If you look at religious morality, these systems were developed at a time before modern science. The leaders would observed behavior and the cause and effect, but with little in the way of science and technology to clean up any mess due to the behavior. Today, if I cut myself with a dirty knife, I can get a shot, stitches and antibiotics. But back in ancient times, all you could do was wait and see who fell by the wayside. If the number was too high, a rule would appear about dirty knives. But in modern times, there is no need for such a rule, when there are mops of science.
The same was true with homosexual behavior in ancient times. This will not procreate, while bum blasting is unsanitary. Today this is highly dependent on science for precautions and mops. The ancients did not have these modern mops of science, but would witness high levels of attrition. To save culture, they would institute taboos to slow the attrition. These taboos were placed against any behavior that would not be sustainable under natural conditions, but which today are possible, via artificial additives to compensate.
In modern times, because science can mop up after many things that are not naturally sustainable, people assume there is no need for ancient natural morality in the modern world of artificial supplements. This is only a half truth, since these mops tends to create an expense for culture, while those who conserved expense, by being moral, are forced to pay for the mops needed to support unnatural behavior.
One solution, would be not tax the moral, to pay for the social mops needed by immorality. Rather let the immoral cover their own tab. If liberals had to pay for their own mops, this would satisfy the system, since they would be self reliant and would not have to impose on others. But they don't pay for their own mops, but try to impose this preventable expense on those who live in ways that save social costs. This is the real argument.
Would anyone be willing to run an ancient experiment with homosexuality where you can only use what was around 2000-3000 years ago, which means no mops? One would see high levels of death and disease. If the experiment was forced to run for 10 years, the government would issue a moral law to protect these people from themselves, not to punish them.
Who would accept the idea that those who practice immorality, in the traditional sense, cover all their expense through higher taxes on just the political party that condones such behavior? Those who practice the cheaper behavior of morality get a tax cut since they are no longer liable for buying mops for others. The resistance is not toward the people, but the imposition of expense for something you don't use.
Hilary Clinton will raise $2 billion for possible run for president. She can use this to buy mops instead, instead of using this to gain power so she can impose mop buying on those who don't use the mops at the same level. Liberalism like to steal to create an illusion.
Prove me wrong by running an experiment that is mop free.
