[Jacob]

Okay, i'm going to explain -
Young teenagers (as in 12+) i can see your point, vaguely. However, when it falls beneath that age bracket i really can't see how it would help society.

'We see sex with kids as wrong'

I'm sorry, but how exactly is it right?

' Yes, someone forcing you to have sex with them is scary and can mess some people up, but I don't see how just plain having sex with people, no forcing involved, would mess someone up if sex wasn't a bad thing.'

Because kids can be talked into it, so they consent. It's all very well saying "Oh, well this kid consented" but did he/she really? That's where the line blurs and that's where damage is done.

'does this really seem like the kind of webpage of molesters and abusers?'

Christ, go on the BNP website and i'm sure they don't brand themselves as mindless thugs with racist intent, but the good majority of them are.

I'm still trying to get my head around exactly how this is damaging society and exactly how allowing a 35 year old man have relations with a 5 year old would help. Okay, so kids are sexually mature at an earlier age, that doesn't mean we have to throw them in the deep end and hand them other to Fred West.

In a perfect world kids would have proper parenting and proper sex education. If they, then, wanted to pursue their sexual education and put it to literal use, i'm sure they could find somebody of their own age to experiment with. But allowing someone not of their generation to do it is rather obscene.

And NAMBLA only want to abolish the age of consent so that when they groom the kids into having sex with them, they don't get charged with statutory rape.