Why is homosexuality accepted but not pedophilia?

Why is homosexuality accepted but not pedophilia?

Both are biologically wrong. Why would you have sex with or be attracted to something that can't reproduce? They are both disgusting.

Other urls found in this thread:

broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/most-child-sex-abusers-are-not-pedophiles-expert-says
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Because homosexuality involves consenting adults making their own choices, whereas pedophilia involves an adult coercing a non-consenting child into sexual acts.

If you don't understand why only one of those is a bad thing, you might want to re-evaluate your personal creeds.

Because pedophilia actually causes harm.

Two consenting males of similar age butt fucking are on an even playing field. What they do behind closed doors is no one's business.

They are both wrong.

But gays know they are wrong for doing it. They choose to live poor excuses for lives. But there is a recompense for that behavior, on the other side.

>i don't understand what pedophilia is

Ignorance and secular ideology.

That doesn't make it right. It's literally no different than pedophilia.

Futher more, what is your criteria for biological "wrongness"? We live in a era with access to processed food, artificial insemination, steroids, and recently even artificial limbs.
Humans one way or another found the spark, and here we are able to challenge our natural limits. Sex should be the least of your concern.

Your entire argument is based on a false premise.

broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/most-child-sex-abusers-are-not-pedophiles-expert-says

Pedophilia is wrong because it's a predatory attraction. You're lusting after something that is vulnerable and unable to consent to any sexual act you might imagine wanting to do. Homosexuality is not a predatory attraction by nature. I would guess that the majority of homosexuals want to be in roughly equal relationships with their partners.

Because penis is hot, but lolis are shit

Semantics.

OP's question was regarding Pedophiles. Pedophiles who actually engage in the desired sex within their orientation are exploiting children.

Prove they can't consent.

1 Corinthians 6:9 - 10

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Why is that wrong?

This is about biology, not religion faggot.

>here is the difference (ability of both parties to consent)

>they're literally no different

Justed because they're alike in one respect (non reproductive) doesn't mean they are alike in every respect. Desks and chairs both have 4 legs, but that clearly doesn't mean they're the same in every way.

i appreciate the immature prejudice.

Fuck off pedos

go seek therapy if you were molested as a child

>OP's question was regarding Pedophiles
And pedophilia is by definition not an act.

And I proved to you that most of those that perform that predatory act aren't pedophiles.

why are there so many fucking pedos on Veeky Forums

No it's not. A child cannot consent. Any sexual relationship offered to them will be shit tier and are.

This guy is right tho. The questions is asking about why its accepted, not what your opinions on it are. Children cannot consent to sex so any sexual or pornographic act involving them is abuse and therefore frowned upon and discouraged in various fashions depending on the state/culture.

Homosexuality is between 2 consenting adults and there is no such thing as biologically right or wrong. It might not be the best for passing on your genes, but to be fair in modern days it would not be difficult for a homosexual to get his/her genetic material fused with someone elses and still procreate. Or they if the cared so much they could fuck someone of the opposite sex once and still manage to procreate.

Well obviously they can't legally consent due to various age of consent laws in most developed countries.

You could argue that they can't psychologically consent since most scientists agree that the brain doesn't develop in its entirety until the mid twenties.

You could say that they can't consent because they are not aware of all of the emotional and physical implications that are often attached to sexual acts.

You could say that they can't consent because until they are adults, they are not allowed to make their own important decisions, and engaging in sexual acts is considered by most modern societies to be an important decision.

Really you can't "prove" that they can't consent, and in a perfect world the age of legal consent would be tailored to each individual based on their culture, mental development, and a myriad of other things. Unfortunately we live in a world where law must be one-size-fits-all, and so, children cannot legally consent.

Children don't have the mental or emotional capacities that adults do.

Can't you read? That wasn't the point of my post.

"Most Child Sex Abusers Are Not Pedophiles, Expert Says"

>Why is it wrong to want to be in a one-sided, predatory relationship where only one party has the mental and emotional faculties necessary to make important decisions.

Gee, I don't know man. Do you think that it's right?

