Good heavens, indeed. This isn't, as Charles said, really a question for philosophers. But just on an ordinary human level, it will strike most people that your husband is behaving pretty appallingly, in a way that probably reveals a deep fear or even horror of female sexuality. His response is that of the frightened emotional bully. In the face of his absurd reaction, it must be difficult not to feel crushed, and begin to doubt your own good sense. But of course it wasn't a big deal to go the party (with all the female banter and amused teasing and gibes at male inadequacies -- or so I'm told!); and you need to hold on to that thought in the face of the bullying, and not start to doubt your own sense of moral proportion. To echo Charles again, good luck!

Let me recycle the line of response that I gave to a slightly different earlier question, with a few tweaks (and not disagreeing with my co-panelist, but with different emphases). It is a truism that, when I fully act, it is as a result of my desires, my intentions, my goals. After all, if my arm moves independently of my desires, e.g. because you want it to move and push it, or as an automatic reflex, then we'd hardly say that the movement was my action (it was something that happened to my body, perhaps despite my wishes). But note that even if everything I genuinely do (as opposed to undergo) is as a result of my desires etc., it doesn't follow that everything I do has an egoistic motive in the sense of being motivated by the thought that what I do has a payoff for me or that "the choice is best for [me]". The fact that a desire is my desire doesn't entail that the desire is about me or is about some payoff for me, or something like that. And it is just false that all my desires are...

My maternal grandmother was the youngest but one of a Victorian family of ten; her oldest brothers were about twenty years older than her. It doesn't seem at all morally inappropriate that she should have cared about her nearest siblings much more than those hardly-known distant figures who left home when she was a toddler. And she manifested her favouritism in all kinds of ways: surely nothing morally amiss with that! And no doubt the older children who were still at home had their various favourites among the little ones too -- surely nothing amiss with that either so long as no one got too left out. So I can't see that there is anything wrong per se about having favourite siblings and manifesting that favouritism. Where things get more problematic is when numbers get small: it could indeed, as Sean says, then be wrong to manifest preferences too much. But suppose that (because of a family tragedy) you and cousins were brought up together from young: then surely the same would apply. So...

You ask a grad student ... Well, I semi-jest, but a good way of making a start on some new topic is indeed to ask someone what the two or three recent "must read" items are. And reading these will firstly tell you whether you are going to find the topic fun/profitable to pursue, and no doubt the bibliographies at the end of the papers or books will give you lots of pointers for where to go next if your decide you want more. If you haven't someone on hand to advise (or someone suitable at the end of an email, or among your facebook/twitter friends), I'd start with the relevant Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article, if there is one yet. They vary from good to stunningly good, and usually have amazingly good bibliographies too. And to fill the gap between bibliographies (necessarily backwards looking, and usually a few years out of date) and the current state of play, you can look at the Philosopher's Index (a bibliographical database any university library should have access to), and ...

You might well enjoy reading the wonderful Philosophers without Gods (edited by Louise Antony, one of the contributors to this site). Some of the essays in that book might help you see that belief need not be "equivalent to superstition and group-think"; other essays question the "advantages to having a moral framework as one finds in [a] chosen/inherited religious tradition"; and other essays again will help in thinking through a decent secular moral framework.

What is it with the obsession of (much) contemporary organized religions with matters of sexuality? It really is pretty bizarre. And for sure, if some of the energy wasted on pruriently fussing about who gets to do what with whom and where were spent campaigning on issues of social justice, say, then the world would be a better place. But I digress ... You say that the proscription of homosexual acts is "backed it up with scriptures and revelation from God given to mycurrent church leaders". But the import of the few relevant scriptural passages is the subject of hot debate. And even if you think that the relevant passages should be taken seriously (Why? I'm sure you don't buy the more whacky or offensive proscriptions of Leviticus. Any grown-up believer picks and chooses), why accept your church leaders' interpretation as opposed to the readings of e.g. more liberal Christian sects? They may claim "special revelation from God", but then they would, wouldn't they? -- and no doubt so do some...

I posted a reply simultaneously with David's excellent one: it is perhaps just about worth leaving these two remarks here. (1) An atheist certainly need not "take a position on god's existence ahead of time and argue it dogmatically". Someone can reject theism because they come to think that we have no good reason to accept the theistic hypothesis, and very good reasons to reject it. In fact, that is a common enough intellectual trajectory for people brought up in some religion: their eventual atheism is (at least by their lights) the result of weighing up the arguments, pro and con. Such an atheist might be misguided in her assessment of the weight of the arguments, but is hardly being dogmatic. (Nor indeed need every theist count as dogmatic, either.) (2) "Must a philosopher, in order to maintain integrity, put every principle on the chopping block?" Well, certainly we should stand willing to revise cherished views, if that's where the preponderance of evidence and argument takes us....

A footnote to Peter Fosl's sensible response. The trouble, of course, is in the talk of 'non-coercive' incest. Where different generations are concerned -- father and adult daughter, for example -- it would be naive to suppose that the younger party, who may think she is freely consenting, isn't in many cases subject to subtle coercion. And even if, leaving the issue of potential offspring out of it, there is nothing morally wrong with genuinely non-coercive incestuous relations between adults, it could well still be a bad thing if people generally believed that to be so (for the belief, by relaxing the received taboo, could have the bad effect of creating a context in which subtly coercive incestuous relations become very much more common). This is an interesting phenomenon in moral thought more generally, it seems. There can be cases where it might be permissible to do X but it would be a bad thing if people (including ourselves) generally thought it is permissible to do X -- e.g. because...

We surely need to distinguish between (a) bad conduct that happens despite the professed beliefs of the sinner (well, we are all human and our actions too often fall short of our own ideals, whether religiously framed or more secular), and (b) bad deeds that result from someone following through the prescriptions of a loathsome form of religion. So when people behave vilely to homosexuals precisely because of some crabbed fundamentalist Christian beliefs, or think it is acceptable to kill apostates because caught up in some fundamentalist Islamic cult, then indeed we can rightly find the particular beliefs that lead them to appalling behaviour to be intolerable. By their fruits you shall know them.

Let's see if I'm understanding. You hook up with someone whom you really like and who really likes you. There's a considerable sexual attraction. The hormones are more than buzzing and you are of an age when it is only too natural to want to start a sex life (and you are old enough for it to be legal). She is more than willing and is sending all the right signals. You fancy her like mad. And wow, it happens! Erm, well excuse me if I don't see your problem! Rash? Well, what is life without a few rash adventures along the way? But actually this wasn't particularly rash (unless zero contraceptive precautions were in use)! Just unplanned, but still mutually wanted and enjoyed. But that makes it sound to me a pretty good way to get things started, compared with the usual alternatives. Not weeks/months of old-style (or not so old-style) stressed fumblings towards "going all the way". Not some regrettable anonymous shag with a half-willing very drunk girl at a party. Just a happy experience with someone...