However "homosexual" is defined, it must be a consistant definition throughout the study and all analyses. If you want to define it as "anyone who has ever had a homosexual experience", then OK, fine with me -- what percentage of the population has ever had a homosexual experience?
That is the only number that can be validly compared to the percentage of same-sex molestations.
Those blurbs quoted above mix definitions, defining "homosexual" by the activity in one half and defining it by self-identity in the other.
Back to the other analogy: If you commit a crime, just because you are not in jail doesn't make you less of a criminal. Similarly, claiming to be innocent doesn't make that true either.
Can you look at the number of people in jail and draw conclusions and comparions on the total number of "criminals"? How do people who have gotten off on a technicality fall into the comparison? ("Criminals" being defined as 'anyone who has committed a jailable offense')
I also go back to the point that, whatever it means to the perpetrator, same-sex molesting is homosexual to the victim. Since victims often become perpetrators, that factor should at least complicate the conclusion. But nowhere in the analysis I read is that weighed.
Deciding why a perp perpetrates is not an exact science and the answers are likely varied. But to base broad conclusions on the feelings or "self-identity" of the perpetrator -- whose status as a child molester makes his mental disorder irrefutable -- while ignoring observable facts, such as the same-sex nature of the act, or the same-sex conflicts it might ignite in the victim, removes the science from the study and just makes it an opinion.
And none of this acknowledges the fact that humans are biologically and anatomically formed for heterosexual sex only. Homosexuality is a abberation of that. Minus that premise, no analysis will be based on truth.
I'm signing off for the day, Josh. I'll check your reply tomorrow.