Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[R00tKiT]

Yes, ofc divine command theory exists.  It's an explicitly subjectivist moral theory.  That right and wrong are determined by some subjects edicts.  That the divine king never changes his mind doesn't change what that moral system is.  Unchanging and eternally subjective. 

Unchanging and eternally subjective Are you out of your mind?

If we were talking about a human king, he would be a changing subject, thus subjective. But God is unchanging .. so ?
Overall, I think you have some homework to do. Subjective simply means that the set of moral judgments differs for each individual. Your erroneous definition of subjectivity as refering to a subject is absolutely wrong if the subject is God. The latter word, even if stripped of any religious connotation, still means the only real necessary being, a fixed, unchanging reference. If it is unchanging, it's objective. That's what objective means.

If something is wrong and unchanging, it will always be wrong. 

You should be more concerned of the possibility of it being always right?

Yes, I know you said that.  You can reject moral facts if you like - I'm not trying to convince you that they exist.  If you do reject moral facts, though, you can't avail yourself of them.  Things have objective tags™ to differentiate them from the subjective.  Both realism and subjectivism are cognitivist theories...they differ only in what set of true propositions are morally relevant.  

Do you think that it might be the case that you're hard pressed to state any bad-making property of rape on account of your own ignorance?  Ignorance about rape or about bad-making properties?  Or is this just preening..and in point of actual fact, in mere reality, it;s not hard for you to think of bad-making properties to rape at all? 

I see you didn't give up your garbage attitude of ad hominems, insulting people, beliefs , which already gives me a pretty solid idea of your moral system ... Here's the thing : I gave you a clear scenario where the drugged victim isn't bothered at all by the rape, she won't remember it, she won't be traumatised for life, she won't get pregnant, nothing bad, she was actually sexually aroused by the rape, and the rapist too, she was even euphorically happy. Their overall happiness increased during the act.

Now based on your garbage system : squeeze the bad making property in this scenario now, or shut up forever.

This only poses a restatement of the question.  If fidelity is implicitly good and infidelity..implicitly bad...why is fidelity good?  Again, any fact that you might refer to? Above, you refer to consequences surrounding the partners mental state.  Infidelity is bad because it hurts people.  Harm, here again.  If infidelity didn't harm the partner...say in the case of a healthy open marriage - then it would lack that bad-making property.  It wouldn't be wrong. 

And that's why you should keep your whorish morality, together with your bad-marking property system, to yourself. That's why you, specifically, should mindlessly follow orders with regards to killing, rape, and any whorish behavior. That's why we prefer holy books telling women not to open their legs to strangers, instead of listening to your fucked up rationalization of what sluts decide to do behind their husbands. That's why we don't welcome your "western values" much, despite the nebulous philosophy surrounding them that allows ideas like Peter Singer's, or yours, to have credit. 

You being okay with infidelity if it doesn't harm the partner is strictly equivalent to you being okay with rape if the victim can't feel the harm in any way. Good luck now with the your bad-making properties.

This is all massively hilarious in the context of your religion, with it's one sided plural marriage and sex slaves.

 
You being okay with having more than one slut, in addition to the slutty wife who accepted what you call a "healthy open marriage", really should shut your mouth with regards to polygamy.

assume that killing isaac would have been the right thing to do, since gods say so is the good-making property.  I still couldn't do it.  I would refuse to kill my son no matter who asked.  I would refuse to kill my son even if he were some cartoon villain literally worthy of death.  It will always be a bad bet..to bet on me..killing my son.

It's okay if you can't do it, I myself will never be able to do it. But we would be wrong.

Are there things you wouldn;t do even if god told you not to..or does this order following mentality of yours have no floor?

Of course there are. I would be nevertheless wrong if I didn't do them. If god is really god, that is, the absolute parent with complete information, it would be the very definition of stupid to go against his orders, and even more stupid is to rationalize the latter. We rationalize things using our 1300-1400 grams brain, I don't get how atheists get so confident in their cognitive prowess when it comes to ethics, politics, etc. If your senses can deceive you, so can your brain, and your ancestors' brains, and the most brilliant moral philosophers' brains. It's only us.  And if we cannot accept some absolute guidance at least with basic moral issues, we would allow for too many fucked up moral systems to gain ground.