Whose definition of a "moral" culture are you using?
Certainly not your moral relativist definition.
the only way for you or the government to do this is through the power of a gun barrel.
Government is force.
"Morality" enforced by fear and force is false, and temporary.
Morality is the basis of all laws.
Negatives are not logically provable.
That is the reason why who asserts must prove. You assert that "[p]ornography is a moral cancer which destroys the minds and hearts of those who are exposed to it." Therefore, it is incumbent on you to prove the assertion.
You made the assertion that it is harmful. It is incumbent on you to support that assertion. In any case, it is viewed by literally millions of people who never commit any crimes, and who lead normal, healthy lives.
"Certainly not your moral relativist definition."
Strawman, with ad hominem. Ignored.
"Government is force."
And you would use that force against people who are harming no one, and divert resources from the fight against those who do. I take it you LIKE the idea of government force, if it is applied in the manner YOU prefer. What OTHER Liberties would you use that force to supress?
"Morality is the basis of all laws."
Tax laws? Speed limits? Environmental laws? Gun control laws? Repeating this old saw makes it no more true than ever. MORAL laws only clarify behavior which the overwhelming majority recognize as good, such as laws against murder or rape. The vast majority of people would never think of engaging in these behaviors. On the other hand, to proscribe, based on morality, behaviors which are NOT so recognized, is another matter altogether.
You're not helping your cause.
Actually, individual rights are the basis of all our laws. Since I have the RIGHT to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, that means murdering me would violate my right to life.