Should books that are intended to teach people how to commit crimes be illegal?

[ShyGuyInChicago]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40112145/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets&2

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/21/florida.obscenity.arrest/index.html

A man who wrote a guide book about pedophiles has been arrested for writing the book under obscenity laws. His book was available on Amazon.com's Kindle store, but due to outrage and threats of boycotts, it was removed. Since the book is intended to teach pedophiles how to molest children in a "Safer" way, I think writing a book for the sole or primary purpose of instructing people on how to commit a crime should be illegal and be considered a form of incitement, being an accomplice, and conspiracy. I believe that such books undermine the law.

[Amnesiac]

There's a very fine line between banning books that pose an immediate threat to society and infringing on one's right to freedom of speech. Books that instruct people on how to conduct terrorists attacks and hack government networks should obviously be illegal, but I don't think the pedophilia "guide" really falls into such a category. The "guide", from my understanding, does not advocate for adults to participate in illegal activities. It's supposed to be a rulebook for them to become more accepted in society.

Remember, pedophilia is a mental disorder. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia)

[Donkey]

Remember, pedophilia is a mental disorder. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia)
Another point to the debate: is pedophilia a genuine sexuality, like homosexuality or heterosexuality? If not, why?

[ShyGuyInChicago]

There's a very fine line between banning books that pose an immediate threat to society and infringing on one's right to freedom of speech. Books that instruct people on how to conduct terrorists attacks and hack government networks should obviously be illegal, but I don't think the pedophilia "guide" really falls into such a category. The "guide", from my understanding, does not advocate for adults to participate in illegal activities. It's supposed to be a rulebook for them to become more accepted in society.

Remember, pedophilia is a mental disorder. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia)

If a book teaching people how to commit terrorism should be outlawed then why should a book that teaches people how to commit sex crimes against children (assuming that is what the author has in mind) be legal. Obviously terrorism is worse, but that does not mean lesser crimes should be neglected. I think such books pose a threat to people.

[Amnesiac]

Another point to the debate: is pedophilia a genuine sexuality, like homosexuality or heterosexuality? If not, why?

Well, I consider a "genuine" sexuality to be one that's confirmed as natural. Pedophilia, while a disorder, hasn't been proven natural.

If a book teaching people how to commit terrorism should be outlawed then why should a book that teaches people how to commit sex crimes against children (assuming that is what the author has in mind) be legal. Obviously terrorism is worse, but that does not mean lesser crimes should be neglected. I think such books pose a threat to people.

Well, that's the thing, I don't think the book covers ways to commit sex crimes on children. However, I haven't read it for myself, so I'm not really qualified to judge its subject matter. I can't even find a summary of the book.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Well, I consider a "genuine" sexuality to be one that's confirmed as natural. Pedophilia, while a disorder, hasn't been proven natural.



Well, that's the thing, I don't think the book covers ways to commit sex crimes on children. However, I haven't read it for myself, so I'm not really qualified to judge its subject matter. I can't even find a summary of the book.

From here is the author's purpose in his own words:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40112145/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets&2

"This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certian rules for these adults to follow. I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter sentences should they ever be caught."

[Amnesiac]

From here is the author's purpose in his own words:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40112145/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets&2

Interesting. This book certainly falls in a grey area, he's not outright advocating pedophilia but it seems like he's... encouraging it? I'd have to read the book to get a real understanding of it, but I can't do that.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Interesting. This book certainly falls in a grey area, he's not outright advocating pedophilia but it seems like he's... encouraging it? I'd have to read the book to get a real understanding of it, but I can't do that.

OK for the sake of argument, if he was advocating the sexual abuse of children and teaching people how to do it, in your mind should that be a crime.

[Sogeking]

Another point to the debate: is pedophilia a genuine sexuality, like homosexuality or heterosexuality? If not, why?

I don't see how someone can be born with a sexual attraction to children. I think the environment the person was raised in influences whether they have a sexual preference to children or not.

[Amnesiac]

OK for the sake of argument, if he was advocating the sexual abuse of children and teaching people how to do it, in your mind should that be a crime.

Yes.

I don't see how someone can be born with a sexual attraction to children. I think the environment the person was raised in influences whether they have a sexual preference to children or not.

Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, researchers began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic (and hebephilic) men have lower IQs, poorer scores on memory tests, greater rates of non-right-handedness, greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences, lesser physical height, greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness, and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures. They report that their findings suggest that there are one or more neurological characteristics present at birth that cause or increase the likelihood of being pedophilic. Evidence of familial transmittability "suggests, but does not prove that genetic factors are responsible" for the development of pedophilia.

[Donkey]

Well, I consider a "genuine" sexuality to be one that's confirmed as natural. Pedophilia, while a disorder, hasn't been proven natural.
What constitutes as natural? If someone has lust, or physical attraction for children, surely that is a natural occurrence? Isn't this like saying "I'm not gay, therefore gays are faking it"? Let's say that homosexuality hasn't been proven natural from someone's perspective, they would share your opinion of pedophilia on homosexuality. Similarly, let's remember, homosexuality was seen as a mental illness before people accepted it.

I don't see how someone can be born with a sexual attraction to children. I think the environment the person was raised in influences whether they have a sexual preference to children or not.
Pedo Bob enters the room and says "I don't see how someone can be born with a sexual attraction to adults. Must be some environment or shits," hurr durr.

[Amnesiac]

What constitutes as natural? If someone has lust, or physical attraction for children, surely that is a natural occurrence? Isn't this like saying "I'm not say, therefore gays are faking it"? Let's say that homosexuality hasn't been proven natural from someone's perspective, they would share your opinion of pedophilia on homosexuality. Similarly, let's remember, homosexuality was seen as a mental illness before people accepted it.

When I say "proven natural", I mean through scientific research, not an objective point of view. While I don't believe pedophilia qualified as a sexual orientation — the definition of which applies to gender only, anyway* — I do believe that, in today's society, pedophiles are too harshly treated. Every person has the right to hold their own beliefs and viewpoints; we shouldn't encroach on the privacy of pedophiles who keep to themselves (that is, they don't do anything criminal) just because we disagree with their opinions.



*Sexual orientation describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction to men, women, both genders, neither gender, or another gender.

[Donkey]

When I say "proven natural", I mean through scientific research, not an objective point of view. While I don't believe pedophilia qualified as a sexual orientation — the definition of which applies to gender only, anyway* — I do believe that, in today's society, pedophiles are too harshly treated. Every person has the right to hold their own beliefs and viewpoints; we shouldn't encroach on the privacy of pedophiles who keep to themselves (that is, they don't do anything criminal) just because we disagree with their opinions.



*
For Christ's fucking sake I had written a really long response to this before Firefox crashed, fuck.

Back to what I did the first time I guess. I never used the term sexual orientation, but rather sexuality. The Free Dictionary describes this as: "2. Concern with or interest in sexual activity. 3. Sexual character or potency." Thus, pedophiles fit the mention. Nevertheless, I agree with the rest that you have said and will go more in depth about my exact views on the matter.

It leads me to my point which could perhaps be even more controversial. Why can't a pedophile have sex with a mature, consenting child? I'm not suggesting anyone manipulates a child so young that they are incapable of making moral judgement. However, if the two consent and are aware of their judgement, possible consequences and what they're doing - why not? If the child is mature, and demonstrates that, why not? Age of consent doesn't work because a 15 year old could quite easily be more mature than a 23 year old - and be more capable of making a judgement in the given situation. A pedophile would not be attracted to a 23 year old.

I don't necessarily have a concrete solution but the way things are, defining a specific age where you tell people they have reached the maturity to decide who they can have sex with and what they can do with their own body and free will is never going work, and it doesn't work. If pedophiles were not forced to manipulate children to fulfill their sexual desires (and let's be honest, only a small percentage do) then there would be less harm. And if there's no harm, there's no victim. Thus, if there is no victim there is no crime.

Society always is scared of what it doesn't understand. Something that people cannot relate to, or don't want to relate to because they have been spooned their general ideas that it is sick and horrible and should be out of their sight as soon as possible. Essentially, if a homosexual wrote this book however many years ago we'd be after him like we are this pedophile now. The book is about trying to conform to society and keep themselves secret because people disagree with them, but people can't even deal with that. People are ignorant, society is ignorant and unless we start thinking rationally it will stay that way. Before it was homosexuals, now it's pedophiles. Same difference I'm afraid.

