I haven't read all of this thread, so this may already have been addressed at some length, but I think you are missing the point.
Of course the child's life is ruined. Of course the man doesn't grow emotionally. So what? To assert that harming a child or emotional retardation is a 'bad' thing necessarily requires some external standard of measurement.
The pedophile decides that satisfying his sexual desires outweighs the welfare of the child. He can make such a decision rationally, correctly identifying all costs and benefits, and still ending up molesting a kid. Why, is he crazy? No, merely evil. But we have to appeal to some outside standard of right and wrong to make such a judgment. We can't say he's evil just because he didn't take all the factors into account. He's evil because victimizing a child is objectively morally wrong, because God says so. But remove the supernatural authority, and the pedophile's opinion becomes just as valid as mine.
No, I thought you were going to find it, the one non-theological measurement that would differentiate the two actions, but it was skipped. Purposeful actions that either promote or deter life are good and evil respectively.
I agree with that the pedophile's opinion is just as valid as yours, because you believe truth and values are a matter of opinion. They aren't. Truth and values are absolute, being determined by the nature or reality itself, and can only be discovered (or already known, in the case of God).
Do you believe it would be morally right to steal if God had not said, though shalt no steal? Would murder be OK if God had not prohibited it? Do you believe man does not have a specific nature, that doing wrong does not harm a man both psychologically and physiologically?
Truth and moral values are not a matter of opinion, not even God's. If God had said, thou shalt steal, thou shalt kill, and thou shalt covet they neighbor's wife, He would have been wrong. If He had never said they were wrong, they still would be wrong.
Values are not arbitrary. Values are determined the nature of those beings required to have and capable of having values, rational volition beings, that is, moral beings. Values are determined by the requirements of the nature of such beings living in the kind of world they live in, which includes the both the seen and the unseen.
There is one thing I must point out. The capacity to reason and the correct use of it are not the same thing. One can use a computer to solve a mathematical problem, and one can use a computer to attempt to solve a problem, but use it incorrectly, and produce the wrong results. They both may be called programming. Rationality can be used to reason correctly. That process is called rational. Rationality can be used incorrectly. That process is called irrational. Every place in your post where you used rational, you should have used irrational.
Do you really believe you need some, "outside standard of right and wrong to make such a judgment," as, a man who molests a child is evil? Have you no moral values, values you can objectively describe? Are there no prinicples about the nature of man, the requirements of their existense and there relationship with others that you understand make such an act one of the vilest any human could perpetrate? If someone hadn't told you it was wrong, you wouldn't have been able to figure it out?
I hope you are nowhere near where any of my grandchildren are.
Hank