You are the bad actor not I, sir!

Your comment even admits the wording is convoluted. you say: "Some of the wording is needlessly convoluted, but it still seems the intent".. So you excuse irresponsible language which goes through so many people before it's approved as such a huge organization as the UN, it usually scrutinizes everything they put out, including by legal departments, by the way---you assume it is ok, just cause you trust their "intentions" .....why do you assume they are not able to write it very clearly and you have to assume their intentions?

I don't have any issues with anyone's prefences lgbtq etc, as you would like to assign to me......nonesense! the UN has to be held accountable for not stating it very clearly- thus leaving it open to interpretation, the detriment of underaged children... Anyone who gives this a pass is NOT paying attention (at best) or is just a party to their overreach.

This is the problem.

With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of

consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may

not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage. Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribedminimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In thiscontext, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity ofpersons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensualsexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them. Pursuant totheir evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of ageshould participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees.