Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Ok I've seen there are plenty of threads on whether or not gay marriage is right/wrong, but I want a comparison of the gay marriage movement to pedophile advancement to be the topic here (if that's not what you want to talk about, find your appropriate thread). Tons of people have recently gone into increased defense/attack on the gay marriage debate, and various arguments have arisen, such as "We're Americans, we can do whatever we want" (quoted from an 11th-grader I personally know), or "They wouldn't have been born with that sexual attraction if they weren't supposed to have that kind of relationship" (I'd like to point out here that pedophiles only have the attraction, they don't necessarily act on it), so my question is why aren't there as many people saying that we should tolerate the desires of pedophiles, however strange they may seem from our one perspective? Is it--though many gay rights advocates will surely oppose the mentioning of this possibility--that the only thing that really makes more people in a society care about a group the number of members in that group? If a person moved into a neighborhood and introduced himself as a pedophile to a neighbor who was a parent, the parent would most likely say something along the lines of "Get away from my kids, you sick freak!" Most people would accept this as totally rational behavior on the parent's part. (Here I restate the fact that pedophiles have only an attraction, and aren't necessarily child rapists or anything.) If a similar scenario occured with a homosexual man to a woman who replied "Stay away from my husband/son, you sick freak," most bystanders would label the woman a homophobe and he could call up some gay rights organization to harass the woman until she gave him a full apology. I'm neither a pedophile nor a homosexual, but I honestly wonder how we've come to favor one deviation in sexual attraction over the other. I appreciate any intelligent discussion, anything else is strongly discouraged here.

Consent. A young person's brain isn't fully developed and they can't understand fully what getting into that sort of relationship means. A fully grown gay man can decide whether or not really wants some hot stud to put a penis in his butt.

GumOnShoe nailed it. Topic over. I don't see any confusion over why we can enter into legally binding contracts with people of the same sex but not with children.

At 9/25/09 10:05 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: they can't understand fully what getting into that sort of relationship means.

By what standards do you judge that and why don't you judge everyone by those standards?

At 9/25/09 10:05 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Consent. A young person's brain isn't fully developed and they can't understand fully what getting into that sort of relationship means. A fully grown gay man can decide whether or not really wants some hot stud to put a penis in his butt.

But why favor the old over the young? I hope I don't need to mention aging radicals who act like every politician for another party is the anti-Christ. And far more importantly, why does our society assume that every person reaches decisive maturity at the age of 18? Some people are totally mature before that age, and many aren't for years after. How can we say any 18-year-old knows exactly what they're doing?

At 9/25/09 10:37 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/25/09 10:05 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: they can't understand fully what getting into that sort of relationship means.

By what standards do you judge that and why don't you judge everyone by those standards?

Took the words right out of my mouth. That was EXACTLY what i was gonna say. For example: you can have 22 year old shits who are REALLY immature who are obviously "not ready" for sex, but do it all the time because well..... they are immature assholes, but then you have the well mannered, very modest, and fairly responsible 16 year old who cant screw his senior in highschool gf because she is 18 and he isnt even though for all we know he could me more responsible and mature.

At 9/25/09 10:37 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/25/09 10:05 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: they can't understand fully what getting into that sort of relationship means.

By what standards do you judge that and why don't you judge everyone by those standards?

All of that psychology stuff about kids brains not being fully developed below a certain age. They don't have the cognitive ability to understand the situation or what is in their best interests down the road. Don't really feel like reading a book on it again, but I did a while ago and was around others who had read more on the subject.

BTW, it is illegal to have sex with someone who is clinically insane in Michigan, and probably in several other states. So these things are applied elsewhere.

At 9/25/09 11:01 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

All of that psychology stuff about kids brains not being fully developed below a certain age. They don't have the cognitive ability to understand the situation or what is in their best interests down the road. Don't really feel like reading a book on it again, but I did a while ago and was around others who had read more on the subject.

BTW, it is illegal to have sex with someone who is clinically insane in Michigan, and probably in several other states. So these things are applied elsewhere.

Full brain development isn't completed until age 25. So back to the original question, why these standards as i presented in my previous argument the absurdity the assumptions the current standards take.

At 9/25/09 11:01 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

They don't have the cognitive ability to understand the situation or what is in their best interests down the road.