>consent is important becuz i sed so
So?

Legality has nothing to do with biology,

Prove objectively that a 11 year old giving consent is different than a 21 year old.

>not aware

Children were raised up aware of it. It wasn't taboo it was normal. Even today, there are 7 year olds watching twerking videos on YouTube and know all about sex.

Try a different answer. Both are fucking disgusting. Has nothing to do with consent, legality, psychology, etc. It's all subjective.

Stop spooking me bub.
>one-sided
It isn't, at all.

Just because you can say yes, doesn't mean it isn't disgusting.

If I told you, hey user, why not go to jail and get ass fucked by inmates? Unlikely most men will cheer in agreement.

That is the most common, and therefore correct reaction. Anything other than that requires a warped perception of masculinity or a really weak spirit, most likely weaked for not being accepted by family for it. Because it's disgusting.

>common and therefore correct
Fuck off back to lebbit

I guess it makes sense why you don't see anything wrong with this, since you too don't have the mental or emotional capacities that adults have either

Consent is important because w/o it the act is rape. Thats why it is discouraged and thats why the lust for underage people is discouraged. You didnt ask the question "from a biological perspective" you asked why one was accepted in society. There is nothing wrong from a biological perspective as long as both parties are hormonaly ready and healthy. But since we are civilized and like to respect other peoples rights we live by a code of laws. The same laws that prevent horny men that are bigger than you from raping you whenever they want.

What is your standard of correctness based on?

either you're on the side of good, or you're not.

None of that has anything to do with biology and is irrelevant.

Prove that a 12 year old's consent is any different than a 14 year old or a 24 year old without muh legality bullshit.

Stop trying to differentiate yourself from pedophiles because of "consent"

You homosexuals and pedophiles should be killed.

What exactly is the aim of using the consent argument? People who consider homosexuality wrong see the act as wrong, similar to pedophilia. It has nothing to do with consent. So why do proponents of homosexuality say consent matters? Those against homosexuality are arguing against the act itself, not necessarily the consensual aspect of it. Even with consent, both acts are wrong from their point of view.

Spooked hard.

Why was my very mutual and passionate (and ongoing) relationship with a 13-year-old girl immoral?
Why is rape bad?
>civilized
ebin

You're presuming all relationships are sexual now
Nothing is correct.
Too bad you aren't good.

Even if he didn't "have the mental or emotional capacities that adults have" that wouldn't make him necessarily wrong.

By your logic, a kid who says "the sky is blue" is wrong because he or she doesn't "have the mental or emotional capacities that adults have"?

For some 11 year olds, it may be perfectly appropriate for them to engage in sexual acts. For others, it may not.

Conversely, it may be totally appropriate for one 21 year old to engage in sexual acts, while it may not be for another.

The world isn't black and white. There are thousands of variables that should go in to every single decision that we make about morality, but for expediences sake we ignore most of them and follow common law as the final arbiter of what is right and what is wrong.

The difference is that homosexuality isn't by its very nature a sexual orientation where one party cannot consent.

The question the thread posed is why pedophilia is not as accepted as homosexuality. The fact that the OP states both are biologically wrong has nothing to do with the actual argument for or against whatever side you take. Hell, marrying a fat person could be biologically wrong. Why would you have sex with or be attracted to something that will dilute your gene pool?

You are consenting to your own destruction because you supposedly have something to gain.

A child cannot consent to any sort of commitment whatsoever because they're retarded and don't know better.

>Why would you have sex with or be attracted to something that can't reproduce?
Did you think that pedophilia is not accepted because it doesn't lead to reproduction? Damn, you are dumb. First, that's not the reason, it's the fact that it is child abuse. Second, a lot of acts that are legally considered pedophilic acts do produce children. Many 12-13 year old girls are already capable of childbirth.

Their brains are not fully developed yet, the current science says that the brain stops developing at around 21. This is the loose logic behind the drinking age in the US. They are also psychologically impressionable and have often not been in romantic relationships yet at the ages you are talking about. Most people only get a general sense of self after the age of 18, so asking why getting consent from an 11 year old is different from a 21 year old is kind of ridiculous.

