"I believe the punishment for sex offenses is (or should be) because the offense harms another, not for the immorality of the act."
So you are for legalizing the possession of child pornography, right? Only the production of it should be outlawed, right?
And what if the next generation of psychologists begin saying that men having sexual relations with little boys does no harm, and it might do them some good? They have already caved in on the harm of homosexuality, and some are already saying things like this about other perversions.
And would you outlaw everything that might be harmful?
If you read my other posts you will find I am not primarily bringing up these issues to advocate laws to punish immorality. I believe communities should be free to set their own standards within certain limitations.
I believe criminalization of possession of child pornography is justifiable, due to the harm that production causes.
And what if the next generation of psychologists begin saying that men having sexual relations with little boys does no harm, and it might do them some good? They have already caved in on the harm of homosexuality, and some are already saying things like this about other perversions.
If, for purposes of argument, it was in fact determined that no harm resulted (and I'm not suggesting that this will or could ever be determined) then I would be in favor of decriminalizing it.
And would you outlaw everything that might be harmful?
As I said earlier, defining what is harmful is difficult enough. For example, amputation of a limb, by definition, is harmful. In the case of a surgical procedure, amputation is justifiable (and not a crime) if a determination is made that less harm will result from the amputation than from not doing the procedure. It should not be a crime even though some religions might hold the amputation to be immoral. Not all things that are harmful should be outlawed, but harm should be a prerequisite for making something a crime. Things that merely "might" be harmful should probably not be outlawed until there is some evidence that suggests that they "probably are" harmful, and not otherwise justified.
If you read my other posts you will find I am not primarily bringing up these issues to advocate laws to punish immorality. I believe communities should be free to set their own standards within certain limitations.
My comments were not directed to you. I was simply reacting to some posts that seemed to suggest that it would be appropriate for the government to criminalize immoral behavior, simply because it was immoral. Debates on morality are fine - but being thrown in jail for being immoral, as opposed to harming another person, is not fine.