patrick.net

CaptainShuddup says

I'm less concerned about Gay sex as much as I am about those that constantly expect everyone to listen and watch the illicit details.

If you are tired of the "gay agenda", pride parades, and homosexuals lobbying for legal equality, then there is a simple and effective solution. End bigotry and legal inequality. Once gays have the same rights as heterosexuals and are not persecuted, all that "in-your-face" publicity goes away.

Think about it. No one rallies to support interracial or interclass marriage today because those things are accepted. The Abolitionist Movement totally died once slavery ended.

Don't want to be reminded of gays? Make sure none of them are ever killed again like Mathew Shepard or denied the right to marry or have consensual sex with others. When being gay is no longer a big deal or a basis of discrimination, you'll never hear about it again.

I think there is some truth in this humor:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gaypride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays,351/

finehoe says

That's because there isn't one. It's based purely on bigotry and nothing more.

That certainly seems to be the reason. In that case, religion is to blame as it is precisely those who are most religious -- whether Christian, Islamic, or other -- that causes such bigotry. And religion prohibits questioning and examining beliefs, or faith as they call it.

That is precisely why I opened this thread. To give the religious the chance to prove they aren't just despicable bigots by justifying their beliefs, and to challenge those beliefs should they prove to be founded on falsehoods. Getting the religious to start thinking instead of asserting is a good first step.

Of course, if no religious person responds, if they coward from this subject, then we are left to conclude that anti-homosexuality is purely dishonorable and childish bigotry and that their religions are to blame.

I'm open to being proven wrong, but that means someone has to challenge this conclusion and the only way to do that is to answer the very simple and direct question, "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?".

Dan8267 invited Pope Benedict XVI to fact-check this discussion.

Invite another expert to fact-check this discussion.

Since I can't get any answers from the vocally religious here -- despite that they keep bringing up how evil homosexuality is on threads that have nothing to do with homosexuality (I mean you Bap33) -- I've invited an "expert".

He's called Pope Benedict XVI. I contacted him via the email given on his blog, benedictxvi@vatican.va. If he can't justify the assertion that gay sex is immoral, I think we can conclude definitively once-and-for-all that it is not. And then if anyone posts an anti-gay comment, just direct them to this thread.

CaptainShuddup says

Humans will never reach some Gay Nirvana where straight couples sit in a park with their kids, next to Gay couples groping each other on picnic blanket. I would expect a campaign of Gays being round up and sent of to Degaying camps, long before that ever happened.

Oh I don't know. I'll bet there have been times in history that have been a lot more gay friendly than we have been lead to believe. How much of our history has been reburied because it went against the morality of those who discovered it?

Heck, some people still deny homosexuality in animals even though the evidence is all around them:

http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

Dan8267 says

If they choose to make an argument that the spread of STDs is quicker with gay sex than straight sex, I'll tear a new asshole in their arguments quicker than a priest at an altar boy convention. Morality and practicality are clearly not the same thing. Furthermore, if the immorality of gay sex were due to the practicality of spreading STDs then once science eliminates STDS, which is likely to happen within a century or two, then gay sex suddenly becomes completely moral.

Unprotected sex without consequence of disease or pregnancy - That will be a truly great achievement for mankind.

Dan8267 says

Since I can't get any answers from the vocally religious here -- despite that they keep bringing up how evil homosexuality is on threads that have nothing to do with homosexuality (I mean you Bap33) -- I've invited an "expert".

He's called Pope Benedict XVI. I contacted him via the email given on his blog, benedictxvi@vatican.va. If he can't justify the assertion that gay sex is immoral, I think we can conclude definitively once-and-for-all that it is not. And then if anyone posts an anti-gay comment, just direct them to this thread.

Oh No! - he dropped the Pope bomb!

I tried to invite the American Family Association to this discussions, but those pussies don't have an email. Sure they'll spam you, but they don't want your email.

