The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

MAP and NOMAP should not be in the LGBTQ community

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2019 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 854 times Debate No: 120694
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




MAP (Minor Attracted Person) and NOMAP (Non-offensive Minor Attracted Person) members should not be in the LGBTQ community.
1) Being a MAP and NOMAP means you are a pedophile
2) Being homosexual, Bisexual, Transgender, Etc. Is based off of sexuality and not age


Pro is selectively discriminatory and undoubtedly contradictory.

Just because paedophilia is still generally regarded as anti-social, Whereas homosexuality etc. Are no longer generally regarded (in certain societies) as anti-social, This does not automatically infer that these conditions do not all share the same origins.

Nurture or nature. Which camp is Pro in?
Debate Round No. 1


How am I being discriminatory? I am saying that MAP's and NOMAP's should not be included with the LGBTQ community. I never said being a MAP or NOMAP is bad. I know this is a restatement but being a MAP is based off of the other person's age and not sexuality. The LGBTQ community is based off of sexuality and not age therefore MAP's and NOMAP's should not be in the LGBTQ community.


Not really sure what Pro is driving at.

Is their argument just a roundabout way of discussing the comparable morality of acts of sexual gratification?

If so then this debate is somewhat pointless. Because no one other than a paedophile is going to argue that paedophilic acts should be regarded as socially and morally acceptable.

1) How does Pro regard paedophilic homosexuals, Lesbians and transgenders.

2) Isn't the whole thrust of the LGBT argument based on the acceptance that these conditions are inherent and therefore not something that one decides to be once they have exceeded a legal age of consent. Therefore being LGBT is undoubtedly an age related issue.

3) Therefore are acts of sexual gratification between pre-consent homosexuals and lesbians paedophilic?

4) Similarly:
Realistically, Why can consensual sex be abhorrent to society one day and not so the very next day?

I would suggest that this issue is not just simply about whether nasty old men should be allowed into the jolly gays club or not.

I've always thought that "Q" is somewhat counter-intuitive to the LGBT issue.
Nonetheless, Shouldn't "MAP's" and "NOMAP's" be allowed into the LGBTQ club, As they seemingly meet all the necessary requirements for Q status.
Debate Round No. 2


VCTG forfeited this round.


Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by unicorngod 3 years ago
I agree with VCTG (pro) but I also believe that asexual doesn't belong in the LGBT community. Idk if Pro agrees.
Posted by Sonofcharl 3 years ago
Maybe so. But this debate is not about the issues you refer to.
This debate asks whether paedophilia is an inherent physiological condition or not.
Homosexuality and transgenderism are now widely regarded in some societies as inherent conditions.
Isn't it therefore hypocritical not to regard or discuss paedophilia in the same way?
Doing so would not instantly infer that attitudes to paedophilic acts should be any different.

I'm guessing that you didn't pay proper attention to the proposition and simply got all hot under the collar at the mention of the P word.
Posted by BiggsBoonj 3 years ago
Con: Pedophilia isn't regarded as anti-social, It is rape! A child cannot give consent, So he cannot have sex. When two gay guys/girls have sex, They both consent. But a minor cannot!
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.