frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Pedophilia is no different from transgenderism

Debate Information

A commonly held notion is that pedophilia and transgenderism are different, and that one should be accepted, and the other shunned. I believe that they are no different from each other, due to a multitude of reasons.

1. Transgenderism is the idea that gender is fluid and a spectrum, resulting the misguided idea of being able to "switch" between gender.

2. Pedophilia on the other hand, is perceived to be an evil. But it can be justified with the basic ideologies of transgenderism, the idea that humans can switch between basic biological identities. 

3. If gender can be switched at will, than logically age can be switched as well. This results in pedophilia not being an attraction to minors, but rather simply being the attractions to others in a certain age group. For when two people in the same age group are in a relationship, it is simply love. So by this logic, a pedophile is simply one who believes themselves to be of a certain age.

4. Gender dysphoria is normalized, and even encouraged, as evident in the volumes of supporters telling us to "accept yourself as you are". Age dysphoria follows the same logic as gender dysphoria, which means that it is potentially a very real condition, but does not receive as much attention. 

5. Pedophiles are often the subject of hatred and critique, but it is no less reasonable than transgenders. If we are willing and able to not only accept, but even normalize transgenderism, then it would be both illogical and immoral to not accept pedophiles.

These are some of the reason that I believe pedophilia to be equal to transgenderism. I would really appreciate any replies or counterarguments to these points.

Ps this is my first debate, so feedback would be really helpful and appreciated.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    The difference is in the harm to the other party. You really should use homosexuality here rather than transgenderism.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -   edited April 2018
    @WokeWhale

    I realize this is your first debate, but this is a pretty harsh view to take, one that equates a personal issue regarding one's identity and a criminal act between an adult and a minor. By taking this position, you're treating transgenderism as a criminal act. That requires a high degree of proof, and I don't think you've met that threshold.

    But, let's go through your points:

    "1. Transgenderism is the idea that gender is fluid and a spectrum, resulting the misguided idea of being able to "switch" between gender."

    I think this fundamentally misunderstands the transgender view of how gender functions. They do not argue that gender is constantly fluctuating. They argue that gender does not equate to sex (i.e. physical traits do not necessarily equate to how the person views themselves), and that gender is not necessarily either male or female. Gender fluidity means that someone falls between what is commonly regarded as male or female, and that they may feel more strongly on one or the other end of that spectrum at different times. That doesn't mean their gender identity is changing; they are still gender fluid, regardless of how they fluctuate day-to-day. A gender spectrum results from not accepting that there are two very clearly separate genders. Someone who feels they fall on the spectrum in a place that is not clearly either male or female is not "switching" their identity on a regular basis. They merely recognize that their identity doesn't conform to the most commonly held notions. They may never feel like they have a clear idea where they fall on that spectrum, but that doesn't mean that their identity isn't fixed, just that they don't understand it well enough to select a very discrete point where their identity exists along said spectrum.

    "2. Pedophilia on the other hand, is perceived to be an evil. But it can be justified with the basic ideologies of transgenderism, the idea that humans can switch between basic biological identities."

    This doesn't make any sense. Even if we accept that one of the ideologies behind transgenderism is the view that humans can switch gender identities, that has nothing to do with pedophilia. A personal gender identity (which goes beyond one's appearance, though people don't have much of a choice in the matter, so calling it a "biological identit[y]" is a bit misleading) is very different from a sexual attraction. Beyond that, justifying an act is very different from justifying one's identity. It's the act of pedophilia that is considered wrong in modern society. An identity is not an action.

    "3. If gender can be switched at will, than logically age can be switched as well. This results in pedophilia not being an attraction to minors, but rather simply being the attractions to others in a certain age group. For when two people in the same age group are in a relationship, it is simply love. So by this logic, a pedophile is simply one who believes themselves to be of a certain age."

    That first sentence is a blatant fallacy. Just because gender isn't quite so simple as male or female based on having specific sex organs doesn't mean that age is somehow alterable. Again, even if we assume that gender can be "switched," gender is how someone personally identifies. It's not an objectively measurable length of time, as is age. You can verify when someone is born and assign a number of years to them based on the amount of time that has passed since their birth. That's not something that could be switched because it isn't a personal identity, it's not an alterable aspect of ourselves insofar as we can simply say that our ages are different from what is objectively discernible. Beyond that (and I'll apparently just be repeating myself a lot here), there's a difference between personal identity and action. 

