Why the age of consent should be raised to 18 in Pennsylvania (with no close-in-age exemptions)

 Many people on the left do support pedophiles more than even the pedophiles do, on the age of consent. There are a lot of adults, particularly those with a youth rights mindset, who start as "let the kids have sex, and the adults supervise" and then they end up saying "an 18-year-old and a 16-year-old? That's ridiculous". Anti-contact is a faux-religious movement that accepts certain religious groups that accept them. I oppose loosening age-of-consent laws, as there is way too much legal to begin with. We shouldn't normalize sex with children, at all, in our society, and the Bible is clearly against such a thing.

It says in 1 Corinthians 6:18 KJV:

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

The Greek root word translated πορνεία (Latin: porneia) and refers to sexual contact from party A perceived by at least party B outside of marriage, meaning any sexual contact towards another person outside a marriage between consenting adults, within the bounds of the marriage laws in one's home state (Rom. 13:1-4), and causes no harm to the fiancee/partner/spouse - thus is done out of love. Any marriage involving a minor child under age 18 is sin, and thus not a marriage in God's eyes. These are my values, and I live by them. Sex outside of marriage is depraved and decadent defiled sin, regardless of what you are born with. Psychiatric labels should not be singled out as fornicators - fornicators are everywhere.

The language denoting fornication in the Bible cross-references all sex crime statutes under the Law of Moses, meaning the 613 Mitzvot (statements), and repeated these purity standards, based on the concept of no sex outside of marriage, which is the spirit of the law. This also includes ordinances against public nudity and public indecency such as public masturbation, as well as indecency and impurity in the media or colloquial speech.

Marriage, under Jewish traditional law, was to be held between two young adults of the same age. They were adults, as if they committed a crime, they would be held accountable and punished if warned enough times (a child is exempt, meaning no punishment). It was basically a father taking his son to "see someone" and then it end up being a marriage, when the parents sign the contract alongside the bride and groom. The parents on either side could stop the marriage at any time. The age difference could not be highly unequal, or the parents of the bride would be shamed, namely the father.

Did pedophiles exist in the Bible? Yes. Non-offending pedophiles, or they would be killed in some way, in some form. In the New Testament, the Early Church did have a sex abuse problem, linked to a spanking problem, with pagan infiltration from Greco-Roman forces. The Apostle Paul was actually one to rail against this sort of abuse. Col. 3:21 basically means, today, that anything that the child perceives as abuse is objectively so. Then, it meant anything they said to their mother about their father was to be believed, as women were full members of the Christian churches then, unlike in cultures bordering the churches. Mothers especially had the right to divorce their husband if he showed entitlement in any way deemed noteworthy by her...They talked about child abuse problems then just like they talk about it today. Non-offending pedophiles, however, could easily seek assistance in choosing not to abuse a child of theirs beforehand, and avert punishment through rehabilitative justice. But, entitled parents who defended any abuse were collectively shunned, based on the collective gaslighting of the churches.

Most pedophiles I've known tend to be progressive in a conservative way, in their personal lives. The kind to endorse loose sexuality as a right, but reserve it for others and not themselves. Non-offending pedophiles tend to be moderate in terms of sexual morality, in their personal practice, while having an ultra-sex positive viewpoint overall. Ultimately, sex-positivity, in the case of pedophilia, is being able to talk about it without constraint. That's it. We don't want massive overtures to help us "get with kids the right way". We just want to be left alone, and be able to talk to those close to us about this condition we have. That's all. Some of us have that, but only very few of us are that fortunate.

Yep, raise it to 18, and either keep it there. Being below the age of majority implied legal incompetence, and having sex is a huge decision, and one that can seem simple at the same time. Immaturity can lead to things such as "legal" exploitation of classmates...Or should we say most teens are avoiding sex as we speak, and those that are having sex may grow up in sexually repressive environments, whereas if you tell children what sex is from an early age, and the risks, they won't go near it until they are older. That is what sex-positive was supposed to be, until it got lumped in with prurient and sexually entitled attitudes and ideas. There are actually very few ways for a boy to have sex with a female classmate that doesn't risk pregnancy, meaning no position is 100% safe. Wouldn't you want that to be 100% safe, given what teen pregnancy can do, no matter what the chosen outcome is, for the girl. Why even go there.

The idea is NEVER to punish a child, and to instead model good values and inform children, as early as possible, about the risks of sex outside of marriage. If we let things too loose, sexual predators will take advantage. Not all sexual abuse is about control and domination. Some is about sexual perversion and aberration in terms of sexually entitled choices, usually locational in nature. Let the fornicators who defile themselves next to children BURN! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!