The Constitution is purposed for (among other things) to "promote the general welfare" allowing restrictions on the liberties of infected individuals regardless of the orientation of their sexual contact. This is tested existing law.
But it isn't.
It is not tested existing law that, "Both state abortion and private abortion may be regulated by the state. " In fact it's unconstitutional for the state to prohibit abortion, for example, in the first trimester.
Liberals often use the "general welfare" clause to expand the scope of their never ending regulation of other people's lives. It is a gross error of constitutional interpretation to invoke general welfare clause as a justification to expand the powers of Congress beyond the enumerated powers.
It may be lawful for a state to place restrictions on the liberties of infected individuals but that has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the state prohibiting buggery between consenting adults in private which is explicitly constitutionally protected by the Supreme Court in the Texas case.
None of the arguments you raise have been reported to have been mooted by the attorneys for the landlord who is trying to get the New York City rent control statue declared unconstitutional.