Comparing two things doesn't mean they are equal in nature. Raspey used an argument to demonstrate that homosexuality was once a crime and that homosexuals had to hide or supress their own nature to avoid public outcry, prison or death, and that all of that happened despite the fact that two men being together does not hurt or affect the life of any other person whatsoever, that it was criminal based solely on moral/religious beliefs.
It being a crime back then didn't make gay people stop being gay, as you have pointed yourself in your argument:
"I woke up today wanting A? Wow. I accept that feeling in itself - but A isn't victimless, A has victims. Ethically, I'd better check myself & focus rather on B & C. To start, I'll discard A materials."
No crime is victimless, so for homosexuality to be a crime, a victim must exist, and in this case it is the people as a whole, and God. Now as a gay man you know you're a sick pervert and that you must not indulge in your sinful desires as not to disturb the public order and bring shame to your name and your family, which is exactly what many gays had to do back then, and is what many pedophiles do today.
Historically, neither practices were bashed, it is known that the Romans would engage in homosexual practices publicly and it wasn't either shameful or a sign of a weak moral. And it was not just "regular" homosexual practices as you'd call, because many would turn to the younger males, and it was perfectly fine.
Making that comparison does not signal any virtue or vice in itself. In your head, it seems, you assume that the comparison alone leads to the premise "for A to be okay then B must be equally okay" which is a reductivist interpretation.
No one is asking for you to have simpathy for child rapists, only that you understand that you should not reduce one's urges to a mere moral question. I tell you that you could be a pedophile yourself, and I don't say that implying that you are, and I don't intend to say it as a way to attack you. I'm simply saying that if you are not, you could have been, it is not up to you.
Now, were you a pedophile, you'd go through that path your own way, perhaps you'd be a lawful MAP who is disgusted with yourself for what you desire, but manage to not offend.
Not being a choice one can make doesn't turn it into something that is inherently rightful or that should be allowed. That part I'm pretty sure you get.
But, on the same matter, not being a choice means you cannot not be judged as if it were. Even if offending is wrong, you are to be judged for offending, never for the mere thought of offending.
