All those other concerns bear out as moral concerns.

Much legislation is technocratic and hides its moralism, but it’s all questions of right and wrong, good and bad, at the end of the day.

Not so. There are considerations of tangible consequences for some unconsenting third party. That's the difference. Outlawing something "because it's wrong" is different than outlawing something because it wrongs someone.

There is no definition of "because it's wrong" where no one is wronged, unless you bring in religion.

Still, someone can be wronged with their consent. Consent is not binary. That's why there are minimum salary laws for instance : so that there's not a competition to the bottom.

When it comes to prostitution, the fact that huge numbers of prostitutes are former victims of abuse, for instance, should tell you that something is wrong. And even then, I would say that the minority who could be unambiguously considered to be doing it voluntarily is doing a disservice to women and society in general, by promoting the idea that bodies and what is most intimate can be for sale.

We're off on a tangent now, but you don't need religion to believe a victimless act to be immoral. All I was getting at is laws are not made strictly on moral grounds (rightfully so) and perhaps that's what "legislating morality" was referring to.

And it's mostly wrong.