Let me start by saing I think Dan Savage is a vile bully. However, if you read the article, I think that is what he is saying. The "good pedophile" is the one who never acts on his urges and keeps himself out of situations with kids. Savage buys into the idea that the sex drive to like children is some type of chemical or physiological imbalance and not a choice. And that this imbalance can be treated and dealt with by not putting oneself in the wrong situations (like babysitting kids).
The irony of ironies is that the same can be said of homosexuality -- that it is some type of physiological imbalance that can be treated and dealt with by not putting oneself in tempting situations. Of course, Savage would never give that advice to a gay man because homosexuality is "natural". Then why is he giving it to a pedophile?
No, what Savage is doing is redefining the arguement. He’s getting you to accept that not all sexual sins are bad. For example, accepting that a man may be a pedophile but if he’s not acting on it, he’s good.
It’s a thin edge of the wedge. The moment it becomes acceptable to fantasize, it’s a small step to reality.
Perhaps having pictures of children being abused is all right, because the act was done and you can’t do anything about that. But because you “only” have pictures, you’re keeping yourself from actually harming children.
Then it won’t be but a small step from just having pictures to lightly molesting them, because there’s no actual penetration or something.
Eventually, no limits on what you can do with kids will become the norm.
This is why, even traces of, pedophilia should not be tolerated and should be subject to the fullest punishment of the law.