Cjat.org is an ecumenical church and we have a wide tolerance for different opinion - as cblf does. We've never had a member who flat-out advocated that having sexualized relationships with children be considered acceptable. In fact, I have to confess that I recently declined a prospective member who I could see on another website had posts broadly hinting that it might be a good idea to fly to Thailand for sex with boys. One of his proposed designators also had a keyword associated with child porn in it. So someone did manage to find our outer limits of tolerance.

We have a slim majority of members who see legal, marital-type same-sex relationships as not being sinful, but our administration includes people on both sides of that question.

One of our members happens to be an academic expert on the history of moral panic around pedophilia, and has a ton of info on false and fraudulent abuse claims, as well as the damage done by moral panickers who propagate the idea that even very voluntary participants in teen-adult sex acts should go through the emotions of rape victims. This member, however, has only ever had non-sexual relations with boys, and has not advocated otherwise.

We were recently written up by the anti-pedophile site (site name probably not allowed here), and they were unable to find any quotes from our 80+ services of worship that could be used, even out of context, to make us look as if we were advocating sex with children.