    "4. Gender dysphoria is normalized, and even encouraged, as evident in the volumes of supporters telling us to "accept yourself as you are". Age dysphoria follows the same logic as gender dysphoria, which means that it is potentially a very real condition, but does not receive as much attention."

    Gender dysphoria is still strongly debated. A lot of transgender people have problems with the characterization that they have a psychiatric condition, and given that homosexuality was previously viewed as a mental condition, many hope to see this removed from the DSM as well. Even if we assume that it does exist, your argument is that we should accept both gender dysphoria and age dysphoria, if it exists. From what I've read on the matter, people have experienced age dysphoria, though I don't know how well it's recognized by the psychiatric community. But let's assume I agree with your point. We can accept that people with age dysphoria exist and not support their ability to have sex with minors. Those people should also receive counseling (because the longer they live the worse they'll get), but supporting them and supporting their sexual behavior are two very different things.

    "5. Pedophiles are often the subject of hatred and critique, but it is no less reasonable than transgenders. If we are willing and able to not only accept, but even normalize transgenderism, then it would be both illogical and immoral to not accept pedophiles."

    At best, your argument only shows that we should accept people who are pedophiles but never act on their urges. And there's a real question to be had there: is someone guilty before they act on urges like these? But that's not what people are usually up in arms about. They're usually pretty upset with the actions those pedophiles take; it's not very common for someone to come out as a pedophile without engaging in an illegal act (e.g. child pornography, molestation, rape, etc.). Honestly, we might be better off having people who have these urges come out before they engage in these behaviors, if only so that they can receive help.


    Overall, I don't find your argument very compelling. It's not clear that you understand transgenderism, you're using several fallacies to equate two unlike things, and where you actually do have a point, it doesn't reflect badly on transgenderism, but rather on how we regard people with pedophilic thoughts in our society. 
    WokeWhaleBaconToesSkepticalOneZeusAres42
  • WokeWhaleWokeWhale 41 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame After looking at your rebuttals and reflecting back on my points it's evident that my points contain many major logical fallacies. Thanks for taking the time to respond!
    whiteflame
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @WokeWhale I also pointed out something you missed.
  • WokeWhaleWokeWhale 41 Pts   -  
    @someone234 I actually drew parallels between transgenderism and pedophilia, due to my past belief that if gender was something that could be changed, then so is age. That is why I was arguing that pedophilia, by the same logic, could be as much a product of dysphoria as transgenderism, but @whiteflame cleared all this up perfectly. I consider myself persuaded.
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @WokeWhale Of course, more words and detail make him superior to me as a debater. He is superior of course, let's all bow before whiteflame because my simpler 'kill in one sentence' strategy is so inferior. In time I will show you just how dangerous a debater I can be in few words. Kid.
  • WokeWhaleWokeWhale 41 Pts   -  
    @someone234 That's actually far from the case. My initial statement was meant to be transgenderism instead of homosexuality, for no reason other than sexualities can be changed, but not sex. Is it necessary to poke fun at a debater simply because they don't know the courtesy and format of the website?
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @WokeWhale ??????? How did I poke fun.
  • with_all_humilitywith_all_humility 222 Pts   -   edited April 2018
    @whiteflame

    "They argue that gender does not equate to sex (i.e. physical traits do not necessarily equate to how the person views themselves), and that gender is not necessarily either male or female"

    "In American culture, gender is believed to follow directly from one’s biological sex, so a baby born with a vagina is considered female, called a girl, and expected to grow up to be a woman who acts, dresses and talks in a manner considered by the culture and her community to be feminine. A baby born with a penis is considered male, called a boy, and expected to grow up to be a man who acts, dresses and talks in a manner considered to be masculine. In this binary way of thinking, our genitals, not our internal sense of self, are the deciding factor." [1]

    The redesignation of Gender from sex identity is a modern concept.

    We must be careful with our words. 'Transvestite' originated in 1910 from the German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld, who would later develop the Berlin Institute where the very first 'sex change' operations took place. 'Transsexual' was not coined until 1949, 'transgender' not until 1971, and 'trans' (a very British term) not until 1996. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first use of 'androgyne' was recorded in 1552, but it has only been in the last 10 years that people have claimed it for themselves to describe a state of being in-between, or having both genders. 'Polygender' is a late 1990s Californian invention used to describe a state of being multiple genders.[2]

    Why does society have to conform to a redefining of a vocabulary that has been accepted for hundreds of years?

