For us, there isn't anything hard about it. For others though, what's at the heart of the matter is that it makes them uncomfortable. Hence, we must be freaks of nature. I've been guilty of that myself. I'm not comfortable around some people, so in my mind they're weird. I know, I know, that's not PC or even good, but honestly, it's the way I feel. I'm working on my own prejudices -- trying to understand them, but it's not easy to change.

But sadly, they are a fact of life and unfortunately, around to stay. I wonder if cave-people had labels. Oh yeah --- hunters and gatherers.

That's an excellent analogy (left handed, etc.). I agree with you 100%. People want to pigeon-hole you so you fit into their beliefs and structures for living. It's purely for their own comfort, not yours. You are very kind to say that people are goofy. I'm not so kind and think that often, people just suck.

It's because many religious followers subscribe to the divine command theory of ethics. Under this theory any deviation from the will of God is immoral by default. The divine command model only takes into account what the deity says is good or bad, consequences of the actions are irrelevant. If God says murder is good, then it is. If he says it's bad then it's bad.

@Katrik Yes, I have heard of this. But, does this not just simply redefine "moral"?

Logically, I can not figure out how anything that causes zero harm by itself can be called "bad" or "immoral". Yes, I understand when religious parents/orhers are hurt...but, it is not the activity or desire that is hurting them, it is the immoral dictates of their own religion and illrational belief set that is hurting them. They should be angry with their religion....not with their kids.

@Ginaphil It isn't really a redefining of moral as morality was never objectively defined. That is why there are differing ethical models to try to establish a system of morality. The reason most people are primarily interested in the results of an action is because most of secular society subscribes to something closer to the utilitarian model of ethics, where actions are moral if they increase happiness more than they hurt.

The tricky part of ethical debates is that you can't really call something objectively immoral. The best you can do is say this action is immoral under X system because of Y, and then try to make a case for why your model is better.

You're very welcome The article helped me a great deal.