Allowing same-sex marriage shows that religion is the best way to decide morals.

The Hebrew bible has not changed that much. Some translations are bad, but kjv is still good. I know you say that it has been changed, but as far as we can see is changed is that king James added a few points of no witchcraft. If you look, the bible has no contradictions, so obviously it hasn't been changed that much. 2. It is wrong, I just can't prove it to you. It is religion based. Plus, this is also about movable morals vs. set morals. 3. Now was it a religion? The cult of the supreme being was based mainly around the de-christianization act of the time and was meant to make people act mainly more rational and secular. They often times had defacing of churches along with destroying religious icons. So this "religion" was based around secular means, gave no direct rules other than follow the secular government, and worshipped knowledge. It was an extension of the government. 4. If the majority of people don't decide the morals, whom are you implying does. Is there a dictatorship over morality? Also, just to be clear. Supreme Court votes in abortion. Supreme Court is part of the government. The majority vote in members of the government. The government represent our beliefs, the majority who vote them in. How does this not equal majority is beyond me. And are you implying that abortion has been worse than the five million we have killed already. 5. I would like to start off by saying that there have been many people use science to cause atrocities also. Religion is the not the main problem. Also, look at the many great things done by religion. What help has atheism given. 6. I find this quite a bit of hypocrisy. You first start by saying how you can't go with your own interpretations, and then go on to show why your interpretation as the best. It does not say they die. It doesn't even say when premature comes into play. The baby could be perfectly fine. You are assuming that 1. The baby is premature to a degree of unhealthiness. 2. That the baby dies due to one and. 3. This law implies to those who do kill the baby. That is your interpretation. We can't say that this includes those who did end up killing the baby. Oh wait, yes we can. Next verse- And if mischief does follow, you shall take a life for a life. Baby dies, then the guy dies. It is ending the bad family line. That's kinda how Israel lasted for forty years. If you just punish those who did the crime, than the family will become corrupted. Oh, and when it says that she did not cry, do you really think they mean literally. It means that it did not burden her heart for what she did. 7. You just changed everything you said. I gave example of a law being brought up about cross animal other intercourse and you answered by saying that WE would not allow that. You are implying majority and that you have superior morals. And I am very aware of hitler's propaganda with religion. Once again, this is someone using religion, not it itself. The bible goes against it, and since someone did it doesn't make it right. 8. I will read it more when you do. The people who was treated as slaves were war criminals. Nothing more or less. 9. There are many copies of a good thing. Atheism is just as bad as religion. You held onto Darwinism, and now neodarwinism, and you will to whatever comes next. 10. Once again, who are you to decide what is morally justified. Also, the nazis weren't a religious group. Some may have been, but not all. Nazis used science just as much as religion in their efforts. Also, many people have died under atheists. School shootings in the past year was done by atheists. The columbine shooting was done by a member wearing a natural selection is my god shirt. Many dictators have done as bad as religious people. By your logic, that means that religion and science are both bad.