The fact is you can't..because you are wrong.
Among homosexual activists themselves, a heated debate rages over whether the homosexual community should include among their ranks homosexuals who have sex with the young. In a typical editorial favoring inclusion that appeared recently in the homosexual newspaper Bay Area Reporter (Feb 13, 1992, p. 6), one Bradley Rose said:
"..... What is a pedophile? A pedophile is not a rapist or a murderer, or a devil, but a person who loves ... As a gay child, I would have welcomed sexual relations with males, of adult age as well as my own ..."
"Gay liberation is stuck in backwaters as long as gay children are denied their sexuality and as long as parents are allowed to push their gay children into the roles of hetero adults ... Most of the heteros just don't know how to give gay affirming support to their children (the homosexual ones as well as the non - gay ones). Let's give them a hand."
Similarly, support for "gay men who love boys" is found in an editorial in the San Francisco Sentinel, another homosexual newspaper. In fact the editorial states that "the love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality" ("No Place for Homo Homophobia," March 26,1992)
This is an editorial written by some lunatic supporters of the NAMBLA and it's positions advocating normalization of sex with minors.
Once again, NAMBLA and editorial positions such as these are roundly condemned by the majority of gay rights organization..and the gay community which they represent.
I already posted the statement by GLAAD..which is probably the largest and most well know gay organization, condemning NAMBLA and the sorts of nonsense you posted above.
The fact is, the APA has published an article that advocate the normalization of sex with minors... which was praised by heterosexuals and homosexuals who are into sex with children.
According to your logic we could take this as proof that 'sex with minors is an integral part of the heterosexual community.'
What nonsense.
Once again..the claim by you and the article posted at the begining of this thread, that sex with minors is an "integral" and commonly accepted part of the homosexual community is ridiculous.
I don't know if I will have time to address and refute all the so-called 'proof' you posted...but these first two..that ridiculous "dictionary" and this "editorial" are just laugable.
This is the best you can do?
Among homosexual activists themselves, a heated debate rages over whether the homosexual community should include among their ranks homosexuals who have sex with the young.
If sex with minors is such an accepted and integral part of homosexuality as you claim ....why is there this 'heated debate'?
I'm still waiting for your answer.