From U.N. to NAMBLA to Foucault

It recently came to my attention that the United States Aligned with Iran on a vote to disallow consultive status to a Belgium Gay and Lesbian NGO. I wrote this statement mostly to point out the irony that U.S. and Iran are allied on this issues, which is mostly funny but not the point.
One of the reason's sited for not allowing this group to speak to the United Nations was because they supposedly had some ties to NAMBLA, other wise known as the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Not, of course, to be confused with the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes. I bring this up in light of reading Michel Foucaults introduction to his multi-volume work A History of Sexuality. Ironically at the same time as finding out about this work I was doing some research on the net about Foucault and I found a great article discussing A History of Sexuality and its contribution to Queer Studies, and Homosexual liberation movement. When backward linked to the home page for this article I was interested to find that it was the home page for an orginization much like NAMBLA, called Ipce. Under the about section they had this to say.


Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults.
http://www.ipce.info/#Ipce=

NAMBLA's website had this to say


NAMBLA's goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:
building understanding and support for such relationships;
educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements;
supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.
Now I'm not going to judge, that just won't do any good, for I'm sure anyone whose reading this is already judging. My problem is the lumping. Foucault says that the medical and scientific disourses of the 17th adn 18th century, instead of repressing sexuality, did the opposite. He says that these discourses created multple sexualities. This is perhaps true. terms like pedophile, bestiality, adn mescegenation, are all terms created by the scientific discourses. Even the word sexuality is taken from the vocabulary of science. But I feel that it hasn't just created multiple sexual categories. It has enforced a binary: tradition sexuality, the sexuality sanctioned by marriage; versus all other sexualities. From here it is not just an enforcment of social norms, it is a lumbing together of terms, which is illustrated in the examples above. This binary ensures that people associate, Gay and Lesbian, with polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc ...

Again I'm not trying to make a judgement, I certainly don't feel that polygamy is wrong, and it could be concievalbe that one day Man/Boy love could be condone able, even if it makes me a little sick to my stomach. My point is that I resent that all these groups get lumped together. I hate that the validity of one cannot be considered by most people without consideration of the other. I hate that when you speak about gay rights, some one on the opposition is gonna bring up sexual predators or the catholic preist scandal. These categories are different. And I feel they should be evaluated as such.
The following links are to articles about the U.N. case sited above
NY Times
Alternet