I don't even know where to start with this morass, so let's just go right on down the line ....
Well, care to tell me what your major is? Whatever the matter seems that your education is no more advanced then intro courses.
Pot calling the kettle black, apparently. Your arguments are very inconsistent and riddled with half-truths and stereotypes. Who is the uneducated one here? A degree does not make one intelligent or capable of decent discourse.
So the laws on the books say that sodomy is illegal yet seems that practice is wide spread. So much for laws being the pivotal factor in social mores. On one hand you say laws create social morals and on the other you say that there are laws that are outdated? How is it that sodomy has become a less valid offence when clearly the law is still intact? You say that laws determine social morals but yet we can see this isn't the case.
It's widespread because plenty of people enjoy it despite your distaste of it, and it's not a law that is easily enforceable. Why keep a law on the books that is mostly religious in nature, and only serves to repress, not protect or enhance?
I find it funny that you keep referring to 100 years into the past to look for your injustices. This suggest that indeed you see objective differences in society and that clearly it is better at this point in time. Lets look at this a little bit harder. 100 years ago the Irish were treated as low class people why is it you suppose that society changed its view of these people? It most certainly isn't a result of any action on behalf of the government so why is it now that they are treated as anyone else is? Do you look down on women that stay at home because they believe it is the right thing to do? Do you think less of men whom believe likewise? Are these women being patristic because they are not paying taxes? Do you think that such an arrangement ought to be incouraged for the sake of the well being of the children? Clearly you think there are other arrangements. While I would not argue that they are not viable I would argue that indeed children are fare better off in an environment where their biological parents are working together to look after their own children.
We as a humanity are partially the sum of our history, so it's not wrong to look to our past to see mistakes and learn how to not make them again.
Women who stay at home these days by and large choose to raise their family over having a career. While it's not the choice I would make, that is their choice to make and I respect them for that. I don't hold it against them because it's not my choice. What you are advocating is holding things against people because they don't choose as you do.
Is a crack-addicted mother and an absent father better for a child than a loving gay couple simply because they are a child's biological parents? Hardly. By denying gay couples the right to adopt, you strip them of their humanity, which is criminal in my estimation. Slavery strips people of their humanity, and thus it has been made illegal. Do you propose that there are humans who are less human for the purpose of satisfying your morals? Are we not all equal in the eyes of of the law, according to the consistitution? Why you do think you are justified in imposing your morals on those that don't choose to live as you do? Don't like homosexuality or homosexual acts? Don't engage in homosexual activities, and don't associate yourself with homosexuals. Your loss, their gain.
Clearly over 100 years ago there wasn't the great material wealth that the market economy has brought us today and these arrangements were more a matter of survival then anything else. The same arrangement has been predominant for the entire history of mankind. That is unless you want to go into the left wing theory that before society became market based we lived in some sort of suedo communal arrangement. Indeed hundreds of thousands of years ago the family where the mother is the primary caregiver and the father a more outside role of provider was the case. Which just lends more credence to the fact that society is patriarchal out of nature rather then nurture. Women have most always been subjugated. Even today men objectify the female. Women have always been more emotional on matters and this has always been a sign of weakness. Even in the feminist ruled Sweden they have a male as a figure head. 
Now who's uneducated? It's "psuedo" not "suedo"
Oh, so because it's always been that way is a valid argument to keep it that way. Bullshit. That kind of argument keeps humanity in stagnation, and leads to eventual decay. Society is the way it is because people worship materialism, greed, and shallowness. Until people in general find something to fill the spirit (which is not necessarily religion), then people will remain empty, and fill that emptiness with hatred, intolerance, ignorance, and fear of that which is different from themselves. Humanity has potential to move beyond such things, and people like you would have us crawl in the dregs because that's what we have always done.
