Pedophilia is a pathology, a disorder; it is a sexual attraction to prepubescent (ie, sexually immature) bodies.
In fact, prepubescent girls and boys, lacking secondary sex characteristics, have more in common with each other than they do with adult men or adult women.
If a man is heterosexual, it does not follow that he could easily be sexually attracted to the prepubescent body of a three-year-old female child.
Likewise, if a man is homosexual, it does not follow that he could easily be attracted to the prepubescent body of a male child.
A pedophile who is sexually attracted to small children might easily be attracted to small children of either sex, however.

I think some of the confusion stems from the fact that in our society, we often refer to adult men who have sex with teenagers as "pedophiles".
This is not in fact accurate; teenagers are biologically sexually mature, and while our society does not typically sanction adults having sexual relations with them, it is not a pathology or a disorder for adults to be sexually attracted to teenagers. It is natural.
It is not natural for adults to be sexually attracted to prepubescent children of either sex, however. Sex with children this age is not driven by the reproductive urge, since these children are too young to reproduce, and it is physically damaging to children, who are not biologically mature enough for sexual intercourse, and it is psychologically damaging to them, since they are incapable of informed consent. It is unnatural. It is a pathology. It is not a sexual orientation, nor does it have anything to do with one's sexual orientation.

If a man is observed having sex with a male dog, does that mean he's a homosexual? If he were having sex with a female dog, would that make him a heterosexual?
No, because people are not meant to have sex with dogs in the first place. it is an unnatural and pathological act, as is having sex with children, regardless of their gender or one's sexual orientation.

I've heard a lot about this one but I think it's regional:
Camp Kupugani - Camp Kupugani: Multicultural Summer Camp, Diversity Summer Camp, Boys Empowerment, Boys Camp, Latino Camp, African American Summer Camp, Black Summer Camp, Asian Summer Camp, Hispanic Summer Camp, International Camp, Illinois Boys Sum

__________________
Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.

It's unreasonable because it's arbitrary and assumes much too much. First of all, sexuality is not "baggage", or if it is, it is baggage that everyone carries. To eliminate SOME children based on sexuality makes no sense because all the other children are carrying the same baggage. In addition, just because a Boy Scout is attracted to males DOES NOT mean he is attracted to another Boy Scout. In fact, the statistical probability of having a gay Boy Scout that likes another Boy Scout is SIGNIFICANTLY LOW.

They keep boys and girls separate because generally speaking boys learn differently than girls AND this group wanted to focus on boys. Keeping girls out does NOT prevent the male Boy Scouts from sleeping with girls nor does it reduce their sex drive nor does it really have anything to do with sexuality.

And you quietly take your step off the ledge. This has nothing to do with gay pride or straight pride. It has nothing to do with being sexually attracted to girls or boys. That's the whole flipping point. There is no "I made out with a chick" merit badge. It's about community service and social responsibility and the fact that you concur that young men should be kept from that sort of education and camaraderie just because they MIGHT have an attraction to another boy is asinine.

The whole freaking point is that these kids that you're keeping out DO like traditional values. They like community service. They like social responsibility. Those are the things taught by the Boy Scouts. The problem is that the Boy Scouts, despite all claims to the contrary, are NOT about THOSE traditional values anymore. They're about siding with the dying end of a culture war. And sadly, if they continue this nonsense, they will find themselves going the way of the dinosaurs, the Edsel, and the rotary phone.

Gay pride didn't lose. America lost. The Boy Scouts lost. They lost a chance to be a vested and vital part of the next generation.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

"Traditional values", today, has become a euphemism for oppressing everyone who isn't a white heterosexual Christian male.

Social responsibility and community service are no longer "traditional" values, if they ever were; they're progressive values.

Sarcasm aside, this would be true IF I was also a pedophile. The definitions of hetero/homo/bi do not use age as a determining factor. Likewise the definition of pedophile does not use gender as a determining factor. The two are mutually exclusive.

Yet, here in the real world I have presented medical definitions and you have presented opinion.

Yeah, thats what I said.

