That might very well be. But simply stating that a Socialist runs the website is Ad Hominem. Can you show me a specific problems with the definitions???
For example, on drugs and prostitution: I think both should be legal, but I should be free to construct a contract between myself and my employees, or between myself and those I provide insurance for, or between myself and my tenants, etc that will allow me to fire/delist/evict them on the spot for participating in these activities.
And if you have a factory and you don't want to hire gays, or don't want to give them same-sex partner benefits, or whatever, and you write a contract outlining such, I say great, go ahead, that is your right as an employer to set the terms of employment and they can accept or refuse.
And if Bob Smith, owner of Fudge-Packers International, wants to give dental insurance to Henry's husband Dan, fine. As a consumer of their fudge, I may object and no longer buy from them. As Bob's priest, I may disfellowship him. As Bob's doctor/lawyer/insurer/baker, I may refuse him service. As Bob's landlord, I may evict him (pursuant to terms of contract). Notice something: there is still morality, but not at the hands of a central nanny-state.
By replacing morality with legality, you remove the ability to differentiate people who make moral choices because they want to (or are moral themselves), from people who make moral choices out of fear of the state.