Based on what?
?
What should they be able to do and how do you test for it?

At 9/25/09 11:11 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/25/09 11:01 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

They don't have the cognitive ability to understand the situation or what is in their best interests down the road.

Based on what?
?
What should they be able to do and how do you test for it?

Here's the beginning of one theory on how to measure cognitive ability. This is an introduction to the theory, not a formal definition of how you would do that. As I said, I'm not going to do enough research to be able to teach a class on it on the internet.

Here's the beginning of one theory on how to measure cognitive ability. This is an introduction to the theory, not a formal definition of how you would do that. As I said, I'm not going to do enough research to be able to teach a class on it on the internet.

That's fair enough but even if a child could pass that cognitive ability test perfectly and present full evidence of it, society would generally not accept it and go to the old "under 18's know nothing" rule. Secondly, no such test is required for those becoming full citizens, though some may have far worse judgment than such children. I'm not expecting you to change the world, or even necessarily reply (I'm waiting for some more people to join the intelligent discussion), I'm really asking you and the rest of NG why we don't strive for that test or a similar one as a basis of relationship judgment rather than anyone who is 18 and "American...can do whatever they want!"?

At 9/25/09 11:48 PM, ohbombuh wrote: That's fair enough but even if a child could pass that cognitive ability test perfectly and present full evidence of it, society would generally not accept it and go to the old "under 18's know nothing" rule.

The real problem is the law. There isn't (and probably never will be) a cognitive or psychological test that was so foolproof an accurate that its results would carry legal weight (as opposed to weight on a jury's decision). There can't be any objective criteria to judge whether or not someone under 18 actually was "ready" for sex with an adult. Where there's no objectivity, there can be no precedent, and so no law will ever allow pedophilia, even if it's consensual. The penalty may differ between cases, but the person will always be guilty if it's proven or admitted.
You need an arbitrary but generally reasonable age requirement, which can be quantified, or else every child rape, molestation, corruption, and indecency case would require its own panel of psychological experts to judge it.

The real problem is the law. There isn't (and probably never will be) a cognitive or psychological test that was so foolproof an accurate that its results would carry legal weight (as opposed to weight on a jury's decision). There can't be any objective criteria to judge whether or not someone under 18 actually was "ready" for sex with an adult. Where there's no objectivity, there can be no precedent, and so no law will ever allow pedophilia, even if it's consensual. The penalty may differ between cases, but the person will always be guilty if it's proven or admitted.

Well trying any kind of formal test is better than just sticking a number on the law. If necessary, it could require specially trained professionals to examine the children in question. (And just think how much it'll help the job market!) Besides, you know what they say, "Everything is personal..."

You need an arbitrary but generally reasonable age requirement, which can be quantified, or else every child rape, molestation, corruption, and indecency case would require its own panel of psychological experts to judge it.

Well, child rape could still fall under regular rape because it's still not agreed to by both parties...Anyway there are already plenty of lawsuits over tiny matters so it's not like the legal system can't handle it.

There's the consent thing, mostly.

Also this.

I generally agree to this testing of sexual maturity even though I'm against most government programs. Actually it is a great injustice if people can't be judged on their merits (no matter how old nor young) rather than some arbitary age. You make a good point good sir.

It's a decadence beyond all others. Having sex with children is sick, and entirely pointless. Because of that, it creates an image of children that makes them seem as something to exploit. People using child labor is bad enough, we shouldn't be allowing this to happen at all.

buuuuut what if there Micheal Jackson!

I think you'll have an easier discussion if you define what age range we're talking about. Paedophiles are more associated with children under the age of around 13. From that age onwards we're talking more about statutory rape than paedophillia. So, anyone want to argue for the ability of prepubescent children to understand and consent to sex?

I don't see how this issue is anything at all to do with gay marriage instead of the issue of marriage just generally.

Why the hell is this even a discussion?

I don't see how this issue is anything at all to do with gay marriage instead of the issue of marriage just generally.

In case you just skimmed, I'll reiterate that I was wondering why one deviation in sexual attraction (homosexuality) is defended so dilligently while another (pedophilia) is rarely publicly claimed by its members or anyone else to be less "unnatural" or "weird" than it seems to the rest of us. Heterosexual marriage isn't involved here because it's so widely accepted and isn't useful for comparison.

