>>40713399
I cant decide. On one hand, personal liberty and freedom from the state. On the other, do I want any government, local or state, taking no position on something potentially unhealthy if abused? Its like alcohol, drugs, porn and gambling. They are all harmless if the individual is responsible. But if commercial interests are allowed to promote them for gain to the point of degrading the lives of large swaths of people, it becomes a threat to the community that does not even participate, making those who abuse it an antisocial threat.
Its a dynamic not specific to gays. But any vice becomes a threat to family stability and the society has an existential interest in defending it.
You can distill it even further to the issue of commercial interest. Although there is no innate direct commercial interest in sodomy, gay or straight, it becomes promoted when a commercial interest attaches to it. You could compare the porn, prostitution or simple rejection of pursuing family as being similar to the promotion of nicotine or bar culture for alcohol, or the glamorization of gambling to the poor. This means advertisement to the population, the deliberate attempt to instill or satisfy a vice.
So the final distillate of the issue is whether a government should do nothing if a vice is promoted for commercial gain, since all these things can exist without promotion.
If a community relies on law by the government to maintain healthy order, then does the government have a responsibility to curb the promotion of vice? Is an individuals liberty worth more than the health of the community? Can you legally permit that liberty while simultaneously prohibit a commercial (typically media) interest from promoting that behavior for gain?
For example, is it possible to legally allow vices like alcohol, gambling or non procreative behavior, gay or straight, while forbidding commercial interests from promoting threats to the community?