Our proscription is protecting the rights of the potential victim. I am of the belief that you have to show concrete, specific harm to to at least one individual before you can make any act illegal among adults.
The state has many legitimate functions, and they are defined in the federal and state constitutions. Anything else is a power grab, an intrusion on the rights of the people.
But if you want to go down the road of regulating morals, remember that it cuts both ways. With Hillary in power and the Democrats running Congress, their definition of what is moral will reign, and they will be able to enforce it due to the precedent set by people like you.
given the fungibility of hillary’s and giuliani’s morals, the net result of either one is going to be the same.
FNC had one of their beltway experts saying a third party is going to be inevitable.
Giuliani is the automatic third party candidate creator. (virtual or actual) Hillary clinton needs a Hillary Clone like Giuliani so she can run to the right and a third party to split enough of the votes.
“Our proscription is protecting the rights of the potential victim.”
Our proscription on murder comes directly from the Ten Commandments. It is a moral tenet.
There is no law except that which “legislates morality.”
“I am of the belief that you have to show concrete, specific harm to to at least one individual before you can make any act illegal among adults.”
The key words there being “concrete” and “specific.” That could give a person a lot of wriggle room. For instance, I would assert that concrete, specific harm is done to everyone connected with the production of sodomite porn, but I’m sure many would disagree.
“The state has many legitimate functions, and they are defined in the federal and state constitutions. Anything else is a power grab, an intrusion on the rights of the people.”
Again, arguing about where the line is to be drawn.
“But if you want to go down the road of regulating morals”
Lenin was absolutely right. If you control the educational system, you can do anything.
That’s not a road to go down or not go down. That is the whole purpose of law. All law consists exclusively of regulating morals. Always has, always will.
This “regulating morals” mantra is a deceptive strategy for moving *sexual* morality from inside to outside of the sphere of things to be regulated, and nothing more dignified than that.
“remember that it cuts both ways. With Hillary in power and the Democrats running Congress, their definition of what is moral will reign, and they will be able to enforce it due to the precedent set by people like you.”
People like Hillary don’t need any excuse. No precedent can either enable or deter them.
The basic flaw in your argument is this: Morality provides our only bulwark against evil. The response to evil people like the Hildebeeste is to hold fast to morality, not throw away your only weapon in fear that she will take it away from you.