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

First, a play-by-play response to my opponent's own response. I truncate many of his paragraphs merely to save room - my counter-arguments pertain to the full paragraphs. "First and foremost I want to make two things perfectly clear: I am not comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, my opponent is. " I have to disagree with that - my opponent's entire argument is based on a connection between homophobia and pedophilia that would allow his logical conclusion to be valid - without that connection, his conclusion becomes a non sequiter. It might not be an overt comparison - my opponent never comes out and says, "homosexuality and pedophilia are alike," but by forging this connection, he makes the comparison nonetheless - if not a comparison, then at least a strong logical link. Also, if one takes the following quotes from round one into account, it becomes abundantly clear that the entire point of the argument is about homosexuality: "If a pedophile can be rehabilitated then a homosexual can to." "It is politics that is separating the homosexuals from the pedophiles with regard to the rehabilitation argument." If you don't want to call it a comparison, go ahead and find another word. The point is still the same - establishing/reinforcing a connection through an assumed similarity. "All arguments about propensity or probability ... be suppressed or reformed." The argument about probability is, on the contrary, extremely relevant. I would like to bring up the link that, again, my opponent has made - the one with homosexuality. A homosexual cannot be forced to change his or her preference, but at the same time, he or she can choose not to act on this preference, while maintaining it. Doing so would be inconvenient and painful, but it is very possible - millions of homosexuals do it every day. And yes, there are borderline cases, just like in any issue. Dating a 16-year-old teenie-bopper is not in the same league as raping a 10-year-old choirboy - in fact, the first doesn't even indicate a pedophilic preference. AS for the claim that "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" - that's making another false connection - the strength of a desire at one given point in time to genetic predisposition. Any criminal is willing to risk prison time to act upon some sort of urge; it doesn't take a genetic predisposition or erotic desire to do that "Viewing, buying, and possessing child pornography ... up their a## so to speak." Just for the record, I count the buying and selling of pornography to be acts of pedophilia as well, actually. Speaking of buying and selling erotica - what about literature and non-photographic depictions? Those can affect a pedophile in the same way as traditional pornography without there being any actual victims. I do not in any way support the buying or selling of such items, but they do present a victimless, and therefore borderline case. "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" Again, not so. They are choosing their partners, of course, but they are not choosing a preference unless they're actually thinking, "Hm, I want to get laid, do I go for the guy or the girl?" In fact, the entire "point" of bisexuality is that a bisexual doesn't have to choose based on gender (unlike the rest of us, who have obvious right and wrong choices); for them, it's a non-issue. (I'm over-simplifying a bit, because various bits of emotional factors might make the choices occur anyways; I'm merely commenting on bisexuals in the actual orientation).Syaing that bisexuals choose between preferences, between men and women, is like saying someone has to choose between preferences for blonds and brunettes because they're willing to have sex with both." Simple logic only works with simple concepts, and even then, only when they're understood. https://www.msu.edu... "My opponent is comparing the "acts" ... will he use it?" Proving the connectedness (which is required for my opponent's argument to be true) between the causes and effects of either homosexuality and pedophilia, no matter which cause one is aiming at, is extremely difficult at best. The causes of pedophilia are unknown: http://www.psychologytoday.com... and, therefore, not really up for analysis within the scope of this argument, which is the main reason why i negated my own point in the first place. "Does viewing child pornography count? They have not personally acted but have created a market for child abuse." Yes, they have acted, just in a less direct way. The facilitation of a crime makes one partially responsible for it. I'll also take an analytical look at my opponent's sources, partially because, as I have said, any web-source either of us finds can be simply countered by other sites of apparently similar trustworthiness, which makes me feel like the exercise in citation is pointless, and partially because, having inspected those of my opponent, I believe that they help my case more than they help his. Genetic argument for homosexuals: http://queerfoundation.org...... Conclusively claims that homosexuality has biological origins http://www.mercurynews.com...... Bases claim of lack of choice on scientific studies http://www.politics.com...... While I personally agree with the point of the video (that the man in said video is definitely gay), I would not call this "evidence," since it based off of opinion Note that none of these sources mentions cures. Genetic argument for pedophilia" http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org...... The psychologist writing this piece says he "feels" that pedophilia has a genetic predisposition, and that it runs in families (unlike homosexuality). He also advocates treatments. http://www.onlinejournal.com...... The article is about French President Nicolas Sarkozy Claiming his belief in the genetic cause of pedophilia. Not exactly evidence one would use in an argument. http://www.gnxp.com...... "As hinted at in the study of meningitis and handedness, it is more likely that an infection causes the damage" That's not genetic at all. Yes, it's still rejecting choice, but the genes have little to do with it, and that's enough of a difference. What these articles show is that the causes of homosexuality and pedophilia, while both possibly pre-natal, are different, which puts into question the similarities in post-natal development. This, in turn, makes questionable the natures of the two abnormalities, and, therefore, any analogy between them. To summarize, and, unfortunately, repeat - my opponent has failed, so far, to prove that the ability or inability to treat either homosexuality or pedophilia should reflect on that same ability or inability for the other. He draws the conclusion and calls it simple logic. I ask, however - how does the impossibility of "treating" homosexuality logically indicate the impossibility of treating pedophilia? What exactly is the link? Is it because they're both involuntary? So are predispositions towards athletic ability, cancer, and certain hair colors, but I doubt he would use those for comparison. If it's because they're sexual preferences, I have yet to see proof that they belong to the same types, and that the same rules apply. And here's the other problem with the argument - suppose it's impossible to cure the predisposition to pedophilia. That doesn't mean it's impossible to reform a pedophile - that just comes down to forcing him or her to exhibit self-control. It may be difficult, but it can also be done. To keep someone in prison because it is safer not to give