Short answer: 11y olds are not fully developed physically or psychologically, they are highly impressionable, and they are fucking dumb as bricks.

Are kids the only people you can impress? Is that why you are so desperately trying to justify pedophilia?

>as long as both parties are hormonaly ready and healthy

But that's where you're wrong. By definition, children are not hormonally ready either.

In no way is pedophilia acceptable, not biologically or socially. Full. Fucking. Stop.

Fags are a different matter entirely -- it's a mental condition in adults who are both consenting and hormonally ready. If you somehow force them to fuck the opposite sex, or at least take their sperm/eggs, then they can theoretically produce healthy offspring. Fucking children will never produce healthy offspring, and thus it is an ultimate in literal degeneracy.

>le science'
ebin
>Are kids the only people you can impress? Is that why you are so desperately trying to justify pedophilia?
Why are you being presumptuous?
Why? Because you said so?

> for some 11 year olds i may be perfectly appropriate for them to engage in sexual act

I hope you never end up running for any sort of office, cuz someone will somehow dig this up as something you once wrote. But seriously, its not ok for any 11yo cuz regardless of maturity they are psychologically not fully developed.

>Fucking children will never produce healthy offspring, and thus it is an ultimate in literal degeneracy

I have a cousin who was raped when she was 14, gave birth to a healthy baby girl. My second cousin is one of the most rad kids I know. I mean, I know it's anecdotal evidence and thus irrelevant, but I feel to need to defend the little fucker because she's just that cool.

You clearly have no sense of irony.

I don't to be an authority on gravity to tell you it's a thing and you're an imbecile for believing otherwise.

Some things are innately obvious. Being a sick fucking pedo is one of them.

I hope the FBI raids your house and blacklists you from any job, fuckface.

homosexuality is a sexual orientation, pedophilia is a paraphilia, the science is infallible

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

also OP is the same pedophile spammer who made this thread

>there are 7 year olds watching twerking videos on YouTube and know all about sex

And? They're not of the maturity to conduct themselves. Ever heard the phrase "Acting like a child"? Would you trust your kid with your credit card?

Whoa whoa whoa, Im not on the pro-pedophilia side of the arguement here. I was telling him if he is looking at things from a biological perspective (like purely physiologically) what the requirements were. In some races women tend to undergo puberty earlier than others and there are more than a few cases of girls 9-13 giving birth to perfectly healthy babies. But just because it is biologically possible does not mean it should be done.
I did not insinuate that pedophilia is ok, I was saying the biological arguement is pointless.

That's fine.

Show me statistical evidence that fucking children produce generally and consistently produce healthy kids, and not just once-in-a-blue-moon-because-I-know-a-guy.

>biologically wrong
By what metric?

The consent argument is used to differentiate homosexuality from pedophilia on secular terms. Those go out the window when you bring religious morality into the mix or ascribe moral alignment with amoral natural processes, however.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no magic number at which point you are "Developed" enough, and even if there was it wouldn't be the same for everyone.

Why should the burden of proof fall on my shoulders? Why shouldn't you show me statistical evidence that fucking children produces generally and consistently unhealthy?

>psychologically
top meme
hurr its tr00 cuz i sed so

Fuck off you garbage.
Why would the FBI raid me you presumptuous shit?
Science is an irrelevant ideology.

>You're presuming all relationships are sexual now

a non-familial relationship without sex or implied future sex is a friendship.

I'd say it's a result of the ingrained belief of self-determination and free will in modern society.

If people didn't care so much about able-bodied adults being to do whatever they want, pedophilia and homosexuality would be viewed as equally wrong.

It's not "protecting children because they're too young to consent," it's "we're both adults and we should be able to fuck however we want."

Why is it illegal to upload a video of yourself being mounted by a dog or a horse, even if you're consenting? Because the other party isn't an adult human, and anything less than that doesn't count.

Not true.