Dan8267 says

That certainly seems to be the reason. In that case, religion is to blame as it is precisely those who are most religious -- whether Christian, Islamic, or other -- that causes such bigotry. And religion prohibits questioning and examining beliefs, or faith as they call it.

I'll bite. I'm not religious, and I believe homosexuality to be wrong.

Homosexuals can't bear children, and they create a terrible example. If we weren't such a successful society, homosexuals would have long ago died out as a specie due to lack of proper human breeding.

OK, so at least Fort Wayne has the balls to provide reasons. His reasons are

1. Homosexuality is immoral because it does not lead to children.
2. Homosexuals create a terrible example.
3. Homosexuals would have long ago died out as a species if humans were not so successful.

I'll address each of these independent reasons separately.

First, Homosexuality is immoral because it does not lead to children.

1.1 If you accept this premise then abstinence and chastity must be immoral. After all, there is no better way to prevent procreation than being abstinent. Therefore, priests and nuns are far more immoral than homosexuals as they take vows of celibacy.

1.2 This premise does not imply that homosexuality is immoral or that homosexual acts are immoral. It actually implies that the lack of heterosexual activity is immoral. So you could be as gay as you want and have all the man-on-man butt sex you desire as long as you also occasionally bone a fertile woman. You don't even have to like boning her, you just have to take one for the team.

1.3 Homosexuality occurs throughout nature therefore indicating that natural selection favors having some homosexuality in various species. Someone please challenge me on this. I love posting gay animal sex videos. There's this one with a chimp and a frog...

1.4 If having sex that cannot lead to procreation is bad then it would also be as immoral as gay butt sex to

a. Have heterosexual sex after menopause.
b. Have heterosexual sex with an infertile partner.
c. Have heterosexual sex with a woman not in the fertile period of her cycle.
d. Have heterosexual sex with a condom or any form of birth control (that will be great for HIV, but lousy for our species).
e. Have heterosexual oral sex or any heterosexual sex act that doesn't deposit the sperm in the vagina.

Perhaps some will argue that d and e are immoral, but who the hell is going to argue that a 90-year-old man is being immoral by having sex with his wife of 70 years? Screw that WWII vet.

And no one is going to argue that a married couple in which one or both are infertile are being immoral every time they have sex.

1.5 In an overpopulated world, not having children is a far superior moral choice than having children. If anything threatens peace, prosperity, and the continuing existence of our species, it's the ecological collapse brought about by overpopulation. There are over 7 billion people in this world and a third of them don't even have clean drinking water. Adding to the population is certainly not a moral duty.

Continuing...

Homosexuals create a terrible example.

Sorry, but you are going to have to clarify this as I do not know what you mean. Please provide examples of how homosexuals "create a terrible example" and explain why those things are terrible, specifically what negative effects they have.

Hey, if all the religious nuts truly did not want the gays to have sex, then they should require gays to get married. Just saying...

Dan8267 says

If you are tired of the "gay agenda", pride parades, and homosexuals lobbying for legal equality, then there is a simple and effective solution. End bigotry and legal inequality. Once gays have the same rights as heterosexuals and are not persecuted, all that "in-your-face" publicity goes away.

No less of that than the constant "Chase Bank" commercials, the gratuitous gay plot twists in every HBO, Showtime, and Stars original programming, as well as feature films, my kids being sent home with "Legalize gay marriage" because some Liberal shit head parent thought it would be cute in an election year, and took it upon her self to off load one on to her daughters friends.

I'm sick and tired that I can't even eat a goddamn Chicken sandwich with out it being some moral gay rights issue, I'm really fed up hearing about how the religious right, don't like the Gay agenda. News flash, dogs don't like cats, so don't put them in a cage together.

It's everything, I've got homo fatigue already, I could care less if all of the gays were round up and sent to prison at this point. Not that I'm advocating that, and it's something I would have been vocally against, in the past. But the constant war on families to move the gay agenda forward, has it's price, and the LBG movement is running a deficit at this point.

