" and one is not. In general I find the need to conflate homosexuality and pedophilia to be disturbing but there are ways to do it and ways not to do it and I think the posters doing so with an agenda are pretty clear.

My claim only makes sense because homosexuality is clearly natural (let's avoid the word "normal" here, as that's a societal construct). If heterosexuality was instead the only natural sexual orientation, that would make this case simple: paedophilia is a psychological disorder, and that's that. It obviously cannot be a natural phenomenon if heterosexuality is the only natural sexual preference.

However, as soon as we accept that there are other natural sexual behaviors -- such as homosexuality, which I am convinced is a natural sexual preference -- then surely we can agree that there are likely other natural sexual behaviors, as well.

Before modern times, we said, "there is only one natural sexual preference, and everything else is a disorder." That statement is clearly wrong. Now that we understand homosexuality better, are we really going to fall in to that same trap and say, "Okay, there are only two natural sexual behaviors. But that is all."

It seems far more logical to assume that there are many natural sexual tendencies which derive from genetic components. Paedophilia seems like a good candidate, because it is proving so difficult to "cure." Incurable psychological behaviors often have strong genetic components.

And THIS is a way to broach the topic without coming off as having an agenda. Again, I apologize if you thought that was meant for you. I think the posters it was directed to know who they are.

I think the bolded is the crux of my response and what is bothering me in this thread.

 

[Acerac]

I don't understand how anyone with even a modicum of intelligence could have viewed that post as being for the defense of pedophilia.

Sennorin makes a distinction between pedophiles that act on their urges, and those that don't.

If pedophilia is not a choice, it would arguably be a huge ethical failure to kill/maim pedophiles that don't act on their urges. It falls into thought crime territory.

Show me a post that defends pedophiles that act on their urges (on real children mind you, not lolicon manga) and I'll concede that there is a pedo defense force.

Supreme1, along with a few others have shown that they're incapable of discussing this topic with even a hint of objectivity. Their opinions on this subject are best ignored. It's quite remarkable that they've not overwhelmed the thread, as that is typically the norm when this discussion pops up.

On topic, interesting thread thusfar. I think those who are calling it a fetish are likely on to something. Gaborn's post earlier about these people being stuck at a certain developmental stage mentally also seems to have some merit.

 

[that1dude24]

I suppose I did, but I'm not sure I'd call it "sexual attraction." It was more of a curiosity about getting to know girls.

I was about 16 when I first began looking at girls and thinking, "I would like to have sex with that," and even then the feelings were nascent.

I was not looking lustfully at 12 year old girls when I was 12, no. I wanted to know what they were like, but I did not want to have sex with them. These are two different behaviors, I think.

That sounds mildly abnormal to me. When I was around twelve or thirteen nearly everyone in my circle of friends and I knew what we wanted to do.

 

[Opiate]

Damn, I definitely did. I was definitely fantasizing about girls when I was like 9 or 10 years old. I discovered porn pretty early though.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that I am less sexual than many of my twenty-something peers. I enjoy sex, but I have specifically worked to make sure it isn't the center of my life.

 

[Gaborn]

Sounds like you don't mind denying an awful lot of people from loving who they want to love. even when their love would not be harmful to others. I hear a lot of "it's easier to do this, and it's easier to do that". Perhaps it's also easier to just outlaw all sexual preferences that deviate from the physiologically correct standard of adult human man and adult human woman. This way we can be sure to eliminate all possible wrong-doing. The easy way.

This is where what you're saying falls apart. There are good solid genetic reasons to discourage incest under the law (of course no matter what the law says people will do what they will do) that don't apply to most other relationships merely on their face.

Opiate - With regards to sex as a minor - I don't mean that all minors have sex or think about sex. Merely that as kids it's natural to be attracted. To think about kissing someone, to like their hair, even some fantasy as you discover masturbation a little bit. Doesn't mean you think about actually having sex. Kissing can be sex at a young age.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Sounds like you don't mind denying an awful lot of people from loving who they want to love. even when their love would not be harmful to others. I hear a lot of "it's easier to do this, and it's easier to do that". Perhaps it's also easier to just outlaw all sexual preferences that deviate from the physiologically correct standard of adult human man and adult human woman. This way we can be sure to eliminate all possible wrong-doing. The easy way.

