You misunderstood me for one.

I'm stating that, in most municipalities, the law allows for young people (14 year olds) to be married and engage in sexual activity. That's a very abridged version of the same.

I'm also stating that if you want it to be different, change the laws where you are.

These are all factual statements.

In discussing the facts, I made no assertions about whether I agreed or not with those laws, and when I did express my opinion briefly, I said that I see no reason why a grown adult (19+ years old) would want such a thing, and either implied or explicitly stated that I don't agree with the law.

I'm not going to reread and analyse my wording on the matter, yet again. However, whatever you understood me to be saying, what I've said now is my intended message.

I don't always agree with the laws. There are many I don't agree with. In this case, I don't think it should be legal for any loopholes to exist where any individual can legally have intercourse with someone who is 14 years old. The limits should be much higher; with the only caveat to that being the Romeo and Juliet laws (which allow for exceptions for people who are similarly young in age).

However, either from a mishap of my words, or some failure to adequately clarify my point, everyone seemed to think I was endorsing, and defending, what is essentially statutory rape. I'll be clear: any adult who willingly and knowingly has intercourse with someone underaged, should be, at the very least, imprisoned.

I would be in favour of more severe penalties for such things, but that's a different discussion.

The laws are fucked up if you read and understand them. I'm no lawyer, but everything I know about this aspect of the law, is morally questionable at best.