I've seen numerous occasions...
Submitted by d on October 07 1999 at 22:13:47
In reply to Baha'i perspectives on pedophilia Submitted by Heather on October 07 1999 at 17:57:26
|
I've seen numerous occasions where the behavior/inclination distinction was made with respect to homosexuals. With respect to young, never-married heterosexual men and male teens, many individual churches PRESUME that the inclination to be sexually active with a woman exists and make a point of saying that THIS IS WRONG in the hopes that behavior will not follow inclination. I don't know about a faith community, but the old PedoWatch site (which changed its URL or went defunct) made a point of saying that not all boylovers were sexually active. I don't know how much religion was behind pedowatch's agenda, however. Here's an interesting thought: I'm an unmarried person. As far as my church and most churches would go, it's wrong for me to be sexually active. This puts me in the same position as (with respect to my church's position) gays/lesbians and child-lovers. Ironically (or maybe not), it is (by my church's teachings) OK for a child-lover who is married to his love to be sexually active (some states/countries have low ages of marraige). -David ("d") |