Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[The Grand Nudger]

Humans disagree over facts all the time.

And that's exactly why religion should have a take on morality. Again, we don't claim moral deeds can't be done without believing, nor that religious people are morally superior. It's simply that we need guidance, because the moral systems we can come up are inherently fallible. And morality is too serious of a matter to leave it altogether to **rational inquiry**, especially, as I said, when there are so many divergent, and competing, viewpoints saying different things about issues as critical as rape, murder, etc.

If you really believed in human fallibility you wouldn't advocate for an order following system in place of a moral system.  You would appreciate the value of reason when it comes to assessing counter-claims to fact.

However, you don't.  In mere reality, you want to privilege a specific product of human fallibility over reason and take orders from a magic book. 

I just don't need those facts, and if those facts existed.....which they don't... they would be subjective rather than objective facts - by definition.

And yet you failed, miserably, at pointing out what's wrong in infidelity from a realist viewpoint. As far as I'm concerned, cheating is perfectly moral under your system if it goes unnoticed.

You -believe- that there's some failure..on account of how employing reason lead to a position which contradicted your mindless order following.  In mere reality, I explained why and when infidelity could be wrong, and also when it wouldn't be.

As for cheating..I'm sure that you'd be convinced that whatever garbage thing you wanted to do was "perfectly moral" in my system - I can already see that you treat your own much the same way.

So, for example, if it is a fact that an open relationship is harmful, then it would be bad to be in an open relation. 

It is a fact that open relationships are harmful. Relationships are closed and should concern two people by definition. You're simply backing up all kinds of sexual depravity widespread and freely done in your country.

Consenting to an "open relationship" means there was no relationship to begin with, let's not play with the definitions.

It would be trivially easy to find examples of open relationships that are, and aren't, harmful.  Since I refer to facts as a realist, and since we've both identified harm as the relevant fact...an open relationship being wrong, or not wrong, depends on whether that specific relationship is harmful.

If we take harm out of the picture, why would an open relationship still be bad?  Must be something other than harm.  Something like your incoherent and fact free religious beliefs, for example. It's fine to believe as much - I'm just pointing out the borders of your moral agency.

Following?  Disagree?  Didn't you think it was compelling when you asserted that the little girl Big Mo raped didn't have a problem with it, and no one else complained? 

Muhammad married someone, pal. As I already said, if you really think it was rape, you might need to build a more solid case than mere assertion, that would be an outstanding historical insight already.

Since we're talking about traditional marriage, there is no possible comparison with an "open relationship" since it's an invalid, immoral engagement under any respectable moral system.

Yes, he did...a bunch of people.  A very open relationship, at least for him.  One was a child.  This is your magic books assertion.