Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

I have a question. Why must a relationship be only among the consenting (legal)? We know many young people, even children engage with each other sexually, with some becoming pregnant in the process) but why only legal consenting? True, the issue of maturity can be argued however, many of those who engaged in sex at a young age (such as primary, middle and in high school) would say that it was their full right to do so and feel that it was their right to decide the issue of their own body. Many have no regrets and many want to start having children at a young age, (also forgo any argument to economic because not all have children)

hell, like many have argued sex is the most natural act of humans that  has been done the dawn of our existences, regardless of ones education, race, religion, nation, ect.
Why should such a natural act have any restrictions to it?


is it not natural to become desirable to become another, attracted to another, become aroused?

Why trying to stop or hinder such a natural effect/reaction that individuals just do?

I can see where your coming from, but the issue here is one of protecting young people from predators who take advantage.

Wait. I am not sure how that is an answer? That someone wants to be the other party to engage in the act with the child is expected. If the child feels they are mature enough to consent and the child subsequently does consent to engage in the act with the other person who are we to protect the child from their choice? And how do we make the determination that this particular child lacks the maturity for this particular choice?

I imagine we would do it by empathy (by which people greatly misunderstand the meaning of the word, but we shall use the common misunderstanding) and say, "I would not agree to engage in that act with that person if I were them." How is this not pushing our views or beliefs (not religious belief) upon the child?