You make the mistake of thinking this is about 'privacy'. Please show me where the constitution guarantees privacy.
This is in fact about legitimatizing and mainstreaming destructive thinking and behavior, which will force out and marginalize civilized and productive behaviors. To you, the high road in this matter is to step back, put up your hands and claim moral superiority in doing nothing . To my view, that is an act of treason. You lack the vision to realize that the celebration you're enjoying is being hosted by liberals who can't wait to enslave you in their corrupt and morally vacant world.
The question of what kind of society we want to live in is drowned out by people such as these, who are getting not just status as a protected class, but entitlement to stomp the rights of those who disagree with them.
The question is not whether states are wise to criminalize this or that sex act outside of marriage. Rather, the question is: Once the court has said that some such acts are constitutional rights, by what principle are any of the myriad possible permutations of consensual adult sexual activities denied the same standing?
Once consent — “choice” — supplants marriage as the important interest served by cloaking sexual activities as constitutional rights, by what principle is any consensual adult sexual conduct not a protected right? Bigamy? Polygamy? Prostitution? Incest? Even — if we assume animals can consent, or that their consent does not matter — bestiality? By what has been called “semantic infiltration,” seemingly bland language stealthily permeates discourse with ideology. So it is with the now commonplace locution “sexual preferences.”
Will underscores the point. In your world, _eno, if I murder someone and cover it up, I'm not guilty because it was a private matter. Same with rape, incest, pedophilia...
No thanks.