@Ewan223 "Though there are statistics that are evidence to prove that in less economically developed countries families tend to be bigger: population graphs for example." Again, this does not take into account the context of cultural climates as a precipitating factor. "There is nothing wrong with it even if they actually are patriotic." You have an interesting way of approving of patriotism them. What I'm really curious about is this "God's country" bit that you seemed to pull out of a hat. "Yea, but there are obviously wrong things to do, for example murder someone." ...What does that have to do with anything? "Also, these socially popular ideas usually stem from a source." That does not even begin to address the point. Pointing out that an idea has a history is not conducive to said idea being socially practical or sensible. I'm not even sure how you managed to swerve into a "religious/diversity" tangent. Rather self-indulgent attempt to go off topic. "And have I judged you?" You said that I was "bashing" people when you've offered no evidence of any such thing. "from what I can see you lack tolerance for a few things such as homosexuality and immigration." You're perhaps the eighth person on this thread who has confused "tolerance" for "acceptance." They are not the same. And I haven't spoken against immigration; only multiculturalism. "The only reason you would ever dispute something like homosexuality is if you are ignorant and lack a heart." And this conclusion is based on...?

@Ewan223 "Families to tend to be bigger in poorer countries for a variety of reasons. Yes, it does come down to more than income." Again: income is a factor. Not a cause. The only thing it comes down to is a cultural mentality or philosophy that may or may not be fostered by the context that a low income environment creates. Certain cultures would maintain high birth rates regardless of their financial status based solely on their philosophical/cultural identity. "Americans no doubt love their country like everyone else, they just seem to display it more is what I'm saying." Based on what evidence? Most of your assertions are ground in hearsay and word of mouth (see also: low income families, "bashing"). "No matter what way you look at it, if people are involved then there will be a politically correct mindset. Your free to think what you want, but if they cause discomfort for others or single out people then I don't agree." Discomfort is encouraged by a perceived obligation towards feelings of offense: you hear someone dissent against a socially popular idea and you'll instantly become uncomfortable because you know many other people think differently and might even take offense. But that doesn't justify those feelings. PC is a mentality cultured by influential social groups. Not a natural phenomenon. "I haven't read enough of your comments to fully understand your view." So you judged my character without actually knowing the full brunt of my position.

"Uhh do you have anything positive to say... first bashing homosexuality and now seemingly pitying the uk because we have a diverse culture." Please point out where I've bashed anything. The problem here is the idea behind a "diverse culture" in the first place. It's one thing to say, "Our culture has people that differ in ethnicity." But it's quite another to say, "Multiculturalism is our culture." European culture, like all other Western cultures, was founded on certain a certain philosophy and principles unique to itself. That means any application of outside customs is subverting and weakening that culture.

@Ewan223 Where exactly do you get this "poor family mass breeding" mentality from? Sounds like a stereotype. Increased child birth among particular social groups has more to do with prevalent belief systems and philosophies than it does income. Income is a factor. Not a cause. "You seem incredibly negative towards that idea of immigration; " Immigration is find in and of itself if the immigrants are willing to assimilate into the country they're moving to. Otherwise, what's the point of going there if you're just going to try and push the culture you're moving away from onto the one you now reside in? For Asian ethnic groups, it's usually just a matter of pride, but for Muslim and Latin groups, it's usually an attempt to fuel a campaign of subversiveness. "nd I stand by my claim on america being overall pretty patriotic, since I've seem reasonable evidence that some Americans believe that their nation is god's favourite." Since when has the term "patriotic" meant to believe that one's country is "God's favorite?" Or is this just an example of Europe's renowned overzealous grasp on a politically correct mindset (which is quickly spreading here as well)?

@Ewan223 "The Uk is a EMDC with a ageing population. Women pursue more career related lives and people live much longer." That means very little really. America has an aging population and working women as well. They still have children--although the trend of population control seems to be catching on here with people deifying planned parenthood. "Overall are population is slowly decreasing, but it is the natural progression of a country." Incorrect. With the exception of Asian countries and their single child laws, It's a common trend only for Western culture-based countries for birth rates to go down. "Are culture IS multiculturalism" Uh...No. That's not how the term works. I don't live in Europe, but I stayed there long enough to identify a severe culture clash. Non-Western culture immigrants who move to Europe--and America for that matter--tend to morally subordinate the customs of the countries they move to with their own. This process has been going on for quite some time, which is probably why you're culturally confused. "Americans have always been a more "patriotic" country." Negative. Our cultural regression is simply slower than yours because we're not on the front lines like you are. The Middle East is Europe's far more violent Mexico and Russia is a more hostile version of Canada. As such, the degradation of Europe's culture in favor of other more subversive immigrants'--both legal and otherwise--cultures expedites the process. You have my sympathies.

