Amos Moses:
if they are trannies ..... then they were BORN THAT WAY according to you ...... and if they are homosexual or lesbians ..... THEY WERE BORN THAT WAY according to you ..... and they CANNOT CHANGE according to you ...... so the same STANDARD YOU APPLY ..... applies to PEDOPHILES ........... and it is only YOUR OPINION it is abuse ...... its pretty basic .........

Enniscorthy:
It saddens me greatly that you are advocating for the systemic sexual abuse of children. I thought you were a Christian. I will always fight to protect a child from a sexual abuser. A child's rights far outweigh another person's desire for sexual abuse.

Amos Moses:
No, no, no, no, no ........ YOU have set a STANDARD that LOGICALLY includes PEDOPHILES ...... YOUR STANDARD ...... and i am trying to get you to see YOUR ERROR .........

Enniscorthy:
Well, I am sitting here saying that under no circumstance would I allow an adult to sexually abuse a child, and you're screaming at me that yes I would. Clearly you don't know what my standard is when you keep telling me the very opposite of what I'm stating. I don't know why you elect to ignore that a child is not party to what the adult does to him or her and that it's somehow okay just because we don't want to be politically correct. In fact, NO ONE feels that way, so you're not just misrepresenting me but practically everyone else out there. No one cares what a pedophile's attractions are. A child must be protected. And no one argues that because it's pretty clear and obvious.
This is why we don't compare homosexuality to pedophilia. If two grown adults are attracted, there's no reason to tell them what they are doing is wrong. Not a single one. But pedophilia is an act of abuse on a child who cannot consent. I'm surprised you have to have this explained to you.

Amos Moses:
but if homosexuals are BORN THAT WAY and it is INNATE ..... and TRANNIES are also BORN THAT WAY and it is INNATE ...... then the same STANDARD YOU SET APPLIES to PEDOPHILES ......... or WHY NOT ...............

Enniscorthy:
This is too, too delicious for words. You accused me of a strawman recently without knowing what it really means. Now I'm going to tell you something: YOU are guilty of a strawman argument.
You keep sitting here telling me that I'm a hypocrite to be OK with homsexuality but not pedophilia when both are innate. The reason that's a strawman is THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID, and certainly not what I ever meant either.
If somebody's actions, no matter how innate they are, cause a child to be physically and emotionally damaged because of an act of non-consensual abuse, they I will stand against them. That's always been my "standard", not the one you keep INSISTING is my standard and I never never once claimed. "Innate" is NOT my argument, it's the one you keep TELLING me is my argument. And "born that way", which again I never said and don't even particularly believe.
So the reason I'm OK with homosexuality but not pedophilia is because in one situation an innocent party is abused, and in the other, no one is abused. It is consensual. THAT is my argument, informed consent, not whether it's INNATE.

Amos Moses:
NOPE .... it is applying the STANDARD you have set for SEXUALITY ...... and if it changes or not ...... and how DARE YOU tell a PEDOPHILE he or she has to go through a "sexless life" ............ to not have sex with a person he or she loves ..... who do you think you are ...... /sarc off ....... and there is a DIFFERENCE between a strawman argument and SARCASM to ridicule your position ............

Enniscorthy:
Here you are again, telling me the "standard I have set for sexuality." If it's my so-called "standard", why don't you tell me where or when I ever said it? Once again, reading what you've written here, it sounds very much like you're putting the rights of a pedophile over the child they choose to abuse. Are you doing this to make fun of my position, because once again, that ISN'T my position. I say protect the child at all costs and have always said that. The pedophile's attractions (not love, as you said) are irrelevant if a child gets hurt. Whether strawman or sarcasm (and you've used both), you are deliberately misrepresenting my standards, and my position and my beliefs.