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.