A year ago, Breitbart writer, Milo Yiannoupolos, did a scathing piece on the Left's endorsement of pedophiles.
In it, he went through a series of cases in which he pointed toward a narrative that's been accruing for many years now, and which has only recently reached the pinnacle of frankness outside of NAMBLA.
The narrative is a moral approximation between homosexuality and pedophilia on biological grounds, thus deeming it another sexual preference. This only works as an argument if one accepts a strictly biological view of morality--in this case, that sexual cravings are not a choice and would, thus, be unfairly considered wrong. If you don't accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle then neither pedophilia nor homosexuality present any new moral dilemmas.
However, anyone who falls prey to this moral approximation either doesn't have children or suffers from a mental illness.
In order for pedophiles to be the 'new gays,' the reciprocal nature of morality must be completely done away with (which, if we're honest, is throwing morality out altogether, but no one is applauding pedophiles for understanding this distinction).
On the most fundamental level, this moral approximation reveals the complete fallacy of the common argument for the gay lifestyle. Often, it is argued that they don't have a choice when it should rather be argued that they are consenting adults who can do what they damned well please if it hurts no one else.
Pedophiles counter this by saying children are capable of consent and are demeaned by anyone who would deny them pleasure.
The reason this is a sociopathic argument is that it reasons the way a pedophiliac fantasy would: in a world without parents. It not only assumes that moral precepts exist in and of themselves, unattached to any subjects or scales of gradation, but it presupposes the character of a moral affirmation which would conveniently both fulfill its desire while negating every precept of a contrary opinion on the mere grounds that it is harmful to the desire in question. The mechanism is quite clear and depends on a great deal of emotion.
While Milo's article poignantly brought up a genuine concern, I think he worries a bit too much about this argument's potential to gain currency amongst normal, healthy individuals; not because the argument sounds totally unconvincing, but rather, because the only people who would fall for it are pedophiles, and the last people who would accept it are precisely the ones whose minds pedophiles want to change: namely, parents.
Children require guidance and are in need of nurturing. To turn the moral axis to such a pole that parents should be expected to let their children be subjects of a stranger's whims is a more dialectical version of the power play suffered by victims of sexual abuse ('there's nothing wrong with this, it's okay'). Certainly, I've heard cases of parents who accept this kind of argument, but they are the exception and not the rule; usually pedophiles and sociopaths themselves. If this were not the case, perhaps we would refer to children without parents as 'independent prepubescents.' But we don't. We call them 'orphans.'
To compare homosexuality to pedophilia on a moral scale is dishonest. People who advocate and accept pedophilia as a legitimate sexual orientation are not much different than rapists who threaten their victims with death if they tell anyone what happened to them, but in their case, instead of a death threat, the implied threat is that if you don't agree with them, you'll be called a bigot.
The reason phedophiles will never be the next gays is that I suspect a majority of parents don't mind being called bigots for protecting their children and most of them don't care if they hurt the feelings of anyone who minds.
Another reason it won't happen is that, with gays, it's not uncommon to see couples fighting for their rights. You never see children fighting for the rights of pedophiles because children don't like pedophiles.
Anyone who says otherwise is living in a fantasy.