I seem to remember murder being punished before the Ten Commandments.
There is no law except that which “legislates morality.”
That which protects the rights of others.
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.
Such assertion would be wrong. It would be full of opinion influenced by your worldview (and I don't think it's exactly healthy either, but that's just my opinion). It has to be real, provable harm to non-consenting people: you steal something, you kill someone, you dump dioxin in your neighbor's yard.
To allow punishment for a vague concept of harm is to allow anything, depending on who is currently in power. Then individual rights mean nothing as any restriction on them can be justified by a vague harm to everybody.
Again, the problem with wanting to legislate your morality is that you won't always be in power. Then you get to have the "morality" of others forced upon you. Again consider Hillary's version of a moral country. She thinks it's a moral imperative to take all your money and give it to others she panders to (like universal health coverage). I think that's immoral theft and a violation of my rights, but then I won't be in power so my opinion, and my rights, don't matter. Enjoy.
The problem is that once you get back in power you forget that lesson. Instead of being smart and removing the government's power to legislate like this anymore, you just yank the country back in your direction for a decade or so. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Yes, hold fast to your morality. But reject the idea that you can enforce it through law..
Again, arguing about where the line is to be drawn.
The line has been drawn in the respective constitutions.
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.
That might be a motive for some with respect to that specific issue. But for me it's about absolutely minimal government power and freedom of the people. One price of freedom is that others you disagree with also get freedom. I'm willing to accept that.
“I seem to remember murder being punished before the Ten Commandments.”
That doesn’t show anything. Our proscription on murder comes from the Ten Commandments.
“That which protects the rights of others.”
Protecting the rights of others is a moral tenet, plain and simple.
“Such assertion would be wrong. It would be full of opinion”
An assertion is not wrong because it is full of opinion, so long as the opinion in question is correct. Further, the production of sodomite porn wreaks real, provable harm to non-consenting people.
“To allow punishment for a vague concept of harm”
The fact that you don’t agree with it – and most probably haven’t really given it the study it requires – doesn’t mean it’s vague.
“Again, the problem with wanting to legislate your morality”
Bogus, leftist argument. It’s not “my” morality; it is the morality of Western Civilization for two thousand years. Further, all law is the legislation of morality. There is no law that is not the legislation of morality. The only question is whose precepts will be legislated.
“Then you get to have the “morality” of others forced upon you.”
They’re going to do that anyway, if they get power. Evil always attacks good; that is its nature. You cannot prevent evil from attacking you by refraining from attacking evil. The only peace there is in this world is the interval between the time you kick evil’s butt and the point at which it has recovered sufficiently to attack you again.
“but then I won’t be in power so my opinion, and my rights, don’t matter. Enjoy.”
That’s pretty wimpy. Wouldn’t you be willing to take up arms and throw off tyranny, if that became necessary?
“Instead of being smart and removing the government’s power to legislate like this anymore”
A government that could not legislate morality could not legislate at all. There is no law that is not the expression of a moral precept. Moral precepts are the only reasons to have laws in the first place.
“But reject the idea that you can enforce it through law.”
Nonsense.
“The line has been drawn in the respective constitutions.”
The Founding Fathers would reject – probably with musketry – the notion that the Constitution protects sodomite porn.
“But for me it’s about absolutely minimal government power and freedom of the people.”
Well, here we are, arguing about where the line should be drawn again.
“One price of freedom is that others you disagree with also get freedom. I’m willing to accept that.”
To a point. As of today, child-molesting is still unacceptable, although the forces of evil are hard at work trying to change that. How much more freedom are you willing to accept?
I’m willing to accept considerably less than tolerates sodomite porn.
You've been around that long and still have your memory? You must take really good care of yourself. :)