It is the easiest and most reliable form of birth control.
Wouldn't mandatory sterilization be much easier than trying to change an entire sex's sexual prefrence? (which by the way would be impossible)
And as for the first point, I actually gave two named fallacies that your first point demonstrates.
By eliminating this heterosexual gender option entirely, we would be left with no critical mass of female repression.
But you're assuming that the only/or best solution for this is to make everyone gay, instead of addressing the actual problem, and you don't give any argument for why this is the best option, only that the end result could possibly be better (which is also a weak argument, since you obviously wouldn't know if the end result would be better)
You haven't argued that heterosexual men don't ruin coed organisations
And you haven't argued that they have. This seems to be the "fallacy of ignorance" unless you provide an argument for it, otherwise, just saying "you haven't disproven ____, therefore ___ isn't true" is obviously fallacious.
You have simply stated that gender is socially constructed. I agree.
It'd be tough to disagree, as this is pretty much a fact and known among most educated people. (not being a smart-ass here, just saying, many people don't realize this fact, and im glad that you do)
Which is why one should leave one's society and look at it from the outside.
Good point, so let's reexaming the original point of yours then.
4. By opening men up to empathy in other men, it will foster greater friendship relations among males in general, a gender that has extremely low quality friendships because of its "natural" inclination towards violence towards other males.
Well the first main problem with this is you again fail to provide any reason why homosexuality is the solution to this. On top of that, intimate relations doesn't necessairly increase "friendship", as a matter of fact, in many cases it ruins it.
And you bring up that "gay men always have to" look outside of society, which is probably why you think they have some sort of unity compared to straight men, but if you made gay the norm, they wouldn't be an "oppressed" group, and that sense of unity would probably not be prevaliant, so I fail to see the point in making homosexuality the norm.
On top of all of this, it is obviously impossible to enforce, there have been anti-gay laws and "enforcement" on the books since the US has been around, and there are obviously still gay people here. We shoudn't try to enforce a sexual prefrence.