Consenting minors...

[Jacobtm]

So, there's this idea that once you're 18, you're old enough and presumably smart enough to vote. The U.S. is an exception, but most countries think that by this time, you're also responsible enough to drink alcohol. Cigarettes are legal at 18, military service starts at 18, the ability to enter into contracts without parental consent begins at 18, along with lots of other liberties/responsibilities. The idea is that once you're 18, you're responsible for your own actions and developed enough to consent to various things.

But sex, where it's regulated, is different. Throughout the U.S., different states have different "ages of consent," but almost everywhere it's younger than 18. Sex, like alcohol, cigarettes, etc. is seen as dangerous, and as a result regulated, but legislators seem to think teens are able to consent to sex before they can consent to most other things.

Sex obviously has its risks, with pregnancies, STD's, as well as emotional damage. Alcohol has risks too, including damage to your vital organs, and plain old death. Both are things that society thinks shouldn't be allowed until a certain age. Both are things that, even though there are laws against it, kids will do anyway, regardless of what the law says. So what's the reason behind setting a lower limit for sex than most other things that you only can do at a certain age?

In effect, by setting terms for legal "consent" at an age lower than the voting age, doesn't the legal system recognize that those younger than 18 ARE capable of consent, and as a result delegitimize the whole idea of age-based restrictions on consent?

[dead0man]

I don't like age based restrictions.  I'm intrigued by the idea of tests for these kinds of things.  You should have to pass physical and mental tests to receive certain responsibilities like:

• being able to buy mind altering drugs (beer, smokes, ideally some other drugs currently illegal)
  
• operate heavy machinery (like drive a car or motorbike, work construction)
• do your civic duty (vote, run for public office, join the military)

If you don't understand what beer does to your body you shouldn't be able to buy it.  If you don't know that there are three branches of govt, what they are and why they are, you don't need to be voting.  If you don't understand that you are driving a very deadly weapon then you don't need to be driving.

[Bacon King]

I don't like age based restrictions.  I'm intrigued by the idea of tests for these kinds of things.  You should have to pass physical and mental tests to receive certain responsibilities like:

• being able to buy mind altering drugs (beer, smokes, ideally some other drugs currently illegal)
  
• operate heavy machinery (like drive a car or motorbike, work construction)
• do your civic duty (vote, run for public office, join the military)

If you don't understand what beer does to your body you shouldn't be able to buy it.  If you don't know that there are three branches of govt, what they are and why they are, you don't need to be voting.  If you don't understand that you are driving a very deadly weapon then you don't need to be driving.

Though in the ideal world all of the above would be great, in the real world any sort of "voting test" would unfairly discriminate.