Actually my explanation is the explanation for this significant fact. A man that has sexual attraction to his wife and his boyfriend is bysexual. A man that has sexual attraction to his wife and the 4 year old boy next door is bysexual AND a pedophile. A woman who has a sexual attraction to her boyfriend and to one of the boys in the third grade class she teaches is heterosexual AND a pedophile.

You and d-man are making a connection between the definitions that simply isn't there.

Disagree.
Bisexual, homosexual, and heterosexual are all sexual orientations which by definition involve being attracted to a sexual being (of whichever gender)- ie, one who is biologically sexually mature, ie beyond puberty.

Being sexually attracted to a being who is not sexually mature, who has no secondary sex characteristics, who is not capable of reproduction, and who is not biologically capable of sexual intercourse without sustaining injury, is nothing like homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.
It is not comparable to these things.
It is not a sexual orientation.
It is a pathology, more akin to bestiality or some other harmful sexual fetish.

edit:

This is just a personal theory, but common wisdom has it that many abusers are former victims themselves, attempting to work through their past abuse (in a dysfunctional way) by perpetrating the same abuse against others, thereby experiencing being the one in power, rather than the helpless one.
It therefore makes sense that men who are former victims (even if they are heterosexual) would abuse male children, since what they are really doing is trying to heal themselves by recreating their own past abuse, but this time with themselves in a position of power rather than helplessness.

I think it's quite difficult to assert "bisexuality" in the context you assert it. The APA puts the terms into context.

Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality

If you'll note, the APA uses the adult terms (man/woman) intentionally. Sexual orientation is not merely what blows your skirt up. It's far more than that. It's about a relationship. Pedophiles don't have a "relationship" with their victims. They don't share goals and values in some sort of ongoing commitment. Therefore, they cannot have a sexual orientation based upon their victim.

Sexual orientation is defined by the adult relationships you have. In this case, Sandusky was a heterosexual who was also a pedophile. The gender of the child is irrelevant to his orientation classification because he cannot meet the true standards of orientation via his predatory actions.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

It's hardly that cut-and-dry. Some teenagers look like adults. Some still look like children. Remember, 13 year olds are teenagers. Maybe one could reasonably say that it's not pathological IF the teenager could pass for an adult and therefore for all visual purposes it's the same as adult to adult attraction. But (as I'm sure you know) age of consent law is not just about "sexual maturity" but also about making an attempt to take into account the fact that younger people have less emotional maturity to make choices. Therefore (arbitrary as it can be), that age from which one is no longer a minor and legally an adult is the law's attempt to do that. And even then, there are cases where a kid could be 18 or 19 and still not be as physically OR emotionally developed.

The most accurate that can be said here is that pedophilia-being-pathological is pretty straightforward, but it is a grey area as the age progresses, until one is no longer a teenager and rather an adult, where THAT is pretty straightforward as well. Adults with anyone younger than an adult should be considered by society as dangerous territory, IMO. There are terms (considered negative) for adults who find teenagers appealing INSTEAD of adults, for instance, each referring to age ranges and/or taking gender into account. It's pretty hard for me not to see any adult who prefers teens RATHER than adults (or even along WITH adults in some cases) as anything but having a pathological problem.
Hebephilia
Epebophilia

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

No, that it's no "relationship" is not the standard either--which is why it's completely legal for adults to be with adults sexually sans 'relationship.' Age-of-consent is really the law's attempt to accommodate the fact that kids aren't emotionally (or in many cases physically) mature enough to make consent decisions and therefore more vulnerable to being taken advantage-of by preying adults.

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

Age of consent laws don't necessarily have anything to do with pedophilia.
A man who has sex with and impregnates a 14-year-old is violating age of consent laws as well as American social mores, but he is not a pedophile.
Pedophilia- sexual attraction to prepubescent children- is an actual psychopathology, like bestiality.
Having sex with individuals who are biologically sexually mature but whom our society deems too young to have sex is not a psychopathology.
It's a crime, and perhaps a crappy thing to do, but it isn't indicative of mental illness.