I'm not aware of any legal caselaw that has ever drawn such a distinction for the acts in play here. So I guess i don't get while people keep saying this like i

I'm not aware of any legal caselaw that has ever drawn such a distinction for the acts in play here. So I guess i don't get while people keep saying this like it should or would matter. Law is always a distant second to morality. Sometimes it catches up, sometimes it doesn't. But to define what is right by a lack of previously established law is astoundingly naive, bordering on self-serving. Even when there is precedent, it doesn't necessarily define the morality of a situation, e.g. slavery, driving under the influence and women's suffrage among many thousands of examples.