[UncleDick]

You say you're not qualified to say. Well then, WHO IS?

The Church. Natural Law. Tradition. The federally mandated Age of Consent was an invention of Progressive do-gooders who wanted everyone else to conform to their mores. There's no rhyme or reason to the arbitrary age values of 16 or 18 (aside from a rough correspondence to the attainment of full adult height).

As such, I would set the age of consent at the most logical threshold, traditionally and biologically: post-pubescence.

[Antoninus]

The Church. Natural Law. Tradition. The federally mandated Age of Consent was an invention of Progressive do-gooders who wanted everyone else to conform to their mores. There's no rhyme or reason to the arbitrary age values of 16 or 18 (aside from a rough correspondence to the attainment of full adult height).

Nice attempt to sidestep the question. Here it is again: Does a government--federal, state, or local--have the right to set an age of consent below which an individual may not engage in sexual relations?

As such, I would set the age of consent at the most logical threshold, traditionally and biologically: post-pubescence.

OK, so if a girl hits puberty at age 12, she's fair game then?

Anyway, I don't care where you would set it. The question is, does the government have the right to set it? Can you answer this yes or no question clearly?

[Galveston Grl]

Age of consent has more to do with one's mental maturity than it does with the size of one's body. But you knew that...

Having raised kids, I know that fourteen year olds are easy to trick and manipulate. They are not old enough to hold their own mentally with an adult.

Besides, adults interested in children sexually are generally losers and perverts and no normal adult wants a kid in their family being sexually involved with a pervert.