Non-sequitur. The statement was made that sex with any 13 or 14 yo was rape. The truth is, not in the case of a married 13 or 14 yo. How many cases of presbyterian minister child sexual abuse have occurred since 1950? I submit we will never know, it has all been hushed up. That clearly shows that presbyterians and other anti-Catholic bigots care far more about slandering the Catholic Church than finding and rooting out their own sins. As has been said, it isn't so much the sin, as the coverup.
Judy Judy Judy. Let's recap to see what was originally put forth by whom and how that statement is now being distorted...
You write way back in post 129...
Age of consent refers to the age which a person can legally consent to sexual activity. If that age is 15, are we talking about "child" abuse? What about 14? 129 posted on Monday, April 19, 2010 2:42:15 PM by Judith Anne So, you can talk of a "child" of 17 years of age? Or 17 years, 11 months, and 29 days? Don't be ridiculous.
See, it was YOU who wrote about age of consent and in the context NOT of marriage but of "sexual activity."
This post of yours not only reveals that you set the parameters yourself, not for marriage but for "sexual activity," but it likewise shows that you did not understand the fact that nowhere in this country is the age of "sexual consent for sexual activity" set at 14 or 15, as you incorrectly presupposed.