How so? The argument against pedophilia is 'it's icky', and that's backed by law for some reason.

How old are you? When was the last time you talked to a minor?

I was a part-time teacher for a year and a half while finishing my college degree. And the difference between me, at 25, and some of my students, at 15-16, was incredible. You realize quickly that although the age difference is identical to someone who is 35, my way of thinking, my problem solving abilities and my ability to deal with emotional issues is far closer to the latter than the former. They are still kids, despite the fact that some of them look like adults. They are easily manipulated, they are easily abused, and they are partial to anyone with any seeming authority over them.

It's backed by law because it invariably leads to abuse, manipulation, and an inherently unfair playing field between the abuser and the abusee. That's why there are laws in place: to protect youths from unscrupulous adults who have far better methods for telling people to fuck off if they're not really interested.

"Consentual sex cannot be had between two people of the same sex". You could literally just say the same thing. It's pretty clear to me that minors can give consent. Not only do teens willingly send nudes to each other, have sex, etc. But they're fully aware of what they're doing. In non-sexual consent, teens run businesses, hold jobs, and all sorts of other things that they must consent and agree to.

Do you know why people with mental disorders are given less stringent prison sentences, on average, than their mentally healthy counterparts? Because their inability to make reasonable decisions is a mitigating factor. Identically, the youth and inexperience of a teenager is also taken into account. As such, they are deemed incapable of giving consent when it comes to sexual matters, because of their inexperience, propensity to follow authority figures regardless of whether it is good for them or not.

That is the difference between a minor having sex with another minor, and a minor having sex with an adult. The playing field is equal in the former, and there is an inherent imbalance in the latter.

If you mean legal consent, then yes. Minors lack a lot of rights that adults do, and cannot legally consent. However, gay people could not legally marry either. That doesn't mean they aren't physically able to do so, or shouldn't be allowed to marry. Quite literally two gay people could not be married. As marriage was between a single man and a single woman. We changed the legal definition to be something better and more useful.

Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with anything. We are talking about sexual activity. Pedophilia isn't the desire to marry a child as an adult. Pedophilia is the lustful desire of children.

And children can't consent.

Homosexual people cannot reproduce, which is the entire point of sexual intercourse, and thus legal monogamous marriages.

So I'm guessing you're against contraceptives, right? If that's your point of view, and sexual intercourses only goal is reproduction, right?

Have you ever had sex? It's fun. If I'm with my girlfriend, and we're a bit bored, we'll have sex. If I'm doing shit, she gets horny, she'll come over to me, and we'll have sex. It has nothing to do with reproduction.

Marriage cannot be between two people of the same sex. That's that. There's no discussion to be had following that statement.

Wrong, marriage is a legally defined and legally binding social contract, that comes with responsabilities and advantages. There is no logical reason for being against homosexual marriage.

"Because I said so" isn't a valid reason.

Read above. It isn't. Ask a child psychologist. Ask them if they think a child's brain works the same way as an adult's.

You've given no reason why you assume people somehow magically can agree to an act only after the age of 18.

Yes, 18 is arbitrary. I'll give you that. But that's because, in a civilized society with millions of individuals, we cannot take each case, case by case. Maybe (maybe) you might be able to defend a relationship between a 17 year old and a 30 year. But that's not how laws work.

You've given no reason why you assume sexual actions with a minor are somehow 'bad'.

Read above. A child is easily manipulated by an adult, an authority figure. They don't have the mental capacity to say no, no where near as easily as an adult.

And especially not punish people who may be directly or indirectly effected by acts that these people do that when done by other individuals is entirely okay. It's just borderline idiotic to me.

Studies have shown time and time again that children who are subjected to sexual aggressions are at a far greater risk to grow up with higher issues with dependency problems, problems with violence, and to become molesters themselves. Not to mention (actual, non-Tumblr) PTSD and other psychological conditions.

We protect children from adult sexual predators because it hurts children otherwise.

The fact that you didn't even try to defend your position shows how indoctrinated you are to it. It's sad how people try to strip away the rights of minors because people are ageist and assume minors are complete retards.

I'm sorry. I'm obviously an ideologue because I oppose adults having sex with children.

You sick fuck. See a therapist.