I think he's got you, Gaborn. Why rely on the ease of the test in the case of incest, but not in the case of tay-sachs? It seems like investigating geneaology is no more and no less difficult than getting a genetic test for ta-sachs before you have kids. I you're going to make it morally obligatory to test for tay-sachs before having kids, I don't understand why you couldn't also make it morally obligatory to see if you're at a special risk for genetic defect owing to incestuous relationships. Hell, if you get a full readout of your genome, you don't even need to research family history of incest. You'll know whether or not both you and your partner both have a recessive defect.

 

[CornBurrito]

nah
that would be the anime industry

At least lolicon manga/hentai doesn't harm real children (at least not directly).

 

[Calcaneus]

At least lolicon manga/hentai doesn't harm real children (at least not directly).

Yeah, it harms adults. Did you see that thread, its ruining the Japanese gaming industry!

 

[Dresden]

It's a disorder. Comparisons to homosexuality is absurd.

Those who act on it should be jailed and castrated.

But there also needs to be an attempt to treat it for those who want to get better.

 

[Gaborn]

I think he's got you, Gaborn. Why rely on the ease of the test in the case of incest, but not in the case of tay-sachs? It seems like investigating geneaology is no more and no less difficult than getting a genetic test for ta-sachs before you have kids. I you're going to make it morally obligatory to test for tay-sachs before having kids, I don't understand why you couldn't also make it morally obligatory to see if you're at a special risk for genetic defect owing to incestuous relationships. Hell, if you get a full readout of your genome, you don't even need to research family history of incest. You'll know whether or not both you and your partner both have a recessive defect.

Well, first of all tay-sachs as a test is not cheap and is not standard. Second I acknowledge there is a degree of what a social norm is at work. I can certainly conceive of a world where genetic screening is cheap and easy and thus leading to legislation discouraging certain breeding combinations - although I'd be LOATHE to provide such information to the government thus making it unenforceable.

 

[Typographenia]

I can't really say if I feel it is more one or the other, but I do know that sexually developed individuals being attracted to under-aged, under-developed children is not a good or safe thing for anyone.

 

[turnbuckle]

If we're talking real pedophilia and not the "damn, she's hot, oh shit she's only 16...fuck" that gets called pedophilia then I would say it's a disorder and I'm not sure if it's something that can be treated.

I can't really say if I feel it is more one or the other, but I do know that sexually developed individuals being attracted to under-aged, under-developed children is not a good or safe thing for anyone.

Basically how I feel. What's the difference? If one's sexual orientation is of that towards children then I'd say that's a disorder. Calling it an "orientation" feels like saying it's ok to feel that way.

 

[Londa]

What does this have to do with the thread? Dictionary term?

Sorry, I didn't know you like little children.. I mean that has to be the only way you would be defensive to what I said.

 

[Acerac]

Sorry, I didn't know you like little children.. I mean that has to be the only way you would be defensive to what I said.

I don't like little children but I think you're coming off as fairly ignorant as well.

 

[confused]

a little from column A and a little from B frankly, see I find that it could either come naturally or perhaps since the individual is already sort of a pervert in the sense of sexually active extreme nitches that they willingly fall into that sort of abomination of a genre

Fair enough. I'm going to swith my point of view and agree with you here. It probably can be a bit of both.

A disorder for those who may have suffered trauma or perhaps something else.

and a sexual orientation for people that just built up a preference for underage children.

It's a disorder. Comparisons to homosexuality is absurd.

Those who act on it should be jailed and castrated.

But there also needs to be an attempt to treat it for those who want to get better.

Not necessarily, it depends on how the comparison is made.

Like : "30 years ago people said the same thing about homosexuals as people say now about paedophiles" is a fair comparison, imo.

 

[CornBurrito]

But there also needs to be an attempt to treat it for those who want to get better.

Sadly this is not going to happen anywhere in the near future. The general reaction to pedophilia is "DEATH TO THEM ALL/JAIL THEM 4LIFE/CASTRATION!!!!" because people can't seem to separate those that have urges, and those that act on them. Or maybe they do, but think thought crimes should exist.

So if someone were a pedophile, they'd never admit it. If they did they'd become a pariah, and possibly even assaulted. They can't get help dealing with their urges if they can't openly acknowledge they have the problem.

 

[Londa]

I don't like little children but I think you're coming off as fairly ignorant as well.

Hmm it's ignorant to want to throw all pedophiles in jail. ooook

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Sorry, I didn't know you like little children.. I mean that has to be the only way you would be defensive to what I said.

Defensive? Umm, ok. Thanks for the name calling though.

