Guess what, the very same might be said about paedophiles.

And if we agree that the majority should always be able to veto the rights of minority groups in a constitutional democracy, and are effectively always "right" by default, then we must agree to continue to make homosexual marriage illegal, and to consider it inherently blasphemous.

Hardly, to most their "loving" does not include a sexual aspect - simple as that.

Yes, that, in essence, is the rub. In other words, in their eyes, romantic love is not a type of love that adults are allowed to express towards children. There are many different types of love, of course; it's specifically romantic love that has a sexual component to it.

Well, the argument that "Little girls are the absolute pinnacle of creation" might be made but it might need a lot of faith to believe this when the origins of creation are so widely disputed, many other things might claim the title and the point might be made that children are actually a transient form of life much like pupae so the pinnacle is always in danger of collapsing - not that transient things cannot be beautiful because in many cases they can and are.

In other words, beauty--and what someone may consider "the pinnacle of creation"--is in the eye of the individual beholder. Many have told me that I'm "stupid" for thinking AGs are akin to goddesses in mortal form. Everyone has different perspectives, depending on their personal preferences, and these preferences clearly have a strong aesthetic component to them.

Note, I do actually see young girls much like yourself but I have probably plenty of other delusions also so will not insist my views are correct.

So, since the majority believes I should have a preference for women approaching middle age, does it make me delusional to see AGs as the "pinnacle of creation" instead of their mothers? Who decides what is, and what isn't, delusional, when it comes to preferences, and seeing the objects of that preference as something incredibly beautiful and even quasi-divine? Again, I get the impression that you feel "majority rules" when it comes to aestheticism as much as anything else. Therein may lie the core basis of your disagreements with the majority here.

Although there is a large problem with how paedophilia is perceived there are many who do not hold the established view so it might be best to have some respect for them rather than include them in the unthinking masses.

Gut feeling - Pinnacle of Creation? Resemblance

I fully agree with you on this, lee. Yes, you just read that correctly! Not all Nons are full blown antis, and many people are capable of being reached with a respectful approach. There are also many Nons who are seekers, as they call themselves, and have a genuinely objective desire for gathering knowledge of this subject on their own, without relying on the mainstream media narrative as the basis of their opinion, even if such individuals are presently very leery of making their relative objectivity on this subject openly known. I have met several of these people myself.

I think there is as much black-and-white thinking here on GC as elsewhere.

I don't think it's so much black and white thinking here as we have a strong sense that some attitudes and opinions are right, and others are wrong. This doesn't mean we deny the presence and importance of nuance. For instance, I believe that proponents of the police state and protectionist views in general vs. freedom and liberationist views are not black and white issues, because there are indeed some pros to the protectionist view, and some cons and flaws in the liberationist view. Nevertheless, I believe that despite these nuances, I fully support the liberationist view over that of the protectionist stance because I believe the former's cons and flaws are much easier for society to live with than the cons and flaws of the protectionist view, and that ultimately the virtues of the liberationist views trump those that may be inherent in the protectionist view. Taking a stand in one direction does not necessarily mean you have an absolutist view of that stance.

I am apparently labelled an "anti" for expressing my views.

Is that the same as telling you that you cannot express those views, as long as you do so respectfully and without overt hostility towards the other posters? If someone came here denouncing the rights and validity of homosexuality, and spouted many views in line with the standard Republican narrative, I wouldn't hesitate to label them a "conservative," even if for some reason they disliked that appellation for whatever reason. But as long as they were respectful in stating their views, I wouldn't deny them the privilege of posting here, as long as they understood that their views are going to get challenged.

All non-paedophiles are esseentially "antis" it seems and it might be convenient to see things this way but all it does is make the opposition to paedophilia seem larger than it is - it is large enough already.

I don't consider all Nons to be full blown antis, and I have, in fact, greatly opposed people in the community for expressing a contemptuous attitude towards anyone who is not "one of us." I expect the majority of Nons to not be fully complicit with the pro-choice and youth liberationist stance at this point in time, because most of them, plain and simply, never have any exposure to any view that is not the mainstream, they lack a personal perspective that would enable them to naturally look past the mainstream view (a situation that is very different for pheophiles, I might add), and they have been raised in and bombarded with the common narrative in all aspects of the media for a large proportion of their lives, if not their entire lives. So have many MAAs, particularly the younger members of the community who never experienced a time before the sex abuse hysteria and the ubiquitous level of its cultural narrative. I consider such individuals products of their time, not full blown antis.

If they are willing to listen, honestly consider the alternative views, and treat us as human beings despite any misgivings they may have with our feelings, then I do not consider them antis. But if they feel the need to denounce us and our majority view at every turn while clearly never even considering a nod at the alternative, and with lots of energy and vitriol in the process, and spend the majority of their interactions with us doing that, then it's hard to see them as objective seekers, even if they try hard to come off as amiable individuals. Just trying to give you some food for thought and consideration, my newest friend.