We've reached a point of some circularity, I think - you insist on calling homosexuality immoral, and I insist that it is not. I doubt there is any convincing on the horizon for either of us...
I say your quotes are off topic because you are ascribing a meaning to "morality" that I don't agree with - the discussion was about that meaning, and you can't argue a point using quotes that are based on the assumption that the point is true ("off-topic" may have been the wrong term, cicular may have been better).
In response to the problem raised in your second paragraph, I would suggest that our laws really shouldn't be based on morality at all (as I think I stated in another post). Precisely because morality is not absolute, and individuals (based on upbringing, cultural heritage, socialization, etc) do develop their own sense of morality. Despite that, many of us have very similar backgrounds and heritages, so we share a moral viewpoint which becomes the 'morals' of society at large. However, it seems better to me for our legal structure to be based on questions of cost/benefit to the functioning of our society, not on the moral opinions of a segment of society. For example, murder should be illegal not because it is immoral but because our society functions a lot better when we can go outside without (much) fear of being murdered. By this standard, people who don't consider murder immoral don't get a pass.
Your philosophy sounds very similar to communism or Nazism in that nothing matters except the smooth running state organization.
I can only thank God that people like you are in a small minority.