 

[CornBurrito]

Hmm it's ignorant to want to throw all pedophiles in jail. ooook

Do you mean pedophiles that don't act on their urges?

If so then what other thought crimes do you think people should be jailed for?

I'd argue it is very ignorant to jail someone over thoughts and feelings they have. I assumed only actions were punishable, and are the only things that SHOULD be punishable.

This is also true and maybe I was dumb or ignorant to the treatments available for pedophiles. Truth be told, I wouldn't let my children stay with someone that was a "good" pedophile who never acts on his/her urges. Reformed or not. I guess I'm closed minded about this, as I imagine it has to be horrible living with being a pedophile and feeling like there's nothing you can do about it.

I'm not sure if it can be treated, but there may be counseling available that can help them cope and prevent them from acting on urges. I dunno.

And, I wouldn't blame you for being cautious.

 

[turnbuckle]

Sadly this is not going to happen anywhere in the near future. The general reaction to pedophilia is "DEATH TO THEM ALL/JAIL THEM 4LIFE/CASTRATION!!!!" because people can't seem to separate those that have urges, and those that act on them. Or maybe they do, but think thought crimes should exist.

So if someone were a pedophile, they'd never admit it. If they did they'd become a pariah, and possibly even assaulted. They can't get help dealing with their urges if they can't openly acknowledge they have the problem.

This is also true and maybe I was dumb or ignorant to the treatments available for pedophiles. Truth be told, I wouldn't let my children stay with someone that was a "good" pedophile who never acts on his/her urges. Reformed or not. I guess I'm closed minded about this, as I imagine it has to be horrible living with being a pedophile and feeling like there's nothing you can do about it.

Do you mean pedophiles that don't act on their urges?

If so then what other thought crimes do you think people should be jailed for?

I'd argue it is very ignorant to jail someone over thoughts and feelings they have. I assumed only actions were punishable, and are the only things that SHOULD be punishable.

I agree, so long as "actions punishable" include possessing child pornography.

 

[Mailenstein]

All I think is that this can't be treated, just like homosexuality can't be treated. So what are the options?

 

[nilbog21]

i think pedophilia comes from people who never got action as a young teenage/young adulthood and haven't really grown/developed out of that state (which is why they are tend to be "creepy") because the desire is so strong..

 

[Darklord]

Hmm it's ignorant to want to throw all pedophiles in jail. ooook

Yes, it is. Being a pedophile isn't a crime. Acting on it is.

BUT I MUST BE A PEDO COS I SAYS THAT, HUH?

 

[Devolution]

Hmm it's ignorant to want to throw all pedophiles in jail. ooook

I'm just gonna put some disney girl photos on your computer, convince some people you're a pedo, watch them lock you up and laugh with glee.

 

[notworksafe]

This is also true and maybe I was dumb or ignorant to the treatments available for pedophiles. Truth be told, I wouldn't let my children stay with someone that was a "good" pedophile who never acts on his/her urges. Reformed or not. I guess I'm closed minded about this, as I imagine it has to be horrible living with being a pedophile and feeling like there's nothing you can do about it.

No. You have common sense. "Good" or not, no one that is sexually attracted to kids is getting near mine. That's for damn sure.

 

[Devolution]

This is also true and maybe I was dumb or ignorant to the treatments available for pedophiles. Truth be told, I wouldn't let my children stay with someone that was a "good" pedophile who never acts on his/her urges. Reformed or not. I guess I'm closed minded about this, as I imagine it has to be horrible living with being a pedophile and feeling like there's nothing you can do about it.

I expressed the same sentiments earlier.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

I think the concept of "orientation" is only useful as a general description of someone.

Most people have a ton of various attractions.. things that turn them on that they can't necessarily "control" (the turn on, not the act.)

Is it "natural"? I believe so. If you are born with such attractions, or end up that way via interactions or situations in your life, it's all "human nature."

So "pedophilia", as defined as "feeling a sexual attraction to children" is simply a natural state someone might find themselves in..

And attractions aren't "wrong" or "immoral."

Acting upon attractions can be. Pedophilia would be one attraction that has a zero tolerance policy for morality when it comes to actions (in most people's minds.) I'm sure there are TONS of people who are capable of being turned on by children, who will NEVER act upon such attractions in any way. It's not really that difficult.

