I’ll either answer your comment about marriage, the relevance of institutional religion, agrarian vs. industrial society, or the evolving role of women. You choose.

I’m not sure this is a relevant question. Does it serve any rational function? No. But it’s true, homosexuality appears in nature. Bonobo monkeys have bisexual intercourse as a hobby. So on scientific grounds it isn’t ‘right.’ Neutral at best.

Is it morally right? Depends on who you ask. Most people of religious faith (a.k.a. most people) believe it is reprehensible. If one wishes to make the case that it’s morally wrong, they’ll have to make the case first that their religious tradition is correct. So it doesn’t seem worth debating on its own merits.

ARCHETYPAL REVOLUTIONARY.

Unseated a Monarch. Shattered traditional Imperial German culture in favor of a Nationalist idolization of the state. Persecuted the Roman Catholic Church and demanded Protestant churches be subjected to the State. Organized German life according to industrial Taylorist principles.

Compare him to Prince Klemens von Metternich, quintessential Conservative, and try to argue he was a right-winger.

I agree it is a ridiculous debate, but as a traditionalist.

The principle of marriage in our society has been clearly defined as between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation. That, not only we have such a collectively weak grasp on the function of marriage and why it is defined as such in the first place, but also that we’re so willing to discard our cultural values for the sake of being politically correct, completely baffles me.