Well there is no indication that they had sex before and after her birthday
Then you said:
I was not saying or implying that the particular scenario was directly applicable to this case.
No sir. Can't have it both ways.
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "fool." That would be suprising, because there is no doubt you have heard it enough in your lifetime.
I set up a hypothetical scenario - to reduce the situation to the absurd.
There IS no indication that they had sex before and right after her birthday - it should be obvious (even to you) that I was engaged in a hypothetical.
The fact that they never had sex AT ALL before her 18th birthday (or presumably the day immediately after) doesn't change the idiocy of the law that it would be legal one day, and illegal the next day.
Can you follow that? Do you really have that much problems with reading comprehension - or is it that you don't think your argument has much strength on the merits so you want to rehash your misunderstanding of what I was saying numerous times?
How many times do I have to explain it to you that I was OBVIOUSLY setting up a hypothetical for which there was no indication that it was directly applicable to the facts of this particular case?