[Amnesiac]

For Christ's fucking sake I had written a really long response to this before Firefox crashed, fuck.

Back to what I did the first time I guess. I never used the term sexual orientation, but rather sexuality. The Free Dictionary describes this as: "2. Concern with or interest in sexual activity. 3. Sexual character or potency." Thus, pedophiles fit the mention.

Oh, well, I assumed "sexuality" was a synonym for "sexual orientation". I usually think of those two terms going together.

Nevertheless, I agree with the rest that you have said and will go more in depth about my exact views on the matter.

Which I won't quote here, but you do bring up some very valid points. Legally, however, such laws would be complicated. Defining what constitutes a "mature child" would take a very long time, and of course there's society's moral belief that pedophilia in any form is wrong and should be done away with.

[Sogeking]

Pedo Bob enters the room and says "I don't see how someone can be born with a sexual attraction to adults. Must be some environment or shits," hurr durr.

That is instinct. Males generally look for a women who can bear children so would look for a mature (physically) women. Not a child.

[Donkey]

That is instict. Males generally look for a women who can bear children so would look for a mature (physically) women. Not a child.
Are you approaching saying that any sexuality other than heterosexual is unnatural? I don't see the differentiation between homosexuality and pedophilia being defined in your post, which is the most crucial point. One is considered evil, one is now considered acceptable.

[Ali_Cat]

While I do most certainly believe that pedophilia is a mental dissorder, I absolutely do not believe it is 'natural'. Calling it so just boggels my mind.

People who pray upon children (and in most cases, children do not give concent) are very sick individuals. What on earth could be natural about a 32 year old man, raping a screaming, crying, 7 year old child?
Or even a grown man, constantly attempting to 'get with' a teenager, and taking physical mesures, blaming it on his 'condition', long after that teenager made a very clear 'No'. I have been in both of these situations, the latter just last year, which just made it to the DA.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, pedophilia is not. At a young age, as early as 5years old, I was atracted to the same sex. If pedophilia is a sexual orientation, what are they attracted to at age 5, and infant?
Sorry, I`m just not buying that.

[Sith Lord 13]

Which I won't quote here, but you do bring up some very valid points. Legally, however, such laws would be complicated. Defining what constitutes a "mature child" would take a very long time, and of course there's society's moral belief that pedophilia in any form is wrong and should be done away with.

Age of consent law needs to be abolished. It should instead be determined if the person had the capacity to consent. This allows people of greater maturity to be able to exercise their natural rights, while still protecting those without that maturity. Obviously in the guidelines it should state a certain age (I believe it should be at least 16 and no more than 18) at which point the capacity to consent based on age is assumed, though it may be a contributing factor if there were also other reasons the person could not consent (abuse of authority, intoxication, etc).

From the age of consent thread.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, pedophilia is not. At a young age, as early as 5years old, I was atracted to the same sex. If pedophilia is a sexual orientation, what are they attracted to at age 5, and infant?

So if someone spends their childhood thinking they're straight, and doesn't realize they're gay until later in life, their sexual orientation is still straight?

[Ali_Cat]

From the age of consent thread.



So if someone spends their childhood thinking they're straight, and doesn't realize they're gay until later in life, their sexual orientation is still straight?

No, they would be gay.

I`m not talking about men, who date teenagers, who are aware of what they`re doing. I honestly don`t find that pedo-ish. When mental maturity is present, that, to me, is just being attracted to younger people,and vice versa. Heck, I dated a 20yr old for quite a while when I was 14.

I`m talking about men, who specifically prey on younger girls, who do not have he mental maturity, nor give concent. I mean, its one thing to form a relationship with a mentally mature teenager. What is someone going to form with a child that still plays barbies? Obviously, not a deep-connection relationship, which only leaves sexual desire, which in turn, produces nothing good from the whole situation. Only pain and anguish to a very confused and scared victum.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

While I do most certainly believe that pedophilia is a mental dissorder, I absolutely do not believe it is 'natural'. Calling it so just boggels my mind.

People who pray upon children (and in most cases, children do not give concent) are very sick individuals. What on earth could be natural about a 32 year old man, raping a screaming, crying, 7 year old child?
Or even a grown man, constantly attempting to 'get with' a teenager, and taking physical mesures, blaming it on his 'condition', long after that teenager made a very clear 'No'. I have been in both of these situations, the latter just last year, which just made it to the DA.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, pedophilia is not. At a young age, as early as 5years old, I was atracted to the same sex. If pedophilia is a sexual orientation, what are they attracted to at age 5, and infant?
Sorry, I`m just not buying that.