The basis on homosexuality being wrong is religious, so I don't see how that argument is unavoidable. Otherwise both sides of the debate will be arguing for two completely separate aspects perpetually.

antiintilectualism is a mistake
Im being presumptuous because you are making a lot of terrible (as in bad quality) arguements for pedophilia and offering up terrible retorts against the arguements given to you. You are probably a troll who thinks we are all raging at you. The truth is we are just trying to prevent some bad shit from happening on the off chance that you actually are a pedo.

>not biologically
What about fertile "children"?

>socially
Irrelevant. Society changes.

>I hope you never end up running for any sort of office, cuz someone will somehow dig this up as something you once wrote.
Thanks, thought police.

How? This social act is deemed as one of the wrongest things an individual can do. Are you really expecting to have some statistics.

Biologically? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Really, there are both pedophiles and homosexual animals found in nature.

Not that I support either, but you can't say it doesn't happen in nature with animals.

>leans in to mic
>"Wrong!"

Just because it worked for our future dear leader doesn't mean it works for you. Back up your arguments you cuck.

Why?

Then the better question is how exactly can adults consent but not anyone under the age of 18? You can still be brain dead retarded well over eighteen and you can't tell me that if you agreed to fuck your teacher when you were fifteen you would have been "too young and le innocent" to have had any control. Also, I'm fairly certain a corpse can't consent, yet police of photos of descimated nude dead bodies are all over the place on the internet, there are literally pictures of dead people with their own dick in their mouth

Pedofilia isn't biologically wrong?

>science is irrelevant
>legality is unimportant
>not talking about religion
>no legality
>not even statistics
Literally every conceivable logical process disagrees with you. Why don't you just admit that its wrong?

>logic is right becuz i sed so
legality isn't logical btw.

How's "X is against biology" even an argument?

It's basically an appeal to nature.

As the field of neurology and psychiatry are making advancements, psychology is becoming more refined. Its not freud anymore. Its more like physical therapy only for your brain. It studies the cognitive and behavioral development of people.

Its a mistake to treat it as pseudoscience.

Also science is not an ideology.

>The basis on homosexuality being wrong is religious
That may be the origin, but every single argument I've personally witnessed about this topic always devolves to appeals to nature and biological/reproductive imperatives eventually, which is a separate argument that can be discussed in itself regardless of religious connotations.

>Otherwise both sides of the debate will be arguing for two completely separate aspects perpetually.
You're right. Let's watch it unfold, shall we?

and why not?

alright, he's a troll. everyone can go home now.

>making advances
According to what metric?

Oh right, their own arbitrarily-defined one.

Psychology and neurology are garbage, science is an ideology.
>ANYONE THAT DISAGRES WITH MY IDEOLOG IS LE TROLL

I'm not saying the system we have is absolutely correct, I'm just saying it's more correct than lumping pedophiles and homosexuals into the same category.

For example, as said, maybe sex is okay for some under-age B&, but the general consensus is that when you're THAT young, you don't understand the levity of your actions and thus can't consent.

As for the dead body thing, it's actually illegal to desecrate a corpse in a lot of countries. I'm not entirely sure about the legality of owning photos of said desecrated corpse, but necrophilia is totally a real crime that people can go to prison for. I guess you just don't hear about it as much because who's going to tell, you know?

>people under 18 can't consent
Why doesn't anyone ask them to defend this statement?

>Its not freud anymore.
So you agree that science is fallible.

Why and how do you think our mere senses can achieve a supreme and objective view of nature? Isn't that the ideal of science? But aren't ideals inherently subjective?

People did. Arguments ensued. Read the thread.

How can we disagree with your ideology if we don't even know what it is? why don't you go ahead and make a clear and concise claim?

>ANYONE THAT DISAGRES WITH MY IDEOLOG IS LE TROLL

logic isn't an ideology friendo :)

the proponents of homosexuality are arguing that one is okay while the other isn't, the main difference being consent. Someone can find pedos disgusting but homos okay

the whole point is that the argument against homosexuality (unnatural, can't reproduce etc) doesn't matter because there's consent.
for example you could argue doctor assisted suicide is totally okay, because you have the consent of the person who is being killed, as opposed to murder where you don't. they're technically both killing someone, but a mercy killing has consent so that makes it justifiable

there's a threshold where sex becomes rape, assisted suicide becomes murder, labor becomes slavery etc. and that threshold is consent

>Why should the burden of proof fall on my shoulders?

