(I do think this question can and should be handled without appeals to God, but it's one that non-theists should take seriously. And theists too, for that matter. Unsophisticated divine command theory is a thing of horror.)
Rest assured, I take it very seriously - even though my approach is probably completely different from yours.
Also keep in mind that my previous posts were directed at "anonymous person" who in his current and all his previous incarnations has proven to just follow some disingenious WLC scripts that consist of leading questions serving the purpose of veiling his false equivocations. This is pure trickery, and the responses take that into consideration.
You find it abhorrent but reject concepts like obligations, values, and morality?
Depends on how they are defined. In any case, in my understanding employing such abstractions isn´t really helpful. They tend to be post hoc rationalizations, and they tend to keep us from getting to the core of the issue.
Is this just a matter of personal aesthetics or what precisely?
Feelings. Preferences. Needs.
Not really precise - but maybe it gives you a first idea?
In a fully secular society, what do you think the basis of moral judgments should be?
So are we talking now based on the premise that the purpose of morality is to help create a successful, prospering society? Or, more broadly, morality as a pragmatic, utilitarian concept?
Can you condemn genocide if you refuse to admit that it's wrong except in extremely subjective terms?
That´s what "condemning" means, to me. But then, I am not even sure that "condemnation" is the way to help creating a better society. IOW, even if we couldn´t call that "condemnation" I wouldn´t miss anything.
What would you say to someone who did not find genocide abhorrent?
In order to achieve what?
To express my feelings and/or explain myself?
To soften them and convince them?
Something else?
In any case, I doubt that adding an "objectively" to my feelings and opinions will help with anything.
After all, I wouldn´t be more impressed if a proponent of genocide would claim his view to be objective, either. In this context I find this word redundant at best and counterproductive at worst, for any purpose I can think of.
When faced with views that I can not at all relate to, I tend to start with asking questions that help me understand, rather than starting with immediate antagonizing.