>How can any law or moral code be enforced if only the sinless can enforce them? You proposed it, not me. I'm okay with it because one person's sin is another person's perfectly okay activity. Since it involves consenting adults, I have no right, nor do you, to cast any stones. My line is "not consenting adults." Pretty simple, the law should stop in to protect those who cannot consent. >John 8 was talking about the fucking Jews trying to trap Jesus. John 8 was paramount to establishing the gospel of Christ where love replaced the strict Law of Moses. It's among the most important chapters in Christianity to drive the point of the change in the use of the gospel. The pharisees thought to trap Jesus with the Law of Moses and show Christ's message to be hypocritical - He preached the message of peace, love, forgiveness. So the entrapment is, "Law of Moses says to stone her. Time to stone her, eh Jeshua, ol' boy? But you love your message about peace, love, and forgiveness. You're in a paradox. You don't stone her, you defy the Law of Moses. You do stone her, you are a hypocrite going against your message." Funnily enough, you seemed to have missed the entire point of the Gospel of Christ about love, forgiveness, and peace. It is none of your business what two consenting adults to in the privacy of their own home. Keyword is "consent." If you want to claim to follow the teaching's of Christ, your position is one of forgiveness, love, understanding. Your job is also to protect the innocent - those who cannot consent. The law should clearly codify protections against those that cannot consent. Your attempt to slippery slope this is dishonest. The line is clear. The line is based on the best available science we have on human psychology and consent. In a court of law, we can prove with expert witnesses if a person was incapable of consent. "Abuse of the disabled." >Fuck your so-called freedom. Fuck your so called Satanic Control Freak bullshit. Stop thinking about dudes having sex so much and trying to control what they do. You're skirting a thin line between being a pedo-apologist by using their same arguments. Consent is paramount.