Nudists - Yes I support them, but it as nothing to do with individualism. These particular societal taboos have been chosen and dictated by highly judgmental individuals who had no right to make such claims. If it wasn't vehemently fought by the offended to the point of throwing people in jail, I'm certain that an open vote would slowly but surly reveal the the majority is fine with nudity or doesn't care. Same goes for profanity. And it's not just a nudist's nature to be concerned with, it's everyone's nature. Taboos are an unhealthy part of human cultures.

Necrophiliacs - I caught that type of argument for cannibalism from you, but not for necrophiliacs. The same response from me applies. If the deceased offered their body it's fine, but I would add that someone should step in and stop the situation if there are serious health issues (necrophiliac and/or deceased weren't in their right minds when decision was made) with how long the necrophiliac is wanting to retain the body for sexual use or any other possible health issues that would result.

Should the state guarantee that people can perform such acts? No. But if you are comparing a guarantee to perform these acts with gay marriage then that would be a false analogy. Refusing to give homosexuals equal treatment under the law as it stands is not guaranteeing acts of homosexuality. The practice of homosexuality is already taken care of by the homosexuals themselves, not the state. Discrimination against them and shaming them through the law is what's in dispute. Also, you should try and be less offensive in your comparisons to homosexuals. It's obvious that you are associating an ick-factor to homosexuality by using examples which naturally (without any influence from culture) would engage a gag reflex in most human beings. This is not the case with Nudists and Homosexuals. All of your disgust towards those groups has been taught to you from an early age.

Drug Users - Yeah, they might "think that [their body's autonomy outweighs [their] responsibility to other people," but determining that is hardly a subjective value judgement. Doctors are capable of determining if a person is exhibiting a behavior out of personal choice or due to a symptom of a deeper issue.

For example, my girlfriend is bipolar, and when she's in a low state of mood she often wants to kill herself. I would never help her kill herself like that even though I know she's in a lot of mental pain. I always walk her through these episodes and I always help her get the treatment that she needs to get back to being stable and feeling that life is worth living. If there were no treatments available or reasonably possible, I would have to reconsider this stance and at least wait until a good stable mood before asking her seriously if she would want it all to end.

If she said 'no' in that state of mind, I'd continue to help her through the lows and not let her kill herself. Don't feel bad for me though, because it's actually pretty obvious when she's exhibiting symptoms, and she doesn't fight me much at all about wanting to kill herself. It's sad but it almost makes me laugh at how silly and childish her reasoning gets in that state of mind.

Alcohol isn't extreme, not by a long shot. Alcoholism is very real but rare amongst the general population. It's like driving, it's useful and safe enough for everyone to begin with a sort of earned right to it, but if they misbehave to a certain irresponsible extent with alcohol then they should be kept from it at all costs.

That's what good rehabilitation is for, and for certain drugs which are capable of being experienced without addiction and damage being inevitable, I would make the same argument. If we had descent rehabilitation programs (not 12 step) and descent health coverage for all who have mental health troubles, we could avoid nearly all of the problems that come with all recreational drug use and determine which recreational drugs are safe to use for fun and which drugs really take it too far. There is and will always be a rational line between the two.

Cannibalism - what I'm implying is wrong with cannibalism by that is that it's extremely unhealthy to the individual engaging in it and that it's potentially dangerous to others who come into contact with the cannibal. Look up how dead bodies effected the spread of the black plague. Again, please have the respect to stop comparing things to your ick-reaction to homosexuality. If you find something icky about homosexuality, let's zero in on that and why you feel that way.

"You make it sound like no sane person would generally advocate cannibalism, but this is a subjective moral judgment based on a societal taboo."

No, it's not. Or at least, only an idiot or a psychopath with a craving would make their decision based on taboo. We have a gag reflex that says "YOU WILL GET SICK IF YOU DO THIS!" which stops us, not a social taboo. The social taboo aspect of cannibalism only effects how harshly we are willing to punish someone for cannibalism. Ironically, our early instincts in this country were to sentence the individual to death. Why don't you see taboo as a sickness or at least a wrongful behavior?

I do not make judgments based on taboo. Taboo distracts us from the reality of the situation and makes us do worse things to justify why we think something is wrong. Cannibalism and drug use are dangerous for their own reasons, not because people feel like something is wrong with them. I accuse people who are against homosexuality of being unhealthy in their perspective of the matter.

Namely, there is a lot of information out there to show that it's healthier for homosexuals and homosexuality to be treated as a natural thing and that the taboo against homosexuality has done nothing but physical and emotional harm towards all people, even heterosexuals who have been forced to try too hard to convince others that they are in fact heterosexual.

There is no reason to evaluate if a a homosexual marriage is healthy and unharmful. Each one of the examples you've made have been false analogy, and I've already explained at length why they are false analogy. Please chose to either accept that they are false analogy or pick one and we'll deal with arguing about if it's a false analogy. I ask that you do this, because the length at which you are throwing fallacy after fallacy into your arguments is wasting both of our time. Just pick one and let's deal with that.

"That's my whole point, that there cannot be any real moral and societal foundations in a liberalistic society."

My counterpoint is that you can say the same of any claims to morality by the same argument. I don't think you've actually found a counterpoint to the liberal premise to morals that you are giving. But aside from that, to use that as justification for deontological claims to morality is an argument from ignorance, because by that argument your position is just as weak.

As an atheist, I can't reasonably make the argument that just because a God can't be proven to be consistent, therefore religious people get their morals from squirrels. That's an argument from ignorance. You should try reading The Moral Landscape, by Sam Harris. In philosophy, ethics have been talked about to death, making many counterpoints to many logical premises of what various people claim to be true ethics. Just because we don't have a system of what ethics is that we can agree on doesn't mean that we shouldn't engage in ethical action and discussion of ethical behavior.

There are plenty of grounds where all theories of ethical truth converge, and those positions are where preservation of the individual also leads to preservation of the group. The liberal stance on homosexuality is for your benefit as well as for the benefit of the greater society. What we can't get past is the taboo that keeps people from seeing that it's better for them.

Your examples are false analogies with Homosexuality for the same reasons that they are false analogies for Heterosexuality. Only Heterosexuality would be a fair comparison to Homosexuality.