[shasarak]

Well, you're right, it doesn't make any sense to me. What is the logical basis of your moral system, then? Or doesn't it have one?

Note also that I most emphatically did not say "physical harm", I just said "harm". Something can be directly or indirectly damaging in many ways other than physically. Indeed, the principal objection to, say, rape is not that it is physically damaging; it can be, but that is a secondary concern; the real problem is the massive psychological or emotional trauma that it causes. Normally people's objection to underage sex is that it must, by definition, be abusive, and must cause massive psychological harm.

The problem with that example is that you're using the word "wrong" in a completely different context, now. You're now describing something as wrong in the sense of "something that is semantically or factually incorrect" which is a completely different thing from "something that invites moral dissaproval."

So if, for example, certain groups in Africa and Asia believe that a girl cannot grow up to be a clean, properly female adult without being subject to genital mutilation as a child, are you saying they're right to believe that? If the Sambia tribe of New Guinea maintains that it is desirable for boys between the ages of 8 and 13 to fellate older boys and swallow their semen, because not to do so would prevent them from developing into properly male adults, and that anything up to and including physical force is appropriate to persuade the younger boys to suck when told to, are they right?