There is such thing as market saturation, and this cause passed that a long time ago.

Continuing...

Homosexuals would have long ago died out as a species if humans were not so successful.

3.1 Homosexuals are not a species. Homo sapiens is our species and the homo part doesn't mean gay.

3.2 See 1.3 Homosexuality occurs throughout nature. Clearly homosexuality does not cause extinctions. And if it did, then it would be a self-correcting problem as natural selection would have eliminated it. Instead, homosexuality thrives in nature across many species.

3.3 This reason sounds like you are attempting to say that any trait that is selected against by natural selection is an immoral trait. This would be ridiculous. Traits that are highly successful in some environments are extremely unsuccessful in others.

For example, in England before the industrial revolution butterflies were light in pigmentation. During the industrial revolution factories put out pollution which covered the bark of trees making them darker. Butterflies evolved to become darker as well as to hide from predators. Was it immoral for a butterfly to be hatched with the trait of having lighter pigmentation?

In our species there are countless traits being selected for and against through natural selection including the process of mate selection within our species. Are we all being immoral by not having the perfect traits (blue eyes, bilateral symmetry, small pores, big boobs)? Having less than desirable traits -- which we all do -- certainly hinders the replication of our genes. But why is that immoral? Is morality nothing more than doing whatever it takes to get your genes into the next generation? If so, then rape would be a moral duty. I doubt anyone would want to argue that position.

Dan8267 says

Continuing...

Homosexuals create a terrible example.

Sorry, but you are going to have to clarify this as I do not know what you mean. Please provide examples of how homosexuals "create a terrible example" and explain why those things are terrible, specifically what negative effects they have.

Sure thing Dan.

It's a bad example for children. At certain age a child will do everything they see, and I don't think any parent would want their child to be messed up by seeing homosexuality and thinking it as normal and something they should do.

Dan8267 says

3.2 See 1.3 Homosexuality occurs throughout nature. Clearly homosexuality does not cause extinctions. And if it did, then it would be a self-correcting problem as natural selection would have eliminated it. Instead, homosexuality thrives in nature across many species.

It doesn't in our society because of our success. Our capitalism is so successful, that almost everyone survives. One can be born with millions of diseases and abnormalities and still make it to old age. And now with artificial insemination, some of these even get to procreate their bad genes.

Dan8267 says

3.3 This reason sounds like you are attempting to say that any trait that is selected against by natural selection is an immoral trait. This would be ridiculous. Traits that are highly successful in some environments are extremely unsuccessful in others.

I'm not saying it is immoral in a religious kind of way. I'm saying that it is bad for society in a long run. Goes against evolution and Darwinism. It adds a cost to society.

Dan8267 says

If so, then rape would be a moral duty. I doubt anyone would want to argue that position.

Didn't a couple uber conservatives open their mouth with their true belief and misinformation (I'm being kind here.) that a woman's body 'shuts down' during a 'real rape' and will not get pregnant? I don't know, if a homophobe doesn't even know the basic genetic facts of reproduction and a woman's body, arguement is futile and a waste of time.

Homosexuality is wrong! Our bodies are not design for this and they need help. We make a big deal about 1% of the population. Silence all homos and get them treated because they are sick and they don't think correctly.

CaptainShuddup says

No less of that than the constant "Chase Bank" commercials, the gratuitous gay plot twists in every HBO, Showtime, and Stars original programming, as well as feature films, my kids being sent home with "Legalize gay mariage" because some Liberal shit head parent thought it would be cute in an election year, and took it upon her self to off load one on to her daughters friends,

1. Don't watch HBO, Showtime, and Stars if you don't like their programming. I don't, except for Real Time with Bill Maher, which I do like. There is so much good stuff to watch, I don't even have the time to do that, so why watch anything you don't like. It's not like T.V. is compulsory. Watch the Science Channel and certain shows on The History Channel instead. (Some things on the History Channel are crap, others are great).

