Polyamory (having more than one sigifcant other) is morally wrong

1. I have explanations Things like shellfish were not SLIGHTLY out of the norm in those days. The Jews were a very special people to God in the day. However, living a special life doesn't come free. The punishment had to come stricter. It's only just. Also, God could kill people as an when he liked (and when I put it this way, then you come to realize that his killings or punishments weren't for nothing) as he created them in the first place. Let me give a simple example: a) I build a lego house b) I find it against my liking C) What can stop me from destroying it? Nothing. I created it, therefore, I get to destroy it. So I destroy it. And when you see this, you appreciate more that Jesus came to pardon our sins. What a mercy put on us. Such amazing grace! Alright, so God can destroy- what about the people then, you ask, what gives them the power to stone that which they did not create? God. He, who has the power to destroy his creation permitted them to do it. Also, by stoning an offender, a stoner will know that that man down there could be him, so he better behave. Knowing all this, my Bible references has been an okay reference for morality this whole debate. 2. Yes, God could've made all those things we think are immoral, moral- but he didn't. Therefore, it's pointless to try and debate if OTHERWISE happened because it didn't ;) 3. Animals are not human, and therefore do not fall under our moral codes. The only way they are involved is when we do something to them, in which case only our feelings/emotions are affected. Therefore, we have to ignore how the animals are affected- only the humans. So it doesn't matter what the animals felt- 100% of the rapist would have still been happy, and that still does not make animal raping correct 4. Utilitarianism, yes, is a way of utilizing morality. But as I've said, systems can be shaken. Not only have I shaken your system but crumbled it to the grown, and smashing it into pieces simply by saying for the last time, "It does not matter how happy or sad you are- your emotions do not affect the laws of morality. You can be happy doing it, but it is still wrong to rape animals." 5. The CURRENT conditions of the debate, as you put it is that I have justified all my definitions. You on the other hand have not completely done so- in fact, you surrendered to the difficulty of the debate by saying (I quote), "nothing can be inherently moral or immoral." That is plain lazy. As the opposition failed to even have a base for his arguments, while I however have a strong one which I keep relating to, it would not be very wise to let him win. All awhile, his has been picking on how I define this or did that without actually having a point. Even those parts he numbers as P were more like Pick on your Opponent's Points than Points. Therefore ladies and gentlemen, as my opposition failed to provide a single actual point, and as I crushed all his pickings and rebuttals, it is inevitable that I win. Thank you. NOTE TO CON: Hey dude, it has been awfully fun debating with you. This debate has taught me a lot (I don't think I was ever familiar with such a system as Utilitarianism before the debate). I have to admit that though I seemed so confident, I did stumble at some of the things you wrote. Pls don't take my aggression seriously- I get excited easily. Thx for taking your time to debate with me. Handshake, Derek.