It seems unlikely that such a percentage could be indoctrinated into such a perverse mindset, but, then again, it also seems unlikely that you could get a nation to sit idly by while the government sent people to death camps.
Remove the moral constraints from such sexual deviations, teach pubescent males that such behavior is acceptable, and, yes, I believe you will see an increase in homosexual activity (and all of the social pathologies that come along with it). Don't bother asking if I think this could have happened to me as I was raised in a society that celebrated America's Judeo-Christian moral heritage and would have been largely immune from the perverse indoctrination programs that our children are currently subjected to.
This nation's Judeo-Christian moral foundations have served us well thus far. Only the foolish and the perverse would suggest abandoning them now.
Rubbish. You're proposing a definition so broad and slack that, at bottom, all it really means is "important, only in a deeply meaningful way that I nevertheless find impossible to express". This is high school romanticism -- and public high school at that. You might as well say that hunger's too important a concept to be limited to food, or wind too important to be circumscribed by an awareness of air.
The sense of sacredness cannot be severed from the concept of the divine without its meaning evaporating altogether. It can't be done.
Let me remind you that this discussion was started when you tossed off a wisecrack about the Church being anti-sex because it's fun. What makes you such an authority on what the Church teaches anyway? I ask only for information.