    [1] https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/health-info/separating-sex-and-gender/
    [2] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/02/brief-history-transgender-issues
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @with_all_humility because society makes words mean something in the first place, that's why.
    whiteflame
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    "In American culture, gender is believed to follow directly from one’s biological sex, so a baby born with a vagina is considered female, called a girl, and expected to grow up to be a woman who acts, dresses and talks in a manner considered by the culture and her community to be feminine. A baby born with a penis is considered male, called a boy, and expected to grow up to be a man who acts, dresses and talks in a manner considered to be masculine. In this binary way of thinking, our genitals, not our internal sense of self, are the deciding factor." [1]

    The redesignation of Gender from sex identity is a modern concept.

    We must be careful with our words. 'Transvestite' originated in 1910 from the German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld, who would later develop the Berlin Institute where the very first 'sex change' operations took place. 'Transsexual' was not coined until 1949, 'transgender' not until 1971, and 'trans' (a very British term) not until 1996. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first use of 'androgyne' was recorded in 1552, but it has only been in the last 10 years that people have claimed it for themselves to describe a state of being in-between, or having both genders. 'Polygender' is a late 1990s Californian invention used to describe a state of being multiple genders.[2]

    Why does society have to conform to a redefining of a vocabulary that has been accepted for hundreds of years?

    [1] https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/health-info/separating-sex-and-gender/
    [2] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/02/brief-history-transgender-issues
    We doing this now? Fine, let's have at it.

    I'm not sure why you're being so precious over terminology. Terms tend to change with time; they are not static things that always remain the same in perpetuity. If you want examples, I can find you a list, but it's hardly the first and it definitely won't be the last. Especially as now conceptions of, say, identities have been discerned, people have assigned words to them that they feel best suit them.

    Now, you have a different conception of gender from some other people. Whether your conception is more or less modern doesn't make it more or less right. People clearly have a different conception of gender from yours, and if you find that problematic simply because they've used the term "gender" not to your liking, then you're way too fixated on the usage of language here and not on the issue itself. 

    As for the idea that society has to conform to the way they say it, I'd say get over it and just use the terms they wish to use. Those terms don't have any clearly essential meaning to you, but to them, those terms are emblematic of their identity. Other terms, like the ones you've included in your history here, are not accepted for a variety of reasons. It's simple enough to respect what they want to be called, and not treat this as some great war of the words.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited April 2018
    This is some of the original basis for historically disapproving of homosexuality.

    in 1779, some states held that same sex relations were punishable by castration.  Prior to 1962, Sodomy was a felony in every single State in the United States and was classified as sexual deviancy, a crime against nature and was in fact right along side beastiality and pedophilia as far as Federal Law.  Regardless of opinion, homosexuality was viewed as equally punishable by law as pedophilia for a very...VERY long time.  To this day there are still 14 states that have laws making it illegal to practice sodomy...so we're not talking about something that was eons ago.

    Objectively...there's very little difference between the two.  Aside from our legal perspective on age of consent, there's not much separating Pedophilia from Homosexuality.  

    Of this I'm sure...if we can change the law and make something that was legally considered a "Crime against nature" and "Sexual Deviancy" into a celebrated freedom....then changing the law to allow 12 year old children to consent to sex with grown adults is probably doable.  Welcome to the future we created people.
    WokeWhalePlaffelvohfen
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    Vaulk said:
    Objectively...there's very little difference between the two.  Aside from our legal perspective on age of consent, there's not much separating Pedophilia from Homosexuality.  

    Of this I'm sure...if we can change the law and make something that was legally considered a "Crime against nature" and "Sexual Deviancy" into a celebrated freedom....then changing the law to allow 12 year old children to consent to sex with grown adults is probably doable.  Welcome to the future we created people.
    The difference is in the harm to the other party..

  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited April 2018
    Vaulk said:
    Objectively...there's very little difference between the two.  Aside from our legal perspective on age of consent, there's not much separating Pedophilia from Homosexuality.  

