Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.
Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.
For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?
I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.
In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.
Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.
I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.
And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.
We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”
"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]