Here's your quote: "The bottom point is that pedophilia involves sexual behavior with individuals who are unable to give consent, and that's the difference, a very, very, very, big one. ". This is you saying: the crucial point that differentiates homosexuality from pedophilia in terms of which of the two is to be (or not to be) considered a disorder is consent.No I didn't. Read again.
Sounds like sophistry.
I'm fine with pedophilia being a disorder in the DSM or not. The advantage of being in the DSM is that it allows sufferers to seek help and it also allows clinicians to tailor ways that can help such individuals. The DSM isn't a manual for condemnation.
What's undeniable is that pedopholoa violates consent and creates victims and thus will always be rightly prosecuted by the law. And thus it has no parallels with homosexuality.
Do you still not understand. If not I don't think I can help you. English lessons might.
To which i replied that you haven't successfully answered the OP, because relying on consent alone to make that distinction or to determine which of the two is a disorder and which is not, is insufficient and fallacious, because consent itself doesn't contain within itself what (is required to) makes such distinction, and i offered a proof-of-point: 'One could consent on abusing a substance or on destructing themselves; by your fallacious reasoning (i.e. relying on consent alone), this behavior sh/couldn't be considered a disorder.' I'll also add conversely that consent in itself is not illimited or absolute; it being validly or rightly violated is a 'daily business' in any ideal society (parenting, cops, etc).
I'll also leave it to the readers to decide which is sophistry and which is not.