I do try to apply reason to all my opinions, with varying degrees of success, and I hate using ----ist, or ----ophobe to describe people who hold opinions that differ from mine.
However, I consider it unreasonable to generalise about groups of people on insufficient evidence, and I maintain my belief that it is unsafe to conflate the term paedophile with the term homosexual.
It's the old circular argument. "Some dogs are black,and some black dogs bite, therefore black dogs are dangerous".
As to bias, Dave, I refer you to the following, posted by you.
"That's a complete no brainer - neither. I want to put them into a completely safe environment with no un-nesessary risks at all. Why should the only choices be risky ones? Surely it's that that makes no sense isn't it? It's a bit like saying do you like your children fried or boiled! Give me a real choice and I will be happy to make it.
Cheers
DtG"
Can you tell me how this comment can be read so as not to conclude that you consider all same sex foster parents a risk to children?
Ake, those priests were paedophiles, whether the church is prepared to admit it, or not. They WERE homosexual too in the context of a situation where only boys were available. Who knows what the situation might have been, had there been any girls serving at the altar, or singing in the choir?