Frankly if it comes to "ones", I'll take my one well-grounded team of neurologists over your one anecdotal tale of grandma, but since the information is actually out there in your case, you might actually make some effort to research your claims and bring forward the actual facts instead of trying to pretend that Grandma's case is the rule while the science is the exception. As near as I can tell, the experience of your paternal grandmother was actually the exception rather than the norm. The actual median age for first marriage in the 1890s-1900s U.S. was about 22 for females - it's gone up about 4 years since then. The marriage rolls of the past couple of centuries clearly show that mid-teen marriages were not unheard of, but even back then 12 would have been considered unusual. Bottom line is, for every 12-year-old marriage you manage to dig up, we can find a hundred that didn't marry till much, much later.

Here's a challenge for you: present an actual case of "children ... regularly prosecuted for sexual interaction with other children and being sent to prison and required to register for life as a sex offender." Not a case of some 10 or 12 year old who violently rapes a peer. No, two child peers of equivalent age, "as young as 10," with either one prosecuted as adult and forced to register for engaging in mutually agreed on behavior. (I won't use the word "consent" for that scenario, since they can not by law consent.) Guess what: there are none. You might find a few 10-12 year olds charged for truly violent acts that can't be mistaken for anything consensual. You might find a 16-17 year old prosecuted for interacting with someone much younger than him/her. You will find NO "children ... regularly prosecuted for sexual interaction with other children and being sent to prison and required to register for life as a sex offender." It exists only in your mind.

I have not said that "genuinely consensual sex" has any "mystical power to destroy lives". I have said that "genuinely consensual sex" is flatly not possible between an adult and a child, period. There is NO capacity for consent where the neurological and psychological basis for making informed judgments is not fully developed, ESPECIALLY in a circumstance where the young person making the judgment has little or no experience of the capacity of adults to manipulate, cajole and deceive in order to get their way.

Whether there's harm or not is irrelevant. There is potential for harm, serious harm, and knowing who will be harmed and who will shrug it off is beyond the best science, much less the capabilities of some layman who can't manage to keep his cock in his pants. Yes, an over-reaction by the people surrounding the child can make things many times worse, but even under the best of circumstances the reaction can not be predicted.

There are a legion of adults deeply scarred by childhood sexual abuse who give the lie to your claim that it's only society's over-reaction that does the damage. They were not the victims of violence. They were not the victims of force. They were in many cases the victims of adults who, biased by desire, deceived themselves that the child was consenting and that the child was not being harmed by their actions, adults who used adult skills to persuade children to do things that the children later regretted. I'm not talking about the cases where offenders were discovered and went to prison, but the cases where the behavior went unremarked until the child, now grown, came forward to seek help to deal with his or her feelings over it. If you want to learn something about the harm your views can do, do some research on that group.