    Of this I'm sure...if we can change the law and make something that was legally considered a "Crime against nature" and "Sexual Deviancy" into a celebrated freedom....then changing the law to allow 12 year old children to consent to sex with grown adults is probably doable.  Welcome to the future we created people.
    The difference is in the harm to the other party..

    No, we perceive harm because we perceive the child as unable to consent...meaning that no matter what...it's harmful to the child.  In order to overcome that we would have to either change the age of consent or create an allowance for adult to child sexual relationships...either would be difficult but realistically no more difficult than turning a Felony considered an abomination into a celebrated lifestyle.

    Pedophilia was RIGHT next to Sodomy and Beastiality.  If we can take one of those felonies, one of those previously considered crimes against nature, one of those sexual deviant acts, one of those abominations under law...if we can take one of those and turn it into something to take pride in "Gay pride" then we can do it for the others....trust me....that's how it works.  

    Homosexuality used to be considered just plain evil...then one day we decided it was an issue to be handled by a psychologist (Mental disorder), then one day we decided that it wasn't a choice...gay people were gay because they were born that way.  

    Now there's studies saying the exact same thing about pedophiles...whereas it used to just be evil.  Give it time...you and I will both see LEGAL adult child sexual relationships in our lifetime.  Welcome people, welcome to what happens when you open certain doors.
    Plaffelvohfen
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    Vaulk said:
    Vaulk said:
    Objectively...there's very little difference between the two.  Aside from our legal perspective on age of consent, there's not much separating Pedophilia from Homosexuality.  

    Of this I'm sure...if we can change the law and make something that was legally considered a "Crime against nature" and "Sexual Deviancy" into a celebrated freedom....then changing the law to allow 12 year old children to consent to sex with grown adults is probably doable.  Welcome to the future we created people.
    The difference is in the harm to the other party..

    No, we perceive harm because we perceive the child as unable to consent...meaning that no matter what...it's harmful to the child.  In order to overcome that we would have to either change the age of consent or create an allowance for adult to child sexual relationships...either would be difficult but realistically no more difficult than turning a Felony considered an abomination into a celebrated lifestyle.

    Pedophilia was RIGHT next to Sodomy and Beastiality.  If we can take one of those felonies, one of those previously considered crimes against nature, one of those sexual deviant acts, one of those abominations under law...if we can take one of those and turn it into something to take pride in "Gay pride" then we can do it for the others....trust me....that's how it works.  

    Homosexuality used to be considered just plain evil...then one day we decided it was an issue to be handled by a psychologist (Mental disorder), then one day we decided that it wasn't a choice...gay people were gay because they were born that way.  

    Now there's studies saying the exact same thing about pedophiles...whereas it used to just be evil.  Give it time...you and I will both see LEGAL adult child sexual relationships in our lifetime.  Welcome people, welcome to what happens when you open certain doors.
    No there is no study at all connecting the lack of harm homosexuality does to others to the presence of long term scarring emotionally that paedophilia does to children. 
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    Vaulk said:
    This is some of the original basis for historically disapproving of homosexuality.

    in 1779, some states held that same sex relations were punishable by castration.  Prior to 1962, Sodomy was a felony in every single State in the United States and was classified as sexual deviancy, a crime against nature and was in fact right along side beastiality and pedophilia as far as Federal Law.  Regardless of opinion, homosexuality was viewed as equally punishable by law as pedophilia for a very...VERY long time.  To this day there are still 14 states that have laws making it illegal to practice sodomy...so we're not talking about something that was eons ago.

    Objectively...there's very little difference between the two.  Aside from our legal perspective on age of consent, there's not much separating Pedophilia from Homosexuality.  

    Of this I'm sure...if we can change the law and make something that was legally considered a "Crime against nature" and "Sexual Deviancy" into a celebrated freedom....then changing the law to allow 12 year old children to consent to sex with grown adults is probably doable.  Welcome to the future we created people.
    Vaulk, this is absurd. The idea that pedophilia and homosexuality are essentially equivalent is just ridiculous, and the reason why the comparison is so far off the mark is because of consent. You say it yourself later:

    "we perceive harm because we perceive the child as unable to consent...meaning that no matter what...it's harmful to the child."

