my government does not know better than I do what my children need.
And if you are not violent or a sexual pervert or someone who wants to brainwash their children to only accept their own beliefs then the government has no business micro-managing your child rearing.
But if you raise your children in a way that infringes their rights, the government has every right to take them away from you.
You see for me government is secondary to family - when governments fail or are overthrown families survive.
Governments are merely an institution to help protect my family and to enshrine some rights that otherwise I would need to trust my sword to do.
And sometimes (not with you obviously) governments need to protect children from their parents.
I do not believe that the government is greater than the family - ever.
As my above example shows, that opinion is simplistic and wrong. Parents can be bad and evil, and when they are, the government must be able to protect their children from them.
Governments are notoriously bad at deciding what is best for people IMO (Communism and Facism come to mind as two recent examples of poor government choices).
And those governments were run by people who were parents, and your point was? That somehow the members of the Nazi party or Communist party were bad at governance but perfect parents? Just as governments made out of people do bad things to people (although being checked by strong legislation to protect human rights helps prevent this), so do parents who are bad people do bad things to their children.
Parents do not have a divine right to screw up their children's lives, even if some parents (not you) think they do.
I will never agree with anyone that the government trumps my responsibility for my family.
Yes, because you are someone who doesn't harm their children. If you were someone who harmed their children then even if you thought 'I will never agree with anyone that the government trumps my responsibility for my family', it wouldn't matter as you would be a criminal who was trying to evade justice.
This is one of the reasons why I absolutely abhor state aid for people - the state should never be responsible for my ability to provide for myself merely for ensuring I have an opportunity and framework within which to conduct my economic and social life.
Fine, don't accept state aid and if you object to paying for it then either respect the decision of the democratic majority you live with or move somewhere where you can step over lots of beggars and have a violent society where the rich run things and the poor starve. Like Brazil, or America.
On the role of Government:
1 - To control the media portrayal of and sexualisation of women especially minors.
Provide what is portrayed is legal, no, you are wrong. The government should have no right to control distasteful things that are not against the law. Why do you make such a theme of how it's down to parents and then take them; the people who buy their daughters thongs (as one example) off the hook by saying the government should interfere.
2 - Sexual education not simply focusing on the 'Do what you want - its your body - just use protection' approach but emphasising appropriate responsibility for long term consequences and the desirability and achievability of social control. I wouldn't advocate US style abstinence programs but more frank discussion of women's rights (just as we have made it - in the UK - a case of extreme behaviour to make a racist comment so should also be a punishable behaviour to sexually abuse someone verbally within a school/public setting.) Sexual education (the mechanics) should be introduced years after the social consequences parts of education but certainly preceding puberty. The law and why the law exists regarding underage sex should be explained.
I generally agree with you. Unfortunately in the UK the action of a small minority of religious parents has resulted in a sex education system where the mechanics are taught in Biology class and the social side is taught in tutor groups, typically with non-specialised teachers - and those most in need of this social education are often those who miss it as parents have a right to opt out.
3 - Sexual attraction to minors should be treated as a mental disease that should be counselled for by local GPs and local psychiatrists and men encouraged to seek non-stigma, private counselling and a voluntary nameless register (linked only through national insurance number) to ensure that they don't inadvertantly gain a job that would put them in temptations way. In other words try and give men the tools to control their feelings prior to them committing secret acts of abuse. If I had such feelings I would rather know that I could gain help in a private non-judgmental medical way rather than being tormented by these feelings and ultimately maybe acting on them. Would offer an ultimate medical solution of chemical castration for those who wish to protect their children from themselves.
4 - Ditto the above for those who feel a need to rape.
I don't think this would be as effective as those who want to rape already do not recognise consesuality. Many people with a sexual attraction to minors still respect consensuality and thus do not become offenders.
5 - The use of sex in all forms of media should be controlled so that it isn't displayed outside of appropriate areas (my particular bee is with our newspapers and magazines showing nude women in sexually provocative poses on the front pages so everyone is forced to see - I would prefer that people could choose when to see sexual imagery rather than only have the choice how to explain it to their children.) I have a gut feeling (probably religion taught) that engaging in titillation can lead (men especially) to lose a certain amount of rational control (just like a starving person would act differently to well fed one) and I think the over stimulation of our sexual responses may tip a few people over the edge of control and to perform acts of abuse. So in a nutshell - reduce the public, unchosen, exposure to sexual ideas and imagery. Where sex is portrayed it can be encouraged as part of stable healthy relationships rather than as the transient non-committal acts of no consequence. Because as a society we still have IMO immature ideas of sex we tend to cater for hollywood sex rather than the healthier and more realistic joyful experience it is where not every man has to last for hours and every women has balloons for boobs and every possible position is required every time. Still before I end off topic back to my suggestions.
You cannot legislate matters of taste. You can use your power as a consumer to force change in shops or to boycot what you find distastful. And 'hollywood sex' (your description is of mainstream porn, nothing like the 'sex' in Hollywood movies) is just like most of the entertainment industry; super polished hyper-reality. Why are most actors attractive? Because no one wants to stare at ugly ones. Why is porn like it is? Because dull 'relationship' sex ("Oh, is it Tuesday already darling?") is not something people pay to see.
6, 7, 8, all yes.
9 is seemingly too based on your own opinions in these areas, and would not seem to be feasable in a 21st Century secular democracy