Although pedophilia is a disorder and abnormal it is natural. It is not artificial or human-made. People don' have control over whether they are attracted to children or not. Unfortunately just because something is natural it can still be harmful.

[goat]

I don't see how someone can be born with a sexual attraction to children. I think the environment the person was raised in influences whether they have a sexual preference to children or not.

But that is a historical argument against homosexuality

[Cryofthewolf]

No, this book makes me want to puke just thinking about it. It is wrong and it should be taken off the internet as soon as possible. Books such as this that can harm children don't deserve to be available for all to see. Sure, it's banning something, but it can, without argument, harm a child if the wrong person (and the wrong people definitely read it) get a hold of it.

For those of you who say it is wrong to ban books, I agree with you. I love reading, and it bothers me when I am told by the government/etc. what I can and can't read, unless it is without debate a danger to others or our country. Also, this book wasn't published by any legitimate publishers, if I recall correctly. That is one thing that makes a book a book for me. Anything else, especially written on the internet and posted on the internet, has as much legitimacy as a book as a blog does.

There. Rant over. Pedophiles suck, this 'book' should be deleted, and the 'author' should go to jail. *Wipes sweat off of brow*

[Sith Lord 13]

Not at all. Unless the book is encouraging people to do it, it shouldn't be banned. Hell, even if it is, the book shouldn't be banned. The author should be held criminally responsible if his book could foreseeably lead to injury, but the material itself should not be illegal to read.

[Jamie]

Edit - Nevermind.

[DinoCrisisFan]

I'm on the fence here. And pedophilia is any adult who sexually likes kids 12 years old or younger, no excuses. Even if they don't act on their urges, so long as they have urges for kids 12 or younger, they are still a pedophile.

[Donkey]

No, this book makes me want to puke just thinking about it. It is wrong and it should be taken off the internet as soon as possible. Books such as this that can harm children don't deserve to be available for all to see. Sure, it's banning something, but it can, without argument, harm a child if the wrong person (and the wrong people definitely read it) get a hold of it.

For those of you who say it is wrong to ban books, I agree with you. I love reading, and it bothers me when I am told by the government/etc. what I can and can't read, unless it is without debate a danger to others or our country. Also, this book wasn't published by any legitimate publishers, if I recall correctly. That is one thing that makes a book a book for me. Anything else, especially written on the internet and posted on the internet, has as much legitimacy as a book as a blog does.

There. Rant over. Pedophiles suck, this 'book' should be deleted, and the 'author' should go to jail. *Wipes sweat off of brow*
Why should a book written for paedophiles trying to live normal lives not be allowed? Why should we discriminate against paedophiles for their sexual feelings? If I were to say that you sucked because of your sexuality, how would you feel? Ridiculous post, no reasoning for why paedophilia is bad, no cookie.

I'm on the fence here. And pedophilia is any adult who sexually likes kids 12 years old or younger, no excuses. Even if they don't act on their urges, so long as they have urges for kids 12 or younger, they are still a pedophile.
Similarly, want to explain why a trait of someone they cannot control (in this case, their sexuality) makes them a bad person?

[Ali_Cat]

Why should a book written for paedophiles trying to live normal lives not be allowed? Why should we discriminate against paedophiles for their sexual feelings? If I were to say that you sucked because of your sexuality, how would you feel? Ridiculous post, no reasoning for why paedophilia is bad, no cookie.


Similarly, want to explain why a trait of someone they cannot control (in this case, their sexuality) makes them a bad person?

Because it is dangerous. It puts young children in situations they should not be in. There are bad people, and bad actions. I think when your poor actions correlate with your mind end emotions, it makes you a bad person.

If someone commits murder in self defence, does that make them a bad person? No. If someone commits murder for the fun, or because they 'need' to kill, because they can`t control it. They want it. Of course.

[Sith Lord 13]

If someone commits murder for the fun, or because they 'need' to kill, because they can`t control it. They want it. Of course.

Equating killing "for fun" with a psychological compulsion to kill is an unfair comparison. Murder, "purely for fun" is wrong, but when someone has a mental illness that compels them, they need treatment, not condemnation.

