- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Really I'd say it is possibly a better solution to want your society to change, than want your child to change. If we adapt to society it will never change. The great changes in our society have come from people forcing their social structure to adapt to them, rather than the other way around.
To 'mind' your child's sexual orientation is something like 'minding' having a disabled child, a gifted child, or a female instead of male. Homosexuality is the unavoidable consequence of a complex set of biopsychosocial factors, to 'mind' it is somwhat bizzare.
You're making some fantastic proclamations... with no evidence. I'm a social scientist by education and profession, and I have seen some fantastic debates about instinct-vs-conscious choice. No one knows whether animals work entirely on instinct, and no one knows if humans don't.
You are, once again, misunderstanding the concept of paedophilia. To abuse a child is to be a child abuser, just as to force an adult into sex is rape. To be a paedophile is not automatically to be a child abuser any more than to be heterosexual is to be a rapist.
Paedophilia is not consenting in legal terms, that does not mean it is not consenting in social terms. There is a great difference made - in legal terms, one must actually state "i provide consent" (the purpose of a rape trial is to provide evidence that consent was provided, not to provide evidence that it was not), which means 99% of people have not given consent whilst having sex, in legal terms.
As for your wonderful treatment idea: what about those who are later found to be innocent (around 45% of sex-offenders, in Europe)?
I think that's the first time I've seen a psychologist who claims not to be a scientist. Psychology is either a bioscience or a social sceicne depending on which approach you take.
I agree to your argument to some extent. However, to the very best of my knowledge, the most acceptable research currently says that you can, indeed, 'turn a gay man straight'. The problem as always, is ethics. It is unethical to alter someone's sexuality, but not remotely difficult. Standard aversion therapy combined with electro-convulsive therapies are generally considered 'effective' within a few months: faster than using NLP to deal with social anxiety.
Please submit research evidence supporting the claim that paedophiles are emotionally unstable, I have been unable to find research which makes this claim and I'd be interested in reviewing it. I'd also be interested in research which claims one is born with unstable emotions, as the consensus within academic psychology is that emotional disposition is generally the result of complex psychosocial factors, rather than simple biology. A neuroscientist would, of course, disagree with the stimulus-result.
I'm yet to actually come across a psychologist of note who doesn't combine pederasty (the attraction to pre-pubescent boys) with homosexuality - in terms of anthropology, little distinction is made, and pederasty is considered one of the three forms of homosexuality.
However, your argument is made clearly and concisely... so I support it.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!