No one made the equation that morality equates correctness. You did however say that law equate morals and no one better then you ought to know that laws don't equate correctness. The UN has no right to begin to determine what a peoples moral values should be and that is the thrust of my argument here. The debate on the matter of homosexuality being a genetic affliction or not will only be finalized with the discovery of the genes that cause the affliction. Oh the search could go on forever particularly if there are none. We don't know do we? You say you were born the way you are but there is no proof of it. Further to suggest that nurturing will not effect the outcome of a childes mentality really does not go in line with the rest of your left wing bias. You could finally articulate your cognitive dissonance here and explain that somehow society is patriarchal out of nurturing but when it comes to homosexuality you make some exception with human nature and suggest that it is a genetic predetermined destiny. Well, that is something really because most of the left wing support the gay movement has says there is no human nature and it is simply a matter of socialization theories that we turn out the way we do. I have brought this argument to you before and you fail to recognize the legitimacy of the argument.
Please explain just what human nature is to us all as it seems you have some inside track on it.
He has a point, you know. He is a member of a minority that has been persecuted since the beginnings of organized religion, and has had members tortured and killed because of who and what they are. I would say that he does have some insight in the laws and how they are becoming the say on whats morally right. Since the religious right has a large influence politically, it could be argued that laws are defining morals.
It's NOT a damned affliction. You argue like gays hate what they are and wish they could change. The only wishing they do is to wish for acceptance in this narrow-minded, puritanical, and un-free society. Some attempt to change not because they hate what they are, but because others hate what they are, and no one wants to be hated. Some don't have the strength to live an ostracized life, and I can't blame them for wanting to find some acceptance.
Well finally we agree on something for the most part. But even though partial birth abortions were legal we still find them a discusting aberration don't we? I disagree with the idea that women should have total control over the pregnancy. But one always has to make some sort of concessions on these sorts of matters. I personally lost a child to abortion, a child that I wanted and the abortion happened after the first trimester. I simply did not have a say in the matter and this is wrong. The pro abortion mentality is that a woman should have a choice. I say they already have made a choice before they got pregnant to have sex with someone they would not have a child with. Personally I don't see how the child is at fault. Current laws are that a baby is not human until it is out of the womb, what kind of sick mentality makes such a claim. Abortion after the first trimester ought to be banned outright.
So you would leave a mother to die before you would allow an abortion after the first trimester to save her life? If performed correctly, she can always have other children.
It's not their humanity that is in question, it's their rights, and current law dictates that a fetus has no rights, or rights that are less than a born humans'.
I personally find it offensive when you imply that women are stupid for having sex with people that they might not want to have children with, and should always bear the consequences even when they act responsibly, (use condoms, take birth control, etc.). However men get to screw around as much as they want and they are admired for the notches on their belt. If anything is disgusting, it's that.
I don't know if there is such a thing as "gay children" at all. Seems you have resolved the age old nature nurture debate in one foul swoop with your homosexuality is genetic argument. I don't know what else to call people in chaps on a float of a giant erect penis. They are sick in the head. There are no homosexuals in my family we all come from heterosexuals. You keep your political agenda away from my children and stop trying to high jack societal values with your junk social science.
Do you realize how patently STUPID you sound when you say you have no homosexuals in your family because you came from heterosexuals? Homosexuals can biologically reproduce. Just because they prefer same sex partners doesn't mean that they can't be the father or mother of a child. You don't KNOW that there are no homosexuals in your family, because you and probably your entire extended family breed such an air of intolerance and hatred of homosexuals that they may be afraid or unwilling to come out. You don't KNOW either way. So stop making your purist claims that the "taint" of homosexuality isn't your family.
You keep your political agenda out of MY life. Societal values are not writ in stone, nor are they some high and untouchable code that cannot and should not be altered.
Listen I am not a Christian. Don't even pretend to be. Your suggesting that possibly one has to be a Christian or some other religious affiliation to be opposed to the proliferation of the idea that homosexuality is normal. Your wrong.
I don't buy that at all. Your attitude screams fundamentalist zealot. Only in religious doctrine does one see the argument that homosexuality is "wrong". I can buy that a non-religous person can be opposed to abortion, but to be non-religious and as virulently opposed to homosexuality as you are, that I do not buy.
They are only hurting each other in my opinion. What I am opposed to is the assumption that what they do is as normal as what heterosexuals do. Intercourse is based on the predisposition to reproduce. Homosexuals cannot ever reproduce.
Sterile heterosexual couples are screwed then. They should get a divorce and find someone else because they are not reproducing. That just gives more strength to my notion that marriage on the outside is naught a church-sanctified excuse for screwing and breeding.
