“Gay and straight ephebophiles have different drivers, and paedophiles who molest prepubescent children are different again,”
And therein lies the issue. A lot of pedophiles don’t distinguish between male or female children. They are pedophiles and gender of the child is irrelevant because they are attracted to children because they are children. Their driver is not gender oriented, but child oriented. To try and simplify this argument based on homosexuality or heterosexuality doesn’t resolve the issue at all. The only way to affirm this thesis is if you can show that when most homosexual men look at a prepubescent boy they are sexually aroused. I don’t think that has been shown in any way.
That is not the point.
The point is, homosexual men do offend at a high rate (high likelihood of having offended, per individual interviewed). The question of arousal is settled by their copping to the activity.
Their choices may run to older children, i.e. "tweenagers" and teens. I don't have any numbers handy on the subject of children younger than X having contact with homosexual men and women. I can only suppose that numbers exist as part of some study somewhere.
But in law, ephebophilia is a species of paedophilia more broadly defined because, as I explained before, the law does not distinguish between small children and teenagers younger than the age of consent. It's all statutory rape.
So I don't see the point of your saying that homosexuals haven't been studied as an offender group against small children. What is the burden of your argument? To exonerate homosexuality qua homosexuality, and say "homosexuality doesn't matter" when talking about statutory rape?
If anything, backing out the small children who are victims of paedophilia, one is driven to conclude, granting your point arguendo that homosexuals do not offend against young children (suspending disbelief for a moment), then therefore what we are left with is an even higher rate of offense against older children by homosexuals.
You seem to be developing an argument that:
a. Homosexuality is not a driver of "paedophilia" (i.e. sexual relations with young children younger than X)b. Ergo, popular culture errs in blaming homosexuality and homosexuals for the paedophilia problem, and therefore
c. Homosexuality is okay, and not malum in se as a driver of sexual contacts with minors.
You seem to be pushing peds off on NAMBLA in order to exonerate gays. Or do I miss your drift?