Sorry, but we can and do know. There is a legal definition of "harm". Homosexual conduct does not meet that definition, no matter how detestable you find it. However, if you disagree, find a lawyer who will file suit against all known homosexuals. If there truly is actual harm from their behavior, it ought to be easy enough to suss out the case in court and win a legal judgment. Go for it. Let me know how that turns out.
You are asking us to simply accept a huge change in the very foundation of our society
I'm sorry, could you point out exactly what I've asked and where I asked it? You've completely lost me with that assertion.
Yet, that's what you're asking us to say in accepting homosexual marriage.
You're either confusing me with someone else or making preconceived assumptions that aren't, in fact, the case. I've never advocated for homosexual marriage. Maybe you should begin reading a little closer and getting your facts straight. It looks a little foolish when you attack someone for holding a certain position, when they don't actually hold that position at all.
I do not accept the fact that you are too stupid to understand what I am trying to say. However, I am unsure how to say it better.
You can't sue someone for destroying society. They can still destroy it.
Like it or not, that is a harm. I believe it is a harm worth fighting against, like Joe Camel.
That's what distinguishes a conservative from a libertarian.
Shalom.