If that's your point it's a pretty thin one. I'm getting "some day values will not be the same as they are now and you may not like that." Sure, okay, fine, I understand that. But the way you made that point was pretty extreme. Yeah, there's a chance that society will get to a point where pedophilia is allowed, I guess there's also a chance that society will get to a point homicide is allowed too. In my opinion, however, society is progressing to become more accepting in terms of individual freedoms. Helping is being favored while hurting is not. Essentially an extension of the the altruistic behaviors humanity gained through evolution. Accepting homosexuality is a part of our altruistic evolution.
On this track, I simply don't see how pedophilia could ever be culturally accepted (and note how it used to be accepted, but is no longer).
I think I do understand your "point" now but I still disagree with the logic of this particular reasoning. And I hope you understand how easy it is to see the implications your original post was making. You were basically saying "homosexuality and transsexuality weren't okay because they don't make scientific sense, but now they are. If we continue down this path of ignoring scientific definitions, then soon we'll be okay with pedophiles and animal rapists too." Again, maybe you didn't mean to say that, but that was exactly what was said.
And then you went on to make what appeared to be your main point, which was "don't be so harsh on people who find homosexuals unnatural." And you know, yes I think they are bigots. I don't hate them, I understand their upbringing and don't hold it against them. What angers me, and other people, is when those bigots try to encroach on the rights of others. Now I can already hear you typing "but no, don't you see my point? What if that was you fighting against pedophiles?" well, that's not a great argument, I think. I've already made it quite clear how pedophilia is harming in ways homosexuality most certainly is not. And you can say that wasn't your point and it's all about science all you want, but it seems very clearly like your post was in defense of the homophobes (which is okay, I just don't like the way you went about it and have back peddled on it - honestly I wouldn't mind an open-eyed thinking discussion about the tolerance of those who are intolerant). And I will say, again, I am not one who hates. It's not in my nature. So I do not hate homophobes. But I refuse to admit that someone who fights to remove someone else's rights for a victimless crime is analogous to someone who fights against those who would commit a crime with a victim. The comparison is just not right, science or not.
To summarize, I do believe your original point was "you should be more understanding of people who aren't understanding because it may be you someday," which is something I can get behind. There's a lot of power in thinking that way. There are a number of things that are not necessarily culturally accepted that maybe could be. I like to challenge my beliefs and ask myself why I hold those beliefs and who is really benefitting or losing from certain areas of contention. I operate under the belief that a society should work towards the betterment of itself and all its people, and I don't think this is a controversial opinion. I think the general cultural mindset is the same in this regard, and our progression as a society has been working towards this. The day that society starts working backward and accepts harmful actions is a sad day indeed, and the opposite of progressiveness, in my opinion. Maybe someday pedophilia will be culturally accepted. And yeah, I guess I'm the cranky old man in that scenario. But I'm a cranky old man fighting against violence and oppression - I'm fighting on behalf of others. And that's why comparing my cranky old man to the cranky old man of today, protesting Caitlyn Jenner, doesn't make sense. Because he's just angry that his values aren't being upheld. And I guess that's me too. But my values are actually that we should be helping other people rather than hurting them.
Please feel free to tell me again that I've missed the point, but from here it seems like the truth is that the "scientific definition" stuff was merely a way to more intelligently make a comparison between two very different things (and, let's be honest, homophobes are not always interested in the scientific reasons why homosexuality is "unnatural"). It was always about values and morals, what else could define a social norm? Ever changing values and morals are an interesting topic. You were making a "put yourself in their shoes argument," the issue that was had with it, for reasons I have stated an annoying amount of times, is that the comparison you chose to make was quite off the mark, and had some unfortunate implications, whether intended or not. I think even you could say the comparison was a failure because, by your own account, this discussion is far away from what you wanted it to be (whatever that really was is even more unsure now). I just personally found the comparison rather extreme and sensationalistic and quite unapt. When it comes to the basic principles of right and wrong (morals - what social definitions are based on) that helping is right and hurting is wrong, I simply do not see how it could ever be possible for pedophilia to ever fall under the right column.
We can turn this into a discussion on "what are morals anyway?" and "what is right and wrong?" and honestly that would be much more interesting and worthwhile than whatever the hell we're arguing about right now (and it seems like we're moving in that direction anyway).