>hurr present proof why murder is bad :DDDD

>Why shouldn't you show me statistical evidence that fucking children produces generally and consistently unhealthy?

Because there's a reason why no such statistic exists, dumbass.

Neck yourself.

>hurr its tr00 cuz i sed so

I laughed, but you're still fucking the only thing you'll ever get to fuck before getting rightfully arrested and jailed -- fucking wrong.

>Why would the FBI raid me you presumptuous shit?

Gee, I don't know, for literally advocating pedophilia. I pay good tax money to see people like you get sent to a lifetime in jail or better yet, death row.

>What about fertile "children"?

>moving the goalpost

>How? This social act is deemed as one of the wrongest things an individual can do. Are you really expecting to have some statistics.

That was the fucking point.

Christ.

ITT: Pedos discover Veeky Forums.

Get ready to contact authority for these sickos

Let's.

No, I am the one disagreeing with your garbage ideology. Fucking Platonists.
Yes it is, it's the greatest of all ideologies (in the worst sense possible.)
I'm married and my wife is pregnant. Stop being a spooker you ideologue.

>biology should dictate how civil law functions

neck yourself

I guarantee none of these pedo posters have children or they'd be singing a different tune real quick.

>hurr present proof why murder is bad :DDDD

Dude, my cousin was raped. I'm not saying that it isn't a bad thing you fucking autist, I'm just disagreeing with you on the point that all children born from that kind of union will be fucked up. You literally have no proof for that statement.

I never stated my ideology. Please, tell me what leads you to believe gay=pedo, and I'll be happy to pick it apart.
also
>stirner meme
So you're not serious. kay.

So what you're saying is that children reproducing is socially wrong, so we don't have statistics, therefore children reproducing is socially wrong...

>circular reasoning

>Get ready to contact authority for these sickos
>appeal to authority

>there is no magic number at which point you are "Developed" enough, and even if there was it wouldn't be the same for everyone.

if only we could make laws that catered to each and ever individual within the population
since that's infeasible, we must settle on a "one-size-fits-all" age of consent, (often with additional romeo & juliet bylaws)

Logic goes beyond personal context, friendo ;)

I know that necrophilia is a crime, but obviously owning neked pictures of underages is also illegal. I do obviously understand that there is an obvious difference between the reasoning for "wrongness" for each and I agree to an extent, though mental "readiness" isn't going to correlate at all close to exactly with age, it's probably as variable as puberty. The way see it there plenty of adults who most would argue shouldn't be deprived of sexual rights who still have a mental capacity not much better or even worse than that of people in their teens.

Freud had theories that were proven to be wrong. Just because a theory exists does not make correct until proven correct. Thus any conclusions made on an unfound theory are wrong. But in science you must always prove a thoery. If something proves the theory wrong, then you have to make a new one. Science is infallible because it is an ever correcting and self-editing process. That is ot to say that the scientific process hasnt led people to make the wrong conclusions, but when we get more data ultimately the correct conclusions come out and they are confirmed to be so.

It is not just our senses. We have machines that analyze the environment around us. No one ever claimed that science has a goal to obtain an objective view of nature. Science is not a philosophy, it is a process of study. Everything perceived through the human brain is subjective, the point is to remove as much bias as possible to come to best possible conclusions with the data and technology available at the time.

>I'm married and my wife is pregnant.

Good god, I pray for that child to come out alive before you molest it. The divorce can't happen quick enough.

>appeal to authority
only applies when the authority being appealed to has no business regarding the claim made.
As such, I'm sure policemen have a lot of business with tossing pedos in the slammer.

>Everyone who disagrees with me is a pedophile
>Everyone who is a pedophile will molest children

Should join the MENSA Olympics with those mental gymnastics.

>poster count isn't going up with your posts
You b8'd me good.