I predict that with 16 year olds… it will NEVER be accepted…
why? because 16 year olds are jerks! they will never give up a chance to make fun of something. in 16 year olds you will find people being really cruely tortured for likeing a girl… it won’t be better for likeing boys.
not that there won’t be plenty of more enlightened teens, but if something is an oppertunity to be mean, there will be no shortage of takers.
i think that is still very far off. just consider that evolution is still under attack by religious dimwits. if you can’t even teach evolution in school when will it be possible for a teacher to say that being gay is ok ? not until all the religious folk are put to death like the dogs they are.
of course you dont have to be religious to have something against gays. but if you’re a regular bigot you are not going to write fucking letters to your senator to make sure that your kids in a public school will never hear “gay is ok.” its those bible-humping folk that believe its their sacred duty to fight against anyone or anything open-minded.
Speaking of bigotry . . .
Ah right, i understand now…its “them” 
Does that mean its your duty to call everyone that doesnt agree with you “closedminded” then?
I’ve found that so often it is those calling themselves and their ideas “openminded”, that are in fact as close minded as those they berate, but only on the flip side of the coin…
In answer to the OP, I read the word “dream” as the operative, not the “marrying” as vasyachkin did. TeaElle brought up a good point, that 16 year old boys don’t fantasize about marriage nearly as much as girls do. Perhaps a more precise (if less snappy) wording would be “Will it ever be widely accepable for young people to dream about marrying members of their own sex?”
I think so. Heck, when I was in Elementary school, a girl in my sister’s class had 2 mommies, and it seemed normal to all of us, if a little less common. It was an incredibly liberal montessori school, but even so.
Well, I guess that my sexuality is defective then, since I do not intend to reproduce, even though I could easily do so. As I am heterosexual, this is not what you meant (I hope), but it amounts to the same thing. As a species (humans) and a society (in my case America, but this applies pretty much anywhere that legalization of SSM is a topic for debate), we are past the point where everyone needs to reproduce to ensure survival. In my view, this eliminates the argument of “but they can’t have kids!” from serious consideration in the SSM debate.
Please reconsider your wording. Even though I agree with the essence of what I think you are saying, bashing so violently those you disagree with lowers the level of discourse and makes all proponents of SSM, teaching of evolution, etc. targets, as in “see what those godless sinners stoop to! They wish death on us pore lil’ creationists/christians/heterosexualists, just for using our freedom of speech.”
There is no need to vacate the high ground of reasonable debate, and I would personally appreciate it if you would quit splattering all that mud around.
Finette6, i agree that the lack of reproduction within a ssm is not a serious objection to it, and i have a time of it explaining this to the various people i come across online 
I did not offer it as an objection against ssm for this reason.
I was merely pointing out that it would never be normal for a 16yo boy to want to marry another boy because, it being normal would require the majority of boys to be homosexual.
Also, i have only classed homosexuality, and indeed not wanting to reproduce in general, as a defect in so much as it is, by evolutionary terms, a failure to pass on ones genes.
From that perspective it is tantamount to being “selected out”, so to speak.
I would not personally extend the status of defect to any other area, moral or otherwise 
OK, you’re playing word games here, “merely” insisting on only one definition of normal, and refusing to acknowledge that there are more. Here are the first four definitions in Merriam-Webster:
normal
1 : PERPENDICULAR; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3 : occurring naturally
4 a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development b : free from mental disorder : SANE
I havent insisted or denied anything, apologies if that is how it has been perceived
I believe i have addressed all of the relevent definitions you provided, but if i have not, please point it out, and i will do so.
Well, you do have to define normal in this instance…if you mean socially acceptable, then I believe that it will be.
The way things are going now, more and more people are accepting of homosexual people. Sure, there will never be a time when every single person will accept it. But there is hardly anything that everyone will accept. For example, there are still areas where white people believe that blacks are inferior, whereas the majority of society sees them as equals. The same thing will happen with the question posed by the OP. It will generally be accepted; however, there will still be dissenters.
I think the real question (or possibly fear) in the OP is more along the lines of “Will it be sociall acceptable for teenagers to be openly gay as part of their developmental process”
Obvious answer: We aren’t psychics. There is no telling which way events could suddenly turn. But, with current indications, I think it looks to be headed that way. I doubt in one generation, though. Keep in mind, this also depends on the region. A socially “progressive” area like, say, San Francisco or New York would likely have that community be considered “normal” far in advance of, say, Kabul. Remember that there are still parts of the United States where racism is still practiced, and you could reason that it may be some few generations before open homosexuality is considered normal. Ironically, it may be the middle classes that are opened up first, with the lower classes having different religious convictions that would be slower to change. We likely won’t see an explosive change as we saw in the 1960s civil rights movement, which was much more politically charged and building for a century. I see this more as developing like the more open sexuality and sexual practices has since the '60s and '70s. This generation is growing up with the questions in their heads. The next generation will grow up being asked the questions. The generation after that may be so used to the questions that it is passe. The generation after that…
One important indicator is that discussions like this are even happening. That the debate be taking place is the first step.
In the future, I expect all teenagers will be gay.
And we’ll eat our food in pill form.
And all that icky reproduction stuff will take place in jar on a conveyor belt.
Will someone pass the Soma…
Will it ever be normal?
No, it will always remain a horrible sin that sicko pervs do.
At least, there will always be people who believe that.
What you want is to outnumber these people and out vote them.
vanilla, stating the obvious.
[QUOTE=vasyachkin]
i think that is still very far off. just consider that evolution is still under attack by religious dimwits. if you can’t even teach evolution in school when will it be possible for a teacher to say that being gay is ok ? not until all the religious folk are put to death like the dogs they are.
QUOTE]
So does one have to make a direct threat against someone to get Mod attention or does a general hope that a certain group is exterminated qualify?
Just askin’
Bad analogy, when evolution is taught in 99% of public high schools and universities in the United States.
… er … maybe you should let Evolution know, it seems to have messed up by letting some survive.
No, it would still mean that the individuals sexuality is defetove because it does not favour reproduction, which is the evolutionistic goal.
It does not matter that homosexuality is not necessarily genetic in origin.
(nice of you to point that out btw, as it supports theories that specify social and/or early trimester (which are still social in reality) effects as the cause of homosexuality)
“Defetove”?
I’ve posted this to other threads, but it bears repeating: the reason that male homosexuality isn’t “bred out” may be that it is caused by a sex-linked gene. Another example is hemophilia, which is expressed only in males, but is carried genetically by females. Until recent times, hemophiliacs seldom lived long enough to reproduce, but their sisters passed the gene for hemophilia on to their children.
Studies have shown that there is a significantly higher rate of dual homosexuality among identical twin males than there is among fraternal twin males, which does suggest a genetic factor, beside any gestational or social factor.
Sorry about the spelling mistake, i only spotted it at the moment i clicked “submit reply”…dont you hate it when that happens
It was supposed to be “defective”, im sure you guessed anyway.
I’ll have to look for some pieces talking about the idea you mention as it is something i have not read before, but an obvious point against it is the fact of female homosexuality.
It would be a rocky ride trying to hold the position that females aren’t really homosexual
An obvious point against what? Who said homosexuality does not exist among females? Who said there wasn’t also a possible genetic factor in female homosexuality? The studies suggest a genetic factor in male homosexuality; they say nothing one way or another about female homosexuality.