[Korashk]

No, from my POV there is exactly one thing that should be considered illegal and punishable by a legal authority. Initiation of force.

[Cryofthewolf]

Why should a book written for paedophiles trying to live normal lives not be allowed? Why should we discriminate against paedophiles for their sexual feelings? If I were to say that you sucked because of your sexuality, how would you feel? Ridiculous post, no reasoning for why paedophilia is bad, no cookie.


Similarly, want to explain why a trait of someone they cannot control (in this case, their sexuality) makes them a bad person?

The book wasn't written so pedophiles could have normal lives. It was written so they could abuse children and still be following the law. (What states has the least amount of protection for children, where they can touch the kids without molesting them, etc.)

If it was a book for pedophiles to learn how to control their urges than I would be fine with it.

Also, let me rephrase what I said about pedophiles sucking: The ones who abuse children, whether they feel bad about it or not, 'suck'. Suck probably isn't the right word. Terrible, terrible people works better. (Three words, I know) I have a friend who was molested, and he is still recovering from it, so it's kind of personal for me. (Well, in a passive sort of way.)

If there is a pedophile that is trying to change, then I can feel for them. Wouldn't allow them around children, but would support them nonetheless. Hopefully in helping them there will be less pedophiles in the world.

Alright, so in summary, pedophilia itself is wrong, pedophiles should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if they are abusing children (Just added that one, I know), they should be helped if it can be helped, and yeah, someone get's a cookie now. :yeah:

[closed]

Personallly i think it should be illegal. BUT today's society is all for the freedom of speach, and if the country will censore such books, then the country will be called evil, primitive and undemocratic. Today's society is rotten.

[Donkey]

Because it is dangerous. It puts young children in situations they should not be in. There are bad people, and bad actions. I think when your poor actions correlate with your mind end emotions, it makes you a bad person.
Paedophilia is different to blindly abusing children. It is uncontrollable sexual desire: something you cannot blame people for.

If someone commits murder in self defence, does that make them a bad person? No. If someone commits murder for the fun, or because they 'need' to kill, because they can`t control it. They want it. Of course.
You've misunderstood my point, it's not about ABUSING children it's about the INDIVIDUAL paedophiles themselves, and their feelings. Obviously if they abuse a child it is wrong, I am not defending that.

The book wasn't written so pedophiles could have normal lives. It was written so they could abuse children and still be following the law. (What states has the least amount of protection for children, where they can touch the kids without molesting them, etc.)"This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certian rules for these adults to follow. I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter sentences should they ever be caught."
I know little of the actual content of the book, but if it is how I explained earlier then I have no problem with it. If it teaches people how to molest children in easier ways, then I (and you too) personally object to the message of the book but does that mean that we should raise the censorship hammer on it?

"An Amazon employee emphasized that "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers" was "not a 'how-to' manual for molesting children. The author simply expresses his point of view about what he feels are misunderstood."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40112145/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets&2

Once again, if it is like this I have no problem. People should have a choice to read what they want - whatever that is, for whatever reason. They should have access to whatever literature, art or media they like. Personal taste is nothing that we can control over and I see it as morally wrong to stop what people should learn and read.

If it was a book for pedophiles to learn how to control their urges than I would be fine with it.
Oh, when you have a problem with something it means that other people must not read it and that it must be banned? Behold, our lord Cryofthewolf - he tells us what we can and cannot read. Who are you, or who is anyone, to make a decision on what other people can read and what can be published? Amazon can, it's their company. But it remains the case I feel it shouldn't be censored.

Also, let me rephrase what I said about pedophiles sucking: The ones who abuse children, whether they feel bad about it or not, 'suck'. Suck probably isn't the right word. Terrible, terrible people works better. (Three words, I know) I have a friend who was molested, and he is still recovering from it, so it's kind of personal for me. (Well, in a passive sort of way.)
Child abusers, I agree, I see as bad people and do not agree with. Saying they suck could just be some kind of innuendo, so yes terrible, terrible people may be a better term. And I understand why you have strong views, but don't let your emotions take hold of your argument.

If there is a pedophile that is trying to change, then I can feel for them. Wouldn't allow them around children, but would support them nonetheless. Hopefully in helping them there will be less pedophiles in the world.
Ah, yes. Paedophiles trying to change. Reminds me of homosexual counselors.

