[JoshGray]

You're going off on tangents; I'm not sure how to respond.

If your goal is to protect a child from molesting, is it better to know how the perpetrator behaves sexually before he's caught or after?

If man has a wife and children, does this mean that he will not molest a child of the same-sex? Does it do any good to call him "homosexual" after he's molested the child?

[briant]

Probably a statistical thing huh. If man has wife+children probly less risk than if he does not. At least thats they seem to be saying. Especially if he is homosexual, i.e., already broken big taboo. But, I can't find unbiased sources.

[RAT Patrol]

I am just talking about truth, Josh. I know a man who had a wife and two kids, divorced his wife, deserted his kids, and converted to the gay lifestyle. He's now strictly homosexual. What do you call him? If a guy like him were to become a same-sex child molester, what sexual "orientation" category would you place him in?

Same-sex sex is homosexual, same-sex molesting is homosexual, same-sex rape is homosexual. It is what it is. The classification game gay activists play is dishonest. Not only that, it ALWAYS starts with the premise that heterosexual desire and homosexual desire are equal and normal. They can only get away with that in the subjective area of behavioral science. In every other science, human homosexuality is abnormal.

Is it a "tangent" to expect a study to begin with observable facts and truthful premises? Is it a "tangent" to expect that behavioral studies consider other sciences in forming their hypothesis? Is it really a "tangent" to demand that issues regarding human sexuality acknowledge a persons anatomy and biology and give that physical fact higher consideration that the individuals emotions and desires?

Without honest foundations, behavioral studies and analyses are just junk science.