Sounds like someone misusing statistics to me. For example this comment:

In her thesis – also written for the Regent University Law Review – Reisman cited psychologist Eugene Abel, whose research found that homosexuals "sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls. …"

is carefully worded so it appears to prove that homosexuals have a greater tendency to be deviants. In fact, it merely reflects the fact that men are more likely to, or at least more likely to get caught. So, homosexual pedos will molest boys and heterosexual pedos will molest girls. Homosexual pedophiles molest boys because they are most likely male. They molest children because they are pedophiles.

It also completely misses a more fundamental point. Pedophilia is bad, regardless of who perpetrates it. You shouldn't tar all homosexuals with the same brush, just as you shouldn't tar all men with the same brush, just because sex crimes are committed far more often by men. Promoting the rights of homosexuals and promoting the rights of pedophiles is not the same thing, just as defending a man's right to access his children after a divorce is not the same as defending his right to molest his children.

Going by that you could say gays are more likely to be abusers than straights.

Yes, but you wouldn't go by that would you? Because that wouldn't prove anything. Which is why the people in that article tried so hard to create the impression they had real evidence to back up their claims.

BTW, my impression is that I hear about female victims far more often.

Also, if someone is a sexual deviant, why should they pay as much attention to the sex of their victim? Children are by nature asexual, so whatever problem causes pedos to target children would casue them to be less discriminating between the sexes. That has nothing to do with adults who are attracted to other sexually mature adults. If someone is physically attracted to a prepubescent girl then they obviously lack whatever it is that makes regular adult men attracted to mature women or men.

Sure, to an 8 year old there is a big difference between a boy and a girl. I remember being attracted to the girls in my class as well. I also remember not being that attracted to adult women, with all that gross hair etc.

But is a pedophile at all concerned with whether the victims are sexually interested in them? Compare a young boy, and adult man, a young girl and an adult woman, all naked. The two that look most alike will be the two children. They are asexual in their appearance, which is what is of interest to pedophiles, rather than what is going on in their heads.

If someone is sexually attracted to children, thay are not going to fit into any other norms either. Whether they root boys or girls is kind of beside the point. Their actions do not reflect in any way on the actions of adults having sexual relationships with other adults. You wouldn't calssify them as gay or straight then lump them with gay and straight adults. You would separate them out first. The only reason not to is to mislead people about homsexuals.

Given the strict religious views of the Regent University Law Review I would have to say that there can be little confidence in this paper.

Bill

I read that homos were 10X more likely to be paedophiles than straight men.

No, I don't have the source and it is not tarring all homos with the same brush.