2. Regardless of whether or not you think gay sex is immoral, as an American you should champion gay marriage because it is a right under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment as demonstrated in the Supreme Court case of Loving v Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967). To not support gay marriage is to not support equality under law and the very founding principles of this country.

And that is why the "liberal shithead" thought your kids should be informed of the one of the most important political events that they are living through. I suppose that liberal shithead also thinks your kids should know that we fought a revolution to gain government by the people and we fought a Civil War to end slavery and preserve the union. The real question is why conservatives don't also think that such understanding is important.

A republic composed of well-informed and educated people will perform far better than one composed of ignorant idiots.

I'll support gay marriage when the Liberal propaganda machine stops their assault on the Family unit. Just look at the latest Direct TV campaign that features a dysfunctional family with the wife and husband.
CNN featured a story they were proud of today, how 50 shades of grey led to a divorce, "Really" there's nothing else out there to report?
There's nothing in the constitution that protects Gays. And I can give two shits what some Liberal judge in 1967 ruled. I bet you would probably get a whole different ruling today from that same judge had he know then how it would turn out now.
Families are vital to a nation, Bob and Franks life partner status is not.
Bob and Frank are incapable of churning out successors.

FortWayne says

Sure thing Dan.

It's a bad example for children. At certain age a child will do everything they see, and I don't think any parent would want their child to be messed up by seeing homosexuality and thinking it as normal and something they should do.

First of all thank you FortWayne for stepping up here. I appreciate you are voicing your opinions in such a reasonable manner.

As for setting a bad example tell me, what is it about homosexuality that you see as a bad example for children?
As a father myself I do not agree with you in the least. I see homosexuality as a part of the natural world. It makes perfect sense to me that some members of a species will be sacrificed - reproductively speaking - for the bigger picture. Biologically speaking it makes sense for a large family to have a few non-reproducing members who are then available to help with the children of the breeders. In a primitive society this could lead to lower a lower mortality rate and a greater success of the family.

If you want an extreme example of an alternate family structure look to ants and bees. Their colonies are comprised almost exclusively of non-breeding members yet are far more successful in species longevity than we.

CaptainShuddup says

I'll support gay marriage when the Liberal propaganda machine stops their assault on the Family unit. Just look at the latest Direct TV campaign that features a dysfunctional family with the wife and husband.

CNN featured a story they were proud of today, how 50 shades of grey led to a divorce, "Really" there's nothing else out there to report?

There's nothing in the constitution that protects Gays. And I can give two shits what some Liberal judge in 1967 ruled. I bet you would probably get a whole different ruling today from that same judge had he know then how it would turn out now.

Families are vital to a nation, Bob and Franks life partner status is not.

Bob and Frank are incapable of churning out successors.

Perhaps the gays will disarm when the Christian right does.

Why is there so much gayness on TV? Because its titillating.

In a similar vein Star Trek was also criticized for a kiss between a white man (Capt'n Kirk) and a black woman (Uhura). Sure Kirk had already banged blue and green and pointy eared babes but kissing a black woman? Fire up the torches boys!

Nowadays? Meh. The only thing I think most guys feel is envy. Nichelle Nichols was a fine looking woman!

Bobpak says

Homosexuality is wrong! Our bodies are not design for this and they need help. We make a big deal about 1% of the population. Silence all homos and get them treated because they are sick and they don't think correctly.

Argue your point rationally please.

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 invited Pope Benedict XVI to fact-check this discussion.

Invite another expert to fact-check this discussion.

Thanks for inviting an expert! Kind of doubt he will reply, but it's always good to ask experts for their opinion...

FortWayne says

I'm not saying it is immoral in a religious kind of way. I'm saying that it is bad for society in a long run. Goes against evolution and Darwinism. It adds a cost to society.

Evolution and survival of a species happens as a whole group as much as it does on the individual level. There are many traits that may prevent an individual from breeding, but will help the groups overall success.

