[ben_w]

Counterpoints: every religious war ever. The “war” on drugs. Prohibition. Moral crusades for censorship or elimination of porn. Rules against sex work in general. Sections 64, 65, 69, 70 and 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The religious affiliation requirements in the rules of succession of the British Crown. Forbidden foods in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and others. Western prohibition on multiple spouses.

The level of enforcement and punishment varies form instance to instance, from culture to culture, and from year to year, but there are cases even today where religious morality leads to extreme use of force: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/hindu-mob...

[captainredbeard]

Those are examples of dysfunctional adults acting out. Thank you for making my case for me!

[ben_w]

If you choose to describe majority of the electorate in multiple elections in a row as “not meeting the definition of ‘being a functional adult’”, then whatever definition you used for those words are not useful ones — and that’s just Prohibition.

Disagreeing with the requirements of sections 64, 65, and 70? Outside of philosophical discussions, most normal people find them sufficiently repulsive that even suggesting they might not be things that ought to be illegal is enough to make you a social pariah. (I’m not sure exactly how 69 or 71 are seen, but the actions they outlaw are demonstrably frowned on enough for the sections to survive multiple elections).

[captainredbeard]

Fair point - thank you for the reasoned reply, esp. regarding the specifics for sections 64, 65, 70...