somehow, I don't see something so intrinsically immoral as raping a child as standing a chance of gaining protective legislation.
You have a large segment of the creative community rallying behind, and trying to protect, Roman Polanski for doing exactly that (raping a child). This, while not exactly the same thing, demonstrates that, unfortunately, some "progressives" have a tendency to rationalize and defend bad, or even evil, behavior, especially if they can hide behind a diagnosis.
Laws have an unfortunate tendency to get expanded in ways that the drafters might not have intended. Furthermore, one generation's view of what is "intrisically immoral" sometimes ends up another generation's "personal business."
For example, here's a story about a law that was intended to allow parents to teach their kids about sex education but which got twisted to allow a dad to show his underaged daughters hard-corn porn.
The fact the matter is that the loophole could have been closed but, for some reason, the drafters of this law didn't want to do that. We'll see if it creates the legal issues predicted.