For example -- Self-sacrifice -- many species (us included) have been evolutionarily "programmed" to do things that will prevent and individual from reproducing, but would help the group survive:
-300 young Spartans give up the rest of their child making years to protect all of Greece
-A bird screams an alarm to warn the flock of approaching danger, but draws the attention of the predator that then ends the birds life
-An American soldier dies saving a child that was not even remotely related to him
-etc...

Raising young (especially human) requires tremendous resources. A group that has a built in genetic trait that insures some adults will be childless means that the children that do get born will have a greater chance at getting the resources they need to be successful. The great thing about gay(or the Kinsey spectrum rather) --rather than just infertile-- is that if more children are needed then they are capable of creating them.

FortWayne says

It doesn't in our society because of our success. Our capitalism is so successful, that almost everyone survives.

Actually, I would say that homosexuality is not as necessary in our society because of our success. We are so successful as a species that we don't need the "gay uncle" to help assure that a child survives. These days the "gay uncle" may throw some cash in a college fund and/or help with babysitting when the parent want to have a night on the town. This help to assure a child's success, but is not crucial to survival.

Dan8267 says

OK, so at least Fort Wayne has the balls to provide reasons.

Yes, thanks Fort for providing an honest response to the question.

Wikipedia has an A - Z list of American Gays, Lesbians, and Bi-Sexuals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people

I would like to see the argument that none of these people added, produced, or contributed to American society.

FortWayne says

It's a bad example for children. At certain age a child will do everything they see, and I don't think any parent would want their child to be messed up by seeing homosexuality and thinking it as normal and something they should do.

I am still not quite sure what about homosexuality is a bad example.

Yes, children will "play-act" everything they see. After spending a weekend with some friends that have a breastfeeding baby, my little girl spent the next week "breastfeeding" her dolls and stuffed animals.

There are lots of things that heterosexuals do that I would not want my kids seeing. No, I would not take my kids to the Folsom Street Fair, but I would also not take them to a swingers party or read them Fifty Shades of Grey as a bedtime story. It may come as a surprise to some but gays don't immediate engage in butt-sex at every social gathering they attend.

Seeing two people in a respectful committed relationship sets a good example.

Do gays really have it that bad in modern society? Have you ever been to ft lauderdale, rehobeth beach, san fransisco etc. or any other towns known for heavy gay populations? They sure as shit seem to have a remarkably high quality of life. I don't see some level of discrimination worth fighting against. We have limited time on this planet and with that time, limited energy, so its best we focus it in useful ways. Every minute you spend attempting to reason with unreasonable people for their flawed opinions, is a minute you missed where you could have been getting a bj from a female.

Imagine if y'all concentrated your energy on something more useful, in an attempt to better inform the ignorant, en route to freeing a bloc of our populace that actually is still openly allowed to be persecuted in todays society? Marijuana users (and potential mmj users). They are jailed by the millions, and even you hoity toity well to do leftists that claim to want to help others, still label them as stoners as if they are some dreggs of society,,,,,pffft. Get a clue, than get a life, squids

There are lots of things heterosexuals do that I would not want my kids seeing/doing

Yea no shit. How many parents literally poison their children openly with sugar at every turn? Could there be any worse example than to be ignorant of proper nutrition, while children suffer from malnutrition, and are literally forced to become sugar addicts, which causes immense physical harm, and is THE gateway drug to a lifetime of more drugs and addiction and the majority of health problems we see today.

errc says

Do gays really have it that bad in modern society? Have you ever been to ft lauderdale, rehobeth beach, san fransisco etc. or any other towns known for heavy gay populations? They sure as shit seem to have a remarkably high quality of life. I don't see some level of discrimination worth fighting against.

I am glad to know that the gays you have observed are representative of the gay experience in the US.

errc says

Marijuana users (and potential mmj users).

Oh, common...do they really have it that bad? It just got legalized in two states. Have you ever been to Colorado or Oakland? I see people openly smoking pot all the time!

