It was you who wrote that people suppress urges based on their odds of success.
I stand by that.
I pointed out this is not true in all cases
No, you didn't, and I pointed out why you didn't. Specifically, people choose the path through life that they thing will lead to an optimal outcome. That often will involve deciding to suppress some of their urges, say, the urge to try and hit up their neighbour's wife. They may, for various reasons, decide that's not the optimal path for them. The urge was there, but they suppressed it. You took my original statement in far too narrow a sense, as you usually do.
The concept of wrong implies the concept of good, and vice versa of course. So to say something is not wrong, is to say it has some degree of the contrary property of good.
False. Since you like to name fallacies, I will tell you what fallacy you just committed: That's a false dichotomy, also known as an excluded middle. It's possible that something is neither bad nor good. Yet another basic error in reasoning by you, go to the back of the class and receive your F- in philosophical reasoning.
Bullshit. What has really happened is that you keep claiming morality does not apply to sexual conduct at all.
False. I've been clear that I think universal prescriptions apply, that what you cannot do is engineer specific rules specific to sexual behavior only.
When it is repeated that you already conceded it did in the form of prescriptions against rape, torture, violence, child molestation and such, you claim you never said morality did not apply.
False.
You then imply such broader codes are the only ones that apply, discounting other broader codes, like truth-telling, integrity, keeping a promise, contracts social or otherwise, lying, about credibility, and so forth.
None of those things apply universally the way that prohibitions on aggressive violence do. There are lots of cases where it's perfectly moral to lie or break a promise. On the other hand it's well recognized that a sexual relationship is NOT a contract. As for "integrity" and "credibility" those are vague terms that most likely boil down to the other issues you've raised.
It is completely arbitrary on our part to draw the line you do between the first and second set of broader moral codes
It absolutely is NOT arbitrary. I have given you, explicitly, the reason why you cannot engineer codes specifically for sexual behavior. There is nothing whatsoever arbitrary about it, you just refuse to admit you've lost the debate.
I have argued closer to what everyone but you knows is common sense
In short, having lost the debate on rational/logical/empirical terms, you are now resorting to a popularity contest. I agree that most people in our society have it wrong, that you will win the popularity contest. We live in a society in which the "life denying" assumption has CONSIDERABLE traction, and you will find many adherents.
