Yes, I understood this. When I say “you need any kind of objective data” I do not refer to the circumstance that you do not have data at hand, but I rather remark that you would need it in general, if you would like to legitimate legal restrictions.
What else should be the basis? Even within Christianity not everyone would support your position. For example once I talked to a Catholic priest who admitted to watch porn himself. To whom should be given the power to determine about religion based laws? Who is the final authority (on earth)? And who decides who the final authority should be?
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that blood transfusions are sin. Would you agree to forbid blood transfusions just because fundamentalists would propose it? If even more radical would– whyever – come to the conclusion that eating blood sausage or chicken soup are sins and lead to eternity in hell, would you agree forbiddances without more ado?
There are only to possibilities: Objective data or Arbitrariness. So if not objective data, what else should be the basis for legal regulations?
I see this is a delicate subject to you. In this case you have to differentiate between science and pseudoscience. Science (unlike pseudoscience) would mean to observe The Given; To observe and objectively find out the truth.
Following real science (not pseudoscience) wouldn’t mean to be “other-dictated” by science but rather to be dictated by the naturally given. You understand the difference?
In this case this is indeed being-other-dictated-by-cultural-norms, so I would reject this similarly.
I am not familiar with the Canadian legal system, but if any law would forbid anyone to say anything: I would never support this.
If you want to forbid something you need objective observations that the thing that should be forbidden is indeed dangerous. And the tradition to make such observations is called science. I know that there is pseudoscience too but, I do not talk about pseudoscience here but about science: the objective observation of the given.
If you would just derive voluntary norms from religion, like cultural norms, it would be fine. I already suggested this, but you insist on a legal regulation.
What I would like to do is to found a conservative-arguments-database which should be the guideline for political decisions and positions (but conservative in a libertarian manner). I agree that today’s politicians have no solid basis.
I can answer this and I will – but not today…
How would you define morality?