Thought can absolutely be immoral. It cannot be criminal. A thought cannot violate someone else's rights.
Without morality there are no rights. (or at least no defendable rights). Without a moral code everything decays to "might makes right". Government enforces the moral code. The only problem is when we let the immoral run the government. Then we end up with gay marriage etc
I would say that philisophically rights actually precede morality, but that is not an arguement worth having. I assume from your post that you are religious and derive your morality from your religion. And you want to use the power of government to enforce the whole of that morality on others, including those that do not share your religion. I have a big problem with that. Where violations of rights occur, government protection is appropriate. Where their is no violation of rights, Laissez faire.
Without a moral code
Note that you require a single moral code. There can be no cooperation with those whom you agree about major issues (violations of others' rights) but disagree about individual morality questions.
The "childrens rights have been violated" According to whose moral code? In some places this may be established and accepted behavior. But our government enforces our moral code and according to our moral code child pornography is bad.
Criminal things are immoral, but immoral things are not necessarily criminal. You keep trying to blur that distinction. Just laws are only to protect the rights of others, not to enforce all of morality.
I didn't try to blur anything. Law enforces morality. Every law enforces some moral precept. Now that precept may be illogical or even immoral according to another moral code but every law enforces morality.
Thought can absolutely be immoral.
You miss the distinction between habitual pattern of thought and simple one time temptation. One is no problem, the other is serious trouble on the horizon
I would say that philisophically rights actually precede morality, but that is not an arguement worth having.
Whether they do or not is really immaterial. If you have rights and morality and I have bigger guns and no morality you don't have rights. Only morality keeps things from decaying to "might makes right"
I assume from your post that you are religious and derive your morality from your religion.... Where violations of rights occur, government protection is appropriate. Where their is no violation of rights, Laissez faire.
I am a Christian. I tend to be somewhat libertarian in my regard of rights. The question is whose morality decides when those rights are violated and how far do you go to see the affects.
As an example. If sodomites kept their behavior to themselves, stricly private in their own abodes, if they never tried to recruit or influence anyone else, then I'd have no problem with them. However, by being public about it they corrupt our society and destroy our future and the future of our children. I now have to worry about the safety of my children from sexual perverts. They violate my rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness by attacking my way of life. (increased medical costs, increased crime and a host of other negative impacts associated with sodmite behavior)
Note that you require a single moral code.
There's only one that really works to bring the greatest freedom to all people.
There can be no cooperation with those whom you agree about major issues (violations of others' rights) but disagree about individual morality questions.
There is no individual morality question that does not affect greater society. Every breach of morals violates someone's rights.