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

I will, as previously, address my opponent;s claims point-by-point before returning to the core argument. "Again my opponent makes a direct comparison to the acts. I am comparing the logic that gay activists use to normalize their behavior. The next logical step is to never let pedophiles out of prison based on the same logic that they use. It is biological and genetic and can't be helped. Whether one is against the law or not is irrelevant to the logic argument. Very, very few people can suppress sexual gratification, they will cave sooner or later, especially a pedophile." I compare the acts because the difference between them is the key to understanding the difference between what would suffice as a rehabilitation - a pedophile is rehabilitated when he is no longer dangerous, regardless of the non-removable attraction, whereas a homosexual is only "rehabilitated" once he is no longer attracted to people of the same gender. Rehabilitation that is sufficient enough to be able to allow a pedophile out of prison is the same kind of rehabilitation that stops him from being a pedophile, or that stops a homosexual from being gay. If we take a look at my opponent's logical conclusions, there are two possible situations: both gays and pedophiles can be "rehabilitated," and therefore pedophiles don't have to stay in prison, or neither can be "rehabilitated," and a pedophile must stay in prison. To quote his own source from a few rounds back, "Web MD web site (http://www.webmd.com... ) states, 'Sadly, there is no cure for pedophilia.' This is true. There is no cure, but there is treatment." That article ( http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org... ) goes on to state, more or less, that pedophiles can be treated, or made safer without being cured. Another way of thinking about this is that they remain pedophiles, but are kept safe, through a) treatment, b) close observation while outside of prison, and c) not being let anywhere near children. In other words, they don't have to remain in prison, but are not "rehabilitated" either, which directly contradicts both of my opponent's conclusions (either one of which he has been trying to prove). To make it a little bit clearer, at least for logic buffs - my opponent is arguing that "if a, then b and c, and if not a, then not b and not c," where a is "homosexuality can be cured," b is "pedophilia can be cured" and c is "pedophiles can be released from prison." He even tried to maintain the link by citing the difficulties people can have in always controlling their sexual urges, ignoring the fact that they can be "helped" to do so. The article takes as read the following: "b, but not c," which directly contradicts both of my opponent's attempted claims. "I put this link up to show that the ACLU is attempting to show it is normal to be a pedophile and that they have a right to talk about and lead pedophiles to children. It has nothing to do with bigotry it proves that the same logic is being used both by gay activists and pedophiles. Don't you just love how the ACLU protects us from the unjust suppression of pedophiles and their stalking of little children." Except that's not supported by anything except the article itself, which has a strong leaning in the same direction as that of my opponent's argument. The ACLU is not attempting to show that being a pedophile is normal - they even say as much in their statement, that they condemn acts of pedophilia. They were attempting to keeps site from being taken down unconstitutionally. This may come as a surprise, but there are very few people out there whose goal it is to corrupt our minds and those of our children. "My opponents second attempt at saying a bisexual doesn't make a choice is just samantics samantics samantics. 'Process of elimination' Make a choice will ya!!" First-off, there's a difference between semantic abuse and logical reasoning. Second, there is no choice in preference involved in bisexuality, simply because a bisexual feels no need to choose a preference. It's literally all the same to them - you may as well say that they prefer people. "My opponent affirms my statement that he minimises child porn as not as bad as molesting children yet children must be molested to constantly fill the needs of pedophiles appetites for new filth to watch." Not at all. There is a difference between minimization and measurement. One evil is clearly the lesser of the too, and there is no reason not to acknowledge that as long as we keep in mind that both are evil, and that the difference is small. "My opponents closing remarks are about treatment. This is not what gay activists want, they want their behavior to be considered normal. Treatment is not an option, but some how it is for pedophiles and it is done so at the expense of tens of thousands of children every year." My opponent takes one last stab at getting away without making sense. No such luck. Even if we assume that he knows what gay activists want, we must again consider that the kind of treatment that is applied to a pedophile does not stop one from being a pedophile, but does (in most cases) stop them from doing anything dangerous. Treatment is as option for pedophiles because it's meant to stop them from molesting or viewing images of children, not to change their sexuality. The only thing that a similar treatment would accomplish in a homosexual is to make them less inclined to act on their sexual orientation, without actually changing said orientation. Having a bunch of gay people walking around and being miserable isn't going to help anybody; keeping a bunch of pedophiles from doing their favorite thing, on the other hand, is a little more useful. If you want to keep your children safe, the best way to do it is to focus on the problems instead of blaming them on somebody else because of some poorly-thought-out hypothetical if-then statement.