It is not a complicated issue to me. If you do not like gays, then don't be gay. What these people do in the privacy of their own homes is no business of mine and does not hurt me, nor does it hurt anyone else.
I disagree. I think the question of how homosexuality should be socially constructed is a morally complicated issue with pros and cons on both sides.
Historically, milieus in which male/male relationships are normalised tended to maintain some degree of sex apartheid which excluded women from participation. Sex with boys, the most womanish looking males, will obviously be incentivised in groups from which women are so alienated that men simply can't relate to them as equals.
Examples include the Ancient Greeks with pederasty, the
Sambia of Papua New Guinea with their elite pederasty cult, the
Japanese Samurai and Japanese Buddhist monks (also pederasts), potentially the
English public school elite, clandestinely, and Afghan warlords ("Many of the men involved in
bacha bazi-related activities are powerful and well-armed warlords").
Homosexuality appears to be an adaptive way of tightly socially bonding men to other men, as well as proteges to mentors. This bond can then be used to advantageously compete with other forms of male co-operation.
Another, separate point:
One of the problems with shaming homophobia is the fact that homophobia sometimes stems, understandably though not justifiably, from the phenomenon of ego-dystonic, closeted LGBS using straight people as unwitting 'beards'. People will say in response: how is this different from infidelity, which straights do frequently? But I think there is an extra layer of deception involved in falsely representing yourself as straight.
But this isn't a problem with LGBs being LGB, it's a problem with LGBs being human.
