Immorally justified

There is a place called Salford on my train journey. Or atleast I thought it was called Salford, my brain is actively convincing me it's Salfold. I mean, who actually pronounces the 'r/l' anyway? Logically I know it's Salford, not Salfold, because ford's appear in names for places, a ford is a geographical entity unlike a fold, and my fingers type it subconsciously with an 'r' - logic therefore dictates it as such. Why does my brain want it to be Salfold so much then? Who knows.
Onto a fantastic topic, how big an age gap does a couple have to have for it to be considered morally 'wrong'? Now I know what you are thinking, why am I discussing morals, what a joke, where have I shown them upto now! But here me out.
Naturally speaking, any male with the ability to ejaculate, should have equal opportunity as all others, to get with any female who can menstruate, and vice versa. No matter what your parents, family, friends, physician, doctor, minister or that dude you sat next to that time at the walk in clinic, this is the natural order. That is how animals behave, and we are animals, no bigger nor better than the lowliest sentient life form are you than Joseph Kony (lulz I made a 'current events' joke).
What prevents an 80 year old on viagra pumping a 12 year old early bloomer is morality, society, what people think essentially.
Now before I go any further than this I am not suggesting at 80 I'm going to be pilled up and looking for love, my stance will become known soon enough, I'm just stating that I acknowledge the natural order, of which we as a society disagree with - is that the correct way to think?
Now what avout something more socially acceptable, an 18year old with a 20 something, as is portrayed in the film 'pineapple express' - I didn't see an issue with any of that, did you? But if we knock both candidates back a couple of months each, say to when the female is 17, is that the moment when we get our hump up? Still the same age gap, the same mentalities, just a couple of months out of whack.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone or anything, I'm just stating facts as a generality for the lovely society we all live in and cherish. Much like this Kony thing, a one man army against a one man army I see it. Kony deserves to die, and if I could I'd pop his head off myself, but as it stands Kony 2012 is pushing for military action - the killing of more people by backing an army that has often been accused of various unjust exploits, rape, looting and so on - which has been tried and has failed numerous times in the past, and as a generality I'm rather against military action as a whole anyway, no matter how angry I can often seem.
Granted there has to be justice, but at what cost? We replace Kony with the simplicity of looking through rose tinted glasses at the ugandan army? Somehow, that doesn't cut it for me.