1. If a man exclusively rapes male children, that makes him a homosexual, by definition. (Though not the child.)

2. Of course, same holds true for a man who exclusively rapes little girls, he would be a heterosexual by definition. But that does not mean all heterosexuals rape children, likewise, there's zero implication that all homosexuals are open to sex with minors. However, I'd be hesitant to exclude without some sort of unbiased statistic. It could be heterosexuals have the bigger problem, I won't exclude that possibility either without an unbiased statistical study.

2. It can be argued that children are sexless (I agree, while conceding many may be effeminate or masculine, no child is born sexual. Being an effeminate male preferring the company of men does not a homosexual make, just as liking to watch football does not a football player make.) But that proves that "born that way" is extremely problematic if children have no sex at all. It's logically strange to say that someone has no sex at all for years and years, and then over a decade later, argue, without any possibility to the contrary, that they were 'born that way.'
I had to be told about sex, I wasn't born with that knowledge, and if I go to prison or go without release for six months, my standards are pretty flexible. Prized bulls have their seed extracted using vibrators. When the bull sees the vibrator, the bull goes dangerously wild. Nobody is so absurd as to suggest the bull was "born that way".

3. I think that it's very damaging to everyone to suggest that we are all "born that way" one way or the other. We are "condemned to be free" in my opinion, though I quickly concede the bull and the human beings can become locked into one mode or the other, having once either chosen or having had it chosen for them by another by force or coercion.


"the assumption that pedo = homo has probably led to more discrimination and prison rapes that short selling heroin. A child is not really a man or a woman, just a child."

I would agree that sometimes, for social gain, we should employ 1984 style reworking of the language. But I always bias towards knowledge over sophistry, "newspeak" where we change the obvious definition of a word to something else.

If someone presented a serious, unbiased study proving that
a) homosexuals almost never have sex with underage persons and
b) homosexuals have dramatically more attacks in prison with a large total

then I would consider re-defining the term "homosexual" to mean something other than the plain meaning of the word.

However, since it is taboo to have any studies of homosexuals (since it is no longer considered a disease) we must remain largely ignorant due to the barrier against discovery of what trends there actually are in the homosexual group.
And since children may be targeted by homosexuals, then those victims deserve to at least find out one way or the other, therefore, I reject the asserted redefinition of the term "homosexual" excluding sexual contact with same sex underaged persons, just as I would exclude excluding from the group "heterosexual" pedophiles for the same reason.