your heart isn't Godward, and we both know it so I couldn't be bothered to give you any more attention

you're wise in your own conceit...a good counter-argument to what?...you have no argument...comparing someone who has sinned to someone who prides themself in sin is non-sense

Let's take homosexuality as an example. Say you disagree with it. What good comes from blatant bigotry toward gay people, simply because you disagree with homosexuality?

Personally, I don't understand what morality has to do with sex between consenting adults.

I am very phobic about Homo Sapiens.

No. I wish that they cease from their abominations before it is too late - before death.

It's my duty to warn those who commit iniquity to cease before judgment cometh.

WELL - since religion was brought up anyway....

The fact is that no two beliefs are the same, so no two sets of guidelines for living are exactly the same, not even between respected authorities who claim their beliefs stem from the very same source.

When a person seeks to make others conform to his or her beliefs and personal guidelines for living, that person is assuming the authority that is reserved for the power that is beyond the scope of our experience, knowledge, and understanding.

In the case of Christianity, for example, the authority is God and the only power that can save belongs to Jesus. From my understanding of Christianity, no human other than Jesus has the power save, because any rule one person forces another to follow, has no saving grace for either person, that power belongs to Jesus.

Following that line of thinking, it makes sense that each individual must choose what to believe and construct their own guidelines for living and be a faithful follower of those guidelines.

My conclusion here is simple – if a person’s beliefs have influenced the guidelines by which he is to live, and those guidelines require that he force others to live by his own personal guidelines, then that person is wielding authority and assuming power, neither of which belong to him.

It is risky business, this idea of religion – isn’t it? It seems far less risky to live by your own convictions while making sure that everyone else is free to live by theirs. In this way, authority and power remain with that which is beyond the scope of our experience, knowledge, and understanding.

life is full of risks, it is an individual perogative which risks are worth taking

sometimes, its worth the 'risks' to guide someone away from a cliff,,,,

particularly someone you love who values your guidance,,,,

Problem is you can't prove the cliff is real, you only ASSUME it. But if you wanna risk pushing people from you because of your own personal dogma.......I suppose so be it.

Does the new covenant supersede the old covenant? Then the old law does not apply and the new one- love thy neighbor does apply? If I remember correctly, Paul's most famous student drew this conclusion and was banished.

so , would you consider adultery, between two consenting adults a moral choice?

or an adult father sleeping with his adult daughter?

its just a matter of boundaries, some things are 'wrong' because they are outside of the cultural/religious/legal boundaries,,,

If you believe it's immoral, don't do it. Simple as that. If you find sex between two people of the same sex is immoral, don't engage in sex with someone of the same sex. Other than that, it should not matter to you what others do.

Now, if it's against the law, that's a bit different. There are different laws regarding incest depending on the state you live in.

Also, here's a bit about laws regarding incest from wiki:

United States

In the United States the District of Columbia and every state, except Rhode Island, have some form of codified incest prohibition.[28] However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989,[28] Ohio only targets parental figures,[28] and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older.[28] Massachusetts issues a penalty of up to 20 years' imprisonment for those engaging in sexual activities with relatives closer than first cousins[28] and Hawaii up to 5 years in jail for "sexual penetration" with certain blood relatives and in-laws.[28]

In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, and in some states, first cousins, although Rhode Island allows uncles to marry their nieces if they are part of a community, such as orthodox Jews, for whom such marriages are permitted. Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations including stepparents, step-siblings, and in-laws.[29]

its not really that simple, believing something to be 'immoral' basically is going to (hopefully) affect not only your own behavior but the behavior of those under our care whom we are expected to teach and protect

sometimes having a strong enough belief in the immorality of something can help it BECOME a law,, like the immorality of treating humans like cattle lead to actions by others to make a law forbidding it,,,

setting an example is an important part of adulthood, and it would seem hypocritical(for instance) for me to say I feel adultery is wrong while encouraging adulterers to feel 'pride' about their activities

although I dont make food purchases political statements, personally, I certainly can understand others not wanting to support those entities which launch campaigns to encourage and support what they feei is 'immoral' behavior