Doctors group says heterosexual marriage better for kids

Totally agree...if anyone touched my kids when they were little, I would have been behind bars now...

 

Without taking any side in the overall dispute, no words exist to express my disguss in this statement.

 

Ziggy pedophilia is unacceptable in this country and many others.

 

But he is correct. There is nothing wrong with being a pedophile, as long as you don't touch a child.

 

Pedophilia is a sickness. Pedophilia is indescribably wrong.

 

So tricking a child to take of their clothes off and take compromising pictures of them to post to other sick farks around the world is ok then Mak.

No touching involved? which i doubt BUT.

SICK.

 

There is nothing wrong with killing as long as you are still alive. Logic rules. Don't blame other people are hating you for such statements.

 

What you are advocating is "thought crime".

Unless a paedophile actually breaks the law, he is not doing anything wrong.

Any adult having any kind of sexual relationship with a child is illegal.

Child pornography is illegal.

 

Here's a really hard question though, is it ok for a pedophile to have pictures of children (from contractual, so the kids consented, and non-pornographic content) with which he (I'm going to say he because there's basically no female pedophiles) uses for sexual pleasure in his own private space? I would say yes, as gross as that sounds. I think a lot of people would be greatly confronted by the thought though.

 

I'm just absolutely flabaghasted megadethfan. I cannot comprehend what you are saying. Is this trying to trivialise the deeper and more serious issues that belies a behavior that essentially exploits the innocence of children. You mention contractual and consent as a case in argument. We are talking about per-pubescent children here! A child in this context would have to be extremely vulnerable to consider measures such as this, which wouldn't be consenting in any instance but would be due to circumstances of duress, that the perpetrator has just exacerbated through his sick exploitation, just to get himself off. This does not represent a free society, the very thing the left complains about the right. This is a gut wrenching issue for me and thought I would ever see or hear someone try to justify such a fundamental taboo in a civilized society. I was addicted to cigarettes but knew it was bad for me and my children therefore had to make a change. Pedophiles need to realize this affects others, therefore requires a change. There is no excuse. If nothing else works than a lobotomy may be the only option!

 

This thread has just sunk to a new low.

 

No worries, happened to me as well.

No, not at all. I'm seriously trying to discern the boundary of personal space.

No not at all. I'm focusing on the use of the material, not really the nature of the material, since I cant see why it cant be as innocent as kids in clothing magazines. I know this sounds sick, but I think its something that needs to be discussed.

How does their action affect others? If they arent raping anyone, what does it matter what they do in the space of their own homes?

I disagree. I'd hope these people get medical help, which I wouldnt mind paying for as a social thing, because it can be a dangerous and possibly uncontrollable for some, but for those who choose no help and can control their desires, what are they doing wrong?

Again, I dont intend to insult people, although such a subject will undoubtedly make people feel uneasy - it certainly is confronting for me, but its something

 

It simply can't be justified, and has to be recognized as being inappropriate. You can't control what people do in their own homes and minds, but we can work to ensure these people do realize that what they are doing is not socially acceptable or morally right. I'm sorry, you can't tell me that a pedophile wouldn't try to take advantage of a child if circumstances were right for them.

 

How do you define "inappropriate" and why do you think it should be the basis for restricting freedoms?

I'm not opposed to education, but that seems beside the point here.

Yes, I can. Like I said, some might not be able to control their urges - all the more reason to make medical services more open to them. But people who can, do not need to rape kids.

 

What do you mean? Like, intellectually, or sexually? Sorry but I had to joke. We need to be open to discussing all issues no matter how confronting.

 

The answer of this question is only valid for each individual personally according to their comprehention of moral and balance between conscience and primitive instincts.
The same question can be easily translated into a similar form: "should we approve cannibalism if we eat human meat at the privacy of our homes only?"

 

Well no. If I wanted a subjective "I owe I feel like its ok" answer I wouldn't have asked. I want an objective and external justification - ie a truthful answer for or against.

As long as the meat was obtained with consent of others, then I would say yes. But as I say, I'm making an objectively reasoned argument - not some whimsical preference.

 

Yes it's okay. It's also okay for someone to masturbate to pictures of farm animals, toasters, cars, cartoon characters, or anything else. The act of masturbation is not illegal, and what goes on in your head when you do it is completely outside the law.

It's absolutely no ones business, so long as they're not breaking any laws.

There's obviously a difference between what I think is right, and what I think shouldn't be policed.

And about cannibalism, interfering with a corpse is illegal.

And "there is nothing wrong with killing, so long as you are still alive". No, there is nothing wrong with "thinking" about killing someone, so long as you don't do it. Even if thinking about killing someone makes you really happy, or sexually arouses you, there's still nothing wrong with that unless so long as you don't actually act on it.

 

We would like to know, how many kids whose parents are gay, have grown up and become gay themselves??
and if not. Y?

Does anyone know? or have an idea?

 

If someone is passionate about one of these thoughts, it becomes a very fine line in the event of it actually taking place. If someone sincerely wants to kill someone, than with an opportunity they would do it. I see this the same as someone who is passionate about pedophilia.

So:

Should we encourage or justify someone who is thinking about murderous thoughts to continue, knowing they've got a gun in their top draw.
Should we encourage or justify someone who has thoughts of pedophilia and knowing that children will be potentially around them.

The innocence of a child should simply just be TABOO!!, but as you say ziggy, we can't control or police what people think but we can sure as hell let them know that their is no justification for it. I don't care if you are gay, straight or into strange fetishes but this is one line we should be drawing in the sand. It is straight out sick!!

 

If they were not gay to begin with, they don't "grow up" gay. Everyone of my friends whose children are grown has heterosexual children. I have grandchildren and a daughter getting married in the fall.

 

What's wrong is rape. Paedophilia isn't "wrong", it's just a psychological/biological fact. I'm sure every heterosexual person has at some point been sexually attracted to someone that they "shouldn't be". Having sexual urges isn't "wrong", it just happens. What's wrong is rape. And again, children cannot give consent. I'm not really talking about "thinking" about killing someone, I'm talking about having an urge/impulse to kill someone.

 

Logically correct. But people get arrested if they possess child's pornography even if they have not committed actual rape. That means from general society's point of view it is illegal.

 

I think I can see the logic behind what you are saying, however, if someone knows that they are attracted to someone that they shouldn't be, then the individual has just recognized that it is wrong. The next point is that justifying people's thoughts is wrong in the instance of immorality.....don't get me wrong, people are obviously free to think what they like but that doesn't make it right in my opinion. It's an interesting topic, despite not being savoury, but it helps to understand this world a little bit more.

 

ITS NOT OK because a child is incapable of assesing the risks of entering in to a legal business arrangement or of self care and the physical and mental trauma that might be associated with such a deal.

Your logic is flawed once again.