    You're glossing over it, but that's an important difference. An adult has the capacity to consent, whereas a child does not, and for good reason: a child is developmentally far less capable of consenting than an adult, at least in the vast majority of cases. What you're talking about with homosexuality is not an issue of consent. There's no issue when you're dealing with two consenting adults. You might find that it's an abomination, but (as with those laws that states had for such "a very...VERY long time", that was a subjective opinion enshrined in law that actively suppressed the rights of many consenting individuals. It was deviant because it was different, not because it was harmful. The incapacity of a child to consent is not subjective, and all by itself, the consent problem makes pedophilia harmful.

    But you argue the following:

    "In order to overcome that we would have to either change the age of consent or create an allowance for adult to child sexual relationships...either would be difficult but realistically no more difficult than turning a Felony considered an abomination into a celebrated lifestyle."

    I strongly disagree. A society becoming more accepting of two consenting adults having a relationship and *gasp* engaging in what was once codified legally as sexually deviant behaviors is a far cry from altering basic concepts of consent and the ability of a child to provide it. It alters how we treat children in society to an incredibly large degree that goes well beyond their capacity to consent to a given sexual act. The fact that sodomy was treated similarly to pedophilia in this country once upon a time does not make the two functionally equivalent, nor does the comparison to bestiality (though I would argue that the issue of consent applies similarly there, as no animal can provide consent). 

    As for your last point about pedophiles becoming normalized in society, you really haven't done any kind of work to justify this. You haven't explained why society would simply eschew consent laws in favor of being accepting to this minority of people. Should people with pedophilic tendencies receive help? Yes. Their urges, if acted upon, would be damaging to others. We should recognize that these same people can't just turn those urges off, but the idea that we would accept their acting upon those urges simply because they can't turn them off is absurd.
    someone234
  • AmericanFurryBoyAmericanFurryBoy 531 Pts   -  
    Pedos are cancer. So are trans...
    whiteflameWokeWhaleBaconToesPlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame

    Leaps and strides have been made in making homosexuality legal in the United States...if the legal status was of little or no impact then it would not ever have become the focal point for the LGBT movement.  That said if the legal status of a practice within the United States is the standard of whether or not it's acceptable (And it is because the age of consent we hold true to is the age of consent provided by law) then all we have to do is lower that age in order for pedophilia to become acceptable.

    Some states allow for children as young as 14 to marry, especially in cases where the Female is pregnant with the child of a much older Man.  Everyone knows it's mostly to prevent statutory rape charges but hey...the law allows it.  So if we can get the age down to 14...why not 13?  Hell why not 12?  Is it that far off?  Objectively no.

    The point I'm making is that the law sets the standard in our Country and the law established pedophilia as being equal to sodomy and beastiality from a legal standpoint (Again the standard of acceptability).  And if the law can flip 180 for sodomy, the age of marriage can be as low as 14 and beastiality can be legal in some states then by the same legal standards...Pedophilia shouldn't be that far off.

    Not very long ago at all, the general consensus was that sodomy was an abomination, it was evil, it was disgusting, revolting, a crime against nature, it was sexual deviant behavior, it was plain wrong and represented the gutter fabric of our Nation.  Now tell me how that's so different from the way people describe pedophilia today.  Mark the words...if you're younger than 60...you're likely going to see it legalized in your lifetime in the United States.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    No there is no study at all connecting the lack of harm homosexuality does to others to the presence of long term scarring emotionally that paedophilia does to children. 
    I'm not all that certain that you mean to post this the way that you did.  Did you mean to call into question a comparison between the two?  I'm not sure how anyone would see a connection between the "Lack of harm" of something to the "Presence" of long term emotional scarring caused by pedophilia.  Nor did my argument suggest this.  We're back to *Who are you arguing against here*?  We're also not talking about the effects of Pedophilia at all, we're talking about its existence...we haven't quite reached that point but bravo for however many leaps and bounds you made to reach your argument here.

    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    Vaulk said:
    @whiteflame

    Leaps and strides have been made in making homosexuality legal in the United States...if the legal status was of little or no impact then it would not ever have become the focal point for the LGBT movement.  That said if the legal status of a practice within the United States is the standard of whether or not it's acceptable (And it is because the age of consent we hold true to is the age of consent provided by law) then all we have to do is lower that age in order for pedophilia to become acceptable.

