You really should think this thru rather than responding with glib sound bites. At least consider the possibility that human nature is flawed. We have a couple of ways to deal with that. First, we can have our vices in private and maintain a publically virtuous exterior (the old fashioned approach, call it hypocrisy) or we can celebrate our vice in public (the modern, gay-parade approach, what I called social libertarianism earlier in the thread).
If you think what I call the social libertarian approach (celebrate our vices in public) that has dominated our society since the 60's has been beneficial, then your soundbite above is consistent with your beliefs and we don't need to have further discussion. I don't.
OTOH, if you think the spawn of the 60's has been overall bad, you should consider that, when dealing with flawed humans, the only alternative to public parading of vice is hypocrisy. In fact, hypocrisy is the admission by the sinner that his private behavior is not good. That is a better apporach, in my opinion, than the sinner who insists his sin is not such and that others must vicariously participate in that sin.
As said many centuries ago "Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue."
It would, of course, be better if we were all perfect. Alas, that's not happening soon.
So you might consider, if you can get past the sound bites, why is hypocrisy the only sin that the left gets all worked up about? The answer, I think, is clear. They want to redefine us as meat that should indulge in our worst desires and celebrate that. Hypocrisy stands in the way of realizing that goal because the hypocrite admits, by his behavior, that his behavior is not acceptable.
Well, I'll agree with that much. We don't have much futher to discuss. We don't have enough common ground here to ever come to even a heated agreement.