That's because the argument is correct. Once one extends the 'harm' argument beyond the physical or financial (force or fraud) one opens the door to government regulating every aspect of our behavior at the point of a gun.
If two adults want to engage in this behavior and no force or fraud is involved there's no reason for the State to criminalize the behavior.
It may be disgusting and worthy of societal opprobrium, and I think it is, but that doesn't mean it should be criminal.
L
You as well as the majority of leftists and many libertarians seem to follow what is known as the Witches rede:
“An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will”
To me it seems that most of the left-wing and most libertarians seem to think that these words are a part of our Constitution but they are not. These words were originally coined by the man who called himself “The Beast” – Aliester Crowley and were then later altered to include the part about ‘no harm’, his original wording was ‘Do As Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the Law”. In other words do anything you want because the human will is paramount.
It is interesting to me that Crowley was what you would call a libertine (a A libertine is one devoid of most moral restraints) and that this perversion of the ideal of liberty seems to have been adopted by many who call themselves libertarians. The libertarian party motto being “Live and Let Live” seems to imply that you should not have to follow anyone’s else moral laws.
Yet of course this type of thinking strips the people of the ‘right to representation’ being that it allows no moral laws to be passed. It also leaves the definition of the word ‘harm’ up to only the judgment of a panel of judges and not up to ‘We the People’.
Yet the main point I have to make here is that these words (the Wiccan rede) are NOT in our Constitution. It is a continual lie that is repeated by leftists and libertarians that this has anything at all to do with our Constitution or the thinking of the Founders.
It is this type of thinking that is leading to the moral decay and destruction of our society. It is damaging to children and will eventually destroy true liberty in this nation.
I think there’s a fine distinction there, and you appear to understand it well. To wit, just because the state doesn’t criminalize an activity, it doesn’t mean that activity should be celebrated or endorsed by the state. In other words, sodomy should probably be legal, but that doesn’t mean the state should subsidize or affirm sodomy via gay marriage, right?
Unfortunately, in our society, if it isn't prohibited, the implication is that it is condoned, endorsed, and fully protected by our non-discrimination laws.