    Some states allow for children as young as 14 to marry, especially in cases where the Female is pregnant with the child of a much older Man.  Everyone knows it's mostly to prevent statutory rape charges but hey...the law allows it.  So if we can get the age down to 14...why not 13?  Hell why not 12?  Is it that far off?  Objectively no.

    The point I'm making is that the law sets the standard in our Country and the law established pedophilia as being equal to sodomy and beastiality from a legal standpoint (Again the standard of acceptability).  And if the law can flip 180 for sodomy, the age of marriage can be as low as 14 and beastiality can be legal in some states then by the same legal standards...Pedophilia shouldn't be that far off.

    Not very long ago at all, the general consensus was that sodomy was an abomination, it was evil, it was disgusting, revolting, a crime against nature, it was sexual deviant behavior, it was plain wrong and represented the gutter fabric of our Nation.  Now tell me how that's so different from the way people describe pedophilia today.  Mark the words...if you're younger than 60...you're likely going to see it legalized in your lifetime in the United States.
    Did I say that legal status is the reason why pedophilia is not acceptable? I said the capacity to consent is the reason. That capacity goes well beyond legal status - it applies to psychological status as well, the capacity to understand what one is engaging in and be mentally capable of agreeing based on that understanding. The dearths there are rather important because they allow adults who can consent to take advantage of individuals who cannot. Again, that's where the parallel to bestiality comes in. 

    The question of whether it is possible for the law to be changed is an entirely separate from the question of whether homosexuality or transgenderism are functionally equivalent to pedophilia, which seems to be the issue you're raising, though I would like to point out that that 14 year-old age for marriage (which is a separate issue from consent for sex, by the way) is only allowable given parental or judicial consent. Note that both of those italicized terms require an adult to be involved in the consent on the child's behalf, i.e. the child's capacity to consent under the law is still null for the reasons stated above. All of the instances where such marriages are allowed without consent require a special waiver, which still requires a judge's approval (and that includes those cases where the minor is pregnant).

    But none of this really matters because, again, the issue is not legal status. What the government is willing to do or not do in terms of prosecution of pedophiles doesn't make them functionally equivalent to transgender people or homosexuals. Legal equivalency is not functional or moral equivalency.

    If your point is that legalizing and even normalizing homosexuality somehow opens the door for legalizing/normalizing pedophilia, I don't think you've proven that in any way. In fact, you appear to be going out of your way to prove that pedophilia has had a pseudo-protected status in many states for a much longer time than has homosexuality, as all of those laws that allow marriage at younger ages have been around for quite some time. They haven't suddenly sprung into being as a result of sodomy being legal - they have been around. And nothing about the legalization/normalization of homosexuality or transgenderism suddenly opens the door for changes to these laws. You even said that there's no objective difference between certain ages (though I'd disagree, as would many of the research scientists who study developing brains), so why is this the step that suddenly removes the limiting factors? 
  • FredsnephewFredsnephew 361 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame ;

    On the one hand there is social conformity.

    On the other, there is fundamental reality.

    Fundamental reality and human socio-conceptual existence have long since drifted apart.

    That is to say. How we live our lives today, doesn't make any real sense.

    How we view paedophilia, transgenderism and homosexuality is not based on a logical reality , bout on a corrupted logic that has evolved over time.

    I would suggest that the proposition, apart from being grammatically confusing, can actually be justified if fundamental logic is applied.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited April 2018
    @whiteflame

    I'm not arguing that sodomy and beastiality are functionally equivalent to pedophilia...I've stated clearly that they were "Legally" equal.  You and I certainly know that they're not the same thing and in most regards are completely separate...that however, does nothing to negate or refute that as far as our codes of law are concerned...they were within the same scope until the laws were changed.

    Now again, you and I both understand that the capacity to consent is not always quite as simple as the law makes it out to be...but again that doesn't negate the fact that the Law is the ultimate and final authority on what the age of consent is.  Is there another authority within the U.S. that stands above and beyond the law in regards to the capacity to consent?  The answer is no.  In this case my opinion and yours are irrelevant because they have zero impact on what the capacity to consent is.

    I'd like to clarify again, I'm not arguing for or against functional equivalency between the topics...I'm arguing strictly for the legal equivalency as my argument concludes that "We're going to see this "Legalized" within our lifetime".  I never said it would be functionally the same.  And yes, you're correct, a parent or guardian is required to consent on the Child's behalf.