At 9/26/09 10:16 AM, ohbombuh wrote:
In case you just skimmed, I'll reiterate that I was wondering why one deviation in sexual attraction (homosexuality) is defended so dilligently while another (pedophilia) is rarely publicly claimed by its members or anyone else to be less "unnatural" or "weird" than it seems to the rest of us. Heterosexual marriage isn't involved here because it's so widely accepted and isn't useful for comparison.

becuase anyone who is sexualy attracated to kids is seen by the large poportion of society as a monster.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen turn into a mod argument. If a heterosexual male walks into town, I don't think a husband would tell him to stay the fuck away from his wife, because the wife MARRIED him and it would be stupid to be called out like that. Same for homosexual males.

Children, however, are trusting, stupid, and weak. And uncommitted. Big difference.

Here's a good question to those folks in the discussion who are arguing that cognitive ability =/= consent:

Are you pedophiles?

At 9/25/09 11:00 PM, ohbombuh wrote: And far more importantly, why does our society assume that every person reaches decisive maturity at the age of 18? Some people are totally mature before that age, and many aren't for years after. How can we say any 18-year-old knows exactly what they're doing?

People develop sooner than others sure but age limits are set in the hope that by the time everyone reaches that age their mature enough to do whatever the limit is set for. Of course this is a reflection on society as some countries have lower ages for some things than others.

I would have thought that was all common sense and people didn't need it explained to them, guess not.

Also their is no comparison you can draw between a gay relationship and a paedophilic one.

At 9/26/09 12:31 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen turn into a mod argument. If a heterosexual male walks into town, I don't think a husband would tell him to stay the fuck away from his wife, because the wife MARRIED him and it would be stupid to be called out like that. Same for homosexual males.

Children, however, are trusting, stupid, and weak. And uncommitted. Big difference.

A lot of people such as many people of the united states underestimate children and their abilities to understand things. Sure they aren't a smart as everyone else but they can get things such as sex, death, drugs rather quickly if you give them good information. The problem with society is the underestimation of everything and having unrealisticly high goals whiliest putting down everything becasue they are simply older thus more "expirenced".

Two words: Child Support.

Yes, children may be mature. Yes, they may use a condom. If is something goes wrong, now a bunch of teenagers have to deal with a child, which is basically a money sucker. (Sorry parents, but surely you can agree) You have to realize that rising or even having a child is very expensive, so unless your parents are abnormally rich or something, you as a teenager father or mother if you want to have a baby need a lot of dough. And as a teenager because of labor laws, there is no chance in hell are you going to get a paying job that can pay that much off.

At 9/26/09 01:48 PM, Masterzakk wrote: A lot of people such as many people of the united states underestimate children and their abilities to understand things. Sure they aren't a smart as everyone else but they blah blah blah

Understanding something and experiencing it are two very different things. I understand how crack, heroine, and meth work, for instance. But I am not super hyped up, skinny, and covered in track marks. Similarly, a child can understand sex, but they haven't even begun to experience puberty.

A lot of people such as many people of the united states underestimate children and their abilities to understand things. Sure they aren't a smart as everyone else but they can get things such as sex, death, drugs rather quickly if you give them good information. The problem with society is the underestimation of everything and having unrealisticly high goals whiliest putting down everything becasue they are simply older thus more "expirenced".

That's cool and all, but A predator can easily trick and overpower a kid. Furthermore, kids are often to scared to tell their parents what happened afterwards. Pedophiles, or at least active ones, are much more threatening than people going after fully grown adults.

But what am I doing? You're a troll.

Because more people are homosexual then take advantage of kids

At 9/26/09 08:50 PM, Hybridization wrote: Because more people are homosexual then take advantage of kids

Ah, we have come to the possibility which I mentioned at the start of the thread. I feel it's possible that the main difference in treatment between homosexuals today and in midieval times is due simply to their current numbers which are from the fact that fair trials are more widely enforced and the death penalty is increasingly opposed. Then, since homosexuality occurs more commonly than pedophilia when neither is consciously "regulated" by society, the homosexual noisemakers got more tolerance while pedophiles were left to absorb hatred because they're a small group.