Jesus said something to the effect that his followers should be hot or cold, but the lukewarm he would vomit out of his mouth.

Morality is indeed a question. If you have no standards of right and wrong, how can you be moral? Your actions may cause things to happen that people like or don't like, but you aren't moral. You are _a_moral.

The fact that you sin – which I define as acting in a way you know to be morally wrong – doesn't make you immoral – it makes you a sinner. Since none of us is perfect, we are all sinners – some moreso than others. The question then is do we repent and reform or do we just admit and continue our actions. If the first, then we're still moral. If the second, then we're not moral. We're immoral.

Immoral and amoral are also different. Immoral is doing what you know is wrong with no intention of changing your ways. Amoral is having no standards of right and wrong.

So…actually, I think progressives _do_ have a moral standard, but I think their standard is as wrong as that of the Aztecs when they sacrificed virgins. That's where the conflict is, I think. We are judging each other's morals on different standards and attempting to equate them. Even the progressive's use of the various things you mention in order to defeat conservatives is moral by their standards, because their standard is that anything goes in order to advance their agenda. To a progressive, sex of any kind is incidental…amoral. To a conservative, sex outside of marriage is immoral. To a progressive, any sin is proof of hypocrisy – not just a fall from grace. I'm not sure a progressive can "sin". If you can never sin…can you ever be a saint?

Progressives interpretation of moral standards requires conservatives to be perfect or stand accused of hypocrisy. That's unrealistic – and they know it – which is why they use it. Nobody's perfect – there's always some dirt they can use to discredit an opponent. And if they can, they will.

They really are despicable.