The primary fault with your "logical" statistical model/argument is that you presume sexual orientation to be a scientifically objectively proved factor. I read the study to be based upon the sexual act alone regardless of what sexual orientation the reported predators may claim to "feel" they are... In essence, male on male sex is by default a homosexual act AND implies by default an objectively proved state of homosexual orientation at a minimum while the predatory act was perpetrated...
SO -assuming ALL cases reported are normally distributed (hence proportionally equal) then one would expect to see an equal number of male on -> female, female on -> male, female on -> female, and male on -> male sexual predations. This study correctly points out the obvious, which is (when normalized based upon the accepted "sexual orientation" distribution within society), that homosexual males present the greatest predation danger to young boys... In summary it is dangerous and quite stupid to consider homosexual coaches, babysitters, boy scout leaders, etcetera to be on par with heterosexual boy scout leaders etcetera etcetera....
Not my model, first of all DBeers. It was a quote from Space Dot Com, where some statistical phenom (self declared) decided to attribute a 95% distribution Level to the sample, and then showed that the Intervals overlapped, which in-theory invalidates, or causes suspicion on the accuracy of the sampling. Intervals should not overlap, but one thing I did find when researching statistics is, that the distance between intervals, indicates the likelihood of “That” sample-category’s conclusions apply with a great deal of certainty to the unknown sample, from which Cameron, in this case, was essentially asserting with his conclusions that male teachers abuse more.
I’m inclined to agree with Cameron, BUT, agreeing with him is difficult as I wish others not so agenized would repeat the same research as to give some modicum of credibility to the numbers! I argued that the data is the only thing worth looking at, NOT the researcher, (Cameron in this case) but that was met with (arguably valid criticism) a great deal of skepticism from the passers-by. I countered with the fact that only those that have diametrically different theories on the nature of homosexuality, and pedophilia, and any possible link would dare conduct research in this way. This is a valid rebut in my opinion, as anyone that has a brain can see that research, ANY, research into anything remotely negative about the nature of homosexuality is simply NOT being done by the 90% of leftist academia.. It simply is not on their radar. To do so, would mean to actually acknowledge that the data does not mesh with the institutional establishments political agenda on homosexuality.
Further, it has become completely clear to me that whenever homosexuality has been linked to a higher incidence an d suggested prevalence to pedophilia, we see two arguments in opposition from the left. The first argument is that of pedophilia, not being about sex? This is the most illogical and empirically invalid argument I have ever seen, and serves as proof of the establishments unwillingness to accept observation and common sense. They say things like, pedophilia is about power and control, and in no way adheres to any sexual motivation of the adult individual? This is blatantly poor deductive reasoning, IMO. Sex, relationships, perhaps everything we do as humans is about some degree and level of power and control. All things being equal, the varying and seemingly arbitrary ways in which the establishment chooses to place measurable levels of power and control as applied simply to the modifier of the victims age, is a non sequitur. Biology doesn’t work that way, and even if we assume that it did, then we’d, or I should say the gay agenda would completely invalidate the entire premise of sexual orientation theory to begin with. If something so mundane and inconsequential as someone’s arbitrary age is a modifier for sexual attraction or action, then being born gay, or a pedophile or even a heterosexual (As pit against the backdrop of sexual orientation theory of which I am not a supporting member as I believe that everyone is a biological and for the most part physiological heterosexual) seems completely illogical, and entirely contrived - meaning essentially that the gay agenda can’t have it both ways.
Secondly, the other argument coming out of the nay sayer’s, is that men who have sex with male children are not gay, and can have adult heterosexual relationships; and that the sex with the same sex child is indicative of the “power” aspect (see above) and that the simple act of sex does not a homosexual make? I find this argument completely ridiculous! Notwithstanding, extreme exceptions, like jail and the like, if the act of sex with an individual does not define ones sexual identity, then what is it? What is it psychologically, biologically, and sociologically? I’d also mention that although this is true that “some” adult men who’ve had sex with children are in adult heterosexual relationships, it IS the left dong and arguing the way the left always does – they are essentially highlighting the extreme exception to the general rule, and applying it universally across the entire human platform. Sloppy, and also invalid to any self-respecting scientist! The exception to the rule, if in the extreme, and especially so, should always be tossed out of the equation when trying to formulate a hypothesis that can lead to valid conclusions; even if the conclusions are corollary only.
Thirdly, the left tries to appeal to the “so what” factor, they say things like – “Even if it were true, clearly not all homosexual men abuse boys, what shall we do with them” This is a valid statement, what should we do if it turns out that male homosexuals have a disproportionate incidence, or likelihood to commit child abuse? The answer is awareness, it allows us, or those dealing in the business of children and child safety, to become more heightened to the potential danger of a male homosexual around those children. Schools, clearly, school employees who rarely go through the same level of scrutiny on back-ground checks, Boy Scouts, and essentially anywhere there are children, YOUR children, this kind of precursory information can be helpful, and may force our Government to remove ones sexual orientation from that of protected class to that of suspect class. Not guilty to be sure, but suspect indeed!
The foundation of discrimination law in the United States is based on one main central test. Reasonableness! It’s ok to discriminate (legally) if the source of discrimination is reasonable, meaning under the same conditions is it reasonable that others in the same position would react, or act the same way? Is it reasonable that if someone could prove that homosexual men are 450 times more likely to abuse your child under the same circumstances, is it reasonable for you as the parent to question the intimate nature and access rights any ONE individual might have to your child? I think so, and I think many other would as well. Is it reasonable to ask the sexual orientation of a prospective employee that would have unsecured access to children? I think so, if the data is correct, and up until this point I see no reason to assume the numbers are wrong. We can argue definitions all day long – we can argue semantics till we are blue in the face, but the fundamental, and basic and common sense application of sex and sexual orientation is not, and should NOT be cluttered by anyone in the social sciences trying to muddy the waters of sane and clear-headed thinking. For the sake of the children we NEED to get this one correct. It should not involve political agenda’s or ideologies, Period!