If you will read what I wrote, you'll note that I specifically did not draw that conclusion. I made it very clear that the fact that there is no extant homosexual civilization - despite the fact that some highly evolved civilizations embraced homosex including the Roman and Greek - is hardly a resounding support for a homosex civilization. If embracing homosex were a good idea there might be one extant civilization that has done so.
Recognize that we're not talking about trying out a new kind of tire or tinkering with the best way to hook up a telephone. We're experimenting with our entire way of life. You don't get do-overs. If you screw it up it's screwed up forever. My thinking is that you don't experiment with it without some indisputable evidence that such tinkering is required or at least is not harmful.
There is no such evidence WRT embracing homosex. NONE. An extant homosex civilization would be evidence, but one DOES NOT EXIST.
Note to the dense. This does not mean that homosex killed those civilizations. It just means that we don't have any example of a working civilization that embraces homosex.
And whether you like it or not, you agreed that my argument was objective, just not my conclusion. I'll grant you that. There is no objective conclusion when discussing social issues. There is data from which we draw conclusions as best we may. Your conclusion that there is no harm in allowing deviant sexual behavior is just as subjective as mine. That's why we're having this debate.
Shalom.
You've stated this as if someone wants to create an entirely homosexual society, which of course could not exist. But that's not at all what we're talking about and you know that. But to the extent that you're trying to misrepresent the facts simply to buttress an unsupportable premise, you're simply being outright dishonest.
We're talking about a pluralistic society in which the 2 to 5 percent of the population that is homosexual is allowed to live in peaceful coexistance with the rest of society. Their numbers are insignificant and have no impact on your life, my life, or the continuation or demise of our society. To argue otherwise is sheer unbridled demogoguery.
Please don't insult my intelligence and the rest of FR's intelligence by arguing some stupid hypothetical that does not, has not, and will never exist in the real world.
Only in theory do you begin to make any sense. Sadly, the theory is silly and so is your reasoning.