Even so, I'd like to see you outwit one.

You have no idea the sense of irony your statement provides to a theist.

Let's you and I review the state-of-the-art in 150 years, shall we? Feel free to bring along any associates of yours that may be relevant to the more-interesting evolutionary selection mechanisms, while you're at it.

I've seen code that was designed to use genetic algorithms. I've yet to see such code generate itself.

Consider this my acknowledgment of all one of you.

Well, I don't need to "logically escape" from it, because I'm not advocating the censorship, nor is that a logical necessity for someone holding a Christian worldview.

Looking for a definitive position statement on the matter?

No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
--Leviticus 18:6 (NIV)

There you go.

Loaded as the request is, though, whether in a particular instance one would be "burning in hell" because of it would depend on wider circumstances. The majority of Christians would say that this sin, like most, is ultimately forgivable. Myself, I'm a Conditionalist, so the short answer would be "not applicable".

indisputable examples of Incest in the Bible

There are indisputable examples on every news station as well.

Now the only thing your listing needs for you to reach baseline intellectual honesty, is to filter the list by which state they are advocating it. By my count, that criterion puts us at zero.

Plus, you get the devastating, unanswerable tactic of True Respawn. Usually, to make it seem fair, games put this in even where it doesn't make any realistic sense.

...and for those of us who think that ads -are- malware, just targeted at a different processor, AdBlock still takes out two birds with one stone...

Nonsense.

Formally, a false dichotomy fallacy, in which one -either- is ethical -or- has a reason to be ethical.

You not being able to name yours, nor justify it, nor offer any reason you would feel yourself held to it, this all being for the -express intentional purpose- of having no functional ethics, and the inherent profound irrationality you have even stating such a thing, is the "disease" here.

"Anytime you have one person or a group of persons who interprets the 'will of the people' which then automatically becomes the law of the land they are the same as kings. Period."

Do you object equally to this modified form?

The so-called norms you're talking about prescribe death for homosexual behaviour.

No, they don't. If you want to argue about the validity of the progression of viewpoints on the issue by the Christian Church and Judaism over time, then do so. It is however factually false to say that our norms call for this. They don't, we don't, and no one is being put to death for it. That is what our norms -are-.

Further, don't obscure the issue with the weasel-words "homosexual behavior". The bible says not one thing against homosexual orientation per se. It speaks against homosexual sex, which was by definition homosexual promiscuity given the timeframe. That promiscuity be the same thing as was a core origination for the propagation of AIDS, which has killed millions of people. Does that causing-a-pandemic-because-it-feels-nice transform to being good from a non-religious perspective, merely by complaining that religion is against it? "Religion says it's bad, therefore it's good"? Check the results against actual practical recommendations and history, from any ethical perspective, first, please.

... and again with the equivocation, though completely boilerplate parroting on your part, nowhere does the bible say sex is "dirty". You can check Solomon for quite the opposite. It does disagree with certain, arguably degrading, uses of it--which, if we dug only a tiny bit deeper, I expect we can trace the motivation for your argument here right back to your personal rationalizations of the moment.

If something causes more harm than good, then it's unethical. Otherwise, it is not.

Demonstrate that, by reference to material physical reality. That this doesn't work isn't new, Hume thoroughly demonstrated this a long time ago.

... the gene for compassion.

What? Where is that in our DNA, specifically?

And the origin for this rule is three billion years of evolution: In the long run, we will survive as a species if we can build cooperative and well-functioning societies.

The origin of a drive vaguely correlating, in your most hopeful case, to something touching on something related to feelings about something in ethics, maybe. That isn't ethics. That's instincts. As well as, anyone simply stating "Well, your feelings may lead you to feel that way, but my feelings lead me to feel the opposite, so evolution must be validating me rather than you" completely negates your argument. Not to mention the actual history of evolution, in which intertribal -competition-, not cooperation, primarily formed our human attributes. That's why it is completely dysfunctional as a basis for ethics. Evolution only gives you broad instincts, that is, feelings, which may or may not happen to correlation to the correct course of action in a particular case, and they are nowhere nearly fine-grained enough to deal with complex issues on an a priori, axiomatic basis.

It's an enticing thought, and given that it's difficult to even tolerate acknowledging the fact you have no basis for you ethics you can name, and are therefore self-declaredly entirely amoral, and -any- ethical happenstance you have to have, is -totally- owed to cultural assimilation from -religion-, the worldview you deny, and as you do so invalidate yourself... it's understandable on your part.

It just doesn't actually work in any way or have any validity, is all.

Well, the problem here is, neither of your "alternatives" has ever literally existed as you've characterized them, so it is difficult to argue comparatively.

If you want to leave the Void and arguments derived therefrom, let me know.

Governance of 'cuz I said so' is bad.

'Cause you said so.

"Governance by the people" has no specific attributes or policies or direction. What the term actually means in practice, is wholly dependent on what the norms of those people are.

"Not religion" is not actually even potentially a conceptually-meaningful norm (see Reification Fallacy--"not X" is not something, it is nothing, regardless of what "X" is), and thankfully, in my country, we derive them indirectly from religion--and I think I would state quite the same were I atheist, by comparison to the history of formally-atheistic nations. And, to circle back, my argument never was that all religiously-formed countries are good, rather that not all of them are "by definition" bad.

Okay, I'll assume that an actual dictionary definition will suffice, as it seem close enough to what you've stated. Here's Mirriam-Webster's.

1: a form of government in which a country is ruled by religious leaders

Fine enough. What doesn't follow is the rest of your reasoning. It is a non-sequitur from this, and your own restatement as well.

You've broadly insinuated "something bad" that will follow from this, and claimed those results are "by definition".

If the leader of a country -happens to be- a religious leader as well, is that "theocracy" and "by definition" negative? If he were to establish a liberal system of courts and be a strong maintainer of civil rights, it's bad anyway, by definition? A system of ongoing subjectivism where any decision can be reversed at any time based on... nothing specific, is automatically better?

You seem to think there is an inclusion for "a form of government in which a country is ruled by (insert authority here)" that is preferable. What is that authority, or is this again an Argument From A Void? Are the decisions and institutions formed by that individual or individuals automatically preferable, as long as they are not religious?

Your reasoning as to the relationship between religious leaders and God seems highly dubious and not borne out by actual religious practice as it has historically been. Do you have actual "unreviewable" decisions to reference? Do you have some reason to say that a religious leader having an opinion based on a religious perspective, and then that view being supplanted or "overruled", means that "God was wrong"? In any case, you are now talking about a very specific form of religion, under extremely narrow conditions, and we are far afield from discussing "theocracy" per se or all forms of it being negative "by definition".