Polygamy and/or Incest is morally permissible.

Since there's not much to respond to, I'll use a format of quoting my opponent's round line by line and responding it and then summarizing the issue in my conclusion: ==================== My opponent's claim that I have yet to put forth an argument ==================== "It seams that my opponent has yet to make an argument other than giving the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and then did nothing to elaborate on it with regards to his position. I hope he will be making an argument in the next round and not just rebutting my points. " ----> It seems you have to read my arguments more clearly. I stated the Equal Protection Clause as a clear example of what I'm advocating: that human beings should be treated equally unless given a valid, secular (since this is in the jurisdictions of a government) reason otherwise. While this may seem very uncontroversial, it still serves a purpose to ground my argument. If you want to refute any part of that argument, SURE! But since you have yet to do that, my arguments stand because I argue -- and I quote -- "[polygamy and incest] are "morally identical", one can say, to heterosexual and homosexual relationships. The presence of more partners or a close bloodline does nothing to sway the moral value of such relationships. " ==================== My opponent's argument for moral relativism ==================== "Given the definition above morals come from society,a group or the individual. The American society or group has largely decided that polygamy, and incest are not morals permissible. This is shown in to ways first the laws we have agenct them, and second because of how rare these types of activities are. This is shown in a poll that shows that 91 percent of the American population consider polygamy to be wrong. . http://www.usnews.com...... I would assume that the number would be much higher for incest but I could not find any statistics on it. " ---->There are some key things wrong with this passage, so I will list out the problems with it in numerical fashion: 1. Your definition does not entail cultural relativism, which you explicitly state it does. It states that morals are a code of conduct PUT FORTH by a society/group/individual/ etc. This doesn't mean said morals are correct, but are proposed to be correct (how we can differentiate between incorrect normative theories and correct normative theories is exactly the purview of ethics). 2. Even if we are to assume your interpretation of the definition is correct in determining the meta-ethical status of morality (which in itself is a ridiculous concept, but whatever let's assume it so), you find yourself in a logical contradiction. Because under your interpretation, the definition would state that morality is determined by society/groups BUT ALSO individuals or religions that are minorities (since they are still religions). This means that even if the majority believe X is moral and it thus is moral, which is cultural relativism, your same definition allows for an individual to believe X is immoral and yet still be correct. If this is so, then we have a contradiction. Since moral truths are still truths, then what you are implying is that X can both be moral and immoral. A logical impossibility. ==================== Conclusion ==================== There isn't much to say about my opponent's argument. He fails to read my simple and clear argument, of which he denies exists, and then he captures himself in a logical impossibility stemming from a wildly inaccurate interpretation of his own definition.