With the difference that the "reparative therapy" uses unethical, non-scientific methods and gays can indulge their sexual orientation with people who can actually consent so judging their desires at all is unethical.
Just because two ideas can be expressed with similar sentences they don't necessarily have similar moral and ethical considerations.
You've overlooked the simple point. Consent need not enter into this as a concept, as the specific sexual desires are irrelevant.
The point is that (I would assume) you are opposed to gay reparative therapy, and also that you would deny that a homosexual person's primary sexual attraction can be permanently changed.
So what makes you think that a paedophile is suddenly a special case and that their primary sexual orientation is malleable without the extreme and fucking unpleasant methods used in GRT?
Surely if this is a matter of identity and not something one can change, then that's a foot in the door for social justice crusaders and we can start down the path of granting them rights and acceptance and criminalising anyone who dares criticise them?