pedophiles going public

Wrong. There is no even single evidence. Wikipedia articles contains links on original researches. I wouldn't bother myself to check them all (I already read them plenty) but only the first one. And here we can read in the results: "The association between CSA and psychopathology". Well, I never denied association between sex with adult in childhood (even consensual one what is rarely specified in such researches) and psychological problems in later life. And here you can read another article in wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation which will help you to understand why this cannot be considered as a proof.

 

What is your cultural and ethnic background and where are you from?

Age of consent varies from culture to culture; there is a social dynamic to maturation rate.

 

They can't be impeached for that. They can only be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

 

By consideration of many sex with children is as bad or even worse than murder. We do not tolerate teenagers committing murder why do we tolerate them having sex with each other?

 

It matters because you quoted me saying something that I didnt say. If it was a mistake- no biggie. If it was intentional- VERY biggie.

 

I don't see how it matters. I'm a cosmopolite and I believe that social and moral values must be equal for all humanity.

 

No, it doesn't matter. I quoted not your words, but your believes which you do not deny.

 

Onus is entirely on YOU to disprove the existing evidence.

Simply PRETENDING that there is no causation doesn't nullify anything except your own credibility.

You have to establish that the damage exhibited by those molested children was from some other cause.Where are your peer reviewed studies demonstrating other causes for their symptoms? Where is your alternative evidence that refutes the findings of the existing studies?

 

It's already was associated in many researches.

I thought I always was clear that I'm arguing for child/adult relationships. I missed your question, sorry.

For simplicity let's talk about non-penetrative sex only.

 

Nope!

Let's talk about ALL aspects of child molestation because you are deviously trying to use a "slippery slope" to get around the fact that what pedophiles are doing causes harm to children.

 

Deviant is an utterly useless term.

 

Not exactly. But in this context yes, you got my point.

 

Well, give your definitions if you're not agree with mainstream definitions.

 

Mainstream definitions do NOT support your baseless allegations.

Onus is entirely on YOU to prove that there is no difference between a hug and sexual intercourse.

 

My point always was: sex doesn't need informed consent, only wish from both parties and lack of damage.

 

Teenagers having sex with each other is a totally different topic than what this thread is about. It's also a hard legal issue when it comes to child sexual abuse laws. This thread isn't about the person who wants to keep having sex with their partner after they crossed the magic birthday and said partner won't for another few months...this thread is about adults who want to sexually engage with children.

Children.

And having been involved in a child pornography case (found it on a client's hard drive and had to work with the police)...a child is defined as a person who is too young to have developed any of the secondary sex characteristics (pubic hair, breasts, etc) of puberty.

They make this distinction because it's hard to prove if a person in a photograph is of legal age or not if they do have said features. There are after all...18 and 19 year olds who can pass for much much younger. In the case of the picture that I found, that picture was not evidence enough even though the picture was named 13yogbj.jpg (13 year old girl blow job). The girl in the picture could have been anything from 13 years old on up into the legal years. When they found the images of the boys and girls who were too young to have the Secondary Sex Characteristics...then they had enough to go forward with the arrest.

 

While Article II, Section 4 contains some vague guidelines for what warrants impeachment proceedings – and this section relates to federal officials in general – Article Three only explains that judges are supposed to remain in office only while in “good Behavior.” This is an incredibly open-ended standard. Only 15 federal judges have ever been impeached and only eight have ever been convicted and removed (most recently, Judge Thomas Porteous of Louisiana in 2010). But even then, the “articles of impeachment,” the list of misconduct the accused is on trial for, have described quite a wide range of inappropriate behavior.
https://constitutionallawreporter.com/article-03-section-01/impeachment-of-federal-judges/

A President deliberately disobeying the USC should be grounds for impeachment just as a judge doing the same thing should be.

 

What other causes? What alternative evidences? This studies does not present any causes, they just found association between two factors with no explanation what was the cause of this correlation. Wikipedia writers simply present this researches as an evidence of harm from what they call "child sexual abuse".

 

Your "wish from both parties" equals INFORMED CONSENT!

Children cannot give informed consent!

Your point fails!

 

Those were peer reviewed scientific studies that made those determinations.

Your denial of them does not refute them.

They stand unchallenged and the onus is entirely on you to provide credible alternatives.

Since you can't they stand on their own merits and you have nothing of any substance whatsoever to support your baseless position.

 

I do not even trust judges appointed by the republican presidents we have had before trump

After a few years in washington many of the "go native" and become more like liberals full of themselves with unelected power.

The arguement for child abuse is that liberals want it and they know where to find judges that will give it to them just as they did for gay marriage

 

Federal judges should have term limits of no more than 10 years

 

What you mean is the age of consent and that it set by law

The unelected lib judges can decress that age anywhere they want it to be

 

I prefer mine but

Use any term you like

 

Deviant is a fine term to use so long as you understand it's only a measure of statistical variance.

For instance, the following statement is objectively correct:
"People who wait to have sex until they are married are sexual deviants."