You used an extreme example to try to present the idea in our heads that the preposterous notion that there are so many homosexual priests that they could overcome the fact that they are responsible for 81% or more of the abuse cases and that heterosexual priests might actually abuse at a higher rate. Utterly ridiculous. This also ignores the overwhelming evidence that homosexual activity is largely indicative of promiscuity. It also assumes to an extent the unscientific notion that people are born homosexual. You are good with numbers but reality takes much more than numbers - it takes common sense too.
To show how common sense saves some aggravation and unnecessary complexity, let’s look at a few numbers:
Let’s say there are 10,000 priests and 200 individual abuse cases.
81% are male or 162 cases.
19% are female or 38 cases.
In order for the homosexual priest abuse rate to be LESS than the heterosexual abuse rate, approximately 8,000 of the 10,0000 priests would have to be homosexual.
In other words, the priest population would have to be 80% homosexual. Now, considering that the extremely high estimate of homosexuals in the general population is 10%, even granting that it may be slightly higher in the priest population, 8 TIMES HIGHER is too much for any rational person, scientist or otherwise, to take seriously.
I’ve played the numbers game. Thank you. You have helped to prove the point. Homosexuals are more prone to child abuse than heterosexuals.
