I am trying to appreciate your position on this: the problem is, we ought to know what's right 'in the thick of it' using the two C's - choice and consent. Like discriminate-against minorities (disclosure: I am black), gays do not have a choice to be who they are. Therefore, their position, if you will, is a biological one (as is mine). You mentioned pedophiles and zoophiles, who, could also (possibly and unfortunately) have the disposition of just being who the are without choice. Yet... the difference is consent - no one should get the right to take away the rights of innocent children, or innocent animals for that matter, much less kill, enslave, or otherwise harm them (as was the case with blacks, etc). There is no harm in my being black to anyone who is white, just as there is no harm in being Aboriginal or gay. The rules didn't change. The point is that they (human rights) need to apply equally to everyone.
Pedophile and child molester aren't the same thing. Looking at pictures of naked children is something parents and doctors do all the time but pedophiles go to prison for it. "kill, enslave or otherwise harm" is OK for animals according to current popular opinion - ask any meat eater or dog owner. Consent is not required for animals (by our current standards) because we freely allow them to have sex with each other without checking for consent.
My point is that things really aren't as black and white as they seem to people when everyone they know agrees with the same ideas.
