Russia says it will arrest openly gay tourists

[Bad Writer]

For a moral standard to be superior, it only needs to gain acceptance from a large number of people.

I think you need to step away from calling a moral superior in the first place. Morals are unquestionably subjective in the first place, so calling something superior due to majority rule is a logical fallacy. A .45 caliber can be deemed superior in firepower to a 9mm, even if there are less of the former than the latter.

...is it moral to implement a policy that would distrupt social peace, but perhaps grant a single individual the right to do that?

Handicapped parking can be very disruptive, depending on how you look at it, but we give few individuals this right anyway.

In my opinion, morality is not defined by singularity, it is defined by multitudes, and what they have agreed upon as being moral, and indeed beneficial to society.

It's actually both. Are you saying that people can't have a personal moral code? You would be completely wrong. And just because majority rules on a moral structure, this does not mean that it's beneficial or detrimental to a society. It just is what it is.

In many ways, this is yet still secular, meaning, worldly, and as you believe that all religions and gods are false, you also assert that any morals that stem from religion are also worldly. On the other hand, those who believe in them, state that these morals come rom God, and indeed, who would prefer the moral standpoint of a human to that of a God?
In any case, what you deem to be secular is a matter of how you look at it.

Re-labeling does not become us. What if atheists just started calling the unknown cause of the Big Bang god? That would be, in your above definition, a secular reasoning, yet we are attributing the name of a deity to this seemingly fantastic, yet most likely logical cause. The word god carries so much baggage with it, that atheists would then be dishonest in their reasoning, would cease to be atheists because even if they still say, "I don't know what caused it, but let's call it god anyway", then that claim negates their atheism.

The fact is that secular will always mean anything not attributed to religion. You can't mix the two. Your reasoning is interesting, but still flawed.

As to come to what you define in your so-called secular moral viewpoints...

So-called, my right ass cheek. They are called thus because they ARE secular, you twat!

...I can say this that your morals actually do describe the bare minimum moral standards for a person to get through the day without killing maiming, or otherwise raping or robbing someone. Live and let live, and as long as you can manage that, you're good to go.

And now you've just put Atheists into a box. Congratulations on being wrong again. Why don't you try ASKING us what we believe to be moral instead of making baseless assumptions that make you look like a bigot?

However, as with everything that your secular morals, in actuality, a way of feeling better when you do things that you know that normal society detests. Many of those who speak to me of such morals deem it perhaps quite moral to commit adultery, two legit people who agree on sexual intercourse, in spite of being legally married. However, in my viewpoint it is morally wrong to claim that such things are morally okay.
So is for example, lying to someone. In most cases, lying really hurts no one. One side is certainly nothing more than ignorant about the issue that concerns the lie, and the other is aware.
So from your so-called secular viewpoint, committing adultery, and then lying about it to your spouse is morally okay. Your spouse knows nothing, and you've gotten away with what you've done. But no one got harmed, and you also have pleased yourself, something which ought to be moral, as you feel good while you're doing it.

I'm tracking on this one...you're admitting the fact of individual morality, which is contradictory to your earlier statements, so this is either good progress on your part, or you are confusing yourself.

In truth, this is what it's all about.
A drug user too, only hurts himself in a physical sense, but he also allows for the production, sell, and widespread usage of such vile substances that also promote social and moral decay, with his contribution to it. Is his use of drugs moral? No. But since you view morality on a very individual basis, you simply regard the very basic concepts as the only moral guidelines in your life. You do not value anything beyond the ego, the self, as a standpoint for your morals.

And you lost it. You're equating white lies to drug use. Even if morality is subjective, there are still hard facts about choices and consequences. Maybe no one ever helped you compartmentalize certain aspects of the human existence?

Traditional morals on the other hand, provide people with a purpose of serving a greater whole, and therefore, serving oneself, and ones who he holds dear to him/her.

Like honor killings!!!

Traditional morals are those who actually promote the well treatment of your fellow man.

Like "Smear the Queer"!!!

Obviously sexually immoral acts, such as public indecency of all sorts, harm society as a whole, as they perpetrate the notion that a person only exists to sample the pleasures of life, while having no greater purpose beyond that of serving one's carnal desires, and also drive "the economy" as you said, a nice way to put it, considering today's economy is ruled by your lax moral standards, in which people only serve themselves.

Sex in the streets!!! I mean, we all do it in the west, right, guys? I'm sorry, your soapbox preachy tone is making me laugh out loud at you. It sounds like brainwashing got to you. I wish there was something I could do to help.

I'd like to add one thing, religion for the most part, does not drive the traditional morals of any society. Its use is to reinforce it by giving it a celestial origin, while you obviously reject the notion of that aswell, I'm not really sure why you oppose people who would rather claim a divine source for their otherwise very worldly morals.

And this is why religion is superfluous fluffy nonsense in some cases and horrible bigot-creating hate-filled awfulness in others. To even claim that you need to give a claim a celestial origin is unnecessary in the first place, and it leads the masses to presuppose that certain moral acts, such as stoning unruly children, is more desirable than the common decency humans ought to dictate to themselves in the first place. Telling the masses that God told them to hate gays doesn't give the people a choice in the matter, for they believe that if they do otherwise then they will be disobeying a power that decides the fate of their eternal soul. This is why I'm opposed to people who claim a divine source for their backwards-ass morals, even if it is secular to begin with.