Russia says it will arrest openly gay tourists

[DeistPaladin]

For a moral standard to be superior, it only needs to gain acceptance from a large number of people. For example, is it moral to implement a policy that would distrupt social peace, but perhaps grant a single individual the right to do that?

The rights of individuals vs. the needs of society are sometimes hard to weigh out but even with the most complex of moral dilemmas, secular reason provides a superior framework to religious edicts. We can rationally try to weigh both out instead of relying upon ancient (often outdated, sometimes based on old ignorance) admonishments from holy scripture.

In an extreme example, one can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater and claim the individual right to free speech.

To address each problem of needs of the one vs. needs of the many, we need to weigh out the cost of the public disruptions and calculate to the best of our ability the harm that is done by the taboo actions, weighing that against the individual cost of freedom of choice. In the cast of the false alarm example above, the cost is the stampede, panic and ultimate injury and death that may result. These costs can then be used to justify restriction on individual freedom of choice and expression.

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.

But morality can't be simply a matter of popular vote and mob rule. This is the logical fallacy of "appeal to popularity".

With mob rule, an unpopular minority may be oppressed or made into second class citizens. Even a majority can be cowed by tradition into submission, as has been the case with women, who technically comprise a slight majority in the world's population.

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.

Religion and culture are intertwined with one another but this does not make religious-based taboos "secular" unless said taboos can be logically justified without any appeal to religious tradition or scripture.

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?

If only God would appear and tell us Itself what is right and wrong rather than rely upon human beings who claim to speak for God.

Until you can present your god to me, or at least an angel, all I hear is some guy waving a Bible/Koran and claiming to speak for God. Thus, we have human rules either way.

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.

A slave is still a slave even if he/she is unaware of the enslavement. A lie is still a lie whether or not the deceived ever discover the truth. Morality is not simply a matter of getting caught.

So from your so-called secular viewpoint, committing adultery, and then lying about it to your spouse is morally okay.

No. Unless you have a prior agreement to have an "open marriage". Not to my taste but to promise fidelity and then cheat is to enjoy the benefit of a contract but not fulfill your end of the bargain. One who is cheated in a contract is still cheated, whether they discover it or not.

In truth, this is what it's all about.
A drug user too, only hurts himself in a physical sense

Depends on the cost to society. See my example of the false alarm of "fire" and discussion of weighing it out.

Angel Dust, for example, causes people to act out psychotically and violently, thus endangering the peace. Pot, by contrast, seems to have little effect except to inhibit the energy of the smoker. Outlawing one can be justified but the other is a different matter.

You do not value anything beyond the ego, the self, as a standpoint for your morals.

Just the opposite. In fact, secular morality focuses on our obligations toward one another.