Using a gay activists logic, a pedophile should never be let out of prison.

First and foremost I want to make two things perfectly clear: I am not comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, my opponent is. I am comparing the logic used by homosexual activists to try and prove that homosexuality is genetic and therefore can not be suppressed or reformed. Second: All arguments about propensity or probability of a pediphile committing an act of pediphilia are irrelevant to this debate. I clearly stated that no action or investigation should be made "Until" and act has been committed. There is no borderline argument or anything of the sort. The pedophile was caught and convicted in a court of law. Their sexual preference has been established by their actions, although it may not be their only preference it is still worth risking prison time to them. Any pedophile who is willing to risk prison time to satisfy a sexual urge against a child clearly has a genetic disposition to do so using the same logic that gay activists use to make their case that homosexuality is genetic and can't be suppressed or reformed. "A pedophile should never be let out of prison once they commit an act of pedophilia of any kind." Viewing, buying, and possessing child pornography is just as bad as acting on a child. It is the buying and selling of child pornography that perpetuates further heinous acts against children. As the sellers must recruite new children to molest and violate in order to satisfy the "Borderline" pediphile. Those who think there is a difference between the buyer and seller of child pornography have their heads up their a## so to speak. "Actually, no, a bisexual is attracted to both in general (sometimes leaning towards one gender). It's not a choice of preference, it's an allowance of both - in other words, avoidance of the choice." If the bisexual is going to "act" they must make a choice, one or the other or both there is a choice. To "avoid" the choice is to not act. Simple logic "That's like saying, if an orange can be skinned without using a knife, so can an apple, and if an apple cannot be skinned with a knife, then an orange cannot. My opponent's "logical conclusion" relies on a basic similarity between pedophilia and homosexuality that is not there. They do not work on the same system, and what applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other. For one thing, one is based on abuse, while the other is not. For another, one is caused more by issues while another by biological factors - though there is enough controversy about the causes of both for me to not use this argument at the moment." My opponent is comparing the "acts" Not the genetic argument, also no evidence was provided to prove that one is "biological" and one is caused by "Issues" Then states that he can't use this argument? This above paragraph is negated by his own words. When will he use it? A repeat: Here's the thing: being a pedophile means being sexually attracted to children. This is a BAD THING, but it is not the same as acting on pedophilic urges. Does viewing child pornography count? They have not personally acted but have created a market for child abuse. My opponent Quotes me: "If the later is true then a pedophile should never be let out of prison once they commit an act of pedophilia of any kind." Please take note that I stated that an act has to be committed first. The rest of con's argument is based on the fact that homosexuality is genetic and can't be helped and pedophilia is just another form of rape and is controllable. No sources were given and why my opponent would assume that they would be rejected is perplexing. Genetic argument for homosexuals: http://queerfoundation.org... http://www.mercurynews.com... http://www.politics.com... Genetic argument for pedophilia" http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org... http://www.onlinejournal.com... http://www.gnxp.com...