http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2321814&forum_id=2#23728367)

oh, giving heterosexuals rights...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2321814&forum_id=2#23728377)

What is the big controversy here? Of course pedophilia is a sexual orientation, and once you legally define sexual orientations as immutable characteristics, of course it qualifies as an immutable characteristic. Does anyone here really think that these people consciously choose to get boners thinking about 9 year old girls?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2321814&forum_id=2#23728421)

I agree.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2321814&forum_id=2#23728470)

(a shitlib)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2321814&forum_id=2#23728505)

Wait... I think I've heard this before... from evangelical nutcases

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2321814&forum_id=2#23728764)

And why can't "children" (this term is a legal construct) give valid "consent" (this term is also a legal construct) to sex? Is it because God said so, or because society has determined that since a large critical mass of individuals under the age of [X] are emotionally and intellectually immature, we feel uncomfortable allowing any of those individuals (even the most emotionally and intellectually mature among them) to make important and potentially life-changing choices like choosing to have sex?

The real question is what happens when we have technologically progressed to the point where we can accurately quantify emotional/intellectual maturity in a meaningful way on an individual level.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2321814&forum_id=2#23728538)

Gee thanks for this profound thought. I think the point is actually that if a trait is truly immutable (as our society is increasingly determining that sexual orientation is), then we should think very hard before we punish people for having it, which is what we functionally do when we condemn pedophiles to a life as either hated criminals or closeted celibates. Technology definitely can't solve this problem now, but in a few decades it might be able to. The question at that point will just be whether we are willing to change our laws to account for technological advances. And the fact that the answer to that might be yes is what the gay-to-pedo slippery-slope argument is all about.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2321814&forum_id=2#23728705)

"then we should think very hard before we punish people for having it, which is what we functionally do when we condemn pedophiles to a life as either hated criminals or closeted celibates"

Under the current law, you aren't punished for pedophilia until you DO something to a child.

At that point, you are not a pedophile, you are a convicted Child Molester who is sent to PoundMyAss State Penitentiary.

I think it is fair and safe to stop thinking "long and hard" at that point.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2321814&forum_id=2#24348410)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2321814&forum_id=2#23728584)

Those are a black mark on the legal system--but even if obscenity prosecutions continue, I think that at some point we're going to have to deal with the fact that you can't define all porn that depicts a sexual orientation (again, assuming that constitutes an immutable biological trait) as "obscene" simply because it depicts that sexual orientation. That would be like banning all gay porn as "obscene". The difference between gay porn and kiddie porn lies in the age of consent, but once you remove that hurdle by merely simulating the latter, what's the operative distinguishing factor that is left other than an "ew" factor (aka bare animus, aka not a legitimate basis for justifying discrminatory legal treatment under existing SCOTUS jurisprudence)?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2321814&forum_id=2#23728731)

One guy being targeted and getting sent to jail for filming a variety of extreme sex acts with consenting adults =! a blanket ban on *all* pornography that depicts, via simulation, [X] sexual orientation. Both are bullshit due to free speech considerations, but one also clearly raises equal protection concerns even under existing SCOTUS jurisprudence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2321814&forum_id=2#23728834)