Given the size of your response, I would like to at least honor you by not just responding to one item.

You can swing your arms and kick your legs and run around in circles -- as long as you don't bash into someone else.

Let' s try and construct this positively shall we?

When one would do so, is the sheer fact of bashing into another grounds for negation? Or is the consequence a transgression? Most probably: both are harmed. Striking someone causes a suit to be made whole.

It also show, even if it happens by accident, the knowledge of the position: when and where is absent. It is childish behavior.

So, your reasoning is rather weak for accepting the premise.

And it's not specifically about property rights, per se. It is about bloodlines.

That may very well be the case. It is a utilitarian argument in relation to with whom sex is being had. Let' s consider the example of famous (or infamous) King David or even his son Absalom.

My goodness, bloodline considerations where totally adhered to. [/s].

We could go one step further back in time, to the book of judges, where the story of Benjaminites was related where they were lying in wait (which was against the law) to seize a girl of their liking. There were reasons other than bloodlines in consideration here.

Then there is the story of Ruth. Clearly, an example of how a marriage of convenience was made to allow the name of a deceased to arise a new over his land.

Clearly, the argument of bloodlines is a weak one, although the effect eventually was had.

And this leaves my summary of the essential values within the construct of the 10 commandments in tact: honor property rights.

And this idea is applicable to them, as well as to all mankind.