Pedophilia just another sexual orientation?

#126
#126
allvol123 said:
Makes sense. Especially when you add in your qualifiers. Stay strong and ignorant.

FYI to everyone else, don't bother Burhead with what ifs, he only deals in the already happeneds.
Click to expand...

I'm the ignorant one because I say pedophilia will not be legalized in our lifetime? Gotcha.
 
#129
#129
volmaverick said:
People said the same thing about gays
Click to expand...

facepalm.jpg


It is like arguing with a child. :banghead2:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#130
#130
allvol123 said:
It is already accepted 16 year olds have sex and we are ok with that as a society. So why not 15, 14, etc.
Click to expand...

PKT_VOL said:
Dude, my aunt and uncle got married at 14 and 17 respectively. They have been married for over 65 years.
Click to expand...

allvol123 said:
There you go, help in making the argument for it.

Someone can simply poin to this right here. Why not 13, 12, 11, etc.
Click to expand...

Making an argument for what? You stated that society has deemed it ok for 16 teen year olds to consent to sex. Then stated that it could go lower. I pointed out that my aunt and uncle married below that age by 2 years and have been married 65+ years (also raised one of their sons to be a Pastor).

Then, you come back by invoking the Paradox of the Heap. There are two problems with that.

1) There are no satisfactory solutions to the Paradox. Everyone is different and the denominations of time can always get smaller.
2) The Paradox works both ways. Why not 17, 18, 19, 20?
 
#131
#131
hog88 said:
I've read where children are maturing sexually at ever younger ages now. If science proves the average 12, 13 or 14 year old is capable of consent why shouldn't pedophils enjoy the same rights to persue their sexual urges with consenting partners as heterosexuals and homosexuals do?
Click to expand...

Sure, why not?

You are speaking in absurdities. Consent is not a natural law but highly subjective (even to what the word entails) and depends on what a person values. Additionally, what is true for one person is not necessarily true of another one. Thus, your hypothetical is absurd.

If one has the ability to consent, why would you limit their rights?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#133
#133
Burhead said:
The case occurred in Italy, it has no bearing whatsoever on matters here in the States. Find me a case with similar results that happened here and it will okay to discuss.
Click to expand...

Same could be said a few years ago about gay marriage. Exact same.
 
#134
#134
Burhead said:
Never said it couldn't. If and when it ever happens than we can discuss it, now it is just a moot point.
Click to expand...

How convenient, I do remember on this very board people pointing to Europe and their gay marriage laws as examples for us to follow.

Weren't you one?
 
#136
#136
Burhead said:
I don't waste my time on discussing what-if scenarios that are border-line absurd.
Click to expand...

No you and the rest of your compadres don't want to discuss the slippery slope you advocated.

Hence the crickets and avoidance from people like pj.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#138
#138
PKT_VOL said:
Sure, why not?

You are speaking in absurdities. Consent is not a natural law but highly subjective (even to what the word entails) and depends on what a person values. Additionally, what is true for one person is not necessarily true of another one. Thus, your hypothetical is absurd.

If one has the ability to consent, why would you limit their rights?
Click to expand...

Bunch of BS qualifiers and psychobabble there before an answer.
 
#140
#140
Velo Vol said:
Some of you apparently spend a lot of time worrying/arguing about some weird stuff that doesn't affect 99% of the population.
Click to expand...

I only assume it's because they spend the rest of their day fighting off their pedophyl and beastiality type urges.
 
#141
#141
hog88 said:
Who 40 years ago thought gay marriage would be legalized in their lifetime?

This has been discussed and ignored.
Click to expand...

Lmfao! I love how you compare the two as if they are one. "Because two consenting adults of the same sex can now get married, then clearly grown men will be able to lawfully marry young boys next".

Is this just wishful thinking on your part, or are you truly incapable of seeing the difference here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#142
#142
Vol8188 said:
Lmfao! I love how you compare the two as if they are one. "Because two consenting adults of the same sex can now get married, then clearly grown men will be able to lawfully marry young boys next".

Is this just wishful thinking on your part, or are you truly incapable of seeing the difference here?
Click to expand...

I'm not comparing the two. The consenting adults is what keeps getting brought up, and I agree all sex must be consenting.

What almost no one will answer is what will you support if the age of consent is lowered?

Why is that so hard for people who believe in individual freedom answer?
 
#143
#143
hog88 said:
I'm not comparing the two. The consenting adults is what keeps getting brought up, and I agree all sex must be consenting.

What almost no one will answer is what will you support if the age of consent is lowered?

Why is that so hard for people who believe in individual freedom answer?
Click to expand...

That's a tough question. Biologically most of us are ready between 12-14. But psychologically we aren't prepared to make such decisions.

Most states are around 16-18 for their age of consent, and I consider that to be reasonable. I would not support raising the age above 18 or below 16.
 
#144
#144
I figured when I posted the article this morning that there'd be some discussion about homosexuality being the precedent upon which pedophilia got its start, but ten pages of posts about it??? Surprised by that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#146
#146
lawgator1 said:
I figured when I posted the article this morning that there'd be some discussion about homosexuality being the precedent upon which pedophilia got its start, but ten pages of posts about it??? Surprised by that.
Click to expand...

I thought it was a Mav thread before I saw who posted it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#149
#149
lawgator1 said:
I figured when I posted the article this morning that there'd be some discussion about homosexuality being the precedent upon which pedophilia got its start, but ten pages of posts about it??? Surprised by that.
Click to expand...

Again your wrong with no one being surprised.
 
#150
#150
I don't even know what to say to you people. Its like you just want to cling so hard to what your bible taught you, because you're either terrified that it might be wrong, or you're just too intellectually lazy to figure out why its not evil for two grown men or women to have sex, while it is for an adult to prey on a child.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top