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

While I agree that there is merit to the idea of pedophilia being punishable by life sentences, I strongly object to my opponent's logial backing for this idea; his argument can best be summed up as, "pedophilia is similar to homosexuality. Homosexuality is not based on choice, so neither is pedophilia. If pedophilia is not based on choice, then once a criminally-inclined pedophile, always a criminally-inclined pedophile." In reality, the argument is about the possibility of "reforming" homosexuals. I will first highlight a few sentences of my opponent's argument in particular: "A bi-sexual clearly makes a choice as to their preference on any given day." 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. "Why is it a homosexual can not be rehabilitated but a pedophile can. There is no scientific logic here. One can only come to the logical conclusion. If a pedophile can be reformed a homosexual can be reformed. If a homosexual cannot be reformed than a pedophile cannot be reformed." 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. "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." 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. A pedophile is not a criminal nor a morally bad person unless they either abuse or attempt to abuse children - in other words, it is possible to be sexually attracted to children at the same time as not DOING anything wrong, which would certainly be part of reforming a pedophile. Therefore, sentencing pedophiles to life sentences would be something done based on the magnitude of the crime, NOT on the likelihood of another crime. The main question here is - should somebody be jailed for potential crimes they may commit? Generally speaking, that's what intensive therapy is for. Do I believe that acts of pedophilia should result in life sentences? In some cases, I definitely do. Do I believe that a non-life sentence can be justifiably extended to a life sentence as a precaution? Definitely not. There are already precautions in place for convicted pedophiles - registries, prohibitions, etc. Jail as a precaution is an unacceptable corruption of the justice system. "It is politics that is separating the homosexuals from the pedophiles with regard to the rehabilitation argument." No, it's science and logic. I'm going to skimp out on the science here, because any sources we throw at each-other will be immediately rejected (though if my opponent is willing to play that game, I'll certainly join in in round 2). Here's the logic, though. Homosexuality is revolves around a relationship between two consenting adults. Children are in no way involved. Nobody is harmed, unless they haven't taken precautions, but because they're consenting adults, that's their own fault. In other words, homosexuality is victimless. Pedophilia, however, is just another form of rape. That's not politics, that's thinking. "And it is done so at the expense of the children." The statement comes immediately following the last one I commented on ("It is politics that is separating the homosexuals from the pedophiles with regard to the rehabilitation argument") so the point is obvious - homosexuality is harming our children. Again, the reason homosexuality is different from pedophilia is because one of them doesn't involve the rape of children - or any type of rape at all, for that matter.* To say that there is no difference between them in that context is the same as saying that a child is harmed by being aware of alternate lifestyles as much as by being the victim of rape and molestation. That is extremely illogical. It's also an elegant trap - one cannot help but agree with condemning pedophiles (unless one wants to look a pedophile supporter); to agree with life-long sentences for pedophiles is to agree with part of my opponent's argument, so, if one gets caught up in the "save our children" hype, one can easily be led to believe that to love our children is to hate homosexuals. My opponent's argument is based two false premises: that pedophilia is a sexual orientation ("If this were true then simple logic dictates that a pedophile is also born that way and they cannot help but be a pedophile"), and that being a pedophile and committing acts of pedophilia are the same thing. The following links in my opponent's logic chain are, therefore, invalid: "Pedophilia is similar to homosexuality," and "If pedophilia is not based on choice, then once a criminally-inclined pedophile, always a criminally-inclined pedophile." Should we punish (acts of) pedophilia? Yes. But not for the reasons my opponent has presented. *I am not saying that homosexual rape does not exist - merely that rape is connected to homosexuality in exactly the same fashion as it is to heterosexuality