[Blue Lion]

Whether it is a disease or not, you still can't beat them up. All we're talking about it how long a prison term you get.

[iamzack]

I know that. Who are you talking to?

[General Battuta]

and none of this is even the point, the question was if it was not something you chose to become, then shouldn't that mean they were a minority that fit the definition of that being used to be protected by hate crime legislation.

IF pedophilia is not a disability, then they are not covered. IF it is, then they are.

This is due to the use of the word 'disability' in the hate crimes legislation.

They would probably not qualify as a 'minority', however, any more than those with cancer count as a minority.

[iamzack]

Pedophiles aren't a minority in the sense that homosexuals are. If they're covered by hate crimes legislation, it's under the disability part.

Are we saying the same thing?

[General Battuta]

Exactly the same thing.

Pedophiles are not a 'minority', they are people who suffer from a disability.

[NGTM-1R]

Bob appears to be saying his right to assault pedophiles is being infringed, however.

[Blue Lion]

Which is why I said what I said.

[TrashMan]

It's a sticky question. Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation. If anything, it's a disease. It could be a hate crime if it counts as a disability, but that's about it.

Pedophiles should be in treatment, though, if it's a disability.

So wait...I'm curious now.

Why is pedophilia a desease, but homosexuality isn't? They both come down to "being sexually attracted to someone you really shouldn't be". They appear the same by their base underlying workings too.

1. Homosexuality involves being attracted to a consenting adult.

- what does that have to do with the definition of desease? Nothing, last time I checked.

2. Homosexuality has nothing to do with 'being sexually attracted to someone you shouldn't be'. Who says they shouldn't be? Homosexuality occurs in thousands of species.

 - Fine then. Who are you to say peopel shouldn't be attracted to underaged/minors? By what right do you decide?
And you might have notice that animals tend to procreate as soon as they are physicly able.

3. There is no evidence here that they are remotely the same on the neural level. There's not even any evidence that pedophilia is heritable (though I'm sure it is to a degree) or that it has specific neural mechanisms.

You should try to gather reliable evidence, think about it clearly, and weigh its scientific meaning before leaping to conclusions.

They look pretty similar to me. And about the evidence thing - you might want to take your own advice then.

[Commander Zane]

And you might have notice that animals tend to procreate as soon as they are physicly able.

So do High School Freshmen, hur hur.

[General Battuta]

*stuff*

So, what's your overall point, besides general homophobia?

- Fine then. Who are you to say peopel shouldn't be attracted to underaged/minors? By what right do you decide?

Pedophilia is considered problematic because it is generally expressed as rape. Children cannot legally or cognitively provide consent.

And you might have notice that animals tend to procreate as soon as they are physicly able.

And so did human beings, up until very recently. In many cultures they still do.

[Mongoose]

His phrasing and conclusions aside, TrashMan does raise an interesting hypothetical.  Obviously, from an end standpoint, homosexuality and pedophilia are completely different ballgames, as one is able to be expressed entirely between consenting adults, while the other inherently involves interaction with a party that cannot legally (and even mentally) express such consent.  But if (and this is a decidedly big if) further research were to show that phenomena like homosexuality and pedophilia have similar factors at work, whether they be underlying genetics, brain structure, or environmental triggers, I do have to wonder what sort of implications that could have on how pedophilia is viewed and dealt with.  Pedophilia in general seems to be something that it's extremely difficult to have an academic-minded discussion about, as the consequences of actual child molestation immediately generate a "Think of the children!" cry that tends to drown out anything else.

[General Battuta]

It's a false question. Heterosexuality is heritable and rooted in neural structures; why don't we worry about whether it's a disorder? Well, because it's normative.

In recent years, we've started to say that 'well, homosexuality is okay, because it's genetic and shows up in the brain', but that's an excuse for us to realize that sexual practices between consenting adults are not wrong. Homosexuality is no more 'genetically determined' than heterosexuality, nor is it any more or less natural: which is to say that both are genetically determined and both are natural and widespread.

The question is partly rooted in the false belief that there is one 'natural' state for sex, that being heterosex, and that other sexual orientations are deviations from this. In practice, homosexuality is incredibly common in the animal world (far more so than in humans), and while sex with the pre-reproductive is nowhere near as common, it occurs too.

We simply choose to define certain behaviors as unhealthy. In the past, homosex was one of these behaviors.

The only way that pedophilia would differ from homosex or heterosex, were it determined to be genetically or neurally determined, would be that it involves the attraction to individuals who cannot give consent.

tl;dr version: Morality is arbitrary. We call homosexuality and heterosexuality 'okay' because they occur between consenting adults. Pedophilia could be every bit as determined as other sexual orientations, but it will remain morally wrong because children cannot give consent.

And that's a social construct (and one I happen to agree with). It wasn't that way in Ancient Greece, for instance; nor was it that way in the recent past, when a twenty-five-year-old man marrying a fourteen-year-old would've been fine so long as she was fertile.

[Mongoose]

I do understand your point, and I think I was kind of writing along the wrong lines in my post, but I was thinking more of the societal side of things than what constitutes normative behavior.  I'm sure there are plenty of people in this world who fully support gay marriage yet would be perfectly willing to lynch someone who makes the statement, "I've thought about children in a sexual light."  As you say, since pedophilia isn't presumably fundamentally different from a structural standpoint than heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, the only difference there is the moral social construct against it due to the implicit inability of children to give consent, which is something I also completely agree with.  However, by the same token, there seems to be a dissociation present in the public as a whole between pedophilia and other sexual preferences by virtue of that fundamental difference, to the point where any reasonable discussion about the topic as a whole tends to be overwhelming drowned out by knee-jerk cries of protectionism.  