@Warlod_irochi "The state maybe feels that they have the responsibility of representing also that sector of people (they do, in fact, have it)." Uh, no it doesn't. There does not exist a principle of, 'It exists, therefore it must be taught.' That's just silly. Even if that were true, it's not the state's place to force such a curriculum. "I'm not writing it off, I talk about Europe's reality. Please don't put things I haven't said." I don't see how Europe's much different though in that you're still allowed to raise your kids with the values you keep. I realize that it places like Sweden and Italy, you can get tossed in jail for so much as uttering the phrase, 'I disapprove of homosexuals.' Europe's influenced America in the respect that free speech is becoming more inhibited. But you can still cultivate certain belief systems. "That was misguided. Multiculturalism is not a problem; it's the very essence of the European Union" European countries all share the same brand of Western culture. What I was referring to was Europe's unwillingness to reinforce or endorse its own cultural identity in the face of more subversive social groups immigrating to the countries of the UK. Both Germany and Sweden are getting the brunt of the impact from Muslim dissidents--even Britain and France are getting hit pretty hard. If they're the only ones that are breeding (and that is largely the case), that means Europe's Western culture is dying.

"Their morality works for them, it's as simple as that." "Works" is a debatable term, but you're missing the point: the state feels compelled to ignore my views in favor of teaching/endorsing a morality that I don't agree with. That not only affects my family, but it also affects the culture. Don't try to write that off. "Our way of life, traditions, culture and believes were not destroyed because of it." Actually, from what I here, you guys are having a pretty big problem with multiculturalism. This isn't mentioning Europe's low birth rates in general. These are symptoms of cultural fatigue. "So no, I'm not favoring anyone's morale by considering it more valid" With respect, your opening post seems to direct most if not all of its criticism towards detractors of homosexuality. So this statement strikes me as disingenuous.

@Warlord_Irochi "even as a father I have no right to implant my ideas on him" Uh, actually, you do. You raise your children according to the tools and values you keep. If you don't apply standards, they could veer off in a direction you find self-destructive. "Anyway, for the subject we are talking about is a "M for Mature" game." However, according to the logic applied by the posters here--as well as the author--homosexuality applies as a benign and normal aspect to any form of media. As such, the subject matter need not be confined to an M rating; from the perspective of the consensus here, it's fine for all ages. "Both morals can co-exists without conflict, what I said is that both are valid in THIS case." But one is always forced to compromise to the other: I say that I disapprove of homosexuality and consider it to be disorderly, and as result people claim that I spout hate speech. That's a pretty steep accusation nowadays. And then there's the fact that it's taught to my kid in school without my permission...Because they legally don't need it. That's not co-existence. That's subversion and co-opting.

"Okay so you are saying that: While Marriage is not anatomically correct itself." I'm saying that it's abstract and it makes no sense whatsoever to try and apply it as an anatomical or non-anatomical term. "I thought we were discussing what is anatomically correct." We are. And the point I made with regards to that is that society's civil processes--such as marriage--are carried out according to anatomical correctness. Somewhere along the way, you erroneously tried to exploit that as a weakness; applying marriage as an object to a discussion on anatomy.

@Jtg473 "Interesting, so it is your belief that it is anatomically incorrect to harm others? See my comment about murder." The act of murder is abstract in relation to our anatomy. It's inappropriate to claim it has an inherent propriety according to our bodies when there's nothing about our forms that are intuitive to the act. "I think a better defense is this: While it is in our nature to hurt others because of basic instincts like anger, Fight or Flight response, adrenaline. This does not guarantee we will go so far as to murder." None of those things you mention refers back to a "nature to hurt others." Fight or flight is not conducive to murder. It's strictly a defense mechanism. "I am talking about rape that involves sexual reproduction. Sorry about not being clear...However to say it is not anatomically correct is wrong." You're ignoring where I pointed out that rape is physically and mentally damaging to a given agent. Consider for a moment the fact that consensual arousal allows for ease of access according to our anatomies. Rape doesn't stipulate such a thing. - - In reality, you're distinguishing rape and marriage erroneously since they're both codes of behavior. While the urge to mate may or may not be inherent (depends on the person really), the act of rape is not intuitive according to our bodies. Marriage, likewise, is not intuitive. But they both require higher modes of thinking to be applied.