    The powers that be (At the time) codified the law very systematically and decided that certain actions belonged together in regards to criminal behavior.  Murder, felony murder and manslaughter are all codified together and while not all cases are punishable by law...the legal definitions as well as the punishments for all circumstances of each of these types of killing are found in the same code of law.  Likewise Sex crimes are all found in the same code of law as well and among these criminal behaviors was Sodomy.  Now the point I'm getting to is that, "Legally", if you can flip an act of sexual deviancy, a legally reprehensible act, a sex crime into a protected lifestyle...regardless of what it actually is...then I don't see much of a limit to what can become legally acceptable in that regard.  

    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    Alright, just two issues left, then.
    Vaulk said:

    In this case my opinion and yours are irrelevant because they have zero impact on what the capacity to consent is.
    I'm not basing this in my opinion. I'm pointing to the science behind brain development as the basis for the difference. I suppose there is always going to be some amount of subjectivity behind any conclusions reached regarding a child's capacity to consent based on the differences between a developing brain and a developed brain, but as the capacity to understand is intimately linked to the capacity to consent, some basic conclusions can be reached that do demonstrate why it would be problematic to treat children as equally capable of consent.
    Vaulk said:
    The powers that be (At the time) codified the law very systematically and decided that certain actions belonged together in regards to criminal behavior.  Murder, felony murder and manslaughter are all codified together and while not all cases are punishable by law...the legal definitions as well as the punishments for all circumstances of each of these types of killing are found in the same code of law.  Likewise Sex crimes are all found in the same code of law as well and among these criminal behaviors was Sodomy.  Now the point I'm getting to is that, "Legally", if you can flip an act of sexual deviancy, a legally reprehensible act, a sex crime into a protected lifestyle...regardless of what it actually is...then I don't see much of a limit to what can become legally acceptable in that regard.  

    Again, though, you seem to be arguing that what is fundamentally opening the door to pedophilia gaining some kind of protected status is that what has previously been codified as "sexual deviancy" has been flipped to a legal status. I already pointed out that the very laws that you pointed out that allow for marriage to minors are restricted in key ways and came about well before any changes to how homosexuality is perceived. If the way the law perceives homosexuality is the inherent barrier that prevented the law from protecting pedophilia, then a) why hasn't it happened yet?, and b) why did all of these laws precede any legal changes to how homosexuality is perceived nationwide?
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Vaulk said:
    @whiteflame

    I'm not arguing that sodomy and beastiality are functionally equivalent to pedophilia...I've stated clearly that they were "Legally" equal.  You and I certainly know that they're not the same thing and in most regards are completely separate...that however, does nothing to negate or refute that as far as our codes of law are concerned...they were within the same scope until the laws were changed.

    Now again, you and I both understand that the capacity to consent is not always quite as simple as the law makes it out to be...but again that doesn't negate the fact that the Law is the ultimate and final authority on what the age of consent is.  Is there another authority within the U.S. that stands above and beyond the law in regards to the capacity to consent?  The answer is no.  In this case my opinion and yours are irrelevant because they have zero impact on what the capacity to consent is.

    I'd like to clarify again, I'm not arguing for or against functional equivalency between the topics...I'm arguing strictly for the legal equivalency as my argument concludes that "We're going to see this "Legalized" within our lifetime".  I never said it would be functionally the same.  And yes, you're correct, a parent or guardian is required to consent on the Child's behalf.

    The powers that be (At the time) codified the law very systematically and decided that certain actions belonged together in regards to criminal behavior.  Murder, felony murder and manslaughter are all codified together and while not all cases are punishable by law...the legal definitions as well as the punishments for all circumstances of each of these types of killing are found in the same code of law.  Likewise Sex crimes are all found in the same code of law as well and among these criminal behaviors was Sodomy.  Now the point I'm getting to is that, "Legally", if you can flip an act of sexual deviancy, a legally reprehensible act, a sex crime into a protected lifestyle...regardless of what it actually is...then I don't see much of a limit to what can become legally acceptable in that regard.  

    Sodomy and bestiality were never legally equivalent to homosexuality and you have never shown this to be the case. The only similarities are "in some way relate to sex" and "have at some point been illegal - in which case I can only presume you are going to be logically consistent and say that legalising miscegenation was also a horrid event which will obviously lead to social breakdown.

