Perhaps, but the fact is that homophobia is so deeply ingrained into our society that we still have a long, long way to go.
Most "homophobia" I run across is indirect and more born of ignorance and crudeness then actual malice or fear. Such as one child calling another child a 'fag' as an insult. It might well be something such children will throw at homosexuals but it is also something typically grown out of...
The primary thing that harms homosexuals in our society is they are typically perceived if not actually immaculate. That does trigger a non cultural response... I think there is likely a biological behavioral response to effeminate males. A powerful gay man or bisexual man is an entirely different figure from the gay man in white leather pants, a pink sweater, and gogo boots. Which I think largely as a "signaling" mechanism is used by gay men to let other gay men know who they are... At the same time however, it may be triggering automatic responses that aren't going to away with any amount of social engineering. As we change it might be prudent if they find a different way to communicate their orientation. The ear ring idea is a good one... even though they'll be the only men wearing them besides women... ideally you want something that is not feminine as a signal. Men are men... and I think it's too much to expect that hazzing won't occur towards men that don't act like men. They don't need to be straight... simply masculine.
Metrosexual men receive a similar response even though we know they're not homosexual.
That is an important insight that I would like to pause on for a moment. That non-homosexuals trigger a similar response even when everyone knows they're not homosexual by behaving effeminate. This whole issue might have more to do with walking around in pink scarfs with perfume then what is done in private bed rooms.
Same for sheer prudishness (which is not) healthy!)
There are strong reasons for and against prudishness. What are you reasons against it?
Promiscuity has advantages and disadvantages. In our society I don't see the advantage.
The primary benefit of such behavior is a higher birth rate. However, with everyone on the pill and two minutes from an abortion clinic that's a null point. Women won't have children unless they want to... and that's unlikely to happen simply from sleeping around. In fact, what we need seems to be financially stable married families. Those the most likely incidents of child production. Which is as a society, what we want from the union. We have a few things harming us at the moment. For one, birth control is probably over used. I am not saying woman shouldn't have a choice in when or if they want to have children, but birth rates throughout the western world are appallingly low. It is one of our biggest weaknesses and a major long term threat to the continuation of our civilization.
Furthermore, do to the increasing importance of education on forming finanically stable households families spend more time career building then at any previous time in human history. This means that by the time stability is achieved both man and woman are nearly through their reproductive lives. This allows in most cases for between 1 to 4 children.. typically relying upon twins to achieve higher numbers. Biologically we are designed to start breeding the next generation after as few as 13 years. Historically we tend to accept between 16 and 25 as being the prime years. However as it stands people are getting ready only around age 35 in most cases. By 35 there is very little time left and the quality of the children is likely to be lower. Males especially have been shown to produce lower quality sperm later on in life. This results in birth defects and other complications. Often couples can't even have children at this stage without lots of medical help in the form of drugs and sometimes surgical impregnation.
This is a core issue. Never forget we're monkeys... sure... super mega monkeys... but we have to eat, drink, poop, and breed.
There are far, far to many people out there who barely have "bisexual" as a blip on their radar, despite the fact that its probably the most common "type" of person.
I don't think you can prove that. Certainly if I grew up in a society like sparta where it was simply expected that I have sex with men, I probably would. And my sexual organs working the way they do I'd probably "perform"... but I don't think it would be akin to sex with a woman.
Sure, most people are way over to the straight side of the scale, but since most people persist in thinking of it in a binary straight or gay -- with being recognized once in a blue moon! -- they refuse to realize that there is just a little bit of them that might be curious.
capable would be a more accurate term then curious for most. To be curious you have to be a little closer to neutral on the issue. I'm secure enough in my sexuality to admit that I can tell an attractive male body from an unattractive one. But I'm not stimulated by that form and never have been.
I think you might be forgetting that biologically homosexuality doesn't really serve a purpose. Thus I don't think it's quite as common as you think it is...
Again, this is one of my personal button issues, so I'm going to walk away.
I take a detached and philosophical view of such things. So forgive me for not abiding by PC norms. I believe in being both direct and detached. Many mistake the approach to arrogance but it's just a lack of fear mixed with as much honesty as I can find.