I suggest you not try using that as a legal defense.
It's a fully defensible, objectively rational position.
But NAMBLA disagrees and feels the kid should be free?
NAMBLA are sickos with an obvious conflict of interest.
On what basis, outside of personal opinion, can it be wrong?
That people should not be forced to have sex without their consent is a principle of every system of ethics I'm aware of. If you want the Kantian position, for example, it's a maxim that can be universalized; and any contrary maxim cannot. Rape also violates the second categorical imperative (that humans are ends in themselves, and not means to an end.) That children are not capable of giving informed consent is a scientific fact, as well as a basic principle of jurisprudence.
That children are not capable of giving informed consent is a scientific fact, as well as a basic principle of jurisprudence.
And NAMBLA is of course trying to push the envelope and expand these two concepts for their own benefit.
Present their studies as scientific fact, and
Change the jurisprudence.
In truth, they are hiding in the shadows and pounce upon our culture.
Scientific studies and jurispurdence will NOT convince or stop them. They must stop themselves, based upon a revelation of a higher morality than themselves. Be it the surrounding culture or government. But where does it boil down to?
God and the Decalogue. "Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions...but the Scripture shut up all men under sin...therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Messiah" and the need for a Savior that we may live by faith in life, as opposed to under each of our own laws (or God's law). I am "not under Law but in grace".