Every time you have sex with your wife, you think about reproducing? I feel sorry for your wife, to be afflicted with a husband who is more concerned about reproducing than giving and sharing in mutal enjoyment of the act.
Let me let you in a little fact, since you seem incapable of grasping anything different than what you do. I am heterosexual, and I do not want to have children. By your fallacious logic, I am hurting myself and my partner every time I have sex, because neither one of us has intent to reproduce. WRONG. I am not hurting anyone, nor is my partner, because we are not bring children into this world we dont want just because some obsolete text tells us to.
lol, here we go on the sodomy laws again. Personally I think sodomy is disgusting, dangerous and damaging and don't engage in it at all. It is the proliferation of pornography that has popularized the use of sodomy. BTW have you ever been charged with sodomy? Anyhow it sounds as though you blame the law for the moral. I think it is the connection with the idea that feces is yucky and the lower intestine is not for sex but rather digestion that many think it is disgusting. But with the proliferation of the idea via porn it seems that we can see how the act can indeed be sexualized and nurtured into being a thing to do. Same goes with homosexuality eh?
Now I know you know nothing about anal sex with this little gem of ignorance. For most men, it is about the whole dominant/passive mentality that men are forced to accept from this society. A man who isn't totally aggressive and dominant is seen as weak and inferior. Anal sex implies passivity in this society, hence why so many heterosexual men are hysterically homophobic like you are.
Do like it? Don't do it. But don't force your morals down other people's throat because you don't like it.
Well you are wrong I do have to make sure my children are educated and sense I don't have the qualifications for it I must send them to the public schools where they will learn that homosexuality is normal etc. They won't learn the down side of it they will only learn the politically correct notion.
You mean they actually might come to the conclusion that it isn't as horrifying as you make it out to be, which seems to lead the the conclusion that you don't want your children to think differently than you do, and to accomplish that you would rather keep them ignorant than let them choose what they think and feel about things.
You can homeschool your children if you so choose. It doesn't have to be you who teaches, either. My boyfriend was homeschooled, and he had a teacher who was not either of his parents that he submitted his homework to and learned from. Do some research.
I don't disagree. Marriage is not about sex nor is it necessarily about love. What marriage is about traditionally is a family and the married couple looking after their own children. Today however after the onslaught of the "sexual revolution" we have a high divorce rate causing allot of deviance in the children of divorced families, impoverished single parents and the wider proliferation of simply horrible STDs that absolutely ruin peoples lives.
You have been TOLD what marriage is SUPPOSED to be and you accept that. The problem is here is that you refuse to accept that other people have different definitions of what marriage is, and what it means to them.
Another instance of "stagnation is better than progress because I can't handle change or difference, so one else will either".
The higher divorce rate is not due to the "sexual revolution" (frankly I don't care what you mean when you quote it, since everything out of you is negative stereotypes so far), but rather due to the fact that people rush into a lifelong commitment not ready for it, and since divorces are easily obtained, there you are. We as a society are force-fed this notion that marriage is one thing and one thing only, and that it;s necessary to engage in one to love someone or have children.
The societal problems encountered in the past 200 years are due to the fact that we have a large influential population that would keep us 2000 years in the past with strict adherence to rules no longer capable of guiding current society, and a population that wants to move forward. Hence there is a segment that is caught in the middle, and there is rampant lack of education among all segments, which leads to the stereotypes you have been spouting this entire thread. Ignorance breeds ignorance. The only way to stop it is through education that isn't castrated by any one segment of the population.
Some of my best frends are gay too.
No self-respecting gay person would put up with your total lack of tolerance and your drive to deride their way of life at every opportunity, so I seriously doubt you have any gay friends.
I am sad am I? More like extremely fed up with this left wing mentality that focuses on discrimination selectively. Again there are not any gay people in my family we all come from heterosexuals. Funny thing is now because of my political opposition to your political agenda I for some reason don't deserve to have children. But you deserve to have marriage in a Christian church with rights to adopt because you can't reproduce
As the rest of us are fed up with fundamentalist zealots like you who would destroy cultures and force feed your morals down everyone else's throats purely to keep eveything status quo, and everyone reduced to a sheeple who are not allowed to live differently if they so choose.
~Edited to clean up tags and remove typos.
