> The problem is, of course, that certain children are more capable of taking
> decisions at an earlier age than other children. However, the
> practicalities of the law mean that it must assign one single age to the
> meeting of sexual majority. This does not seem unreasonable. If there is
> any argument to be put, it must be that this age is too high (as I believe
> it is, at 18, for homosexuals in the UK). Personally, given the current
> social milieu of the West, I think 16 is about right (and given the state
> of the law it would seem the majority agree with me), but I'd listen to the
> arguments with interest, especially since a cross-cultural analysis would
> show the age of sexual maturity to differ globally.
Sound reasoning overall, Sarah, tho' I found myself thinking this whole
discussion provides a good example why a proliferation of coexisting PPLs
is more attractive than the present system. It should be able to
accommodate these ambiguities without bringing the whole civil house of
cards down. Not to say the two individuals we're discussing here would be
championed by any PPL I'd personally endorse, but, really, I don't know
enough in this particular case to pass judgment (NB: this is NOT an
invitation for more of these lengthy posts about the case). It's a deadly
thing regulating anything so conspicuously *variable* as sexuality by way
of majority opinion. Best, Dale