Are you seriously trying to split hairs over exactly when it stops being pedophilia and starts being a healthy, normal attraction? If you have that much trouble telling the difference between the two by logically evaluating your situation, then I recommend you either simply trust your state's laws (since you obviously cannot trust your own judgment), or surrender your balls to the nearest university for scientific research.

Actually, what I am saying is that any attempt to draw a hard-line in the sand is doomed to be morally wrong some of the time.

It's morally fine to argue "we are going to draw a legal line in the sand because it is convenient, but we will not claim it always results in the morally correct action."

It is morally wrong to claim a falsehood: To pick an age that's in hair-splitting territory - say, anywhere between 13 and 18, and claim that sex below that age is always immoral on account of age or sex above that age is never "immoral merely on account of age" is just plain wrong. I chose 13 and 18 because all but a handful of countries have ages of consent in that range. A very few go higher a very few go lower, one or two ignore age and use marriage or other rules instead.

To take an arbitrary age set by law, where a day less than that age is not universally accepted as being "too young," and claim that having sex with someone below that age is always immoral is not a convincing argument. In addition to the points made above, if by some legal fluke some state's age of consent laws are thrown out of court on a mere technicality, then your argument can no longer be supported. I'm asking you to make an argument that can stand up independent of a legislature's actions or a judge's ruling.