But that is unlikely to satisfy philosophers so we start by defining our terms.
Defining what is a child (a kid to use the parlence of the question) is critical to answering this question. We could analyse the question out of existence by simply defining a child as a human being who is too young for sex, but this would, I suspect, be unsatisfactory. Another definition is a child is a human being who is too young to procreate. This definition I believe has more legs in that given sexual behaviour evolved for the purpose of procreation and the pleasure gained by sexual behaviour was an evolutionary positive trait it strikes me you could rule out as permissable childeren too young to procreate even if you could demonstate that the 'child' was still able to gain pleasure from the sexual act. The definition however I most favour is that a child is too young for sex if you wouldn't trust them to point a loaded gun at your head. In more academic terms a child is able to consent to sexual behaviour when he or she is sufficeintly mature to understand the consequences of consenting.
Another thing to be considered is the motivation of the adult in all this. Why would an mature and well balanced adult wish to have sex with someone who is emotionally if not physically underdeveloped and is it not possible that this would only be of interest to those adults who are incapable because of some flaw in their own make up in making mature relationships with partners of their own age.
So whilst I am sure an argument based on the selfish wishes of the adult could be made no argument IMHO can be made which puts the interest of the child first and because I believe such interest should always be paramount the short answer is still NO!
"Adult sex with children is wrong because if we catch someone doing it, we'll toss them in jail... "
No it's not... it is wrong for many many reasons but if it was wrong only because of the punishment then a peadophile who could ensure that he was free from the risk of punishment would be doing nothing wrong. Imagine the catholic priest who rationalised his abuse by the fact that he knew he wouldn't be punished because his church would cover it up for him "I will not be punished" thinks he "therefore I do nothing wrong"
We punish because it is immoral NOT it is immoral because we punish.
Paedophiles are very good at portraying themselves as victims and blaming the true victim in these cases.
Most of them are quite devious enough to find all the excuses they need without the resort to a book so it seems that this 'Trauma Myth' is totally surplace to requirements.
On a broader note: I am generally in favour of exploring the limits of morality and the ethical basis for such morality but I do find this particular thread offends my sense of common decency and for that reason I shall take no further part. If you want a philosophical jusification; I site D. Hume and his sense of sympathy as grounds for morality.
I think people would agree that a person who is not sufficeintly developed intellectually to make a reasoned choice is unable in any meaningful sense give consent. thus any one in that situation would be incapable of agreeing to sex and thus would render said sex as rape.
this leaves us with the question at what age in 'normal' human development does a child become someone who can make a choice in the sense of being to weigh up all posible outcomes and reason a course of behaviour.
I think I may have just raised the age of consent to 50