Let's be very clear about one thing: CJAT is new and to date has no stated policy on man-boy sex, only the various views of its members. There is no member I know of now who would sanction man-prepubescent-boy sex, so the matter then boils down to what people think the age of consent/marriage for teens should be. This is a matter for open discussion. No member actually has a sexual relationship with a teen to my knowledge, though several have amiable YF relationships with a teen or a younger boy. Developing positions on man-boy sex may be something the church does in the future, but the organizers felt that conscientious discussion was the best starting point.

About your other points, it is people's ideas of crystalline logic (reductive thought) that get them into trouble. People may just hook together the 'help meet' statement in Genesis together with Jesus's statement about a man and a woman getting together and think 'that's beautiful, so symmetrical, so clear' and then glance at Romans and Leviticus and put their logical feet up at that point. Then no matter how much they may see of godly acts within other sorts of relationships (for example, all those gay partners who cared for their partners through AIDS -- and believe me, when your partner has bloody diarrhea and is having convulsions, lust is not a factor in keeping the relationship together) the door is closed just because the logic is so pretty, the words tie together so well, the understanding is so exaltedly comfortable. I think God challenges that sort of logic, challenges it with discrepant loving realities; God is BIGGER than that logic. Link together the servant destiny of the sons of Ham, from Genesis, and Paul's "slaves, obey your masters," and you have an ironclad logical case that a third of humanity should be content to be the slaves of others. Though perhaps with manumission on the jubilee year, but then there are always more slaves, or so the text implies. The idea of divinely sanctioned slavery had many highly orthodox and intellectual proponents for a number of centuries.

Excess attachment to this sort of logic means that the errors of the past can never be escaped. Democracy went against the clear Christian logic of the divine right of kings, explicitly supported by Paul. (Or are we wrong to support it, since it may inexorably lead to the erosion of values you're referring to?). Universal human rights went against the proclaimed inferiority of a third of the peoples of the post-creation world. Realistically, though, wouldn't God be offended if these conscientious efforts to end tyranny and oppression against His children had to be attributed to illogical secularists? Now, how much more does it offend Him when the infinite love he has sown amongst his gay and lesbian children is simply snubbed with verbal logic without being apprehended as a brilliant phenomenon of His creation?

But even if one sticks to logic, then there is a historically well recognized fault in your association of things like feral children with the rise in recognition of same-sex relationships. It's self-evident that all general social loosenings will let two categories of things escape the box: bad things that ought to be controlled, and good things that were obstructed for the wrong reasons. The 1960's Pandora's box that yielded women's lib, swinging, banning of the kid-whacking rod, the permeation of discourse with four-letter words, and the 'God is dead' media- masturbation, also let out dignity and equality for African Americans, an end to segregation, voice for people who'd been raped and sexually abused, and the sweet, pure love of people who'd been imprisoned, raided and bashed for that love for centuries beforehand. Such liberalizations always let out the bad and the good together, and there's no point just singling out the bad things and trying to imply that EVERYTHING that escaped its chains then was as bad as the worst things. The existence of feral children has nothing whatsoever to do with the prosperity of same-sex relations, except the same historical moment opened the door to both of them. As a model, just think of a prison letting out a homicidal maniac and Nelson Mandela in the same prisoner release. Does it prove Nelson was evil that he was let out when the maniac was? Naturally not. So there is no sense citing 'loss of authority' and besmirching the good with the bad.