I said that statutory rape was non-violent immorality which was regulated by law, and by citing in its defense, the age of consent, you were supporting that the law does indeed legislate morality, because that's exactly what the (arbitrary?) 'age of consent' does.
In citing that argument, you conceded my point, and helped make my case that you are inconsistent.
WTF?!?
The age of consent is the age in which society determines a child is now an adult. That's it... and it's for all matters. Bank accounts, jury duty, voting, prison, EVERYTHING!
That was *NOT* an example of legislating morality, but an example of how it *WASN'T*.
Basing your conclusions on faulty impressions is a very bad thing. It's even worse when you then use those conclusions as 'proof' of your righteousness.
And trying to proclaim your righteousness unto all the world is the height of hubris. So much so that I find it obscene (Rick ought to do something about that, maybe ban it?)
As for my "righteousness" it is precisely the opposite. It is because none of us is righteous that those of us who aware of our need understand that we must seek absolute standards beyond ourselves. The Founders understood the sinfulness of humankind and set in safeguards in our Constitution to prevent abuse, and also understood that the system wouldn't work without morality.
Again....it is understanding that I am NOT righteous that makes me understand how human nature works, and what it will do unbridled.
This, a social liberal like you cannot comprehend. And this, therefore, is my last attempt to help you figure it out. Good luck.