#1, Your assumption that we have 'accepted' the practive of homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuality itself is a biological deviance, and the behavior of sexual relations with the same sex a moral perversion.
#2, 'Consent' is a concept which has little meaning on an 11 year old boy. His 'consent' was influenced by the uncle or older male friend - his mind was not fully capable of deciding on his own. There is a reason why 18 is considered the legal age of adulthood for citizens - it is only after that point they are mature enough to make their own decisions and take one their own responsibilities.
#3, Moral standards and ethical values do not change. These are the fundamental building blocks of society - and you cannot assume that 're-thinking' these values will not have a disastrous impact on society. The last time a country 're-thought' its ethical values of human life, over 6 million Jews were slaughtered. "Revolutions" in moral principles usually end up in violence, death, and anarchy.
I don't disagree with the essence of your first point except to point out that while you, I and others have not accepted homosexuality per se - there is no question that our society in general has accepted and we are forced to live in context of it every day at one level or another. Our taxes certainly go towards promoting that lifestyle one way or the other.
In your second point - we've discussed this issue at length in this thread so I'd refer you to those discussions. My response is this - I agree that an 11 year old boy is not capable of making a decision based on informed consent on the issue of sex with someone his own age or adults. However, that does not keep others from believing that nor does it keep them from trying to find those who agree with them and promote their lifestyle.
And for your third point - I agree - moral standards and ethical values do not change but I would add that they do not change in context of their source. I would also agree that they are the fundamental building blocks of society but let us not forget that society, for reasons of expediency, can choose to reject those fundamentals. Your example of Hitler's Nazi Germany is a perfect example. Pardon me while I oversimplify the process of how Nazi Germany ended up where it was but essentially it's summed up with the notion that if you tell a lie often enough and long enough eventually people will believe it.
So my response is that I agree with your points. We're essentially on the same side - but my fear is that we'll let history repeat itself and the unthinkable will eventually become the thinkable.