Are you implying that that homosexual and pedophilic sexual impulses are not equally valid manifestations of human sexuality?

Gay men and their advocates claim the desire to engage in homosexual anal sex and oral sex are the result of impulses which are inherent and immutable, how is a gay man who claims the desire to engage in homosexual anal sex and oral sex with an infant are the result of impulses which are inherent and immutable, any less valid?

Or for that matter, any man whose inherent and immutable impulses manifest as a desire to engage in sexual contact with any animal, is less vaild how?

Because we know that the "Born this way!" human right argument is that the inherent and immutable homosexual impulse is in no way any less valid than the inherent and immutable heterosexual impulse to fufill the human species' biological imperative to produce progenial recombinant mutations, right?

That's is the basis for the demand for unequivical equality of every human right, correct? Homosexuals and their advocates decry any real or imagined inequality based on inherent and immutable impulse as a violation of their human rights.

With regard to the original question, was Brinkin born a homosexual pedophile with an inherent and immutable impulse to rape male infants?

Based on numerous past arguments I'll assume that homosexuals and their advocates will argue that the racist aspect of Brinkin's impulse is the result of nurturing, because if racism is the result of nature it would be an inherent and immutable impulses that people can't choose because they are "Born this way!", right?

PS any evidence the Pope raped any male babies of African descent or has any interest in the same? In the absence of any looks like nothing more than anti-religious bigotry on your part?