The criticism has nothing to do with the involvement of gays at all. The criticism is that the proper way to get the government out of the bedroom is through the legislative process. The people of Texas have a say in what their legislature does. They have no say at all in what the SCOTUS does. The issue before the court was not whether the Texas statute was "intrusive and purposeless," but whether it was strictly Constitutional. Rather than rely on the plain text of the Constitution, the court simply made up a new right. The danger is that the plain text of the Constitution no longer matters to a majority of the Court. By the same token, it no longer matters what the plain text of the Second Amendment says either... if the court doesn't like it, they can simply define it away like the Ninth Circuit did.
Yes, I see your point, but I believe that these fears will be rectified as the first attempt or two to use this perceived wedge get stopped by the court and the position is clarified.
I got the impression by way of the judges responded that they knew there would be some further challenges coming down the road after this. This case did not give them all the points they needed to clarify what their intent is.
I believe their intent was to remind states that although the court has been invoking the 10th in past years, that they still had the intent to strike down any state law that interfered with the privacy of the home and government had limits in it's ability to intrude on that "perceived" right of privacy.
The next case should clarify and it will be interesting for sure. I hope I got my thoughts across, it is early.(only one cup of coffee so far)