Michael Devlin, who abducted two boys

Michael Devlin, a year old Missouri man, abducted the two boys. Now the prosecutor has come forward with sodomy charges against him.

It's a bad, sad situation!

I once worked with a teenage boy who told me that he would have to be gay because he had been abused when younger. I asked him why he would 'have to' be gay, and he said that all abused children turned into abusers so he dare not have children ... etc.

I eventually reassured him that, whilst most if not all abusers have probably been abused, not all abused children become abusers.

My point here is that, if abusing someone is a result of being abused, although it does not excuse the abuse, does it - should it invite a degree of understanding - if not compassion?

If the answer is 'NO!', should we warn any children who are rescued or run away from a traumatic situation that our compassion for their pain will not last?

Should we warn them that, if they don't get healed before, what - 16? 18? - they will be further vilified for the effects of their early trauma?

On another tack, many gay people (claim to) know they were gay when they were very young, or at least to have been aware of their inclinations even if they could not have labelled them.

If that is the case then it must also be the case that some very young gay people will be curious and maybe even seek or initiate experiences to satisfy their curiosity, if nothing else.

Mostly, of course, they are likely to find peers or maybe siblings to experiment with. Some, however, might gravitate toward older persons.

A 15 year old sibling or school fellow is older for, say, a 12 year old.

There might well be a mutual attraction - and it might well be that either or both outgrow those homoerotic or homosexual leanings.

If, however, that youngster is drawn toward a significantly older person, the latter has a burden of responsibility and of law, if not a moral imperative, to help the child understand that such alliances should not develop into anything sexual.

If the adult reciprocates the feelings, he should still resist the urge to act on them. If he is incapable of acting in an appropriate way, then he may well pose a danger to other, more vulnerable people. and that needs to be taken in to consideration when deciding how to 'deal with' him.

If he is also immature, and deeply traumatised by past experiences, and lonely in his sexuality, he might respond to displays of affection to such an extent that the line is crossed.

If that happens, he might be so disgusted with himself - or to prevent it happening - he might seek death at his own hands, as do so many young gay people who are reared by, for example, hate-filled Christians.

It is so easy to make every thing seem like a simple dichotomy - good/bad, right/wrong, sinner/saint, me/you, them/us, love/hate - and doing so often makes us talk and act with out concern for the hurt and history of the people whom we judge unworthy of compassion.

That doesn't mean we have to like or agree with anything they have done.

But, as our hatred seeps through, we demonstrate our own capacity for feelings that distance us not only from those we revile, but from our own humanity, which is far more pernicious that an inbility to empathise with people whose actions, though vile and possibly wicked, might ensue from a hate filled legacy.

The common factor being hatred, which is a powerfully negative and destructive force, regardless of whether it comes from the godless or the god-fearing.

Nothing makes the systematic abuse of any one, especially children, acceptable, but I find it hard to tell the difference, in principle at least, between those sick people who violate children, and those who, in the name of their god, advocate and, albeit with silence, encourage and implicitly condone vicious attacks and outright murder.

It reminds me of the deceit and (self?) delusion of the worst kind of racist slave owners!

go well