Adultery is an objective moral bad. If you are unsure whether you want to continue in your marriage, adultery will not answer that question. It will fundamentally and irrevocably (though possibly not irrecoverably) damage the foundation, which may or may not circumvent an actual decision about your marriage (like if you get thrown out). But seeking nearly anonymous sex as a referendum on your marriage indicates that it's not the marriage that's a problem so much as you.

The pharmaceutical companies aren't a good comparison - they profit from world circumstances, but they objectively attempt to curtail the negative. And even if you believe Law and Order or various conspiracy theories, they take some bad actions amidst a whole lotta good.

Arms manufacturers profit from wars, yes, but weapons are a necessity in an imperfect world. And if an arms company actively seeks to increase conflict in order to increase profits then that is an objective moral evil (one flaw in Iron Man was the idea that super powerful missiles always increase death toll disporportionately; they don't. In the hands of a mostly benevolent superpower, the death toll is way lower with complete firearms superiority then with protracted wars of attrition).

I originally wrote that the whizzinator was a better comparison, but I'm beginning to lean towards meth dealer. I think a pretty good analogy is that dealing drugs is objectively bad. I'll allow fuzziness for pot, but I'm willing to take a hard and fast stand that selling meth is bad. To say, "well, they could have cooked it themselves or bought it elsewhere almost as easily" is a crock - your business model is making yourself the easiest/cheapest/most attractive option.

So I don't think it should necessarily be illegal to sponsor the AM site, but I do believe that it should be publically and privately shamed and deplored. That's a perfectly good middle ground (and one that I think the left, in its eagerness to govermentalize everything, often misses).

Following the shame route, if I had a neighbor who was a drunk I'd think, "what a loser" and I'd expect the other neighbors to look down on his behavior (though not necessarily him, until his drunkenness became character defining). If someone said to me, "well, that's his choice. If he wants to live that way then it's ok..." then I'd reply that it's a damn bad choice (again, happy to help someone coping with addiction, but that doesn't include excusing it as "a lifestyle").

As to the fact that many people lead lives of quiet desperation - well, that's got nothing to do with this website guy. If he wanted to help them he could become a therapist.

All in all, a good rule of thumb is "walks like a scumbag, talks like a scumbag, is a scumbag."