Which is the other side of the same coin. It is, as I said, quite simply none of the State's business either way. It should neither be protected nor criminalized.
A moral State exists for three basic purposes and those are to protect the lives, property, and Rights of its citizens. Period.
L
You say that the state exists to protect for one ‘the rights’ of the people. Do you not believe in the ‘right to representation’ though? If the people of a state believe that sodomy or incest are harmful would you deny their ‘right to representation’ on the issue?
I understand your point of view, and I think voters should tread carefully before enacting any law. However, I also agree with TheBigIf that states have the right to enact laws governing morality. You may not agree, and you’re entitled to vote against restrictions on prostitution, incest, or whatever, but there’s simply no constitutional prohibition against such laws.
As I’ve argued here before, pretty much every law has some basis in morality anyway. Even laws against speed limits make a moral judgment that safe travel is more important than the guy with the fastest car having the right of way. Equal treatment under the law and the concept of the rule of law itself are based on moral judgments. You seem to want to cordon off sex laws (and maybe more) for special treatment.
It’s not that I don’t sympathize with the concept that consenting adults should be generally free to do whatever they want with their own bodies, but what goes on in the bedroom often can and does affect things outside of the bedroom. In our country, voters, not black robed tyrants, should be making these decisions. You might even overturn a great number of laws restricting sex practices if you garner the support of a majority of voters, while my state might enact even stricter provisions. That’s how it’s supposed to work in a constitutional republic.
No argument in principle. Unfortunately, the practice these days is not the same as the principle. Nowhere near it.