I've seen this come into play most often during discussions about "virtual CP" in the anime/manga community and the individuals who've come into legal trouble by possessing such material.  The majority forumite opinion, and one I generally tend to agree with, is that, since such material doesn't involve the abuse of actual children in any way, then it should fall under protected expression, as attempts to prosecute it veer disturbingly into the "thought crime" realm.  However, the argument I've seen expressed far more commonly by public figures, including such organizations as UNESCO, is that such material is "damaging" to children everywhere by its very nature.  The general counter-argument tends to run that, without scientific evidence either way, such material could prove beneficial to real children, as it provides a harmless outlet for pedophilic tendencies that might otherwise be turned on them...but that very lack of evidence represents the problem.  There aren't many, or even any, researchers who'd delve into such a study, no matter how beneficial its conclusions might be, simply because of the hue and cry that would be raised against them.  Along the same exact lines, you're not going to see politicians debating whether housing restrictions against registered sex offenders represent cruel and unusual punishment, because they'd be torn apart by their constituents for "supporting kid-touchers."  The fact that this sort of discussion can never take place in a reasonable setting is at odds with the assertion of pedophilia as a natural (though immoral) form of sexual expression, which is I think where the real problem lies.

(Note that I'm not in any way trying to draw pedophilia into the whole discussion about whether or not hate-crime legislation is beneficial; since the topic kind of turned this way, I thought I'd throw down a few thoughts myself.)

[General Battuta]

Bear in mind that none of the studies TrashMan cited actually provide direct neural evidence for some kind of damage causing pedophilia. He misinterpreted correlational studies as causational - which is a hazard of all neural research, and understandable, especially as he's probably not an expert in the field.

We still can't definitively say that pedophilia is structurally the same as 'normal' sexual orientations. Even if it has a genetic or neural basis, it may have more in common with psychopathy or other disorders than the relatively minor changes involved in heterosex vs. homosex preference. (Those preferences are probably cued by hormone differences; we don't have any firm evidence for a 'gay gene' or stuff like that right now, never mind a 'gay brain'.)

On an aside.

There's a certain allele (or set of alleles, I forget which) that are present in some certain percentage of men. And those men show dramatically higher rates of antisocial behavior, infidelity, and crime. If you look at most single mothers, it's a good bet that the absent fathers have this gene. It's basically a 'bad guy gene'. Should we start classifying this gene as a disability? Would people marry men with this gene? Should we give them special treatment?

It's a very thorny ethical problem.

[Flipside]

With pedophilia, it is the non-consentual factor that is the important one, but I would go so far as to say that, yes, attacking someone because you believe them to be a pedophile, or, even for being convicted as one is a crime born of hate by its very definition.

I can fully understand the urge and desire to do so, but the moment we start turning round and saying 'an anti hate-crime law applies to everyone but X', we are completely negating the point of the law.

It does, however, raise an interesting point of law if you consider a situation where a person shoots another person for molesting their children.

[TrashMan]

Ahh...but Battuta, I was not speaking of looking at them from the moral standpoint - forget morals. They are very much debatable (at least many would claim so).

I was talking about pure biology, the underlaying framework. It certanly appears the same.
I hate to be the devils advocate and raise...uncomfortable questions. But someone has to.

I do say that when it comes to psychology and neural sciences, I am extreemly skeeptical about everything I read. Tehy are rather young and ...mellable scientific branches. I personally don't trust them much.


Also: homosexuality. not normal. No matter how you twist the meaning of the world normal. Does that make it bad by default? No. So what if it isn't normal? But the point is, calling it normal is quite simply...wrong.

[StarSlayer]

Ah but in a culture were it wasn't pre disposed to look at it as 'wrong' it would be normal.  Like say, Spartans.

[Flipside]

Having Ginger hair isn't normal, having blue eyes isn't normal, being left handed isn't normal.

That's the thing, really, whilst homosexuality may be less common than heterosexuality, can you imagine people calling out for left-handedness to be 'cured', or that people with Ginger hair should accept their abnormality?

[TrashMan]

Some things are part of the design, others are not.

A red, blue or yellow car - still all parts of the original blueprint.
A different engine, extra radio - still all part of the blueprint.
Gas and break pedal mixed up - not part of the blueprint.

It's as simple as that.

[General Battuta]

Ahh...but Battuta, I was not speaking of looking at them from the moral standpoint - forget morals. They are very much debatable (at least many would claim so).

I was talking about pure biology, the underlaying framework. It certanly appears the same.
I hate to be the devils advocate and raise...uncomfortable questions. But someone has to.

There's nothing remotely similar about the studies you posted about the neural basis of psychopathy and the roots of homosexuality.

There aren't yet any uncomfortable questions here, because homosexuality is simply very hard to tell from heterosexuality on the neural level. It appears to be rooted in hormone levels. MP-Ryan can tell you more if you're curious.

The studies you posted didn't actually demonstrate any neural basis to pedophilia, either. They were simple correlative designs.

Also: homosexuality. not normal. No matter how you twist the meaning of the world normal. Does that make it bad by default? No. So what if it isn't normal? But the point is, calling it normal is quite simply...wrong.

Homosexuality is 'normal' in that it occurs naturally in hundreds of known species and was widely practiced in many human cultures. It is not normative in our culture, in the same way that boning thirteen-year-olds is not normative, but both are, biologically, quite normal - and historically rather normal too!

Some things are part of the design, others are not.

Quite right! And homosexuality is part of the design.