FEARING SONS BECOMING PEDOPHILES, RAPISTS AND ABUSIVE "AS MUCH AS" BEING GAYS?

FEARING SONS BECOMING PEDOPHILES, RAPISTS AND ABUSIVE "AS MUCH AS" BEING GAYS?

There is a viral post that caught my attention which attempts to show the incoherence of conservative parents [1]. As such, I think it's worth the time to consider the caption and show that the opposite is true. If there is incoherence, it's not from the conservative perspective.  

Although I think that it's natural for a parent to have "fears" in all cases that are mentioned, there should be degrees to such "fear" because of the gravity of acts. As such, I disagree when he uses the word "as much as" implying as if all categories have the same gravity.

I think it's understandable for parents to have a fear that their children may be attracted to someone of the same sex (homosexual relationships) in the same way that they have a fear that their children could be interested in a polyamorous relationship (threesome is an example) or fear that their children could be attracted to people of the same family (incest relationships). 

Obviously, that would be different when it comes to having a fear that they may be rapists, pedophiles (which, in my opinion, can be defended from a liberal ethical perspective hence the worry should be on the liberal side), or abusive.

The examples of same-sex, threesome, and incest relationships would fall under morally wrong consensual acts that are contrary to the nature of our sexuality. 

However, the examples of rape, pedophilia, and abusive relationships would fall under morally wrong acts that violate justice, for these actions are also contrary to consent, besides the physical harm one experiences. 

I think it's obvious that we should not treat all of the examples mentioned in the photo as if everything is of the same gravity. I will now move on to my point that this photo shows the incoherence of the liberal side. 

I rarely use the counter-example of pedophiles in order to not give the impression that I am accusing them as such which is common to people who misunderstood the argument in the first place. 

However, an advocate of LGBT ideology should be worried about it for the sake of consistency. If the reason why our actions are morally permissible is that it's consensual, on what basis can they say that being a pedophile is wrong?

First, I don't see how it would be wrong, from a liberal perspective, for a pedophile to objectify a child. One person may think of a child without the consent of the child. 

I can imagine a five-year-old without the consent of a five-year-old, and I don't think it's necessarily wrong to imagine a five year old existing. But, why would it be wrong to objectify a child if imagining a child does not violate any consent?

Second, let's suppose a pedophile engaged in a sexual relationship with a child. If a 10-year-old or 12-year-old gave consent, why is that morally problematic according to liberals? We don't do that in other cases. 

We don't say that it's morally wrong for an adult to carry a child if the child consented to be carried. Why is it wrong for an adult to engage in a sexual relationship with a child even if the child consented to while carrying a child is morally permissible if the child consented to?

It seems to me that to answer at least two of these issues is to admit that there is something intrinsic about our sexuality, specifically the necessity (not sufficiency) of procreation that should be factored in sexual ethics. 

However, to say that there is intrinsic about the sexual act and/or procreation in evaluating a moral case means that the liberal claim is wrong., This claim can be summarized as "the use of sexual faculty towards procreation is not a necessary condition for the moral permissibility of the sexual act" which shows the incoherence of the foundation that justifies the morality of homosexuality.