If pedosexuality is a natural human condition just like homosexuality

It's not proven or accepted that homosexuality is a natural human condition. Much depends on your definition of "natural" human condition. If by natural you mean that the individual does not choose to be such, then by that definition it's natural. But if you mean that this is a condition that is in God's perfect plan, then many would say this is not natural. I need glasses to see properly. But I don't consider bad eyesight a natural condition.

harm to children is largely illusory

Illusory? All the documented cases of kids being harmed for whatever reason by having sex with an adult and you call that illusory?

Thus, while I do agree with you about how our beliefs must shape our actions, I do not believe we should ignore the other important questions as a result.

Are you suggesting that God sets forth a set of rules and standards that are for reasons other than our own good? While I don't claim to know or undertstand the reasons behind all of God's standards, I've never come across any that are facetious.

Then again, if you are like Dakota and rely on those questions being answered a certain way in order to keep you faithful; perhaps you are better off staying out of such debates and holding on to your beliefs based on faith alone, evidence be damned.

It's really disheartening to share a personal shortcoming here on this "Christian" board and then get slapped in the face with it. I get better treatment from my secular friends. If you can always do what is right or not do what is wrong for no other reason than God's teaching, then I bow to your superior piousness. I, however, am not that perfect.

I don't discount any evidence, but it seems you do exactly that by largely ignoring the many cases of harm. You want to talk about risk factors and debate exactly where the harm comes from, while I am more concerned that the possibility of harm exists at all. In the past, you have tried to site man/boy sex risk factors as being similar to risk factors of other behaviours, such as riding in cars. I find it totally unacceptable to put a child at risk at all when the only benefit to such behaviour is satisfying the lustful desires of a man. There is absolutely no benefit to the child that can't be had without sex. So to argue about risk factors in the light of the severity of harm that can happen seems rather cold, especially coming from a "boylover."

As far as the "evidence," you base much of what you propose on studies and personal observations. The results of studies can be scewed by those doing them, and you don't want to acknowledge the studies that show the opposite of what you want to believe. You may have personal knowledge of sexual relationships that didn't harm, but again I go back to why take the risk? You may think I base my belief that man/boy sex is wrong and often harmful on emotions or a personal need to have an extra reason to refrain. But I base my belief on the many cases of harm that have been documented. And the fact that this belief is exactly the opposite of what I would dearly like to believe gives it more weight. I also base my belief on the leading of the Holy Spirit, who tells me it's wrong. Or do you think I should wait for the Holy Spirit to do a study for me first before I follow His leading?

You know, Blackstone, there are a great many people who believe and accept that sexual relations between men and boys is wrong and harmful. Some are from the secular world and others are from the religious world, from the Pope on down. And there might, just might, be one or two that are smarter and better informed than you.

Dakota