I've already answered this. All of it.

The loudest opinion isn't necessarily the correct one.

No one is saying that all anti-homosexual bigotry would disappear. That's a strawman.

Sure it is. Most homophobes I knew growing up were non-religious and homophobic probably because they were afraid to be labelled gay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Just because religion correlates with homophobic tendencies does not mean that religion CAUSES homophobic tendencies.

You didn't answer my statement about dowry with any evidence to support your side. You're saying it's irrelevant buy my point wasn't about dowry being around today... it was about how traditions tend to seep into the future and often cultures have practices whereby nobody knows exactly why they are doing the things they are -- they are just afraid to piss off elders.

As if being sexually active makes them "not good little girls."

Many fathers will tell you it creeps them out that their daughters are sexually active and many more will tell you they want their daughters to remain virgins until marriage even civil marriage -- not because of any religion but because they don't want their daughters being pregnant and without a father to be part of their daughters lives. Again you're kind of being lazy here. Do more work in your responses or there's no point debating.

Or, they are realistic and sex positive, instead of teaching children to fear, be ashamed of, and suppress their sexuality

Now you're the one with strawman arguments. I wasn't saying that fathers SHOULD shame their daughters only that there are plenty of cases where non-religious fathers did not want their daughters engaging in sex before marriage simply because they don't want their girls getting knocked up without having the support structure.

Ugh. Not only is this bullshit, it's also narrow minded and misogynistic.

What? How is this possibly misogynistic? It's a numbers game. If 50% of the people alive today are male and 50% are female how is it fair for one guy to have 20 girlfriends? He's taking those relationships away from 19 of his peers. That's not at all misogyny. That's a mathematical fact. I'm doing nothing more here than offering the moral application of logic to the statements I'm making. Kant said that the categorical imperative has a strict bearing upon moral outcomes. Strictly speaking if every man in the world had 20 wives how many men would have to be sacrificed at birth for this to become mathematically possible? 19/1 would have to be killed for this polygamy to be a globalized rule. Or we just have 19:1 men who are celibate? How is that fair?