Milos, do you mean something like this:
"Who says I am not under the special protection of God?"
-- Adolph Hitler --
"I trust God speaks through me."
-- George W. Bush --
Religious and Atheists know that man on man sexual intercourse is not a sickness but a personal choice and thats how it should be treated.
If so, then so is choosing to be heterosexual. Do you remember the day when you checked off the heterosexual box?
You got that backwards, church should no longer be involved in marriage. I know it was originally a religious thing, but times change and so should that.
Marriage was not originally a religious thing, they stole that too.
The issue is not what God would condemn, but what God would choose for us as the best choice for us.
Would a loving God choose "love" between a man and multiple female partners/spouses as the best choice, the one to aspire to, do you think?
Would a loving God condemn "love" between a man and a young teenage boy?
Absent a religious perspective based on a few thousand years of social experimentation and testing, how does one decide which "love" should be pursued, or tolerated, or condemned?
Possibly my own views summarize your statement above - I don't recognize states such as "good" or "bad," "right" or "wrong," as these are indefinable and as such, not quantifiable. I do find that the terms, "helpful" and "harmful" are.
Aside from which god and verifying that such a being exists - if we just shortcut and assume the god of your cult then he/it definitely saw polygamy and incest as viable choices.
RE: "a religious perspective based on a few thousand years of social experimentation and testing" - it has indeed been that, Bob, and overall, unless one is cherry-picking, it must be said that that perspective has been found seriously wanting.
And yet as theories go, remarkably successful. Far more successful than atheism.
Because the religious perspective tells us about heart warming love-stories about women marrying their rapists and getting taken as booty after war right? Yeah, atheism lacks that.
Quite likely because unlike religion, atheism neither has or seeks a power-base from which to enforce edicts for 2000 years. But are forced achievements really success?