One statistic increasingly being outed, despite all the odds, that semi-relates to this is the defense that gay men are statistically proven to not be more likely to attack children than straight men. Criticisms of some of those studies, largely fueled by anger over groups like NAMBLA (look them up) have lead to some of those studies being examined to find that typically the stats are compiled by using "homosexuals" in general rather than gay men, even if it's spun to look that way. Meaning they toss lesbians into the mix as well. Given than lesbians are not known to attack children, just as women in general are far, far less likely to committ violent crimes, become seriel killers, or whatever, this leads to a lot of those studies being themselves rendered irrelevent. If you look at a population that was doubled to begin with, you wind up with a lot of numbers that show gay men as being twice as likely (at least) of going after children. Liberals hate this point, as does the gay rights movement, but it's a pretty solid criticism, and again you'll notice NAMBLA is named after gay men, not after Lesbians and engages in direct activism on the subject, and does things like hire lawyers to protect child molesters... being successful enough at it, where one casino I worked for (which was at the time the largest in the world... Foxwoods) was actively intimidated by them and adjusted it's policies accordingly. Basically they got to the point where they would rather some kid get dragged off and molested, or raped to death in the woods outside, than deal with the suits from preventing such things. That's not how they stated it of course, but that's the bottom line. One of the reasons why I've ever looked into those statistics a while back, or no as much about NAMBLA as I do.