Your morality is “Give until it hurts. Oh, and everything that leads to non-optimal outcomes is immoral”? That’s…unique.
people just have too much time on their hands if they are worried about what other people are doing with their private lives, or if they have the time to waste on the opinions of others. I wish both sides would just grow up and find something a little more meaningful to occupy their time.
Actually, I just applied some off-the-shelf utilitarianism. Problematic sure, but not unique at all. Frankly though, I think most people can handle the idea that there are greater and lesser evils.
That’s not off-the-shelf anything. Even baseline utilitarianism takes overall happiness into account, it’s never phrased as “everyone’s happiness - except you”, which is the variant you’re proposing.
Frankly, though, I think most people are pikers when it comes to carrying their moral “convictions” into any consistent ethical framework. “Little evils” are an excuse for slacking.
Oh, there’s a bit of 
in that statement, but not as much as you’d think.
Not really. JS Mill noted that there’s a tendency to over-weight one’s own happiness, and that one should fight against that tendency. Moreover, a person of modest means in the US, has far greater utility than a needy third worlder. Hey, I permitted them to stay above the poverty line, but only a little. I could have pressed the issue even harder.
I’m wary of such broad brush pronouncements, even when one is kidding on the square (which I acknowledge is appropriate - I’ve been flippant as well during this chat).
I’m going to get a little meta here. I refuted and retracted my comment upthread. But I think it is a legitimate question, if cast with just a degree of empathy. The proper response is an empirical one and as such will vary according to application. For example, I think that after the mid 1980s liberals self-policed more which squeezed out some of their nuttiness. It is entirely fair to ask where are the conservatives who shun the crazy. (And the answer is there are plenty-- but those who do so are sent to the cornfield. Examples include Bruce Bartlett, Andrew Sullivan (to a lesser extent), and even David Brock).
- Hijack! It’s well known that there are 6 clobber passages that are launched against homosexuals in the Bible, which when you think of it aren’t all that many. Especially since many of them appear to be about sexual assault anyway. It’s also noted that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. But I recently came across Matthew 19:12, which though is traditionally said to be about priestly celibacy, seems to me to be positively queer-friendly. I shouldn’t have been surprised coming from a guy who defended -no praised- Samaritans (known widely to be terrorists), but I was anyway. What the heck, I’ll give the KJV: 9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew tends to add qualifications: Mark’s version of the 19:9 just prohibited divorce without exceptions. Now Jesus could have said, “Some eunuchs were born that way -they can’t help it- and others were victims of assault. Of course there are also the Preverts: God hates Fags.” Of course he said nothing of the kind. Indeed, he put voluntary eunuchs in the best and most tolerant light. And my study bibles indicate that, yes, eunuchs were vilified among Palestinian Jews of the day. So the passage is rather striking. Who does this guy think he is?