"With paedophiles, I’d say chemical or surgical castration is a must."

Do you cut off a thieves hands? How about we castrate all criminals? There are so many ignorant implications to this statement it's ridiculous. Lets see,

1. Paedophiles are not automatically child molesters. They can lead productive lives without harming a child.
2. Child molesters are not automatically paedophiles.
3. If you believe in eugenics you may be required to remove the breeding rights of many Australians, yourself or members of your family.
4. Genes are carried by everyone and hidden. They may not express themselves.
5. The definitions of abuse, the abused. Some societies and cultures have different ages of consent. It seems to me that the opinion of the alleged victim is always ignored.
6. Various other points I can't be bothered wringing out. One of which is self-righteousness crusades and slogans. (War on Terror, War on Drugs) We have more than enough of those to sink public money into, rather than spending it on more constructive projects.
7. It may have counterproductive effects, as it could be a source of resentment that exacerbates their problems

Yes you are correct Celivia. I guess I was concentrating more on the covert nature of the bisexual.

I get the impression that bisexuals appear to go to much greater lengths to hide their sexual orientation, where many unfaithful heterosexual males seemingly are less discreet - or do they simply underestimate their partners' intelligence?

I believe it is much less stressful now for the gay community since the majority are prepared to "come out." It's certainly a step forward for this section of our community who must now endeavour to obtain the same opportunities which the heterosexual community enjoys.

I get very cranky when I realise that paedophiles are permitted to have children when gays, who are in a long-term relationship, are denied the opportunity to adopt!

Steel

Definition of a paedophile: An adult who is sexually attracted to children.

Chemically castration - recommended for active paedophiles i.e. those who continue to sexually assault children.

We are not suggesting castration for paedophiles who control their deviant inclinations and refrain from molesting children.

I disagree that it is we who are the ignorant ones! I prefer to protect children - not a recidivist paedophile thanks!

And how does chemical castration protect children exactly?

Chemical castration eliminates the sexual urge.

I would allow these misfits two choices, Steel.

1. Incarcerate a recidivist paedophile indefinitely. Society will have to meet the enormous costs of the incarceration and the victims generally require long term expensive counselling where they are generally psychologically and/or physically damaged by "Mr Whippy" for the rest of their life.

2. Or chemical castration and allow the perpetrator to return to society, on a good behaviour bond. After all, there are many people in society who live quite happily without sexual urges.

If the perpetrator relapses with Choice 2 (as you are suggesting), return to Choice 1.

I am indifferent to any potential psychological damage to the perpetrator, as a result of castration.

What would your preference be, Steel?

Yes.Homosexual marriages are only allowed in certain states in US.But not at all in Australia.And what about the adoption issue?Are they being treated fairly?Sorry Steel.I do get your point and appresiate it very much.