Your supposition ignores consent and harm. It is a false equivalency. A homosexual relationship between consenting, mature partners doesn't harm anyone. A child cannot consent any more than a farm goat or sheep can. Further, a child who had not completed puberty is damaged by sex.

There are reasons why paraphilias like pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia are more or less universally reviled. It has to do with the fact that they are so harmful to communities.

We all have moral lines regarding sex we are unwilling to cross. It's not hypocrisy to evaluate your own moral landscape and hold that line. It is hypocrisy to force your view on others.

Let's go a little further. Saying you don't understand someone else's line and writing a persuasive article expressing that is not the same as saying they don't have that right.

You can't force parental love any more than you can force any other kind of love. You can offer safe harbor to those cast out of their families. And as a society, we can ensure that the "oddballs" aren't disenfranchised because of their beliefs, whether they are oddballs because they are Rainbow Mafia or because they are Fundamentalist NeoPuritans.

But to answer your question, I would never disown Urchling, regardless. Clearly, I think pedophilia is just one of the worst things ever. I would talk to her about the harm that identity can cause others and encourage her toward celibacy and counseling therapy.

She's always going to be my urchling.

You said in your article linking here that the child in question "chooses" pedophilia. It's widely understood that LGBTQ identity is not a choice. It's just what is; how you're born. That makes your argument a false equivalence too.