I agree that homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same, but for many people it's easier to see a gay man being attracted to underage boys or crossing the line to underage boys than a heterosexual man. That's why there's such a desperation on these people's part (including the prosecution) to portray Michael as a gay man. This may be a politically incorrect opinion, but I think you can understand the logic behind linking the alleged abuse of male children to homosexuality. I mean, someone mentioned earlier the fact that many rock stars admit to have slept with underage girls at some point. Those are heterosexual men and no one calls them a pedophile for that, but if they indeed slept with underage girls, then they did cross the line at some point. No one would say heterosexuality=pedophilia, but if you are a heterosexual man and you cross the line then you will abuse underage girls and not boys. And if you are a gay man who crosses the line then you will abuse boys, not girls. So it's a bit more complicated IMO. But I think the real pedophiles are who are exclusively attracted to children and not attracted to adults of any gender at all. That certainly does not have anything to do with terms like heterosexuality or homosexuality.
Haters (including the prosecution) don't know where to go with Michael. Their whole narrative is so inconsistent. They tried to say MJ was gay, based on a couple of art photo books with nude males, but then the prosecution was forced to parade around dozens of heterosexual magazines in court, because that's what Michael's real porn was - all heterosexual. So they made up this whole narrative about Michael only keeping it to show it to boys. A man who is well documented to have been interested in art photography having a couple of art photo books with nude males means he was gay, but dozens of heterosexual porn magazines and DVDs do not mean that he liked women and that it was his actual sexual interest. It's just a desperate, desperate narrative.
Then the age factor. Wade and James now claim Michael lost interest in them and stopped abusing them as soon as they reached puberty. So that would be a classic pedophile who is interested exclusively in children. But, in the same breath the prosecution and haters also tried to use Brett Barnes' testimony against Michael when he said he slept in the same bed as Michael until he was 19. I have also seen haters trying to interpret something into a trip that Omer was on with Michael in 2003. And Omer was 19 and 20 at the time. Haters and the media also like to embrace any "gay lover" story about Michael - from Jason Pfeiffer to Ian Halperin and Scott Thorson. So which one is it? Was Michael a classic pedo, who stopped abusing children when they reached puberty, or was he a gay man who liked it young and crossed the line at times? (BTW, it also shows the hypocrisy of the media. They will deny linking pedophilia and homosexuality, because they would be called out by gay organizations if they openly did. But then what was the purpose of it when, for example, in 2004 the National Enquirer paid Scott Thorson to say he had a sexual relationship with Michael? It's clear that for many in the media to portray Michael as a gay man brings them closer to be able to portray him as a pedo. Gay organizations should actually notice that and be very offended by it...)
But to be honest, I don't think haters are too interested in bringing consistency into their logic. They know that salaciousness in itself can work a number on many people's minds and it does not have to make much sense - as long as there is a shock factor and a "ewww" factor you can get many people believe it, because to be honest most people are not very deep thinkers, they just judge on an emotional basis and surface stuff.
As for haters motives. Of course, they aren't a homogenous group, they probably have many different motives. I do think that most of them are mental cases. You do not obsess about hating someone so much if you do not have mental issues. And no, it's not about the children to them and it's not about child abuse to them, because they do not care about any other child abuse case (only in how to link it to MJ). They harass people online, they hack people's accounts - that's not normal behavior. There are obviously deep seated issues with these people - what these issues are is anyone's guess. The leader of the WR support group, Michael Par-whatever his name is, claims on his FB that he is a gay man. He also has a brother who seems to be a member of some fundamentalist religious group. That in itself (a gay man in a fundamentalist religious family) could mean some type of dynamics and problems within his family, for example. I'm not saying this is definitely his problem, but it's definitely rooted in something that is personal to these people and it's more about their own psychological issues than about Michael. Unfortunately they found Michael to project their issues on and to use as a punch bag.
I do think that some of these people might have been abused as children and some others battle with pedophiliac thoughts. Some of the language they use is definitely disturbing as they borrow NAMBLA arguments and language sometimes. And others are just plain ol' haters. Every celebrity has haters and I guess the bigger the star is the bigger the hate is. It can have many different reasons, including jealousy of a certain celebrity. And I think it also gives them a sense of power to be able to sway opinion on a world famous star and that they can contribute to ruining someone's reputation who is that famous. And most of these people are just plain, classic bullies IMO who like to see others suffer (ie. Michael's children, friends, fans) and that makes them feel better about themselves.
