No it doesn't. Otherwise they couldn't lead to the conclusions I made in the questions observed. 
You said: ""Sexually_immature_men,_priests_and_not,_engage_in_sex_acts_with_children_and_teens"
That does on the other side of the same premise lead to/conclude then sexually mature men/priests should engage....children/teens. For, you've stated it yourself by saying that which should not (by account) they are immature to engage. Thus, the opposite of immature, is mature. You are qualifying in your argument the opposite would satisfy which should engage the intended subjects. You ought to say: Men/priests should not engage in sex acts with children/teens. Which doesn't depend on sexual maturity. You're qualifying the behavior from your argument, whether intended or not.

Similar(not same):  it could be said Alcoholics shouldn't engage in drinking alcohol. Does that mean those who are not alcoholics shouldn't engage in drinking? Point is the similar argument leads to the faulty conclusion.