My answer is "of course not". As you probably know, I don't think there is any justification for any "law". However, I can understand making "laws" against initiated force and theft, even while realizing it is an exercise in futility. I just think "laws" are pointless and ridiculous. If something is wrong, making a law against it doesn't make it impossible to do. Making "laws" against "immorality" is even worse. Many times no one is hurt, except ...possibly.... the person behaving "immorally".
Then there is the problem of whose moral code do you follow? And why choose that particular one over the other possibilities?
If you go by the Christian moral code, just as an example, you could pass "laws" against prostitution, gay marriage, adultery, theft, and murder. But then you would also be able to justify passing "laws" against working on Sunday, men with long hair and women with short hair, eating shellfish, and killing (but not necessarily against beating) your slaves. Slavery would still be fine, as would having many wives and concubines. And the penalty for raping a virgin would be marrying the victim. Strange "morality".
If you base your "laws" on a different religion's moral code, the details would be different, even if there were similarities with the "big stuff" like murder and theft. So you would need to pass "laws"regulating a plethora of ridiculous things that prohibiting "morally" must have seemed "right... at the time".
The wiser choice is to stop criminalizing self defense, and recognize that your morality may not be your neighbor's morality. And to realize that as long as no innocent person is being harmed, what other people do in their private lives is none of your business and it is wrong to try to make it your business. That kinda takes the wind out of the busy-bodies' sails doesn't it?
...................................
