[kahljorn]

referring to Sodom and Gommorah and stating that societies that do not follow Gd's law are punished, and then waffling when I pointed out the apparent double standard of your attitudes towards the consumption of pork and shellfish rather than try to justify why one Biblical law is more important than the other.

Dimnos said that people should be able to do whatever they want and they only have to answer to god. I said that god expects people to punish sinners. It was a simple counter-argument. I explained this. I also gave a secular example for his secular portion of that argument.

You do realize that you were the one getting punched in the testicles in my allegory, don't you?

Obviously I turned it around used you in the example since there was plenty of times I punched you in t he testicles.

Then you claimed that divorce should be outlawed, and then said that some families should be divorced.

You said that divorce should be outlawed because I said that keeping family cohesion for the well-being of the children in the family is important. I said I agree, but you can ask what is worse for the family. Implying that it might be worse for families to not get divorced, and therefore they should. I explained this. There's nothing inconsistent about it. My argument was always that family structures exist for the well-being of the family, and that gay marriage weakens this. If divorce doesn't weaken the family structures, then there's no reason for it to be outlawed.
Then I pointed out that there is largely different effect on a child who never had a family / stable family structure and somebody who had one that only lasted ten years.

all of this was explained. You never argued that I was still inconsistent, despite this. You need to move on.