Pure Moral Reasons Are Not Enough to Form Laws

"For thousands of years and even now we can view these commandments, regardless of religious beliefs to be the supreme moral laws that govern us." But, for church and state to be seperate can we say 'Becuase of the ten commandments, this act should be prohibited" "Why do we have many of our laws? Because we believe that the prohibited acts are Morally wrong." But other reason can be applied to them. The Commandments aside let us look at many modern day laws that have purely moral backgrounds... "Why is Prostitution Illegal?" 'Because many people consider it Immoral' There is that, and there is also the spread of STD's and illegal acts associated with prostitution, so yes we have made it illegal to be a prostitute, but in some areas if you receive a license you can legally practice prostitution if you follow the guidelines AKA not doing the associated crimes (because then you would face the punishments for the crime and lose your license) and taking tests to prove your not positive for any STD's. In some areas it is illegal and no licenses are available. The sole reason being 'it is immoral' and is that fair? Should you be able to push your moral beliefs on me through laws, even though I am doing something a consensual and unharmful way? No. Why did We Stop Segregation and slavery? "Mainly on the foundation that all men are moral equals, and that both of these concepts are MORALLY wrong." There's that, and the fact that we were non-consensually inflicting harm upon of group of people. Which, as I said before, should be one of the only reasons that we make laws. To protect people from non-consensual harm. Not to protect people from 'moral wrongs' "Why did the international Community try so hard to stop the holocaust? at this time there was no international law that was being broken, however the international community felt that what the Nazis were doing was wrong, that thier actions were Morally Forbidden." That and the fact the thousands upon thousands of innocent lives were being killed for no warlike reason. We didn't think it was just 'moral wrong' we thought that it was internationally our job to stop harm from coming non-consensually to a group of innocent people. "Because People are MORAL equals, A purely Moral principle." And also, because people all deserve to not be non-consensually suppressed based on their faith, skin color, or origins. OPPONENTS POINTS "Why is freedom so fundamental? why do we frown on Despotisms when what they are doing is legal in their own land? Because it is Morally wrong to take away freedom, we consider it to be the natural condition , our laws are based on the Moral Concept That Freedom is a Human right." And because people all should have the basic right of not being non-consensually suppressed by their government. Why is this the only thing you refute? What about the rest of my arguments? My point is this: Why do we not have the freedom of choice? If no one is being non-consensually harmed, why should we be allowed to force our morals upon other people? Saying things based purely on morals, should not be an acceptable thing to use to create a law, example: 'it is immoral for gay's to marry, therefore it is against the law'