Pedophilia is not wrong

Con continues to adhere to the idea: what is natural is relevant to what is right and wrong, without explaining why my argument against that isn't enough to dispute it. I will therefore deem what is natural and what isn't as irrelevant to what is right and wrong until the argument in (1) from round 3 is disputed. If you wonder why I didn't reply to something Con just wrote, I probably interpreted it as an argument based on that naturalistic foundation.I will reply to his post in the same numbering used by Con.1. Analysis of the argument:Premise A: Pedophilia requires a mind that wants to hurt the child.Premise B: Pedophilia requires a mind that desires something that is unobtainable without sexual abuse.Conclusion: Pedophilia is wrong.Premise A: I'm sure we can agree on that there are plenty of pedophiles out there, that doesn't act upon their sexual preference because they fear it would hurt the child. We could probably agree on that more pedophiles would rather act upon their sexual preference if they knew it wouldn't hurt anyone. How can you agree with this and still hold Premise A as true?Being a pedophile means that you have a sexual preference towards children, if a pedophile also wants to hurt the child, he is not only a pedophile. One would still be considered a pedophile if you didn't want to hurt the child, so it's not relevant to pedophilia.Premise B: I will illustrate the irrelevance of this premise to the conclusion, so even though I could argue for why Premise B isn't true, it's sufficient to show that the argument is invalid.Imagine a man for who sex with a certain woman that doesn't want to have sex him is unattainable without sexual abuse. This man wants to have sex with her. Is his desire for sex with her wrong?I'm sure you could imagine a scenario here where it would be wrong to you, but if you give it some though, I'm sure you can think of a scenario based on this where the desire wouldn't be wrong, even to you.Imagine an evil game (perhaps easier to imagine if you have seen the movie "Saw") where a man and a woman gets abducted. They are put in a confined room and an evil game host explains that if the man doesn't sexually abuse the woman, he won't get any food and will starve to death. He becomes hungry. Is his desire for food wrong?2. and 3. I will reply to these two in the same text, since both should be cleared up with the same answer.I think we use the word "sexual preference" differently. I use it in its literal sense, a preference of sexuality, who you show your sexual interest towards.Having more sexual interest towards a certain group (children, opposite sex, same sex) than another, gives you the sexual preference towards that certain group.If you also want a romantic intimate relationship with that group, then you have not only a sexual preference but a romantic, or emotional preference as well towards it.In the separation of the terms "sexual preference" and "romantic preference", you would still be heterosexual if you only had that sexual preference towards the opposite sex. Just like you would still be a pedophile if you only had a sexual preference towards children.Separating these terms, Con is welcome to argue against (3) from round 3 again, since his arguments against it so far aren't relevant if this separation is made.Even if you would claim that you couldn't have a romantic preference towards the opposite sex without having a sexual preference towards it, it's still true that you do have that sexual preference and pedophilia couldn't be more immoral in the sense of the newly provided definition of immoral than any other sexual preference.