Most pedophiles identify as straight, not gay, and are more often than not married men. So, if anything, the Boy Scouts are exposing these kids to a higher likelihood of being molested than they would if they allowed openly gay scout leaders.

Read that again. Even though the act of pedophilia in this context is one of male-on-male sex, the pedophile would claim that they are straight. Whether or not that's their real sexual orientation is immaterial.

The point being, that men who have already come out of the closet about being gay are far, far less likely to be child molesters than, well, say, homophobes that troll internet message boards.

I apologize for my careless remark. I volunteer in a boys club, and from that viewpoint pedophilia (against boys) is by definition homosexuality.

But I agree completely, in the population at large its orthogonal. Again I apologize for a hasty remark.

And my comment was related to earl's 2nd sentence. The one right before my reply.

My point, which was possibly lost, is that engaging in sexual behavior with a minor does not preclude homosexuality. It is merely orthogonal to it.

I pick my words carefully. Not every reader does as much, and sometimes this happens.

And Earl's second sentence, read properly, also points out that paedophilia is orthogonal to homosexuality. He was proving that A is not a proper subset of B by pointing out the elements of A which are not in B. I assume he didn't bother to mention the elements of A which are in B because they're not relevant to the proof at hand.

I pick my words carefully. Not every reader does as much, and sometimes this happens

Perhaps you're carefully picking which words you read instead of carefully picking which words you write.