I've been noticing some readers taking offense at certain things I write about, be it due to content or to an expressed opinion. Because of this, I figure I'll clarify what I think about "morality" in writing and censorship in general: as George Carlin approached comedy (to paraphrase: "comedians can joke about anything they want"), so I approach writing.
Every situation (from sex to violence to drugs to crime) and every perspective (from left to right to theist to atheist), no matter how heinous, nefarious, inspirational, or wonderful, can lend itself to a good story. And good stories deserve to be written, regardless of whether an author is presenting rape as humor (again, using an old Carlin staple), oral sex as despicably evil, racism as no big deal, suicide as acceptable, Mohammed as a cartoon, the Pope as the Antichrist, Superman and Wonder Woman as homosexuals, Hitler as a nice guy, white tube socks as incredibly sexy, or infanticide as a sporting event. Whether or not I'm good enough to write those stories tactfully and effectively is another matter entirely (I'm probably not... but I guarantee that somebody out there can do it).
On top of that, I personally find everything I wrote above to be some degree of repulsive, and this is both my point and not my point... which brings me to my next point (if I've lost you... oh, well):
Just because a plot, a character, or an idea presents itself doesn't mean that its authors or creators believe or espouse what's been presented (I certainly don't believe all the crap I write, nor even "like" all of the characters and situations I've written). The answer to the age-old question of whether life imitates art or art imitates life is easy: both. Welcome to the tautological existence of thought.
And I happily stand within that continuous cycle.
To quote Carlin one last time: "If you don't like it, change the channel."