Well, the problem with morality is that it's so subjective.

Sure, it's true it isn't necessarily tied to religion, but it often is.

The point is: It depends too much on culture, society, and the majority opinion. If you're basing your sense of right and wrong on what other people think instead of evaluating evidence for what a given phenomenon does, for good or ill, you're just as likely to be for bestiality as against it, or for cannibalism as against it, and so on. If you lived in a society where "morality" meant eating your parents once they die, as some cultures do, you'd have a completely arbitrary reason to support it rather than be against it. The same goes for anything else. If you lived in the Christianity-plagued middle ages, you might have been inclined to think it a moral duty to burn jews and atheists and heretics at the stake as witches. Why? Well, obviously, because it's the right thing to do, innit? Why? Because everyone else thinks it is, and a hundred million bigots can't be wrong. And to be quite fair, it was common knowledge that witches ate babies and drank blood, anyway.

Maybe I'm ranting. My point is just... Morality is a subjective thing; Like religion and personal preferences, it is pretty much a matter of aesthetic opinion. This makes it useless as a standard for debate.

Well, why do I think it's a subjective thing? Because there's no objective answer to such a question as, "Is Bill O'Reilly more or less moral than Cenk Uygur?". Obviously, Cenk Uygur is more honest, more compassionate, harder working (especially compared to his pay grade), and so on. On the other hand, Bill O'Reilly is a good Christian (because he says so), he's obviously more successful (which, in some circles, is a sign of morality), and he has the decency to talk as if he didn't commit sexual harassment (like Republicans have the decency to speak out against their own affairs to extreme degrees).

My point? You can surely vote based on morality - it establishes whatever the moral majority is - but it's a lousy standard for debate.

As for bestiality: I'm inclined to think it's unethical unless the animal starts the act on its own. And yes, it's fucked up. 
As for cannibalism: Meat is meat. As long as you don't kill people in order to eat them, there's little reason why the worms deserve a decent meal more than a fellow human. And yes, it's fucked up.