Ok... What can be done is the central question, but supporting a swarm of goobers in gooberment agencies has been tried and failed.
I don't know enough about Florida and their child welfare services to comment on it but it's obvious that this a red herring to distract from your main point that consent laws should be overturned due to "lack of harm". Are you rescinding this opinion?
Perhaps someone here might spend a bit more time trying to find a solution to the issues I raised in good faith, rather than snarking endlessly about my being some sort of pedophile.
What issue have you raised in good faith? You questioned consent laws concerning female on male pedophilia...that doesn't make you brave champion for justice. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are being nasty to you, for all I know other then you being a female pedophile apologist (and the reasonable questions that might raise) you might be an otherwise wonderful person. I haven't made any comment regarding anything other then your stated and logically inferred written opinions.
In case you are otherwise unclear if one advocates overturning consent laws that protect children from pedophiles then you are supporting pedophilia. It is really that simple.
“In case you are otherwise unclear if one advocates overturning consent laws that protect children from pedophiles then you are supporting pedophilia. It is really that simple.”
Only to the simple is your argument “that simple”, and somehow I suspect you are anything but simple minded.
My argument with the age of consent laws is based upon the clear and unambiguous fact that a “one age suits all” law from a large and distant government is hardly likely to produce as valid a decision as a decision made by the young person and the parents.
Had the laws been written with a parental consent exception, I would agree with you regarding such laws. Indeed, I was curious as to whether anyone else would raise the issue of parental authority being recognized by such a clause.
If the parents are the supreme authority over their minor children, then age of consent laws must have a clause allowing the parents to give consent for their child to engage in a sexual relationship.
If, on the other hand, the state is the supreme authority in the family, then age of consent laws need no such clause recognizing parental final authority.
Which do you think best for American families and the republic?
My apologies, as I incorrectly assumed that my question was implicit in my posts.
I just realized the faulty premise in your “In case you are otherwise unclear if one advocates overturning consent laws that protect children from pedophiles then you are supporting pedophilia. It is really that simple.”
There are lots of laws regarding pedophilia, but Chester the Molester still exists.
What does this tell us about the efficacy of those laws?
My question regarding what should comes after the present failure mode set of laws is hardly a red herring.
The present system is in failure mode. What next?