I honestly wish you from the bottom of my subjective heart that you don't be proved wrong on this OM theory. I have many lenses to choose from, but you have one.
Jesus said,
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
free." John 8:32
Now obviously Jesus had a specific message in mind for His disciples, but it is clear that He says truth is liberating. He would later say in John 14:6 that He is the truth. Meaning He is the source of all that really is right and good.
So, we should ask, does truth matter? Take for example a compass. If we hold that all truth is subjective and changing, then there is no moral magnetic north. This says that the poles could shift at any time, arbitrarily. Or, that there are mulitple poles, and that what might be North for you, isn't North for me.
This is relativism. What is true for you isn't true for me. Of course this is self-defeating, because it begs us to ask, "is that statment true?" The statement doesn't hold up to what it is claiming. If what is true for me isn't true for you, then that statement must also be viewed in that same light.
OM doesn't mean that people will not have subjective interpretations. There are all kind of subjective things such as the legal drinking age or the speed limit. But they are still based on the objective fact that people SHOULD behave a certain way. That the roads should not be anarchy.
Let us also consider that there are things that can confuse a compass and lead one to believe that they are headed in the right direction. But one thing is for certain, magnetic north is still the same. You see the compass is NOT the magnetic north. Magnetic north objectively exists whether the compass is calibrated or not. And this only proves that there is a genuine calibration that corresponds with reality. Now, it is obvious that your views against OM are based on people having different compasses or rulers. But this again creates all kinds of problems for your view. Specfically, it makes any moral position arbitrary and meaningless.
So, let's take you statement, "I have many lenses to chose from." The problem with this statement is it is also self-defeating for the same reasons above. The reason is that you are saying (without really knowing it) that having mulitple lenses is what one
OUGHT to do. That basically, the truth is that someone SHOULD beleive that morality (in all times and places) is subjective, and that one SHOULD look at things through mulitple lenses.
But, what that statement does is claim that this view is the TRUE lense that everyone SHOULD use to look through all the other lenses. What it does, without intention, is claim to be THE objective truth. To say there is no OM, is to claim to KNOW what is objectively true. And thus, the statement defeats itself. It can't be true based on what it claims to be true. That is as we say, self-defeating. It is also self-defeating by the one lens it excludes. The really neat thing about all this is we can't even communicate unless truth exists objectively. We have to presume (whether conscious of it or not) that we should be reasonable and logical. Even you would say that you are reasoning your position to us. I would say that in your mind you really, really believe that you are being rational. Even when you promote prostitutes as vialble adoptive parents.
Regarding discrimination. What is interesting is that you are actually inferring OM. Because you really think that prejudice, in all times and all places is wrong, regardless of what people may believe. The problem is that you smuggle in this notion, while denying OM, and then view this through your own subjective notion that homosexuality is equal to identity, much like ethnicity is equal to identity.
-As I've already shown, prejudice against a person's identity is always wrong in all times and places. Prejudice against behavior is NOT. Example: If a person acts out on heterosexual desires through promiscuity, I do not judge them because they are heterosexual, but because their behavior is wrong. Their sexual desires and choices do not form their idenity. People are simply built to be heterosexual. This is basic anatomy. I would simply say that what someone CHOOSES to do with their sexual desires and organs is NOT what makes them a person, imbued with certain rights. So, obviously when someone has desires opposed to what they are designed for, why should we concede that this is sacred? If someone had the desire to jump from a building because they really beleived inside they they were meant to fly, we certainly wouldn't agree with that behavior no matter how sincerely they felt it. We would say, "your desires are WRONG based on who you actually are." And that is what I would say regarding homosexuals. Your desires are not in keeping with who you are, a man, or a woman. So, acting on them is a moral violation. With Gay marriage and adoption, what is happening is that objective truth is being cast asside for desire and feelings. Desires are being given protection under the law that is not in keeping with objective truth. So, I believe the terms "gay person, and homosexual" are actually categorical errors that we use because we have been brainwashed to do so. They are a person. They have the same innate rights as anyone else.
Now, You are certainly correct when you say that societies can decide differently. They can and do. Societies can decide that homosexual desires are in fact part of idendity. Of course I think it's wrong, and that it being wrong is a matter of human anatomy, and not simply my opinion.