School systems should include LBTQ+ topics in their history and sex education

Does that include paedophilia then?

And as such I see no reason why P isn't Q.

I really don't care. Legal age of consent in America is 18 (17 in some states, but not mine)

Pedophilia is a consent issue same as rape. 

If you are under age you can't consent.

And being attracted to post pubescent teens isn't technically pedophilia that is specifically pre pubescent children. Which is why people get upset. 

So "Q" is for questioning and queer.

So what or who is queer?

According to the dictionary G is Q......Strange, odd...A gay man.

Opening Argument:

The two premises on which I base my arguments are as follows:

• Age of consent policies are logically inconsistent.
  
• Age of consent policies are immoral.
  

As denoted in the description, age of consent (legal) is the age at which one is legally competent to give consent to marriage or sexual intercourse. However, for the purposes of this debate, particularly as far as it concerns my argument, I will adopt the definition of consent I provided above. Age of consent policies arbitrarily divide the capacity for individuals to make value judgements as it concerns sex based on their age alone. In the United States, it varies from state to state usually between the ages of 16 and 18 (where 16 is adopted by a majority of the states.) The reasoning for this framework is identical to that which informs the supervision of an infant by its parent: an infant's naivety to the dangers of its environment subjects it to the prospect of mortal danger; therefore, as the more experienced party, the parent presumes the infant's proxy in all decisions which serve the infant's utility. The government's approximation of this is known as Parens Patriae. At first glance, it's difficult to argue against this rationale. After all, our species has persisted due to the experience and innovation of its predecessors. So then why would I challenge the "wisdom" of a government using its "experience" in its seeking to protect the most naive of its citizens? We must first consider that from which we are attempting to protect them.

It's important to note that age of consent doesn't protect minors from the dangers of sex. Instead these policies seek to regulate those with whom the minor engages in sexual contact and activity. Seldom are sexual interactions among minors condemned and/or punished, and in the cases where court proceedings are conducted, often the liability of each minor party is mitigated by Romeo and Juliet laws. When we speak of age of consent, typically one party is a minor and the other is an adult. Now here's the inconsistency: sexual contact between adult and minor is almost always condemned and punished. Ceteris Paribus, the sexual contact and sensations experienced between minor and minor and adult and minor (and even adult and adult) aren't different. The mechanics are essentially the same. If the government took the position that the participation of any minor in sexual activity is prohibited, that would be one thing. But to condemn it particularly in the cases where an adult is involved as if some non-sexual benefit (which these policies presume to be "predation") manifests makes no sense. After all, the adult is often presumed legally to be the competent and experienced party. The logic in this case is "reversed" in that the adult's experience, competence, and dare I say "wisdom," are presumed to harm the minor. The presumptions made about adulthood which served the adult's benefit is now used to aid in that adult's disadvantage. One would presume that adults would be more competent in dealing with unexpected pregnancies, STI's contractions, financial obligations, etc. Instead, the government treats this capacity as the makings of a predator.

The second inconsistency I'd like to explore is consent. The law deems that minors cannot provide valid consent to sexual interaction with those among the age of majority. It dismisses the value judgements which inform consent. Deciding the capacity to consent on age alone produces a slippery slope argument. If the minor has no capacity to provide valid consent, then operating on that same logic, said minor cannot withhold assent, or provide valid dissent because age of consent policies render value judgements by a minor on his her own sexual desire and capacity null. It's one thing to state that a person who was raped DID NOT CONSENT; it's another to state that said person COULD NOT consent. Extending this premise of incapacity to provide valid consent to its logical conclusion would make it impossible to rape a minor because the minor would have the capacity to know that which is neither in its best interests, nor its worst interests--anundeniably absurd inference. The government, in my estimation, is currentlyoperating on the illogical platitude, as described by Judith Levine inher book, Crimes of Passion: Harming Minors, "statutoryrape is not about sex the victim says she did not want. It is about sexshe did want but which adults believe she only thought she wantedbecause she wasn't old enough to know she didn't want it." The government can't have it both ways: either the minor is capable of making value judgements and thereby can provide valid consent and dissent, or the minor can't, and we ultimately render the sexual prospects of that minor to the decisions of an outside party. Furthermore, would rendering these decisions on the sexual prospects of minors to outside parties be moral?

Morals are concepts which establish conditions in which we ought to live, usually separated by notions of right and wrong, or good and evil. For this particular debate, I'm going to subscribe to epicurean moral themes--i.e. happiness is the greatest good, and pain and suffering is the worst. The former is maximized, and the latter is minimized best by individualist philosophy, particularly the axiom of individual sovereignty--i.e. we are of and ought to have exclusive control over ourselves. [I will expand on the reasoning as the debate continues.] From there, other concepts are derived such as liberty, property, association, etc. Now what does any of this have to do with sex? When a minor decides to have sex, said minor either thoughtfully or superficially considers the value(s) in having sex. It could be to attract the attachment of one whom the minor desires, boredom, lust, control, etc. Whatever the reason, one thing always remains constant: the minor is behaving his or her body in sexual contact. When the government can arbitrarily impose policy that dictates how an individual, in this case a minor, can behave his or her body, the government is presuming authority over that minor's body, undermining that minor's individual sovereignty. The government is committing an infraction upon a fundamental right of all individuals, including minors, to behave themselves as they see fit so long as it doesn't interfere with another individual's capacity to the same. The government recognizes, for example, a 14 year old female's right to bodily autonomy when she decides to get an abortion, but doesn't acknowledge said autonomy as it concerns the very act which produced the result that informs her decision to get an abortion? This inconsistency is demonstrative of government whim, which necessarily makes minors government property because their capacity to express values as it concerns themselves are diminished and outright dismissed in favor of government priority. And human beings--individuals--no matter how old, are the property of no one else

School systems should include LBTQ+ topics in their history and sex education