Nice dodge, Papa, but you're the one who brought up the subject regarding pornography, which you don't feel is problematic. Pornography degrades women, and that should concern you.
It seems more likely that they are there because it's easy money and they don't have the skills to earn as much in a conventional job.
It really what it 'seems' to you because the facts refute your instinct. Look them up. And if they don't have the 'skills' because they have been trafficked and abused, that's not a problem for you?
And you can find single anecdotes of individuals who choose 'easy' money, but again the facts don't support you. The connection between trafficking and women who go into porn is factual.
And you didn't actually address the issue of statutory rape or polygamy, or homosexual marriage, and whether or not there should be laws against them.
The position you have argued is that matters of morality should not be addressed by a Presidential candidate because it is not as important as other issues.
And to that I say, based on the facts, you are flat wrong.
There are areas where there are no facts, only studies which strive to prove the agenda of the people who gave money for the study. This appears to be one of them.
And if they don't have the 'skills' because they have been trafficked and abused, that's not a problem for you?
And if they don't have the skills (for whatever reason) and porn was the least-bad option among even more distasteful choices, do you seriously thing the porn-star will just get a job as an auto mechanic?