People who can't control their attractions to immoral things.. well.. they are immoral people. I feel somewhat bad for a "pedophile" if they TRULY can't get turned on by anything other than children.. that would be a frustrating existence.. but they still have morals to uphold, and are not excused if they act upon their attractions.

Homosexuality? Pssshhh.. so far from immoral it's ridiculous how many people "believe" it to be. The power of brainwashing.

 

[Uchip]

Fair enough. I'm going to swith my point of view and agree with you here. It probably can be a bit of both.

A disorder for those who may have suffered trauma or perhaps something else.

and a sexual orientation for people that just built up a preference for underage children.



Not necessarily, it depends on how the comparison is made.

Like : "30 years ago people said the same thing about homosexuals as people say now about paedophiles" is a fair comparison, imo.

like i said
using the past is a horrible comparison

 

[CornBurrito]

i think pedophilia comes from people who never got action as a young teenage/young adulthood and haven't really grown/developed out of that state (which is why they are tend to be "creepy") because the desire is so strong..

This speculation doesn't fit in with our current understanding of the causes of pedophilia. I suggest you either present your evidence, or reform your hypothesis.

And if we are going by pure speculation I exist as an anecdote that counters your claim. 18 years old. Never had any action. Not a pedophile.

 

[Orayn]

All I think is that this can't be treated, just like homosexuality can't be treated. So what are the options?

There are generalized ways to "treat" the sexual urges of any orientation, you just can't necessarily change the way the person is wired.

 

[Acerac]

Hmm it's ignorant to want to throw all pedophiles in jail. ooook

Thought crimes are the worst crimes, eh?

*Laughs*

Seems many others have beaten me to this reply, but yes. Yes it is pretty ignorant to think that. We should treat people who have maladies of the mind, and people like you are why it likely won't happen in our lifetimes.

 

[cutmeamango]

Fair enough. I'm going to swith my point of view and agree with you here. It probably can be a bit of both.

A disorder for those who may have suffered trauma or perhaps something else.

and a sexual orientation for people that just built up a preference for underage children.

Not necessarily, it depends on how the comparison is made.

Like : "30 years ago people said the same thing about homosexuals as people say now about paedophiles" is a fair comparison, imo.

First: Sexual orientation? No. Sexual fetish. Orientation talks especifically about male/female/both/none. You can be a homosexual pedophile, or a heterosexual pedophile.

Second: That comparision isn't even close to fair.
Both were considered "wrong" but only one was considered criminal, and guess what, the one considered criminal, still is considered criminal.

 

[Freshmaker]

I've had this discussion with a friend and he believes that pedophilia is just a sexual orientation like being straight/gay. He thinks we should accept pedophilia as a sexual orientation but pedophiles should not be allowed to act upon it.

Then it amounts to the same thing as a disorder.

 

[Dan Yo]

This is where what you're saying falls apart. There are good solid genetic reasons to discourage incest under the law (of course no matter what the law says people will do what they will do) that don't apply to most other relationships merely on their face.

Opiate - With regards to sex as a minor - I don't mean that all minors have sex or think about sex. Merely that as kids it's natural to be attracted. To think about kissing someone, to like their hair, even some fantasy as you discover masturbation a little bit. Doesn't mean you think about actually having sex. Kissing can be sex at a young age.

Yet you said you'd be willing to condemn all deviating sexual preferences that don't include your own sexual preference, because in your eyes, it would probably be too difficult to decide on which relationships are "wrong" and which aren't.

When the basis of the argument to allow homosexuals to marry is that consenting people who aren't hurting anyone should be able to love who they want to love without government interference, it sounds awfully hypocritical to hear one in support of that plight is also against it when not in their favor.

To me that says that the real reason you are opposed to the legalization of incestuous marriage or any other unions involving commonly socially unaccepted sexual preferences (aside from homosexuality of course), is that you are more afraid of what it will do to the image of the gay movement to be associated with other "disorders", "preferences", or "orientations" that are still looked down upon in comparison to the ground homosexuality has gained in recent years.

 

[Devolution]

First: Sexual orientation? No. Sexual fetish. Orientation talks especifically about male/female/both/none. You can be a homosexual pedophile, or a heterosexual pedophile.

Second: That comparision isn't even close to fair.
Both were considered "wrong" but only one was considered criminal, and guess what, the one considered criminal, still is considered criminal.

Second half is not entirely true. Homosexuality (or the sexual aspect of it) has been outlawed before.

 

[la flama blanca]

Doesn't matter to me. Just don't touch kids.