If it’s not destructive then why not tolerate it? Unlike crime which is always directly destructive, I think it’s indirectly and ambiguously destructive.
- It introduces sexuality into areas that are better removed from it, like combat units, boy scouts, etc… even the apparently “benevolent” friendships to the weak like you mentioned, making people suspicious of social advances by even the same sex, closing people off to each other.
- There’s greater potential for disease.
- Societal acceptance is a potential endorsement for hedonism and moral subjectivism, if it feel’s good do it.
--- " I believe that homosexuality itself is not necessarily "destructive to society" but *tolerance of the behavior* is. "
If it’s not destructive then why not tolerate it? Unlike crime which is always directly destructive, I think it’s indirectly and ambiguously destructive. ----
We are getting down to fine points here. I think that it is destructive to the individual when they keep it to themselves and only becomes destructive to society (in the first order) when they make it public and even worse when they demand acceptance.
It is certainly destructive to the individual, and thus, can be arguably destructive to society from the standpoint that "no man is an island" and self-destruction brings us all down.
I don't stand corrected, but I certainly understand the need for clarification.