“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.
The Ten Commandments may have popped up on the way as one of many representations of that prohibition, but it does not begin it.
Protecting the rights of others is a moral tenet, plain and simple.
Protecting the rights of others is a social compact. You protect my rights, I protect yours. It is, in a way, selfish.
An assertion is not wrong because it is full of opinion, so long as the opinion in question is correct.
It may not be wrong in your opinion. "Violent video games hurt us all" -- I want a immediate, obvious, always-occurring cause and effect as an absolute that is enough to override the rights of the individual.
It definitely doesn't work for porn if you look at porn-inundated societies like Japan with low rates of sexual assault. You can't blame that generally on porn no matter how much the radical left-wing lesbian feminists and right-wing Christians want to make it so.
But you don't like porn, so that's okay with you. But then remember that the anti-gunners are using your same logic to ban guns and stop people from speaking out against abortion. I prefer the ability to enforce such logic not exist at all.
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.
If you can show me how a porn magazine walked up to someone and shot him or took his money, or was forced into his hands, I'm all ears.
It’s not “my” morality; it is the morality of Western Civilization for two thousand years.
That solid, unchanging morality. Why don't we bring back slavery? Or were you wrong before? Maybe you're wrong now. So you're going to violate the freedoms of others on the hope that you're perception of morality is right this time.
They’re going to do that anyway, if they get power.
Thus my point. If the position does not contain that power, then they cannot enforce their views.
Wouldn’t you be willing to take up arms and throw off tyranny, if that became necessary?
Been there, done that, you're welcome. Although not in this country.
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.
You see everything through a filter of morality. There is also the social compact that has helped societies get along long before Christianity was invented. If you want to call it morals, fine. It's just another word for it.
As of today, child-molesting is still unacceptable,
Child molesting directly injures another. It is not in the same category as consensual crime.
I’m willing to accept considerably less than tolerates sodomite porn.
If you're willing to limit their freedoms, then you are willing to have your own freedoms limited by them. I'm not.