No matter how well you treat your dog and how many times it may hump on your leg, there is no way to test the "consent " of the dog even if both of you are wagging you tail.
Consent is important to ascertain because free people would not be forced into the behavior. They would participate freely and that is the relationship.
I believe that children do not have the same rights as adults. They are subservient to their parents. The government can serve as a balance to ensure that parents do not abuse their children. I don't know the best age for "consent," but I know from a legal and societal standpoint ther seems to need to be one to determine when their rights are obtained.
Actually, free people consent to be forced all the time. I am forced to pay higher taxes than I want. I consent to submit to this force for the good of the whole. But my point is still valid, you only use consent at the moment because it suits you. You have already admitted that consent is not required when it does not suit you (as with children and discipline).
The unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness had an implied "moral" on each of them. This is because the moral law was well recognized as the only rational basis for a free society. The implication was sufficient because, when written, there was one nationally recognized morality (and it was presumed to be a natural law that did not need to be argued). Today we don't have that nationally recognized morality, and we have to argue against stupid notions such as "gays are like straights only different."
Gays are not like straights only different. They are disturbed. Their lifestyle is destructive and should be discouraged. And they should not have opportunities to share their filth with our children.
Shalom.