[cogitator]

For the life of me, I can't see where the states didn't have a "substantial state interest" in banning homosexual activity. Especially in light of the known spread of disease and the high incidence of homosexual pedophilia and other perversions.

Don't construe this as support for homosexual activity, or gay marriage, or anything like that: but given both incidence of occurrence and the number of possible maladies that can be propagated, I'm pretty sure that plain old heterosexual sex is responsible for the spread of far more disease than homosexual sex. Such things as syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, genital warts, herpes, and hepatitis (can't remember if it's A, B, or C that's sexually transmitted, but one of them is) top the list.

So trying to implement a ban on homosexual sex on the basis that it spreads disease wouldn't get very far.

[Old Professer]

Such things as syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, genital warts, herpes, and hepatitis (can't remember if it's A, B, or C that's sexually transmitted, but one of them is) top the list.

According to an authoritative article commissioned by the Encyclopedia Brittanica for their 1970 issue, all the diseases you list are spread primarily by prostitutes and homosexual men in that order.