Besides every minute that they spend complaining about pot laws they could have been drinking a beer.

errc says

...is a minute you missed where you could have been getting a bj from a female.

In the time it took you to write that post you could have gone out and gotten a bj from a man.

I voted FOR gay marriage in Maryland because I want the gays to pay the extra income taxes in the form of the marriage penalty.

Leo707, I didn't quote your post in case you come back to your senses and decide you'd rather just delete it. I wish I could believe you were just being facetious, especially for someone that is most always of sound mind.

Do they really have it that bad? Have you ever been to prison? I can attest, they certainly don't have it that good. It "got legalized" in two states?? Well woohoo, I might as well sit on my black dildo and spin myself like a top until I puke! Or blow my wad, whichever cums first. Remember, this isn't the united states of california.

"Besides, every minute they spend bitching about pot laws, they could have spent drinking a beer"

I guess I am missing your point here, if you even had one. Feel free to elaborate

And thanks for your concern, but id have to pass on your offer for the blowie. My weiner needs a break for the afternoon, my girl woke up fussy and argumentative this morning, so I ended up an hour late for work after all the make up sucking and fucking.

errc says

They sure as shit seem to have a remarkably high quality of life.

Yep!

errc says

I wish I could believe you were just being facetious, especially for someone that is most always of sound mind.

I was being facetious.

If you had followed the links it should have made that clear.

I was drawing a comparison to your comments on homosexuality.

errc says

Remember, this isn't the united states of california.

This is also not the united states of, "ft lauderdale, rehobeth beach, san fransisco etc. or any other towns known for heavy gay populations?"

errc says

"Besides, every minute they spend bitching about pot laws, they could have spent drinking a beer"

I guess I am missing your point here, if you even had one. Feel free to elaborate

errc says

a minute you missed where you could have been getting a bj from a female.

My point being that to a homosexual a female is not a viable alternative for a bj, just like for a marijuana smoker a beer is not a viable alternative.

However, thanks for making it clear that if you weiner was not in need of a break you would be up for a bj from a man.

My apologies, I'm posting from my phone so I rarely click on links

To your moment of clarity,,,,don't threaten me with a good time! Who knows, id probably enjoy it.

leo707 says

Actually, I would say that homosexuality is not as necessary in our society because of our success. We are so successful as a species that we don't need the "gay uncle" to help assure that a child survives. These days the "gay uncle" may throw some cash in a college fund and/or help with babysitting when the parent want to have a night on the town. This help to assure a child's success, but is not crucial to survival.

Perhaps not in much of the US but there are plenty of shit poor communities in the third world that are still on the edge of survival.

Dan8267 says

To not support gay marriage is to not support equality under law and the very founding principles of this country.

how do you plan to legally prove someone is gay?

The topic moved pretty fast since last night, but my points are still the same and you agreed with me. It is as basic as right and wrong, moral and immoral, pro-society and anti-society. My personal view says: it is wrong and immoral and anti-society (not social) to support male / male coupling. Masculine is not to submit in this way. I guess that is why the crazy arab islamuslites like to bugger their fallen enemies? Your view is: supporting male / male coupling is ok. Pretty much sums it up.

Why do people stand in line? There is no law. THere is right and wrong, moral and immoral, and the requirements of a functioning society where freedom exists. So, rather than the nasty perverted stuff, explain why people stand in line. (well, everyone except those fine people in Jersey waiting for gas) (oh, wait, is that not a sign of a breakdown of society? yes, it is. Thanks for playing)

FortWayne says

It's a bad example for children. At certain age a child will do everything they see, and I don't think any parent would want their child to be messed up by seeing homosexuality and thinking it as normal and something they should do.

Here's what I think you are proposing, and I apologize if I'm not getting it right. Homosexuality is immoral because it encourages children to think that homosexuality is normal and to become homosexual.

Assuming that I got this premise right, here's how I would respond.