    It's hard to pick the biggest hole in your argument, because really this is some ouroboros level where it's just holes within holes within holes without every meeting anything of substance, but if I had to pick one it's that you don't seem to understand how laws work. You state "Legally", if you can flip an act of sexual deviancy, a legally reprehensible act, a sex crime into a protected lifestyle...regardless of what it actually is...then I don't see much of a limit to what can become legally acceptable in that regard." The answer is of course anything can be legal because that is how laws work and it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Nations have rules and systems for changing laws. At any point the USA could change it's laws on pedophilia, on jaywalking, on murder - on anything at all. Exactly how it does this depends on the law in question - it could be amending the constitution or it be creating a local ordinance or anything in between. We have this entire section of societal life known as politics specifically for deciding how we deal with things like law changes. There has never been a limit to what laws we theoretically could put in place or remove.

    The other big competitor is just the overwhelming lack of content and how you can't actually put forward a position beyond "Hey, because I think so". Well done. you've spent post after post re-itererating the slippery slope fallacy and providing nothing of content. Wow, you post again and again about how you think homosexuality leads to paedophilia but offer nothing to back it up! Yawn, no content to your argument so can just be dismissed.

    Lastly, don't provide links fi you're not even going to bother to read them as it can leave you wide open to people calling you out on bullshitting - like I'm about to do!

    What you claimed
    "
    in 1779, some states held that same sex relations were punishable by castration."

    What the link actually says
    "
    In 1779, Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy.[2] Jefferson intended this to be a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time, which prescribed death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy. It was rejected by the Virginia legislature." So not only are you factually wrong but it undermines the entire basise of your argument, from the very inception of the country not only was the USA (obviously to everyone but you) set up with a process to change laws, but this process was set-up to allow the changing of sodomy laws too even if it wasn't completed in that case.

    What you claimed
    "Likewise Sex crimes are all found in the same code of law as well and among these criminal behaviors was Sodomy."

    What the link actually says
    Absolutely nothing to support your claim. it has no mention of ever containing sodomy laws. In fact if we reference the earlier link  we can see the US codes would never have contained such laws. The US codes are federal guidelines and there was no nationwide basis for applying sodomy laws. It states "Sodomy laws in the United States were largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the District of Columbia and the U.S. Armed Forces".This again undermines your claim as it shows there was never any legal consensus or law on sodomy - it varied substantially and so the "slippery slope" logic you try and apply would always have been in effect. I'd also note at this point that your solution would require the almost complete removal of state rights and a much stronger federal government to enforce consistent nationwide laws - but obviously you've already thought of that and aren't just spit-balling whatever pops into your head.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • FoggybrainFoggybrain 10 Pts   -  
    Odd that I came across this discussion, perhaps it is facebook profiling, as I just made a similar post on facebook. The poster is 100% correct in my mind. Indulging a person with Gender Dysphoria, telling them it's normal etc... does massive damage to that person. I do truly believe in freedom, and that as long as a person's actions do not cause harm to others is their business, but the idea that transgender (gender dysphoria) is harmless to others is ludicrous. 
    1. Children are being allowed to receive gender altering surgeries
    2. Men competing in women's sports, basically destroying women's suffrage.
    3. Transgenderism is being taught in our schools, our children being encouraged to embrace identity confusion.
    4. sex change and hormone treatment in children...

    The list goes on and on and on. 
  • Pedophilia and Transgenderism are different. You’re applying the concept of being able to change your gender to age. These are two very different things with absolutely no relation. Pedos don’t believe that they can change their age like transgenders, they simply like to prey upon children because that’s how they sexually please themselves
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    You're comparing an -ism to a -philia, it's a categorical error... 
    AmericanFurryBoysmoothieZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    The basis of pedophilia's immorality in general (Putting aside the specifics of any individual instance of pedophilia which can be far worse) is that it involves sex with a child who cannot consent. It is inherently rape.

    Transgenderism is a personal choice you take part in of your own volition which effects yourself. You don't harm anyone else, no-one else does anything without giving consent and it's just your own self which changes.

    They are different on every level apart from "have some kind of relation to sex".

  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    Trannies don't rape children, pedos do. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch