While I am loath to resort to posting one of my older arguments, I have no intention of reiterating the same sentiments by laboursome typing. For this transgression, I beg the forgiveness of all, but will nonetheless proceed to so transgress.

Furthermore, a brief note on the diction contained below: the passage is written using the presumptive inclusive article (we) deliberately, in the tradition of my benefactor, Lord Macaulay.

Morality

We have long endeavoured to comprehend the logic behind this argument. Promiscuity, we are told, is an abhorrent practice, doubly so at a young age. As this is a moral position, we can exclude the containment of venereal diseases as a primary motive for deploring this behaviour. We shall also rule out religious doctrine, as this is an arbitrary code unsuited to unequivocal declarations of good or evil (though, all morality is such). What worthy argument could therefore remain, we cannot conceive. We fail to understand how two persons of complementary disposition may seek to enrapture one another and yet tread some unseen path to immorality. It is nonsensical to declare that a person who desires sex can be biologically unprepared for it. How is one to prepare for something of which they have no experience or understanding? How is one to gain that comprehension without pursuing it? These questions have one answer: they cannot. Therefore, to say that one may, in two chaste years, enter a state of emotional preparedness for sex, is ridiculous. We acknowledge that some may have it earlier than they (age is not litmus in this regard) should, but thereafter their lesson is learned, in most cases with no harm done.

Our conclusion herein is thus: when both persons in a relationship wish to have sex, they should do so. If they do not, they shall gain nothing, if they do so safely, they shall lose nothing. Our one concern is that the affair is conducted safely, to which end we suggest that prophylactics should be universally available to persons aged fifteen years and older.

Hygiene & pregnancy

Young people, we are told, know little of the dangers of unprotected sex. They are not allowed to purchase prophylactics, rendering it impossible for them to legally protect themselves during their illicit activities.

We ask in whose lap the blame lies? Is it the fault of a child to be born into and raised in ignorance? We cannot see how this can be so, as the child has no control over the circumstances. We therefore look to the parents, the schools, and the state. It is the responsibility, nay the duty, of said to provide the necessary education, without any interference from any body, religious or otherwise. As we have said, so long as the affair is carried out safely, there is little moral argument to impede young lovers. We shall talk awhile on the emergence of Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome.

It was first reported in 1981, amid five homosexual gentlemen. After extensive research, it was discovered that the disease was not confined to homosexuals, rather, it could be transmitted between any two persons, via the exchange of bodily fluids such as blood, saliva and semen. The primary defence against infection is the prophylactic (or condom - we do not like this word's incestuous rhyming). We submit that it is impossible for current 15-18 year olds to be responsible for the disease, or indeed any other similarly aged generation. We therefore point, once again, the accusatory finger at adults, specifically religious leaders and anti-sexual education campaigners.

For many reasons, governments around the world consistently fail to do their duty. Endless debate over sexual education, constant interference by religious organisations, campaigns of misinformation, lies and propaganda; to say nothing of hunger, healthcare and poverty. Time and again, studies have shown that comprehensive sexual education does not lead to promiscuity (even if promiscuity were actually immoral, which it is not). We feel that if there is any youth on earth who does not receive an adequate education in all things, sex included, the responsible authority has failed to fulfil its obligations.

Videlicet, the spread of venereal diseases amongst teenagers is largely the fault of those persons responsible for education in such matters. If safety is practiced, arguments of both disease and pregnancy fade into insubstantiality. The debate is therefore shifted into the realm of the availability of sexual education, whereof we shall make no further comment.

Our conclusion

There remains in our estimation no further argument against sexual relations between persons aged 15-18. If both parties consent, then it is the business of no man to impede or expedite them. Rather, it is the responsibility of society to accommodate and facilitate all benign sexual practices, such as they are, without undue commentary on the morality of any relevant practices.

We are as humans, animals, yet not animals. We are for the most part intelligent, civilized beings. Sex is not solely (or even primarily) a means of reproduction for us. It is a pastime, a hobby. To call sex, premarital or otherwise, immoral is to call basketball immoral. People may fall and injure themselves during the frantic battle for possession, but as a society, we must learn that liberty is more important than security. We shall conclude with a relevant quotation from Benjamin Franklin;

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both".

Yes, but within a range that is realistic. The current laws don't live up to the reality, and that causes a lot of unfair punishment.

Definitely should be lowered and made more flexible. Judges should decide whether or not an instance of adolescent sex is rape by looking into the actual situation, not by glancing at somebody's birth certificate.

Yeah, it's silly. In most states a high school sr can be arrested and labeled a "sex offender" for life for screwing a sophomore.

That's just dumb.

Age of consent should be whatever it is in a state, but like a 4 year window of consent if both are say under 20 or something.

I don't know exactly how it would work out, but something so a 21 year old can't pick up a 16 year old after school and get her drunk,

but something so a high school sr can't get arrested for getting laid at prom.

Yes, age of consent should be puberty. Sex is innate, normal, and a biological need. Don't let religious and the close minded segment of our society keep raising the age. When will it stop, 20, 23, only sex with marriage? Also, no close in age laws are really needed. After all, the vast majority of teens are attracted to someone close in age and knowing the choice it completely theirs (no one at any age should ever feel pressured, no is always a choice).

Diseases and pregnancy are legitimate concerns. The answer is free access to healthcare professionals, non biased education, condoms, and allowing teens to make informed choices (not pressured into biased "moral" obligation)