1. This premise is circular and therefore meaningless. If homosexuality is not immoral then encouraging other people to participate in it cannot be immoral either. This premise could not possibly justify that homosexuality is immoral because it assumes that homosexuality is immoral in the first place.

2. The term "normal" is not particularly meaningful and it certainly has no bearing on morality. Let's take one arbitrary criteria for "normal". It doesn't matter if we substitute other arbitrary criteria as the analysis is the same, but let's use popularity so we can do some examples.

4% of the U.S. population is gay. So let's say normal is 5% or more and abnormal is less than 5%.

It is abnormal to save another human being's life. Clearly less than 5% of the U.S. population have saved another person's life. In fact, saving a person's life is much more rare than being gay. You are more likely to run into a gay person than a hero.

The inescapable logical conclusion is that heros are immoral people. Since it is not normal to save a person's life, it must be immoral to do so.

Adopting a child when you could have your own biological child is not normal either. Is adopting a child rather than producing your own immoral? That's a hard stance to take.

Again, if we use some other arbitrary criteria for what it means to be normal, nothing changes. Let's define "normal" as conforming to the arbitrary cultural preferences of the majority of the population.

By that standard enjoying classical music like Mozart is not normal. Listening to Britney Spears is. Is listening to Mozart immoral since it violates the prevailing culture? One only has to watch the TruTV channel for ample demonstration that cultural standards do not make good moral standards.

Of course, if cultural conformity determines what is moral and what isn't, that means that morality varies considerably from culture to culture. Gay sex may be immoral here, but it certainly wasn't immoral in ancient Greece. To argue that morality based on culture is simply to say that we can make having gay sex moral by doing much, much more of it. I suppose then we could also make murder and rape moral by doing much, much more of that.

Furthermore, in many middle eastern countries it is "normal" to honor kill rape victims. Such honor killings would have to be moral if the morality of an act is based on how "normal" it is. Conversely, it is abnormal for a woman to vote or get an education, and clearly the Islamic men do consider it immoral for a woman to pursue such matters. I would argue, however, that this is nothing more than the corruption of the very concept of morality to justify using violence to enforce arbitrary cultural norms.

In conclusion, I see no evidence that upsetting cultural norms is immoral or bad. Actually, I hold the exact opposite philosophy. Upsetting cultural norms is exactly what the people in a society must do in order to advance that society and further social justice. Interracial marriage certainly wasn't normal in the 1950s, but that didn't make it immoral. All social advances are precisely turning the unimaginable into the normal.

Not to beat a dead horse, but there are also two more points regarding this premise. First is that the idea that people can be turned gay by watching gay acts is ridiculous. Don't believe me, then perform an experiment. Watch a few hours of gay porn and see how much gay sex you want. Children are not turned gay by watching pro-gay t.v. Trust me, I watched He-man growing up.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/32FB-gYr49Y

The fact that I watch this growing up and haven't sucked any dicks is proof positive that no gay musical, cartoon, or children's character is going to turn kids gay.

Furthermore, given that heterosexual sex is "normal" by whatever definition your using, why aren't six-year-olds fucking like crazy? Oh, because six-year-olds aren't engaging in sex to mimic adults any more than they wash dishes to mimic adults. And as for teens, a straight teen is going to want straight sex and a gay teen is going to want to have gay sex regardless of what they've seen in movies, television, or on the Internet. It's biological.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

3.2 See 1.3 Homosexuality occurs throughout nature. Clearly homosexuality does not cause extinctions. And if it did, then it would be a self-correcting problem as natural selection would have eliminated it. Instead, homosexuality thrives in nature across many species.

It doesn't in our society because of our success. Our capitalism is so successful, that almost everyone survives. One can be born with millions of diseases and abnormalities and still make it to old age. And now with artificial insemination, some of these even get to procreate their bad genes.

I think you missed the point. Homosexuality doesn't cause problems in countless other species including elephants, dolphins, and chimps. Clearly it is not the "sheer success" of our species that is preventing homosexuality from driving us to extinction.