This is from a straight male judge sentencing a guy who was found with a bunch of porn involving kids under the age of ten:
"These kinds of offenses are problems with impulse control," said Carson City District Judge Bill Maddox prior to sentencing. "When I say that, it's my understanding that most men are sexually attracted to young women. When I say young women I don't just mean women that ... you should be attracted to. I mean women from the time they're 1 all the way up until they're 100."
Maddox noted the legal terms malum in se, a Latin phrase meaning an act that is "inherently evil," and malum prohibitum, which means acts that are not necessarily inherently immoral or hurtful, only wrong by statute.
He said child pornography could be considered malum prohibitum because in some countries and cultures it is acceptable to engage in sexual conduct with young girls.
"As an example, having sex with a girl between 12 and 16 is prohibited because we say it's prohibited. It's because we decided as a civilized society you do not want adults engaging in sexual conduct with children below 16 years of age, which flies in the face of our, I guess for lack of a better description, our normal impulses," he said.
"I guess we could just ignore them, say it's just like a traffic ticket, it's malum prohibitum, it's only against the law because it's prohibited. Or we could say that because we're trying to control what's an otherwise natural impulse there has to be consequences.
"The bottom line on it all is the way we're going to control it in my opinion is to ensure that everybody understands what the consequences are if you engage in ... a lack of impulse control. It's likely that most people would find young girls sexually attractive. But we're civilized to the point that we're taught to control our impulses. When you don't, there has to be consequences."
Remember, he's not even talking about a guy who finds a 17-year-old pop star on TV hot, he's talking about a guy who possessed porn involving kids under the age of ten.
Imagine if this guy had pics of little boys and the judge were gay and made the above speech. Seriously, the news media would go haywire, the Focus on the Family sorts would be calling for Lawrence to be overturned, and it would be permanently embedded in all those anti-gay pamphlets forever. But is anyone asking all heterosexuals to defend this guy? Not at all. We realize that there are just some people, straight or gay or queer or bi or asexual, who are just kinda weird or nutty or say inappropriate things.
Just pointing out how the anti-gays can go in front of Congress or the Supreme Court and call all queer people child molesters, and a straight guy puts out a NAMBLA-esque spiel in court and the most anyone says about it is "This guy's kinda creepy."