The difficulty arise from a lack of foresight. Homosexuality, being intrinsically disordered, bent, C.S. Lewis would say, cannot be made straight. Those familiar with human nature and with society should have known that perverts cannot be trusted to be other than perverts.

Those unfortunates who find themselves subject to temptations in that regard are ipso facto sociopathic, being at odds with the core customs of society, the mos maiorem.

Now the contention that their sociopathy is but their reaction to the "oppression" they receive from rest of us boots little, for we live in the world as it is, not in the world 3% of us wish it were.

It would seem an opportune moment to schedule votes on a Marriage Amendment and allowing employment/housing discriminatin on the basis of sexual preference, just to clarify which party truly understands the issue.

So lemme get this straight [sic]. The party that wants to institutionalize homosexual behaviors are going to criticize the other party when one of the other party's members acted exactly in the way that the institutionalize homosexual behavior party advocates? And these are the people who consider hypocrisy the greatest of all sins?

I gotta agree, now would be a good time to force the Dems to have to choose between demonizing the GOP and keeping their own homosexuals happy. Foley has now made this a "gay" thing, so why not seize upon it with something like, "Hey, we get the message. Even the Dems don't want us to tolerate deviants and their behaviors, so let's all join together and Protect the Children." That could be fun to watch, but too bad the Stupid Party is deathly afraid of actually behaving like they are in charge.

Without disagreeing with the main point, I want to exercise one of my hobby horses. Sixteen year-olds are not children. They are physically adults and acting like they're not is ridiculous.

Adulthood isn't a function of physicality. To pretend it is would be pedophiliac.

Most sixteen-year olds live at home, have no real employable skills, have neither the money nor wits to function on their own (and it's no picnic for those who can) - if that doesn't descibe a child, I don't know what does.

The point is that sexual attraction to sixteen year olds is the same as sexual attraction to adults. It's not like sexual attraction to young children.

Morality has nothing to do with who or what you're attracted to.

OJ,
You're changing the subject. I'm not saying that what he was doing was moral, only that it wasn't pedophilia.

John,
Your description is true of several twenty year olds I know. Would sex with them be pedophilia too?

Brandon: The correct scientific term for attraction to postpubescent teens is "ephebophilia." The precise distinctions are all explained in this nice Wikipedia article. However, that which we call "ephebophilia" by any other name is just as creepy.

Ever notice your local hospital doesn't have an ephebiatrician?

To the contrary, that is the topic. If it isn't a moral question then pedophilia isn't wrong.

Mike,

Ephebophilia? I didn't know there was a special word for it. And as for it being just as creepy as pedophilia, yes and no - for 50+ Rep. Foley, yes; for a 22 year old, no.

So there's a big difference between a young man and an old one but not between a child and an adult? Queer.

Great, more obtuseness from OJ. Can you not remember what puberty is and what it does?

John, your description is true of several 50+ year olds I know too. They have no visible means of support, still live with their parents and are making a career of drinking beer.

Brandon:

I'd say the question is more of emotional maturity than physical; if the term "pedophilia" rankles you, how about "exploitation"? Sex with a 20-year old is not pedophilia, but I can certainly think of circumstances (mental retardation, for instance) where sex with a 20-year old could be exploitation.

You've seen high school kids go through periods of depression, confusion, etc. as a result of sophomore crushes - what makes you think the sexual act would be EASIER for them to handle? If they're not emotionally ready to make adult decisions about sex (and certainly many are not), then perhaps sex at that age is exploitation and perhaps they should be protected from it until they are ready.

If physicality is the sole (or at least the main) criterion of adulthood, then when are you first an adult? When you're capable of reproduction? For many girls that would be 13 years old; for some boys it's as young as 11. If you don't want to call a 16 year-old a "child", I am equally loath to call an 11 year-old a "man". And however you choose to define adulthood, I remain uncomfortable with any scenario that allows a person to be a "consenting adult" with regard to sex at a younger age than they need to get a tattoo without parental approval.

Erp:

I've seen adult children too. Not pretty - some people refuse to grow up.

Makes one an idiot, obviously not competent to make adult-type decisions.

Someone in my family very nearly wrapped his car around a tree due to girl troubles as a teenager. Put emotions like that together with attraction to older people and you have the perfect recipe for trouble.