That is your definition (and I'm not disagreeing with you). But we would have to see the definition of homosexual from the source from which this was taken - the 1992 US Statistical Abstracts. If someone could provide that, it would be helpful.
I'm not trying to be an apologist for gay pedophiles - quite the opposite, I think they should be shot. But I also don't like sloppy statistical work, and I know there are boys molested by men who otherwise consider themselves homosexual. Plus, are these statistics like the bogus rape statistics we see from the left? I'd just like to see more details here.
That is your definition (and I'm not disagreeing with you).
I would. Such a person could also be bisexual. The bisexual population is considerable larger than the homosexual one.
Bullets are expensive. Rope is reusable.
Is that freudian?