Alright, so in summary, pedophilia itself is wrong, pedophiles should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if they are abusing children (Just added that one, I know), they should be helped if it can be helped, and yeah, someone get's a cookie now. :yeah:
Huh? Paedophilia is wrong? Didn't you just say that you'd accept paedophiles that are trying to change? :confused:

Personallly i think it should be illegal. BUT today's society is all for the freedom of speach, and if the country will censore such books, then the country will be called evil, primitive and undemocratic. Today's society is rotten.
Isn't freedom of speech rotten? We should totally get rid of it, shouldn't we? Did we ever have it? Probably not, try doing a Nazi salute in Germany next to an officer of the law and you might realise that freedom of speech isn't all that it turns out to be.

[Ali_Cat]

Paedophilia is different to blindly abusing children. It is uncontrollable sexual desire: something you cannot blame people for.

It sickens me when I see on the news, a man who murders his two children, and blames it on his religion.
What is so different from your point then a rapist, or murderer who cannot control thier urges? Do you think they should not be blamed? That they should not be prosecuted?
'urges' are all in the mind. Anyone, can overcome any urge if they honestly set thier mind to it. There are only people who do not wish to try hard enough. Criminals, too often, blam thier poor deeds on thier 'urges'. And if they`re too weak to control thier urges, then they shoulden`t be allowed into society.




Child abusers, I agree, I see as bad people and do not agree with. Saying they suck could just be some kind of innuendo, so yes terrible, terrible people may be a better term. And I understand why you have strong views, but don't let your emotions take hold of your argument


Huh? Paedophilia is wrong? Didn't you just say that you'd accept paedophiles that are trying to change? :confused:

Didn`t you just say that child abusers are terrible? There is a difference between phedophiles (someone who is sexually attracted to young children) who have not in any way, shape, or form acted of thier desires, then a pedophile who has.
Pedophiles who have acted on thier desires, first and foremost know they are breaking the law. Secondly, thay realize it is morally, and ethically wrong. They realize they are not only putting themselves in danger, but most definitely the children they are abusing as well.
And yet, they continue on.
I just don`t see how anyone can vouch for someone like that.
Now, pedophiles who attempt to change? Then more power to them.
Do I support them? thats a tough question.
For most people, it is an easy yes. Its alot different when you`ve been the victum of a pedophile.

Also for thoes who compare pedophiles and homosexuals..

I honestly don`t see how you can mesh pedophiles and homosexuals into the same catagory. I`m homosexual and I don`t even agree with that. Yes, homosexuals were looked upon poorly, just as pedophiles are today, but that is about it..People were never sent to jail for being homosexual. There is a difference. Gender is much different from age. There are two agreeing parties with homosexuals. With pedophiles, there is not. Only a unmatured child (mentally and physically), generaly not willing.
At gay rights movements, you see compassion, determination, and willingness from eaither couple, our hell, couples. Put pedophiles in that same situation, what are you going to see? A bunch of scared, screaming children.

[Sith Lord 13]

Also for thoes who compare pedophiles and homosexuals..

I honestly don`t see how you can mesh pedophiles and homosexuals into the same catagory. I`m homosexual and I don`t even agree with that. Yes, homosexuals were looked upon poorly, just as pedophiles are today, but that is about it..People were never sent to jail for being homosexual.

Nazi Germany.

There is a difference. Gender is much different from age.

How so?

There are two agreeing parties with homosexuals. With pedophiles, there is not. Only a unmatured child (mentally and physically), generaly not willing.

But the point is that a pedophile can't make themselves not be a pedophile any more than you can make yourself not be gay.

At gay rights movements, you see compassion, determination, and willingness from eaither couple, our hell, couples. Put pedophiles in that same situation, what are you going to see? A bunch of scared, screaming children.

No one's defended molestation here. The point has been that there is no easy way to deal with the situation, as it's a lot less black and white than most people realize.

[Severus Snape]

There's a very fine line between banning books that pose an immediate threat to society and infringing on one's right to freedom of speech.

That is very relative. I think books instructing people that christianity is the end all be all truth of the universe is an immediate threat to society.


Remember, pedophilia is a mental disorder. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia)

Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder for a long time as well.