Here's another take: PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE: In a more recent study,2 researchers reviewed the medical charts of 352 children evaluated for sexual abuse in a Denver children's hospital. In 74 cases, the abuser was another child or adolescent, none of whom were identified as lesbian or gay. In 9 cases, the abuser could not be identified (e.g., each parent accused the other). In 269 cases, the child (219 girls & 50 boys) was abused by an adult. Both girls and boys were most likely to be abused by their fathers, stepfathers, or other men married to female relatives. Only 2 of these 269 abusers (less than 1%) were identified as gay or lesbian. The researchers concluded that "most child abuse appears to be committed by situational child abusers who present themselves as heterosexuals."
Let me repeat: most child abuse appears to be committed by situational child abusers who present themselves as heterosexuals.
We can call them "homosexual" until the end of time, but until they were caught they presented themselves as "heterosexual". Calling them "homosexual" now doesn't do a damn thing to prevent the abuse they committed while everyone thought they were "heterosexual" -- these people were not part of the 2% who identifies themselves as "homosexual".
I don't think this is contested. But most dosn't mean much if they are also >90% of the population.
This is the real point of contention I suppose