Circular reasoning? Prove it. I have already showed/proved in an argument without circular reasoning of 3 premises leading to the conclusion. Which is logically valid. I didn’t articulate or demonstrate all homosexuals commit those acts with boys. Thus, my argument still holds. You have one last lingering attempt, that is to insult to tell you the truth. 

Lastly, which I am happily to listen. What is the evidence/proof of investigators of these abusers (I imagine you are referring to priests who’ve done these damaging/harmful effects to boys – non-adult males by definition which I referred)?

Finally (I guess lastly didn’t make it ;) ): "immature...males" doesn’t makeup the definition of being a homosexual, since by definition it’s referring to people with an orientation/tendency for sexual preference for those of the same gender/sex. And hence, I referred to male homosexuals in my argument, which was logically valid and held true.